landing flaps below 200 AGL?

[olasek]

I wonder if this is a sound approach/landing technique.

I shoot ILS Cat I to minimums and not knowing whether I will ultimately land and will be forced to go missed I fly most of the approach using only partial flaps. When I finally break out of the clouds at 200 AGL I am finally committed for landing and deploy the last notch of flaps.

 

[taters]

It works fine if your ready to respond to the config change . ie trim

I usually just stick to Approach flaps in a Beech though. I like the way they land that way.

 

[jdwatson]

I really don't like to change configurations, VMC or IMC. I setup for the conditions, including runway length & condition, flight conditions receive a higher priority, no sense crashing short of the runaway. Just my technique/style and $0.02 worth.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's what I teach -- approach flaps for the approach, and then landing flaps when committing to land. That gets most of the trim change out of the way so when you hit landing flaps half a mile out you don't have to fight the plane so much. By using the same flap setting on all landings, you get a more consistent feel and response from the airplane for the landing, and for those who don't fly every day, that helps produce more consistently good landings.

And while I understand JD's point, I'll bet he applies the last notch of flap about half a mile out on final when he's flying regular VFR traffic patterns, so there shouldn't be any problem applying the last notch half a mile out on an instrument approach.

 

[jesse]

I wonder if this is a sound approach/landing technique.

I shoot ILS Cat I to minimums and not knowing whether I will ultimately land and will be forced to go missed I fly most of the approach using only partial flaps. When I finally break out of the clouds at 200 AGL I am finally committed for landing and deploy the last notch of flaps.

Completely airplane dependent. Figure out what works for you and stick to it.

In a Cherokee I don't bother with flaps until I break out. Damn thing has plenty of drag already and adding more is just going to cost me more money (higher power setting). I'll pull full flaps for the landing since I can deploy them very quickly.

Some slicker airplanes really need the flaps earlier as it makes the more stable on the approach. Some airplanes can't deploy flaps very quickly at all. Etc. Etc. Lots of variables.

 

[dmccormack]

Bah -- you're landing a light plane on an ILS approach -- isn't there enough runway to land with no flaps, if needed?

I'm a full-flaps every time type, but at mins on a dicey approach, it's approach flaps unless I know I have time to drop the rest in, otherwise I touch down and roll -- what? -- another 57 feet?

 

[poadeleted20]

Bah -- you're landing a light plane on an ILS approach -- isn't there enough runway to land with no flaps, if needed?

The issue (particularly for those who don't fly every day) is not landing distance, it's obtaining consistent aircraft response. Since you hit full flaps about half a mile out on your "normal" VFR approaches, why not do the same on an instrument approach? Why change things in close just because you couldn't see the runway five miles out?

 

[wabower]

Training centers teach that exact technique for King Airs. Some FSDO guys don't like it, on the basis that deploying the last notch violates the stabilized approach concept. Fact is, if you're incapable of getting one more notch down and back up you probably shouldn't be PIC in anything that has flaps.

 

[bbchien]

Whatever you choose to do, be consistent and that gets you consistent results.....and remember if you get ice, you are landing NO FLAPS.

 

[dmccormack]

The issue (particularly for those who don't fly every day) is not landing distance, it's obtaining consistent aircraft response. Since you hit full flaps about half a mile out on your "normal" VFR approaches, why not do the same on an instrument approach? Why change things in close just because you couldn't see the runway five miles out?

While I teach and encourage consistency, after that lesson are a few on adaptability.

In an older, 40-degree flap Cessna, the difference between approach and full flaps is more significant than in a newer Archer.

My last approach to mins was low vis ILS 8 at LNS. I was SPIFR and looking for those blessed lights. I was on slope, on speed -- all was good and heading for the touchdown point. I decided to leave 20 degrees in, touch down, and still made the taxiway that crosses 31.

I think the OP is concerned about a possible missed. In that case, if it's going to be that tight, I like to remove thought cycles from the overloaded processor.

