Bought into a 182P

[Tarheelpilot]

Nobody is trying to "dog" anyone for go-arounds.

People are trying to understand why he is doing "lots" and "many" go-arounds in a 182. And if there is a connection with only using 20-flaps and being afraid to use full flaps.

Seems there could be a possible connection.

What is a "garbage" that they are trying to salvage?

Is "garbage" mean too high on downwind?

Is "garbage" mean too low on base?

Is "garbage" mean off centerline on final?

I always think of go-arounds being caused by a ground-based phenomena like another plane entering the runway, or, possibly a cow wandering on.

I am not sure what "garbage" would be that needs to be "salvaged".

Well.... apparently you're perfect and never need to go around unless something outside the scope of you're control causes you to go around. For every other pilot in the history of aviation occasionally make bad approaches and have to go around. That's the "garbage" you don't understand.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Who are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is a teller of truths. You are a troll or inexperienced and naive. Hard to tell the difference. If you're not trolling then you are on a steep learning curve.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Well.... apparently you're perfect and never need to go around unless something outside the scope of you're control causes you to go around. For every other pilot in the history of aviation occasionally make bad approaches and have to go around. That's the "garbage" you don't understand.

"Garbage" doesn't really describe much.

Hopefully the Pilot understands what is going on. And how things became "garbage". And what adjustments need to be done.

Nobody learns calling something "garbage".

I am guessing Denver Pilot will be a long text playing what "garbage" means. In a somewhat lengthy explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

People are trying to understand why he is doing "lots" and "many" go-arounds in a 182. And if there is a connection with only using 20-flaps and being afraid to use full flaps.

...

I am not sure what "garbage" would be that needs to be "salvaged".

Nobody but you is having any trouble figuring out either one. As usual.

I try to keep personalities out of it. I suggest you do the same.

(Rolling eyes..)

I am guessing Denver Pilot will be a long text playing what "garbage" means. In a somewhat lengthy explanation.

Nope. You're trolling, and know everything anyway, so there's never any point in responding to you.

I'm not in the Flap 20 camp, but I can accept KL's explanation for his actions even if I don't agree. It's a calculated risk.

I've shared the math for both the speed issue and the likelihood of a flap issue -- after that, it's up to the PIC...

Anyone reading along who flies the 182, now has all of the information for a smart decision, if they didn't before.

There's no badge of honor in landing out of any configuration or aircraft attitude the PIC doesn't feel comfortable with.

After the base criteria for a safe arrival are met, the rest is the difference between being airplane Drivers, Pilots, and Aviators. Those are listed in ascending order of knowledge, skill, and sometimes, difficulty. All three will pass a minimum standards checkride.

 

[N53KL]

He's trolls a lot and does the above for sure.

That explains a lot, thanks

 

[mscard88]

Who are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[N53KL]

Nobody but you is having any trouble figuring out either one. As usual........
.........I'm not in the Flap 20 camp, but I can accept KL's explanation for his actions even if I don't agree. It's a calculated risk.

I've shared the math for both the speed issue and the likelihood of a flap issue -- after that, it's up to the PIC...

Anyone reading along who flies the 182, now has all of the information for a smart decision, if they didn't before.

There's no badge of honor in landing out of any configuration or aircraft attitude the PIC doesn't feel comfortable with.

After the base criteria for a safe arrival are met, the rest is the difference between being airplane Drivers, Pilots, and Aviators. Those are listed in ascending order of knowledge, skill, and sometimes, difficulty. All three will pass a minimum standards checkride.

Jose,

To be clear, I totally respect Nate for bringing his perspective on landing with full flaps. It is something I did not consider in my decision to use 20 flaps but it is now thanks to him. Nate is also right about Drivers, Pilots and Aviators. I can usually recognize these three but I guess I am not good at recognizing trolls.

Kevin

 

[GeorgeC]

After the base criteria for a safe arrival are met, the rest is the difference between being airplane Drivers, Pilots, and Aviators. Those are listed in ascending order of knowledge, skill, and sometimes, difficulty. All three will pass a minimum standards checkride.

Ok, I'll bite, Nate- how would you define those three?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nobody but you is having any trouble figuring out either one. As usual.



(Rolling eyes..)



