Bought into a 182P

Jose,

Just curious what's your aviation background?

Not trying to have a measuring contest or anything like that, just looking to put what you posted into context, not saying your posts and that of a high time guy or a low time guy, all I can say is they ain't a IMC driver, just curious and if someone let you loose in a DHC2 I'd wager you have to have some, at least, somewhat substantial experience.
 
Last edited:
Jose,

Just curious what's your aviation background?

Not trying to have a measuring contest or anything like that, just looking to put what you posted into context, not saying your posts and that of a high time guy or a low time guy, all I can say is they ain't a IMC driver, just curious and if someone let you loose in a DHC2 I'd wager you have to have some, at least, somewhat substantial experience.

Just your generic VFR 182 driver. Not a pilot or aviator.

Just been blessed to live in some awesome places that are near some more awesome places that have landing places, kind of.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, blue skies, and try to not totally rule out go arounds ;)
 
Who needs autopilot :) (joke,it's nice to have somthimes) that plane is beautiful. Congrats, haven't flown that model, but my dad's buddy owns one and this summer we are going down to take some cross county flights in it. Dejavu I guess.
 
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.

Bummer of a start, but you'll be enjoying it soon enough! Just a wonderful "80%" airplane.

It'll do nearly everything more specialized singles will do at about the 80% level. 80% of the speed of the fast ones, 80% of the monster load hauling of the big load haulers, 80% of the fuel burn of the go-fast stuff (with the notable exception of Mooney of course), can handle 80% of the stuff a more specialized backcountry airplane can...

You get the idea. My favorite "80% airplane"! In general terms, anyway.

Even maintenance tends to run a bit lower in price than many others. 80% or so. :) Not much on them that's complex or fancy, systems-wise. Can load up the avionics and drive the price tag up easily, of course. Anyone can.

There's all sorts of airplanes that'll do specialized missions well. There's not a whole bunch that can do almost anything at about the 80% level.

Here's hoping the weather clears up for ya sometime soon!
 
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.

Exacty correct, thanks Nate. Of course I still like using 20 flaps for landing whenever possible :)
 
Last edited:
Our club has a C-182P (see my picture). I like it, a very comfortable cross-country cruising machine. We have the Q motor installed and just upgraded the avionics earlier this year to include a 650 and ADSB compliance. Very nice now. You'll enjoy it.
 
A new guy here that just read the whole thread. Good info at first until people started trying to defend their position instead of talking about advantages of flap settings.

I think most were unfairly critical of Jose. I thought the same thing he did when one says they have a lot of go arounds.

I can't remember one since training. I'm pretty sure I never had one in the Bonanza. Never had one in the SR22TN. So at least 800 hours ago.

With that said, he later said he hadn't made one in at least a year, so I suspect it was an exaggeration to prove a point.

A missed approach is not the same thing as a go around. I've had a few of those. Different mental preparation and different configuration.

At any rate, after the previously mentioned couple planes I've flown, I close on another 182 on Tuesday - my first two planes were 182's and I have a few hundred hours in them, but it's been a bunch of years and this thread was good to read through.

Now I'm gong to read the book I downloaded mentioned earlier in this thread - A Skylane Pilot's Companion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wouldn't say I have a lot of go arounds, but the go around is always my first option and I always brief the approach like I'm going around. Landing is a nice bonus.
 
I attached the POH, Jose. Read it for yourself.


Read it, pretty much.

It looks like for your 182, all of the EMERGENCY landings require 40 degrees of full flaps, except for ditching in heavy swells.

Also, for normal landings, flaps are to be greater than 20 degrees, (ie... 30-40 degrees).

Nowhere in the POH does it say to use 20 degrees for approach.

The only case it does not state full flaps is on crosswind landings, where flaps should be used with the minimum flap setting required by field length.

Nothing in the POH makes me think 20 degrees flaps is the desire of the engineers or technical writers at Cessna.

Do you read it differently?
 
I wouldn't say I have a lot of go arounds, but the go around is always my first option and I always brief the approach like I'm going around. Landing is a nice bonus.


OK, here it is to beat a dead horse...... Or, maybe it is just a writing style / communication style....

BUT, "the go around is always my first option" is the part that doesn't make sense, nor jive with my experience.