It's a matter of risk-reward -- if I dump 40 degrees when I *think* I have the runway made and then lose it -- now I'm doing a go-around with a handfull of nose up pressure, reaching for flaps, yada, yada. In the 205 or A36 full flaps, full nose up trim and full power go-around took a moment of yoke wrestling. Not everyone can do that while sweating about the missed.

That's all. It really is pilot and airplane dependent, but I don't think anyone flying an ILS to mins in a light GA SEL needs to dump full flaps every time.

 

[azure]

That's my procedure when flying an ILS in the Cardinal. Approach flaps before established, reduce power and gear down at the FAF, then add whatever flaps I'm going to add once committed to land.

There are some short runway RNAVs where I probably wouldn't want to add flaps at 200 AGL -- but I don't know of any with MDAs that low (only an LPV gets you down that far). I could be mistaken, and I don't exactly have lots of experience, but so far it seems that any runway with an ILS is plenty long enough to get stabilized and land from 200 AGL.

When I was training in the club 172 where any flaps were prohibited above something like 87 knots, I would fly the approach clean and then dump in the flaps -- sometimes 40 degrees worth -- starting at DH. If you're comfortable in the airplane it is very doable.

 

[Arbiter419]

When I was training in the club 172 where any flaps were prohibited above something like 87 knots, I would fly the approach clean and then dump in the flaps -- sometimes 40 degrees worth -- starting at DH. If you're comfortable in the airplane it is very doable.

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to the topic of the thread, but why prohibit the use of ANY flaps above 87 knots? The first 10 degrees can go down up to 110 kias, as per the pilot's operating handbook.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to the topic of the thread, but why prohibit the use of ANY flaps above 87 knots? The first 10 degrees can go down up to 110 kias, as per the pilot's operating handbook.

Can you say that without knowing what model 172 it is?

 

[Arbiter419]

Can you say that without knowing what model 172 it is?

Not confidently, no. The oldest 172 I've flown was 1979, which could do the first 10 degrees at 110kias.

 

[DutchessFlier]

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to the topic of the thread, but why prohibit the use of ANY flaps above 87 knots? The first 10 degrees can go down up to 110 kias, as per the pilot's operating handbook.

Agreed: 10 in at or around 110kts, then in the white arc, your choice as to how you want to manage the plane and get stabilized based on whatever conditions you face for any given approach and landing, including instruments. For my 172's, on the O-320, it was full flaps when runway was made. On the current O-360, the flap travel is limited to 30* and unless I am practicing no-flap landings, I tend to follow the same procedure whether or not I am on a visual or instrument approach.

To Liz: Dumping 40* of flaps all at once at 87kts, sheesh, I may be wrong, but I have never heard that one before FWIW. Why was that the procedure the instructor used for your training?

 

[RMCN172RG]

The issue (particularly for those who don't fly every day) is not landing distance, it's obtaining consistent aircraft response. Since you hit full flaps about half a mile out on your "normal" VFR approaches, why not do the same on an instrument approach? Why change things in close just because you couldn't see the runway five miles out?

FWIW I think you either do it this way or land with approach flaps but you don't reconfigure just because you broke out at 200' AGL and will actually be landing.

The problem is in training, after removing the goggles, we always reconfigured for a full flap landing. Which is fine with a CFI in VFR conditions.

 

[wabower]

You can also fly an approach fully configured from the FAF to the runway. Simple as pie, takes about 1,900 RPM in a 210 IIRC. Nothing to touch but the throttle until you're rolling.

That's my procedure when flying an ILS in the Cardinal. Approach flaps before established, reduce power and gear down at the FAF, then add whatever flaps I'm going to add once committed to land.

There are some short runway RNAVs where I probably wouldn't want to add flaps at 200 AGL -- but I don't know of any with MDAs that low (only an LPV gets you down that far). I could be mistaken, and I don't exactly have lots of experience, but so far it seems that any runway with an ILS is plenty long enough to get stabilized and land from 200 AGL.