Nope. You're trolling, and know everything anyway, so there's never any point in responding to you.

I'm not in the Flap 20 camp, but I can accept KL's explanation for his actions even if I don't agree. It's a calculated risk.

I've shared the math for both the speed issue and the likelihood of a flap issue -- after that, it's up to the PIC...

Anyone reading along who flies the 182, now has all of the information for a smart decision, if they didn't before.

There's no badge of honor in landing out of any configuration or aircraft attitude the PIC doesn't feel comfortable with.

After the base criteria for a safe arrival are met, the rest is the difference between being airplane Drivers, Pilots, and Aviators. Those are listed in ascending order of knowledge, skill, and sometimes, difficulty. All three will pass a minimum standards checkride.

I stand corrected.

You weren't able to explain a generic, non-informative term like "garbage".

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose,

To be clear, I totally respect Nate for bringing his perspective on landing with full flaps. It is something I did not consider in my decision to use 20 flaps but it is now thanks to him. Nate is also right about Drivers, Pilots and Aviators. I can usually recognize these three but I guess I am not good at recognizing trolls.

Kevin

Correct. Nothing wrong with discussing, challenging, re-thinking, and learning.

Definitely something that makes people like MScard uncomfortable, so they seek to silence participants in order to not get exposed.

 

[James331]

If you think landing faster makes for more controllability and safety, take this moment to slap yourself please.

Seriously, that logic is so flawed I don't even know where to start.

 

[SoCalPilot88]

Taking this discussion on full flap vs. partial back in a civil direction; is there any benefit to avoiding full flap deflection for metal fatigue considerations? I understand the 182 can be prone to flap track wear, as well as cracking at the attachment to the rear spar. I heard some people avoid full flaps, or reduce the flap extension speed to lower the risk of damage.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I would think if there is a non-documented structural / mechanical reason to avoid full flaps, then the plane needs to be repaired, and/ or scrapped.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Taking this discussion on full flap vs. partial back in a civil direction; is there any benefit to avoiding full flap deflection for metal fatigue considerations? I understand the 182 can be prone to flap track wear, as well as cracking at the attachment to the rear spar. I heard some people avoid full flaps, or reduce the flap extension speed to lower the risk of damage.

Never heard of avoiding full flaps to reduce fatigue on the tracks. In my experience, fatigue on flaps/tracks typically comes from overspeeding the flaps.

The only correlation to partial flaps vs full and fatigue I've ever heard of with larger Cessnas is the firewall. Right or wrong, some opt for partial flaps to lessen the chance of bending the firewall.

In my opinion, it's best to learn to land properly with full flaps than to try and cheat the system. There are times when partial or no flap landings may be warranted, but those should be exceptions rather than the norm.

 

[James331]

Shy of residual ice on the airframe, not many good reasons to not use all the flaps.

Ofcourse dumping the flaps right after touch down is a option too

 

[JoseCuervo]

He is a teller of truths. You are a troll or inexperienced and naive. Hard to tell the difference. If you're not trolling then you are on a steep learning curve.

Explain how using full flaps is inexperienced or naive?

I would like to learn.

In my experience, go-arounds don't happen other than in the training environment.

Where, in contrast, in my real world flying, once I commit to land, I need to be able to land on a chosen spot, likely +/- 25', and keep it on the ground. Doing go-arounds would result in fatalities.

The good 182, 180, 185, etc Cessna "drivers" I have flown with all are using as much flaps as possible. Hell, most would prefer 90-degree flaps.

 

[N53KL]

Taking this discussion on full flap vs. partial back in a civil direction; is there any benefit to avoiding full flap deflection for metal fatigue considerations? I understand the 182 can be prone to flap track wear, as well as cracking at the attachment to the rear spar. I heard some people avoid full flaps, or reduce the flap extension speed to lower the risk of damage.

I know of no reason to avoid full flap landings for metal fatigue. I have read of skin cracks forming due to flap extension well above the maximum flap speeds. As a matter of fact when I repainted my Skylane in 2003 shortly after purchase we found severe cracks on the trailing edges of both flaps. The mechanic noted there was no "bull nose" support piece installed on the trailing edge of the flap that might have contributed to this cracking. I elected to have both upper and lower flap skins replaced with the "bull nose" support before repainting.

