Incremental Flaps In The Pattern

[paflyer]

Try flying in the LA area or Phoenix area and NOT have to make a short approach which negates the standard incremental flaps type landing. Better be able to adjust your landing technique if you want to get around in my neighborhood.

I've had people THREE miles off the airport on "downwind" at a uncontrolled airport. Impossible to see them much less plan your pattern around them

Well I'll make sure I stay clear of your sky, Orville.

But three miles is ridiculous and I've never seen anyone do that in almost 18 years of flying.

 

[Hank S]

I've had people THREE miles off the airport on "downwind" at a uncontrolled airport. Impossible to see them much less plan your pattern around them

Sometimes it's so easy to tell who trained or is based at large towered fields . . . My first trip post-PPL to a busy Charlie, tower turned me downwind 6.5nm out, and cleared me as #2 behind one airliner or another when I was 8nm away. I turned base immediately, and by the time I was able to turn final, #1 had already cleared the runway.

Old habits die hard, law of primacy and all that . . . . Sure glad I don't have to put up with stuff like that very often!

 

[drtcom]

Reading these posts reminds me that most (not all) pilots fly a limited assortment of aircraft. There is no "standard" that applies to all a/c on how to use flaps for landing. I learned on a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 182. Owned a 182 for 4 years, then switched to a Mooney. Owned both G and F model Mooneys. Also flew an assortment of Pipers and the Tiger. Every a/c had different flight characteristics and require differing approach attitudes and flap retraction techniques on landing. We also have differing ideas of what a smooth (grease it in) landing is. That's why we have so many differing explanations of flap use. One of the most difficult planes to dump altitude is a Mooney without air brakes. I found use of flaps and sliding the a/c always worked for me. Other pilots used landing gear, sliding and some flaps to accomplish the same thing. Just saying, listen to other techniques, try them yourself and select from the best techniques for yourself. You are the one who has to land every time.

 

[FastEddieB]

Sliding?

 

[Pilawt]

As in “slip-sliding away” ... ?

 

[drtcom]

As in “slip-sliding away” ... ?

Yep. I was a little tired when I posted this.

 

[mscard88]

Yep. I was a little tired when I posted this.

Why not plan your descent?

This isn't rocket science. Look up aviation math formulas, most are simple to use.

 

[FastEddieB]

Why not plan your descent?

Slipping (or sliding!) can be an integral part of said plan.

 

[mscard88]

Slipping (or sliding!) can be an integral part of said plan.

Sure, but if you plan it's a lot easier.

 

[bluesideup]

As others have mentioned adding flaps in turn can cause some issues if they become uneven / split.
That said there is a lot to be said / benefits, about using them. Aircraft tend to pitch down in a turn and adding flaps, in many aircraft, it minimize / compensates for that effect.
In addition if you start at the proper speed / configuration in downwind stage, adding flaps, in most Cessnas, will also get you at the proper speed, and approach angle, on final.
As everything else when flying there is no hard and fast rule, other than Whatever it takes. At the beginning this sounds like a lot of goop but as you gain experience, and know what it takes, it will make a lot of sense.

 

[drtcom]

Slipping (or sliding!) can be an integral part of said plan.

When you are good enough that the tower recognizes you, they will sometimes tell you to head immediately to the runway and clear you to land on a short approach. Most people who have never flown a Mooney probably don't understand how difficult it is to drop them in. Obviously, if you have plenty of time you can "plan" for a normal approach. If you build up enough hours, you will find you need to drop in when the controller asks you to. As I said earlier, most people, even ATP/CFII-ASMEL.ATC, etc., who fly only one or two a/c types won't understand what I am saying. If you read the post above, you will see I'm talking about the special cases (not arm chair planning) where you have to dump altitude in a hurry.

 

[denverpilot]

Ever since my commercial rating where I learned power off 180's I've been the "full flaps abeam and power to idle" type, flying a generally tight pattern in an attempt to remain within glide distance of the runway at most times.

My power off 180s start with 10 degrees and I add as needed for wind or no wind. Never did the full flap immediately thing in the 182 (with 40 degrees) really, since that’d be turning right at the numbers if your mark was the 1000’ marker and with 20 knots of wind down the runway (it was doing that the day before my Commercial ride and was forecast to the day of, but it slacked off to 15 or so for the power off 180s) you wouldn’t make it. Too much drag.

If you were doing it in some other aircraft, it’d work, but 40 degree barn doors are nothing but massive drag.

I'm an incremental kind of guy. In the 182, dumping full flaps all at once can certainly be done, but it's a pretty abrupt change, and you'll balloon like a son-of-a-gun. Not a problem, but there's no reason to make abrupt changes on a normal landing. You can also cause passengers to sprain their sphincters when you drop the barn doors. Bringing big flaps down incrementally just makes the whole approach smoother IMO.

Now, if I'm by myself out messing around, I'll sometimes keep the pattern really tight and get more aggressive with the flaps, but I don't consider that the norm.

Same here. Smooth is good. Dumping in 40 requires a simultaneous and fairly quick power change due to the effect air through the prop over the center of the wing and the flaps, and on mine that airflow is “trapped” (in a good way) by the STOL kit’s stall fences on top of the wing.