When I was training in the club 172 where any flaps were prohibited above something like 87 knots, I would fly the approach clean and then dump in the flaps -- sometimes 40 degrees worth -- starting at DH. If you're comfortable in the airplane it is very doable.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not confidently, no. The oldest 172 I've flown was 1979, which could do the first 10 degrees at 110kias.

"There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.":wink2: Earlier 172 models prohibited any flaps extension at all above 100 mph. Cessna has made so many changes in that type over the last 55 years that you can't just jump into something that has "172" in its name without checking the book and the placards to see just what you've got in that particular submodel of 172 (i.e., 172B vs 172L vs 172N vs 172S). Changes include engines (Cont O-300 vs Lyc O-320 vs Lyc IO-360), flap speeds (87 vs 110/140) and extension (30 vs 40) and power (manual "Johnson bar" vs electric), gross weight (2300 up to 2550), etc, etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can also fly an approach fully configured from the FAF to the runway. Simple as pie, takes about 1,900 RPM in a 210 IIRC. Nothing to touch but the throttle until you're rolling.

You may find that's a bit more difficult in a 40-flap 172 on a hot/high day, hence my technique of using only one notch initially and holding the rest until committed to land. But since that's what most folks do in the VFR pattern anyway, it should be no big deal for the average light single-engine GA pilot.

 

[Arbiter419]

"There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.":wink2: Earlier 172 models prohibited any flaps extension at all above 100 mph. Cessna has made so many changes in that type over the last 55 years that you can't just jump into something that has "172" in its name without checking the book and the placards to see just what you've got in that particular submodel of 172 (i.e., 172B vs 172L vs 172N vs 172S). Changes include engines (Cont O-300 vs Lyc O-320 vs Lyc IO-360), flap speeds (87 vs 110/140) and extension (30 vs 40) and power (manual "Johnson bar" vs electric), gross weight (2300 up to 2550), etc, etc.

I know, I'm young and dumb, but that's why I'm here. Obviously I wouldn't jump into a new airplane and fly it without reading the POH, but I didn't have any such book to supplement my first post.

 

[Gmaper]

I know, I'm young and dumb, but that's why I'm here. Obviously I wouldn't jump into a new airplane and fly it without reading the POH, but I didn't have any such book to supplement my first post.

I don't know you but my impression of young folks who suggest that they are dumb is that they are usually far from dumb. Can't do much about age but your positive attitude is a good sign and something to be praised in an aspiring pilot.

 

[azure]

Agreed: 10 in at or around 110kts, then in the white arc, your choice as to how you want to manage the plane and get stabilized based on whatever conditions you face for any given approach and landing, including instruments.

You can do that in 172's later than 1978 (I think), but earlier models prohibited ANY flaps above something between 85 and 90 knots. Really! Believe me, if I could have added flaps at cruise to slow down and stabilize the airplane, I would have. The problem was that in order to use the flaps at all, I had to slow down to where controllers would not want to work with us because we were interfering with faster traffic. The only places locally we could practice ILS approaches at would be PHN and OZW -- both uncontrolled fields.

To Liz: Dumping 40* of flaps all at once at 87kts, sheesh, I may be wrong, but I have never heard that one before FWIW. Why was that the procedure the instructor used for your training?

No Bruce, I didn't say all at once!! I said, before landing. I would add 10, then another 10, then the last bit of flaps which could have been either 10 or 20, I forget which now (and it might have been different depending on conditions). My point was that at those controlled fields, the runways were at least a mile long and it was no trouble at all to add the flaps slowly enough to stay stabilized, and still have plenty of runway to land on.

 

[Arbiter419]

I don't know you but my impression of young folks who suggest that they are dumb is that they are usually far from dumb. Can't do much about age but your positive attitude is a good sign and something to be praised in an aspiring pilot.