Kevin

 

[N53KL]

..............In my opinion, it's best to learn to land properly with full flaps than to try and cheat the system. There are times when partial or no flap landings may be warranted, but those should be exceptions rather than the norm.

I appreciate your opinion. Just so you know, my POH considers a "normal landing" as any flap setting. Even the normal before landing checklist this states this: "Wing Flaps --0 - 40 degrees (below 95 KIAS)" note degrees is not spelled out but I cant include the symbol...).

There is no cheating of systems going on here and they give you the option. The only pace I can find calling for 40 flaps is In the emergency checklist for "Emergency Landing Without Power" - (40 Recommended) and " Precautionary Landing With Power".

I have attached a copy of the POH as a reference.

Kevin

 

[James331]

...In my experience, go-arounds don't happen other than in the training environment.

Where, in contrast, in my real world flying, once I commit to land, I need to be able to land on a chosen spot, likely +/- 25', and keep it on the ground. Doing go-arounds would result in fatalities.

The good 182, 180, 185, etc Cessna "drivers" I have flown with all are using as much flaps as possible. Hell, most would prefer 90-degree flaps.

Guess you're not flying IFR, every approach is to a go around unless I see the field, that is the mindset you want, starting the approach with a mindset that you won't do a go around, this has resulted in some bent metal and gut piles.


Though not a go around exactly, sometimes when checking out a new backcountry sport, I'll come in, like to land, but just do a few low and slow passes, or drag the strip, these end in what is basically a go around.

Yeah, most go arounds are in the training environment, but to say they don't happen in the wild is incorrect.

 

[Flyfeld]

Yeah, most go arounds are in the training environment, but to say they don't happen in the wild is incorrect.

Agree and to have the mindset that they do not happen is dangerous. I had an instance at KFWN which is a tricky airport due to the valley you have to fly through to land on RNWY 21 where the wind turned on me to a tailwind and I ended up floating down the runway, I opted to go around and land opposite on 3. Could I have forced the landing, yes but why?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Guess you're not flying IFR, every approach is to a go around unless I see the field, that is the mindset you want, starting the approach with a mindset that you won't do a go around, this has resulted in some bent metal and gut piles.


Though not a go around exactly, sometimes when checking out a new backcountry sport, I'll come in, like to land, but just do a few low and slow passes, or drag the strip, these end in what is basically a go around.

Yeah, most go arounds are in the training environment, but to say they don't happen in the wild is incorrect.

At what altitude and distance from the airport are you doing your instrument induced go-around? Are you at full-flaps at the decision point?

I can take you to plenty of backcountry airports where your need to do a few low passes and drag the strip will result in you becoming "one with the granite". If you are going to survive backcountry p, you better learn to land it where you want it, the first pass. Go-arounds are not an option, in the real "wild".

 

[JoseCuervo]

Agree and to have the mindset that they do not happen is dangerous. I had an instance at KFWN which is a tricky airport due to the valley you have to fly through to land on RNWY 21 where the wind turned on me to a tailwind and I ended up floating down the runway, I opted to go around and land opposite on 3. Could I have forced the landing, yes but why?

KFWN is a 3500' runway. What do you need to land your 182?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I appreciate your opinion. Just so you know, my POH considers a "normal landing" as any flap setting. Even the normal before landing checklist this states this: "Wing Flaps --0 - 40 degrees (below 95 KIAS)" note degrees is not spelled out but I cant include the symbol...).

There is no cheating of systems going on here and they give you the option. The only pace I can find calling for 40 flaps is In the emergency checklist for "Emergency Landing Without Power" - (40 Recommended) and " Precautionary Landing With Power".

I have attached a copy of the POH as a reference.

Kevin

Does your POH say "any flap" or does it say "as needed" or "as required "?

 

[Flyfeld]

KFWN is a 3500' runway. What do you need to land your 182?

I usually land on a 1900 ft runway with lots of room to spare, KFWN is rough and had some ATV traffic on this particular day.

 

[JoseCuervo]

That makes sense.

To get back to the issue, let's see:

There are 2 kinds of go-arounds: pilot caused and exterior-event caused.