Like monster patterns and mile finals?

We see that all the time at KAPA. Usually when we hit about six in the pattern. And it’s usually instigated by a very large and well-known national flight school. I’ll say no more and be nice.

Those were never part of my training, nor did I teach either.

One must always keep in mind the Law of Primacy.

Most of my instructors have used a hybrid approach to teaching this. They started with the so-called “paint by numbers” multiple configuration changes thing but after a bit of understanding of what’s happening and/or about to happen, they’d say things like, “Okay, now if you wanted to turn HERE instead (abeam the numbers) for a short approach, what would you need to do to remain slow enough to keep the aircraft stable and still land in the usual spot? Right, pull the power and get about half of the flaps out at least and keep the nose down. See how that works? Alright are we accelerating? What would fix that? You’re at idle... right, more flaps...”

They just used the “paint by numbers” as a basis to START teaching energy management. Something you’d seen before so they could then walk you down the primrose path of understanding how to change that baseline for different desired glidepaths to the runway.

Well for starters, if there are multiple aircraft in the pattern, it really disrupts the flow and increases the hazard when one dude is flying his downwind leg 3 times the offset that others are.

At our towered field I’ve never seen it add any particular hazard, other than being very annoying. If you look at the chart for KAPA and imagine we’re landing to the south... I’ve seen the pattern for 17R extend out to the North shore of the reservoir on the chart north of KAPA (Cherry Creek Reservoir). It’s ridiculous.

I’ve even had a request on record with the Tower that I’d like short approaches whenever possible (doing power off 180 practice) remembered and granted by them by having us turn inside the long pattern guy and “lapping” them in the pattern.

“Cessna Seven Niner Mike, if you can make that short approach from there, Turn now, cleared to land now number one Runway 17R.” And then he’d tell the airplane doing the XC in the pattern they were now number two, “Traffic is a Cessna turning close in right base toward the numbers.”

I learned, and teach, that landing is about drag management (assuming your airplane is so equipped) and initial flap deployment helps get the airplane into the "slot" for that phase of flight. As the approach to landing progresses (in the pattern), more flaps help to ready the aircraft for a stabilized approach and landing. The remaining flaps are discretionary along with power adjustments to get the desired final approach profile. Most light aircraft can be landed successfully without any flaps (this is a requirement of mine during BFRs), but I don't like landings (under normal circumstances) with anything less than full flaps. The exact schedule for flap deployment is part of the pre-landing "dance", so train for a system that you're comfortable with, understand the pros and cons, and develop the habits and muscle-memory to perform it reproducably and safely.

I kinda get this but pilots also need to know how to make that continuous turn decelerating (and yes, that’s stable, just a different form of stable) and plant it on the runway on that day when the engine quits downwind. This was usually the scenario that my instructors would give as a precursor to such an approach. “Engine quit. Land it. Hit your mark.” Obviously it’s a more advanced thing to do that you don’t pull on someone on flight number one or two, but they need to know how to do it. I can think of two aircraft checkouts and one Flight Review that we’re ended this way in my logbook.

I've had people THREE miles off the airport on "downwind" at a uncontrolled airport. Impossible to see them much less plan your pattern around them

But three miles is ridiculous and I've never seen anyone do that in almost 18 years of flying.

Pretty common here, as I mentioned above. Also saw it at DVT when all the foreign students were up, and there were 11 in the pattern. That place can be a total zoo at times.

I don’t like it and grump about it to everyone like an old crabby guy hoping the kids hear it, and maybe tighten it up a bit, but new kids teaching new kids every year here. I think unfortunately that it’s common at high training density airports.

As in “slip-sliding away” ... ?

Sure, but if you plan it's a lot easier.

Sometimes I plan to slip!

When you are good enough that the tower recognizes you, they will sometimes tell you to head immediately to the runway and clear you to land on a short approach.

One of the evening/night Tower guys at KAPA knows my voice and our tail number. He doesn’t hesitate at all to ask if I can make a short approach if he needs it for spacing for an inbound aircraft setting up for a long IFR visual or whatever. He’ll turn me inside of them in a heartbeat.

If I ever blow a tire on landing and can’t make the taxiway, he’s screwed. Hahaha. I’d be sure to let him know immediately.

The paint by numbers and incremental flaps thing to me is just an initial training technique.

Now... that said... things are a little different in the multi. My instructor and examiners in that really wanted things stable and more “airliner” style a bit further out. And that’s fine. You can do right patterns in a light twin, but they’re setting the expectation that you probably won’t be doing that in heavier twins much.

So, yeah. Different aircraft do push slightly different techniques. A truly power off approach without either prop feathered in a light twin at this altitude is a “nose pointed at Earth” ridiculous thing. I’ve only done one and the instructor both wanted it and wanted to re-add some power OJ short final and it was planned and flown that way just as a demo so I could see it late in training, but it’s silly and unnecessary. Around here they come down plenty fast with one feathered and tight enough on the pattern that it’s already “entertaining”.