Thank you very much for the kind words. I know I have much to learn about aviation and life in general. Things will only get easier as I get older...well, for a little while anyway

 

[azure]

You can also fly an approach fully configured from the FAF to the runway. Simple as pie, takes about 1,900 RPM in a 210 IIRC. Nothing to touch but the throttle until you're rolling.

Sure it's simple. But it's also slow, ergo same problem as with only "approach flaps".

Frankly I don't care at this point, since in my Cardinal I'm perfectly comfortable with approach flaps in the pattern until the field is made, then land with 20* (or 30*). So I've no problem at all doing that when shooting approaches, and have landed that way out of an ILS to DH a couple of times already.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I think it depends alot on the aircraft and runway. I have no problem flying the ILS into PHX in an Arrow at 120 KTS with gear down and no flaps and then add a notch or two at 200', but then I'm pretty comforable in the Arrow and can slow it down rather quickly - I would not want to try doing that in something like a Bonanza going into a 3-4000 long runway.

 

[dmccormack]

I think it depends alot on the aircraft and runway. I have no problem flying the ILS into PHX in an Arrow at 120 KTS with gear down and no flaps and then add a notch or two at 200', but then I'm pretty comforable in the Arrow and can slow it down rather quickly - I would not want to try doing that in something like a Bonanza going into a 3-4000 long runway.

A Bonanza can be slowed quickly with full flaps and gear hanging out.

-35 and 36 model are actually excellent short field birds. Unfortunately some pilots think they need 10.000' to land them.

 

[DutchessFlier]

That's my procedure when flying an ILS in the Cardinal. Approach flaps before established, reduce power and gear down at the FAF, then add whatever flaps I'm going to add once committed to land.

There are some short runway RNAVs where I probably wouldn't want to add flaps at 200 AGL -- but I don't know of any with MDAs that low (only an LPV gets you down that far). I could be mistaken, and I don't exactly have lots of experience, but so far it seems that any runway with an ILS is plenty long enough to get stabilized and land from 200 AGL.

When I was training in the club 172 where any flaps were prohibited above something like 87 knots, I would fly the approach clean and then dump in the flaps -- sometimes 40 degrees worth -- starting at DH. If you're comfortable in the airplane it is very doable.

Thanks Liz...got me worried there for a bit!!! LOL If you look at the post, you can see where it would leave one with that impression, especially the part about flying the approach clean then dump in the flaps (sometimes 40* worth) starting at DH....oh my!

 

[azure]

Thanks Liz...got me worried there for a bit!!! LOL If you look at the post, you can see where it would leave one with that impression, especially the part about flying the approach clean then dump in the flaps (sometimes 40* worth) starting at DH....oh my!

You're right Bruce, I see where it could give that impression! I guess I put too much faith in that one word "starting", and it would have been clearer if I'd been more explicit about my procedure. Sorry!

 

[Ted]

Colin: You're young, but not dumb. One thing for me is that I don't use speed limits as goals, they're limits. I'll usually put a little buffer in just because. So if first notch is 160 mph, I'll do it at 150, etc. Point is, even if first notch can be deployed at 110 KIAS on the 172 you fly, doesn't mean that it makes sense to. Plus, a 172 is such a draggy airframe that there really isn't a need to.

I'm also with Wayne's view on flaps. It's really not a big deal to be able to add or remove a notch.

Being adaptable is key. People keep on talking about flying approaches the same way every time, and that ignores the realities of approaches. You can shoot an ILS one day with a 40 kt headwind and then shoot an ILS the same day heading the opposite direction, now having a 40 kt tailwind. BTDT. To do those with any sort of efficiency will be very different. Having a basis to start from is good, but deviating from it as appropriate makes sense.

 

[Fearless Tower]

A Bonanza can be slowed quickly with full flaps and gear hanging out.

-35 and 36 model are actually excellent short field birds. Unfortunately some pilots think they need 10.000' to land them.