I acknowledged that there are events that are exterior to the pilot. Deer on the runway, a plane taxing on the runway, ATC, etc... My position on these "exterior" go-arounds is that, in my experience, the probability of them happening is very low, and being afraid to use full flaps due to the possibility of a low-probability event occurring does not make sense.

The second type of "go-around" is the one I can't get my head around. It has been described as being "many", as being "lots", and, by one CFI in this thread, it was described as "garbage".

These so-called "garbage" go-around so being a reason to not use full-flaps is what seems like a bad idea. If a pilot has "lots" and "many" of these "garbage" caused go-a rounds, then the pilot needs to seek out a solution.

Perhaps it is a CFI who can adequately teach and explain how to fly approaches, how to salvage approaches with the various tools the good folks at Cessna bestowed upon the pilot.

But to make excuses for not being able to get the plane on to the ground is dangerous, and is possibly going to catch up to the inadequately trained pilot, and those CFIs who are unable to teach and explain.

 

[James331]

At what altitude and distance from the airport are you doing your instrument induced go-around? Are you at full-flaps at the decision point?

Depends, often 200' AGL short final, depending on ice often I'll be full flaps. It's a non event.

I can take you to plenty of backcountry airports where your need to do a few low passes and drag the strip will result in you becoming "one with the granite". If you are going to survive backcountry p, you better learn to land it where you want it, the first pass. Go-arounds are not an option, in the real "wild".

Most of the backcountry I've done hasn't been at a airport, I agree some are one way in one way out, some aren't.

Thing with the backcountry stuff I do is you never really know until you do a low level survey, especially on floats, deadheads, misc junk just under the surface or on the surface, just going straight in committed, that can turn out poorly.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Explain how using full flaps is inexperienced or naive?

I would like to learn.

In my experience, go-arounds don't happen other than in the training environment.

Where, in contrast, in my real world flying, once I commit to land, I need to be able to land on a chosen spot, likely +/- 25', and keep it on the ground. Doing go-arounds would result in fatalities.

The good 182, 180, 185, etc Cessna "drivers" I have flown with all are using as much flaps as possible. Hell, most would prefer 90-degree flaps.

Go around are not just for the training environment. They do happen in real life flying. Your lack of experience with go around outside of training tells me you don't have much experience outside of training. One way in one way out back country strips have points in the approach that a go around is no longer an option. You can bet the good bush pilots are monitoring their profile and if it's not right at that decision gate they will swing around for another approach. That's still a go around. It just happens a little further away from the runway than possible in other situations.

Your defense for your previous statements just gives more evidence of your lack of experience or poor judgment. Hard to say which one applies.

I can be sure of two things things. 1-If you are an experienced pilot you need to take a serious look at your attitude because you're going to paint yourself in a bad corner one day if you are representing yourself honestly in this thread.
2-if you're not an experienced pilot you need to take a serious look at your attitude because you're going to paint yourself in a bad corner one day if you are representing yourself honestly in this thread.

 

[denverpilot]

Ok, I'll bite, Nate- how would you define those three?

As far as the drivers, pilots, and aviators, I'll admit to stealing that line. It's from a multi tens of thousands of hours DPE who added, "As an instructor you'll know them when you see them fly. And we are striving to create the latter, not the former two types. Keep that in mind as you start doing this. Lots of folks out there are happy creating and evaluating the first two, but strive to create the latter."

So I'll get back to ya in 20 years on that one with wiser words. LOL. I'm going to assume the guy isn't wrong, for now.

Taking this discussion on full flap vs. partial back in a civil direction; is there any benefit to avoiding full flap deflection for metal fatigue considerations? I understand the 182 can be prone to flap track wear, as well as cracking at the attachment to the rear spar. I heard some people avoid full flaps, or reduce the flap extension speed to lower the risk of damage.

I've heard that theory, but if you're slow enough at extension, it's a non-issue.

That said, 40 year old flap tracks are going to need maintenance and replacement eventually, no getting around that. Wear parts are wear parts. Best to keep ahead of it and replace rollers and what not... but the design is designed to wear... over long periods of time.

I've also been to a maintenance seminar on the 182, where someone pointed out that extension cycles while not under any load, just the cycles, for four decades, during pre-flight, is a certain amount of motion and wear. We're all mostly flying old machines, none of which anyone thought would necessarily be flying as long as they have.