Here are SOME of the things I will do before performing a go-around:

  1. Add power
  2. keep power the same
  3. reduce power
  4. extend downwind
  5. shorten downwind
  6. 360 turn on downwind
  7. add flaps
  8. leave flaps the same
  9. remove flaps (fire away)
  10. Pitch up
  11. Pitch down
  12. s-turns
  13. slip
Then, if the first 13 things don't work, I will then evaluate these items:
  • go-around
  • land long
  • land to the side (on the grass, or on the taxiway)

And, I am sure there are more than the 13 above, and, there are infinite combinations of the above, where I may do 1, 2, 3, ....12, 13 of the items on a single approach.
 
OK, here it is to beat a dead horse...... Or, maybe it is just a writing style / communication style....

BUT, "the go around is always my first option" is the part that doesn't make sense, nor jive with my experience.

Here are SOME of the things I will do before performing a go-around:

  1. Add power
  2. keep power the same
  3. reduce power
  4. extend downwind
  5. shorten downwind
  6. 360 turn on downwind
  7. add flaps
  8. leave flaps the same
  9. remove flaps (fire away)
  10. Pitch up
  11. Pitch down
  12. s-turns
  13. slip
Then, if the first 13 things don't work, I will then evaluate these items:
  • go-around
  • land long
  • land to the side (on the grass, or on the taxiway)

And, I am sure there are more than the 13 above, and, there are infinite combinations of the above, where I may do 1, 2, 3, ....12, 13 of the items on a single approach.
What mean by going around as the first option is I brief the procedure that way I'm not surprised if I have to go around. You'd be surprised at how many students can't maintain directional control, use improper flaps, or just can't get the aircraft to do what they want it to do when they go around. By briefing the procedure, you are mentally prepping yourself for it and it won't come as a surprise if you need to go around. IMO, we should never try to "save" and approach or landing. The stabilized approach theory needs to be taught more and/or differently. I'm guilty of trying to "save" my students bad landings but it really has negative consequences. I should be teaching them to go around and try it again. I'll never fault the student for deciding to go around because one day when they try to save the landing, it could turn into bent metal.
 
A missed approach is not the same thing as a go around. I've had a few of those. Different mental preparation and different configuration.

When I decide to execute a missed approach I hit the take off / GO AROUND button ;)

its also normally the same (landing) configuration, Ive done a few go arounds for non instrument reasons, maybe the winds got down right stupid down low, maybe I saw something I didn't like near the runway, who knows,
but I got zero hesitation, even as a highish time working ATP/CFI, doing a go around if I feel the need, I don't need to explain crap to anyone for a go around, bending metal or a FAR, that's a ton of paperwork and a lot of splanin' to do.

If you don't believe in go arounds, tell me about your airplane, avionics and engine? My 520 isn't exactly a high time engine, but if I could get a 550 for the right price... or a few other pieces, as the man said if the price is right.

I might want to add you as a friend on here and be in touch when... well you know, one of these days when you don't do a go around
 
When I decide to execute a missed approach I hit the take off / GO AROUND button ;)

its also normally the same (landing) configuration, Ive done a few go arounds for non instrument reasons, maybe the winds got down right stupid down low, maybe I saw something I didn't like near the runway, who knows,
but I got zero hesitation, even as a highish time working ATP/CFI, doing a go around if I feel the need, I don't need to explain crap to anyone for a go around, bending metal or a FAR, that's a ton of paperwork and a lot of splanin' to do.

And those go-arounds sound like "exterior" go-arounds, ones that were caused by something that you had no control over.

Those weren't the "garbage" approaches like mentioned by the one CFI, up above.

Doing a go-around because a herd of deer jumps on to the runway is much different than doing a go-around because somebody can't manage airspeed and altitude on base leg.
 
A guy buys into a nice 182 and instead of just getting the normal congrats, he gets the most annoying thread in recent history with multiple annoying posts by an arrogant guy who cant grasp the concept of 'quit while youre ahead'. Geez!

Im not going to add my opinion on flap settings but I will opine that anything I do on downwind or base leg doesn't really factor in to going around, so there went most of your 13 item list there JC. You guys (guy?) not doing any go arounds must fly out of an uncontrolled field. Tower tells me to sidestep left and go around, im gonna sidestep left and go around. I guess I *could* tell em "Hey tower, Im JC, and I don't DO go arounds", but I wont...
 
And those go-arounds sound like "exterior" go-arounds, ones that were caused by something that you had no control over.

Those weren't the "garbage" approaches like mentioned by the one CFI, up above.

Doing a go-around because a herd of deer jumps on to the runway is much different than doing a go-around because somebody can't manage airspeed and altitude on base leg.