I think that goes back to the comfort level thing - my limited experience in the V-35 is that it is really easy to get caught behind the airplane and end at the FAF too hot to put out the gear or flaps. As long as you are within the limits to let out the gear/flaps, yes the airplane will slow down just fine.

 

[sba55]

I think it depends alot on the aircraft and runway. I have no problem flying the ILS into PHX in an Arrow at 120 KTS with gear down and no flaps and then add a notch or two at 200', but then I'm pretty comforable in the Arrow and can slow it down rather quickly - I would not want to try doing that in something like a Bonanza going into a 3-4000 long runway.

Why? Power off, with flaps, the Bo will be at landing speed within seconds. And, unlike in an Arrow, 120 knots isn't fast for the Bo as far as flap and gear speeds are concerned.

I think that goes back to the comfort level thing - my limited experience in the V-35 is that it is really easy to get caught behind the airplane and end at the FAF too hot to put out the gear or flaps.

I don't quite understand this. Of course it's easy to get caught behind any fast airplane. But the gear speed in most V35s is in the 150 knot range, so you'd have to be going way too fast and close to Vne to not be able to just maintain attitude and get below gear speed within a few seconds.

 

[Fearless Tower]

But the gear speed in most V35s is in the 150 knot range, so you'd have to be going way too fast and close to Vne to not be able to just maintain attitude and get below gear speed within a few seconds.

It has been over 4 years since I flew the -35 so maybe my memory is rather faded and I was a very inexperienced pp working on my instrument while doing the complex/hp at the time. I seem to recall that the Vlo in the -35P was alot lower than 150. Then again, it could have been that the problem was the difference between Vlo and Vfo. In other words, depending on the speed when you dropped the gear, that alone might not bring you into the white arc.

But again, the point I was trying to make was about comfort level in a particular aircraft. With my experience level now, if I went up in a Bonanza today and spent some time getting a feel for the aircraft, I might be alot more comfortable, but I sure wouldn't want to just go out and fly an unfamiliar aircraft the same way I fly the Pipers right now.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't quite understand this. Of course it's easy to get caught behind any fast airplane. But the gear speed in most V35s is in the 150 knot range, so you'd have to be going way too fast and close to Vne to not be able to just maintain attitude and get below gear speed within a few seconds.

The straight -35 had a fairly low Vfe and Vle, IIRC (80 MPH?). I'll have to check...

 

[poadeleted20]

The gear and flap numbers for the Bonanza/Debonair fleet vary widely with specifc model. The early ones, like the early 172's for flaps, may have a lot of trouble getting rapidly first to gear/flap speed and then to landing speed, especially at the MM. The later ones have relatively high gear and "first notch" flap speeds, allowing you to hold fairly high speeds much later in the approach and still allow comfortable extension of landing flaps at the MM without the problems of a rapid, huge configuration change anywhere on the approach.

Bottom line: Know the plane you're flying now, and fly it appropriately.

Also, for those new to instrument flying or new to a particular airplane, more gradual transitions earlier in the approach and lower speeds during the approach usually help. You can enlarge your envelope later as you become more comfortable in a "crawl-walk-run" progression.

 

[gismo]

I think that goes back to the comfort level thing - my limited experience in the V-35 is that it is really easy to get caught behind the airplane and end at the FAF too hot to put out the gear or flaps. As long as you are within the limits to let out the gear/flaps, yes the airplane will slow down just fine.

That could be true if you were already descending fast at the FAF or were concerned about closing the throttle. The latter has some negative consequences (e.g. the gear warning sounds) and shouldn't be SOP but if you've screwed up the arrival planning it's really not all that big a deal to close the throttle, push the prop control forward, and wait a few seconds to get below gear operating speed. Or if you're way too fast you can add a slip and slow down even more quickly. I does help to level off briefly, even if that means overshooting the glideslope a bit as you can easily recapture once the gear is out. Definitely not an ideal way to fly and not particularly passenger friendly but feasible none the less. That said, a pilot who's far enough behind the airplane to required maximum effort to slow to gear speed at the FAF probably isn't going to do a good job rectifying the situation this late in the game and should seriously consider going around for another try.