All moving parts wear. We've replaced aileron hinges on ours, after seven A&Ps "voted" 4 to 3 a couple of years ago on whether the right side needed it or not.

(Lets not go into the price tag of what are essentially piano hinges one could purchase at "Home Despot"! Uggggh.)

As far as not taking Jimmy's bait on "garbage", there's a lot of things that'll trigger a go around, or should, that people work real hard to salvage. The lower and closer to the runway, the more pronounced. Sometimes the "garbage" started a long way out on final and just never got fixed... sometimes it's just a windy, gusty day, and stuff went wrong nearer to terra firma.

However one wants to define it, bottom line it's something that makes the outcome of the landing in doubt.

I don't think the "garbage" thread in this discussion necessarily applies to the "flaps use" discussion, but it can. It's more of a side issue than a direct cause sort of thing.

 

[denverpilot]

Jose,

To be clear, I totally respect Nate for bringing his perspective on landing with full flaps. It is something I did not consider in my decision to use 20 flaps but it is now thanks to him. Nate is also right about Drivers, Pilots and Aviators. I can usually recognize these three but I guess I am not good at recognizing trolls.

Kevin

Thanks Kev, I was never intending to attack anyone, just pass along stuff I'd learned. And apply it to stuff I've seen.

The Flap 20 thing is really popular in the 182, but it has consequences that are somewhat "hidden". The landings feel nice, under control, all that, but folks do forget to get good at slower, too.

If you want to get a real feel for it, if CAP flies 182s where you live and you're a member who trains for scanner in the back, you really get to see a wide variety of pilots and their landing technique from a seat where you can't do much about anything. Ha.

It's eye opening on the faster landings how squirrelly the aircraft is, because you're in the back and any poor rudder technique is amplified. You get to enjoy the higher (not dangerous mind you, just higher) lateral loads as nosewheel pilot's feet tend toward the "not quite but good enough for this airplane" mode and your really feel it back there.

It's also something I suppose as I get more time in the same types, one gets to see from the right seat, teaching... you're hyper aware of control inputs by students, if for no other reason, for self-preservation. Ha. But you get to see it in the same types, even the exact same airplane, by more people than most folks fly with.

During the multi training, I did a few back seat ride alongs to observe both instructor and student behavior also, as long as the student was okay with another pair of eyeballs in the back and doing a new W&B... heh. I tried to be "useful ballast" and mostly stayed quiet other than traffic calls, and took notes.

My instructor likes showing CFI candidates people at different levels and I hope to do more observing when he's got some newer multi students. The most interesting thing from the back seat is watching just how much pilot induced "turbulence" there is, especially if the student is under the hood.

Good to know for the eventual CFI-I... an awful lot of squirrelly approaches were induced by the yoke version of "light stick stirring" in a stick equipped airplane. It's just normal... person is trying to get a feel for the control inputs, but if they'd just freeze their hands, it would have mellowed out a lot for them. Interestingly, it didn't matter if it was Private, Commercial, or ATP candidates, either... all did it to some extent.

Observing multiple pilots in the same aircraft, is a neat plus of the move from thinking about how to fly, to thinking about how to teach flying. You see a lot of minor (not safety) mistake "patterns". I highly recommend it, even for folks who don't plan to go the CFI route.

Many of us, especially with our own aircraft, or in my case, co-owned, have only seen the same two or three other pilots fly for years and years... and if not co-owned, only see our own performance.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Depends, often 200' AGL short final, depending on ice often I'll be full flaps. It's a non event.





Most of the backcountry I've done hasn't been at a airport, I agree some are one way in one way out, some aren't.

Thing with the backcountry stuff I do is you never really know until you do a low level survey, especially on floats, deadheads, misc junk just under the surface or on the surface, just going straight in committed, that can turn out poorly.

Yeah, 200' I may not be at full flaps yet. I could still be at 10 or 20 at that point, depending on what is needed.

And, yes, in backcountry every strip and approach is different, and that is the point. You need to be able to use all the tools that engineers at Cessna provided.