I guess, however if for some reason I wasn't on my A game and just wasn't feelin' my approach, Id have zero hesitation doing a go around, doesn't matter the reason, less stuff to hit in the sky than on the deck ;)

And that's as me, for a fresh PPL, or even fresh CPL, saying not to do go arounds for a approach that the PIC is screwing up, or even to dissuade for ANY reason a go around, no Bueno


I saw this Indian fellow do a epic proposing approach, slammed the deck, swerved around a little, went off the edge, nose into the dirt tail into the air, thought for sure it was going to land on its back but the aviation gods took pity on the poor 172 and somehow it landed back on its gear.

I ran over to make sure he was OK, he was, q tipped the prop and busted a plastic wingtip, otherwise it looked more or less undamaged (172s man!), some of the other guys drove a truck and some line over to haul him off the runway and over to the mx hangar.

I asked if he wanted to call his school and CFI up, he looked at me all funny, I thought he was a PPL student on a X/C or something, nope, just got his CPL and was burning the last of his prepaid hours before going back to India!!

Anywho, if he would have done a gone around, got his chit together and tried again, he would have ended up flying back to his FBO, vs making some less than pleasent phone calls, paying for a super expensive cab/bus ride, and his FBO paying our mechanic to fix, and me to later fly the thing back to them.


go arounds man, if you think you should do one, probably should have actually put the coals to it 5 seconds ago.
 
Last edited:
When I decide to execute a missed approach I hit the take off / GO AROUND button ;)

its also normally the same (landing) configuration, Ive done a few go arounds for non instrument reasons, maybe the winds got down right stupid down low, maybe I saw something I didn't like near the runway, who knows,
but I got zero hesitation, even as a highish time working ATP/CFI, doing a go around if I feel the need, I don't need to explain crap to anyone for a go around, bending metal or a FAR, that's a ton of paperwork and a lot of splanin' to do.

If you don't believe in go arounds, tell me about your airplane, avionics and engine? My 520 isn't exactly a high time engine, but if I could get a 550 for the right price... or a few other pieces, as the man said if the price is right.

I might want to add you as a friend on here and be in touch when... well you know, one of these days when you don't do a go around
Me, too - on the TO/GA button. Or I did, until this morning. I sold my SR22TN w/ Perspective (G1000) as of 9 a.m. Close on the 182T tomorrow, so also the GA button.

I'll say you did ALL go arounds for non instrument conditions.
icon_e_wink.gif
And all missed approaches were IFR, whether IMC or not... Just sayin'.
icon_new_dunno.gif


I never said someone shouldn't do a go-around. Like Jose said, though, if you're doing "a lot" of them, you've got problems greater than your flap considerations, unless your a student, or very green.

To be clear...
An occasional GA? Sure! I didn't say I would do ANY heroics to save a landing - just that I haven't needed to. Could a gust of wind hit me going into 82TS on Friday on my first flight in my new to me plane, and I GA? Sure. Would I feel like I needed to explain anything, as you implied? Absolutely not.

My home airport (T23) often has deer and other wildlife. If a clearing pass doesn't persuade them to stay away, might have a GA there.

I didn't get personal about any of the posts. What I said was I thought there was some exaggerating going on to defend a position.

All good?
peace.gif
 
I saw this Indian fellow do a epic proposing approach, slammed the deck, swerved around a little, went off the edge, nose into the dirt tail into the air, thought for sure it was going to land on its back but the aviation gods took pity on the poor 172 and somehow it landed back on its gear.

I ran over to make sure he was OK....
Just KNEW you were going to say: and he jumped out, threw his arms up, and yelled, "I SAVED IT!"
icon_e_biggrin.gif
 
indeed

Only thing Id add, as someone who also has to use the runway, Id rather someone who needs a little polishing, do a few go arounds for their sucky flying, than pile it into or onto the runway and hurt themselves, bend metal and jam the runway up for me.




Just KNEW you were going to say: and he jumped out, threw his arms up, and yelled, "I SAVED IT!"
icon_e_biggrin.gif

Actually it was more like me doing one of these ;)

refflair.0.gif
 
I guess, however if for some reason I wasn't on my A game and just wasn't feelin' my approach, Id have zero hesitation doing a go around, doesn't matter the reason, less stuff to hit in the sky than on the deck ;)

And that's as me, for a fresh PPL, or even fresh CPL, saying not to do go arounds for a approach that the PIC is screwing up, or even to dissuade for ANY reason a go around, no Bueno

..... snip ......

go arounds man, if you think you should do one, probably should have actually put the coals to it 5 seconds ago.