Ron's comment about gear speeds is very valid. The Bonanza I used to own was a fairly early model (1954) and had a lower Vlo speed than the later models but not as low as the earliest ones.

 

[Henning]

I wonder if this is a sound approach/landing technique.

I shoot ILS Cat I to minimums and not knowing whether I will ultimately land and will be forced to go missed I fly most of the approach using only partial flaps. When I finally break out of the clouds at 200 AGL I am finally committed for landing and deploy the last notch of flaps.

If it works for you and you're comfortable with it, sure, why not.... In most twins on an ILS I don't put in the last flaps until over the threshold with a landing assured.

 

[olasek]

If it works for you and you're comfortable with it, sure, why not.... In most twins on an ILS I don't put in the last flaps until over the threshold with a landing assured.

That is VERY late. I would think you are not getting full benefits of flaps unless aircraft fully stabilized to the new pitch/speed and that probably takes circa 5-10 sec (aircraft dependent of course), plus I would think you are lowering flaps and almost immediately transitioning to the flare - too many things going on at once. Not for me - a low hour pilot

 

[Henning]

That is VERY late. I would think you are not getting full benefits of flaps unless aircraft fully stabilized to the new pitch/speed and that probably takes circa 5-10 sec (aircraft dependent of course), plus I would think you are lowering flaps and almost immediately transition to the flare - too many things going on at once.

Yep, it's a bit going on, but not a whole lot really when you're used to it. "Hit the flap switch down, flick the trim a couple of times reach up and start reducing the throttle" is actually a pretty simple flow for the right hand and will set the correct landing attitude all the while judging speed and reserve lift with the pull on the left hand to tell the right hand what to do with the throttle while taking input from the eyes to judge what to do with the rudders and the rotational component of the left hand.

Once you understand what you're doing and why you're doing it, flying is dirt simple.

 

[n12365]

When I do an ILS approach in my 172M, I fly it with 20 degrees of flaps. I also land with 20 degrees for all instrument approaches where I brake out at less than 300 feet. Everything stays stabilized and there are no major pitch changes close to the ground. Going to full flaps (40 degrees on the 172M) produces a sizable pitch change and adds to my workload during an approach. Most of my IFR flying is done single pilot, so I try to make things as simple and consistent as possible.

Ryan

 

[Air_Ogre]

First, my disclaimer. I don't have an IR and I don't have a ton of hours making airplane sounds (127 FWIW).

Personally I would avoid adding flaps and just land with 20% or even 10%. I don't like to make changes in the landing configuration that late in the flight and full flaps aren't really necessary for a safe landing. Rather than relate my personal experience I'm going to lean on an aviation writer I respect a lot, John Deakin.

Think about the use of flaps. Just because there is a position marked "FULL" doesn't mean you should use it. Flaps don't have a major effect on some or even most GA aircraft, and most will land better (and just as short) with half flaps, or even none at all. Partial flaps will usually allow a slightly more nose-up attitude at touchdown, which may be beneficial on airplanes that tend to land on the nosewheel first (Comanches, Mooneys). There is probably no good reason to use flaps at all on any ILS approach in small GA aircraft. Some may say it makes the airplane more stable, but in reality, it simply feels different. Once you become accustomed to not using flaps for the ILS, the "feel" will be just fine. You won't need them for the landing either -- all ILS runways are more than adequate for a flapless landing. Take a look at the stalling speed of your aircraft with and without flaps, you may be surprised at how small the difference is. Try it different ways, enough times to get over the "strangeness factor," and see how the airplane flies. Landing with less flap will make speed control a bit more important, but it decomplexifies the go-around. (I know that's not a proper word, but I like it, and it's my column.)