The float time I have is all in Beavers, so, even more fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoseCuervo]

Go around are not just for the training environment. They do happen in real life flying. Your lack of experience with go around outside of training tells me you don't have much experience outside of training. One way in one way out back country strips have points in the approach that a go around is no longer an option. You can bet the good bush pilots are monitoring their profile and if it's not right at that decision gate they will swing around for another approach. That's still a go around. It just happens a little further away from the runway than possible in other situations.

Your defense for your previous statements just gives more evidence of your lack of experience or poor judgment. Hard to say which one applies.

I can be sure of two things things. 1-If you are an experienced pilot you need to take a serious look at your attitude because you're going to paint yourself in a bad corner one day if you are representing yourself honestly in this thread.
2-if you're not an experienced pilot you need to take a serious look at your attitude because you're going to paint yourself in a bad corner one day if you are representing yourself honestly in this thread.

How does not causing myself to have to do go-arounds indicate inexperience?

I don't fly "garbage" approaches like the CFI above described. My approaches are perfect, or they are too high, or too low, or too fast, or too slow, or too wide, or too close, or, maybe some combination of some of the traits. And, my EXPERIENCE has taught me how to recognize them, how to use the tools that the engineers at Cessna provided, the training I have had, and the experience.

I don't blindly fly around like the CFI above described, where "garbage" may or may not happen. I don't hope all the elements of a perfect approach happen, and if they don't, I am ready for a "go-around" as I don't have more than 20 flaps, not below Vy, and still above 1000'.... That isn't "aviating", or "piloting", or even "driving", that is just hoping.

Maybe when you get experience you will learn how to fly the plane to get it where you want it to go, and not just hope it gets to where you think it might. A bi difference that you will learn as you get experience.

Are you one of those that has "many" or "lots" of go-arounds, so you limit yourself to 20 deg flaps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Are you one of those that has "many" or "lots" of go-arounds, so you limit yourself to 20 deg flaps?

I saw no indication that KL "limited" himself to anything.

He PREFERRED something, and some additional information was provided to show where the choice may not actually be preferable.

That's just how we all learn.

I think that's where you're hung up. You're assuming something that nobody said.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

How does not causing myself to have to do go-arounds indicate inexperience?

I don't fly "garbage" approaches like the CFI above described. My approaches are perfect, or they are too high, or too low, or too fast, or too slow, or too wide, or too close, or, maybe some combination of some of the traits. And, my EXPERIENCE has taught me how to recognize them, how to use the tools that the engineers at Cessna provided, the training I have had, and the experience.

I don't blindly fly around like the CFI above described, where "garbage" may or may not happen. I don't hope all the elements of a perfect approach happen, and if they don't, I am ready for a "go-around" as I don't have more than 20 flaps, not below Vy, and still above 1000'.... That isn't "aviating", or "piloting", or even "driving", that is just hoping.

Maybe when you get experience you will learn how to fly the plane to get it where you want it to go, and not just hope it gets to where you think it might. A bi difference that you will learn as you get experience.

Are you one of those that has "many" or "lots" of go-arounds, so you limit yourself to 20 deg flaps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Not having to execute many go arounds isn't an indication of limited experience.

The attitude you put forth in regards to pilot induced go arounds is a dangerous attitude. Anecdotally I only see that attitude in either very low time pilots or pilots with enough experience they get to confident.

Your attitude towards pilot induced go arounds is what I was referring to not how many execute. I also indicated that your poor attitude could possibly exist despite having experience.

To be clear I'm not attacking you. I'm speaking from experience about this little mental trap and trying to pass on my hard learned lessons.

I too have the same variation in my approaches you mentioned. I also can normally fix them but I can tell you that mentally every approach is going to be a go around and if it works out that I can land then fine but I'm always evaluating. From the way your posts are worded it sounds like you're not in that frame of mind. It will burn your ass one day.

 

[Bonchie]

Looks like my first trip is gonna get cancelled. TS activity has cleared up but I just don't have enough time in the plane to go mess with 18G23kts across the runway.

 

[mscard88]

Definitely something that makes people like MScard uncomfortable, so they seek to silence participants in order to not get exposed.

Nope, wrong. You're only saying that to try and get me aroused enough to argue with your sorry troll ass.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Not having to execute many go arounds isn't an indication of limited experience.

The attitude you put forth in regards to pilot induced go arounds is a dangerous attitude. Anecdotally I only see that attitude in either very low time pilots or pilots with enough experience they get to confident.