Nobody has said "not to do go arounds". I have just pointed out, that in my experience, go arounds exist in the training / checkride environment more than they do in the wild.

In the wild, I will more likely find myself too high, too low, too fast, too slow, etc.... and make adjustments accordingly.

I understand the need for a standard, stabilized approach. I just don't think they happen in wild that often, and I usually use the tools and training and experience I have, to "save" every approach, even if that means using FULL flaps (as the POH dictates) on a 182.

Hell, a lot of times, 5 miles out, I can tell that my approach is going to need "saved". And, save it I will..... right up until the point I need to do a go around.... ;)
 
I'm in the full flap camp, for the 182 as well as all planes unless POH states otherwise. Even a C170, 3 guys who owned it were afeared of full flap landings until I demonstrated it could be done safely.

To throw some water on that "law of primacy" stuff, I was trained to land with 20 flap as well, when I first got my HP endorsement, in a 182Q. On a 5000 foot runway.

But I don't do it anymore. I land at enough short-ish fields that I need to know how to reliably land soft with full flap and power idle, and I do. Every time unless there is a reason not to. I suspect the issue is that's it's easier to land like it's a 172 with the reduced flap, so the transition goes faster.
 
I'm simply making the point, as someone who has cleaned up the mess, Id rather folks err on the side of a go around.

Don't much care if its right or wrong, if youre flying "garbage approaches" or whatever, erring on the side of a go around results in less bent metal and jammed up runways, there is no arguing with that one.
 
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.

James, every IAP is to a go around like you say, but no one flies them with full flaps. Configured to land, with go-around flaps, until the runway is sighted. Some people fly IAPs with 10 deg flaps at the FAF, but 20 works in a 182.
 
Read it, pretty much.

It looks like for your 182, all of the EMERGENCY landings require 40 degrees of full flaps, except for ditching in heavy swells.

Also, for normal landings, flaps are to be greater than 20 degrees, (ie... 30-40 degrees).

Nowhere in the POH does it say to use 20 degrees for approach.

The only case it does not state full flaps is on crosswind landings, where flaps should be used with the minimum flap setting required by field length.

Nothing in the POH makes me think 20 degrees flaps is the desire of the engineers or technical writers at Cessna.

Do you read it differently?

Full flaps even for landing with ice?

I wouldn't. No way. Not with that emergency.
 
James, every IAP is to a go around like you say, but no one flies them with full flaps. Configured to land, with go-around flaps, until the runway is sighted. Some people fly IAPs with 10 deg flaps at the FAF, but 20 works in a 182.

Depends on a few things, but painting it as a black and white thing isn't quite right.
 
Full flaps even for landing with ice?

I wouldn't. No way. Not with that emergency.


I was just reporting back what his POH said. He appeared not to have known what the POH said, and asked me to read it. I read it, and, the only configuration that I could find for less than full flaps was Emergency, Ditching.
 
Depends on a few things, but painting it as a black and white thing isn't quite right.


Remember how we got here...

To paraphrase.....

Somebody said to only use 20-degrees flaps in a 182, so you can do go-arounds.

I suggested that I don't do many go-arounds outside of the training environment, and, I like to use the tools that the engineers at Cessna gave me, including those big flaps that go to 40-degrees.

<crosstalk>

Somebody said that they do "lots" of go arounds and "many" go arounds.

<crosstalk>

Then somebody said I was dangerous

<crosstalk>

Then we had CFI's come on and say that it makes sense, because pilots have "garbage" approaches.

<crosstalk>​

Nothing is "black and white", but NOT using flaps 40-degrees because of need for go-arounds creates dangerous and sub-optimal landings.
 
Remember how we got here...

To paraphrase.....

Somebody said to only use 20-degrees flaps in a 182, so you can do go-arounds.

I suggested that I don't do many go-arounds outside of the training environment, and, I like to use the tools that the engineers at Cessna gave me, including those big flaps that go to 40-degrees.

<crosstalk>

Somebody said that they do "lots" of go arounds and "many" go arounds.

<crosstalk>

Then somebody said I was dangerous

<crosstalk>

Then we had CFI's come on and say that it makes sense, because pilots have "garbage" approaches.

<crosstalk>​

Nothing is "black and white", but NOT using flaps 40-degrees because of need for go-arounds creates dangerous and sub-optimal landings.



NpEE2cRs2Amkg.gif
 
So, disregard the Josebabble because in the end, who really cares :):). What I want to know is if Bonchie got to fly his Skylane yet!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top