Your attitude towards pilot induced go arounds is what I was referring to not how many execute. I also indicated that your poor attitude could possibly exist despite having experience.

To be clear I'm not attacking you. I'm speaking from experience about this little mental trap and trying to pass on my hard learned lessons.

I too have the same variation in my approaches you mentioned. I also can normally fix them but I can tell you that mentally every approach is going to be a go around and if it works out that I can land then fine but I'm always evaluating. From the way your posts are worded it sounds like you're not in that frame of mind. It will burn your ass one day.

Yeah, using all the tools that Cessna engineers provided me is going to "burn" my ass.

Just because you are unable to recognize "garbage" approaches for the real reason, and have to execute "lots" and "many" go-a rounds is far more dangerous than my attitude that I will use the tools, training, and experience I have.

Doesn't mean it won't catch up to me, and some day, I will regret using full flaps, and realize I should have only used 20-degree flaps.

I probably take more risks flying than you do, it certainly sounds like it based on your comments and your fears. And, the risk of a "go-around" with 40-degree flaps is nowhere near the greatest risk I will gladly assume while flying.

We all have to find the level of risk you are comfortable with, and for me, that risk includes using 40-degree flaps. You being afraid of similar risks does not make you a lesser pilot, it just speaks to your risk tolerance.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Yeah, using all the tools that Cessna engineers provided me is going to "burn" my ass.

Just because you are unable to recognize "garbage" approaches for the real reason, and have to execute "lots" and "many" go-a rounds is far more dangerous than my attitude that I will use the tools, training, and experience I have.

Doesn't mean it won't catch up to me, and some day, I will regret using full flaps, and realize I should have only used 20-degree flaps.

I probably take more risks flying than you do, it certainly sounds like it based on your comments and your fears. And, the risk of a "go-around" with 40-degree flaps is nowhere near the greatest risk I will gladly assume while flying.

We all have to find the level of risk you are comfortable with, and for me, that risk includes using 40-degree flaps. You being afraid of similar risks does not make you a lesser pilot, it just speaks to your risk tolerance.

Jose. I really don't care how much flaps you use. My post has nothing to do with how you use flaps.

I fly an air tractor 802 spraying crops for a living.
I'm not scared of managing risk. Nothing in your response actually addresses anything I said.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose. I really don't care how much flaps you use. My post has nothing to do with how you use flaps.

I fly an air tractor 802 spraying crops for a living.
I'm not scared of managing risk. Nothing in your response actually addresses anything I said.

And nothing you said has anything to do with my experience showing me that go-around so in the wild are rare.

Just like you, I know why some fences have safety links in the top wires.

I know what risks are acceptable, and I know what tools have been engineered to address those risks.

One of the tools I used recently was a shovel, after a 120 mile drive, and a short hike, I used one of the tools, some of my training, to inspect every one of 1200 feet of a "runway" that has far more cows, deer, and rabbits using it than airplanes. And, I made the appropriate improvements to make sure a go-around was less likely due to runway issues. And, I was pretty sure other air traffic was not going to be an issue.

And, once I decided to land, I was committed. Trying to half-ass it with half my flaps tied behind my back would surely bite me in the ass.

The attitude that should scare you is the ones who are taught that "garbage" approaches are acceptable, and you should keep doing go-around a until you get lucky and things magically align to get you to a runway.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

And nothing you said has anything to do with my experience showing me that go-around so in the wild are rare.

Just like you, I know why some fences have safety links in the top wires.

I know what risks are acceptable, and I know what tools have been engineered to address those risks.

One of the tools I used recently was a shovel, after a 120 mile drive, and a short hike, I used one of the tools, some of my training, to inspect every one of 1200 feet of a "runway" that has far more cows, deer, and rabbits using it than airplanes. And, I made the appropriate improvements to make sure a go-around was less likely due to runway issues. And, I was pretty sure other air traffic was not going to be an issue.

And, once I decided to land, I was committed. Trying to half-ass it with half my flaps tied behind my back would surely bite me in the ass.

The attitude that should scare you is the ones who are taught that "garbage" approaches are acceptable, and you should keep doing go-around a until you get lucky and things magically align to get you to a runway.

Deleted my response

Fly safe Jose .......