Training tips and tricks?

I routinely perform two notch 25*landings In high wind settings and have made no flap landings in the past if I pick up a little ice on approach. Can't really remember having that taught to me specifically, but I do them so someone must instilled that into my small brain. Short field and soft field usually only happen during the BFR. And the speeds and setting are on my checklist.

I have also never landed on a grass field except as a passenger. Not sure how I feel about putting the Arrow through that if I don't have to.

I like your approach to stretching a little on the BFR Matt.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yea, I mean with an additional 204 feet being added to a landing roll of 585 feet how in the heck would anyone get that airplane stopped on a 3000 foot runway???:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Never hurts anyone much to review private pilot material.

No one should have any big problems IF it isn't hot, high altitude, &/or wet grass on the average 3000 foot. Now punch your numbers for the SHORT strip of 2000 feet or less, of grass/gravel/wet/what-have-you, at high DA and high GrWt. Look real good for any pilot, even an expert slipper?

As illustrated many ways above, one of the most significant factors of a flap malfunction is WHERE it occurs. Big or medium airport in favorable DA and Gr weights, no big deal. Otherwise common scenarios such as in high DA & GrWt &/or such as over hostile terrain or over rough water, think again!

I don't see anybody mentioning the other huge factor on the flap malfunction's ultimate severity, which is: Did the flaps fail when fully deployed and attempting a go-around?

Ever fly in a plane that WON'T CLIMB with full flaps? Or one that will only climb marginally with full flaps? They're numerous, and it doesn't matter what the experience level of the pilot is in that respect.

Going into ANY length airport with full flaps that have failed while fully deployed, such as when due to fuse blowing, motor burn out, etc, in an aircraft that won't climb or will only slowly climb with full flaps, will be an emergency situation, when trying to clear even the lowest airport buildings and other obstacles in High DA and GrWt.

And that's no matter what any pencil pushing desk-driver labels it when writing up the Regs.
 
The go-around issues are at the top of the list for schools that teach no-flap landings as SOP.

Dave Krall CFII said:
Never hurts anyone much to review private pilot material.

No one should have any big problems IF it isn't hot, high altitude, &/or wet grass on the average 3000 foot. Now punch your numbers for the SHORT strip of 2000 feet or less, of grass/gravel/wet/what-have-you, at high DA and high GrWt. Look real good for any pilot, even an expert slipper?

As illustrated many ways above, one of the most significant factors of a flap malfunction is WHERE it occurs. Big or medium airport in favorable DA and Gr weights, no big deal. Otherwise common scenarios such as in high DA & GrWt &/or such as over hostile terrain or over rough water, think again!

I don't see anybody mentioning the other huge factor on the flap malfunction's ultimate severity, which is: Did the flaps fail when fully deployed and attempting a go-around?

Ever fly in a plane that WON'T CLIMB with full flaps? Or one that will only climb marginally with full flaps? They're numerous, and it doesn't matter what the experience level of the pilot is in that respect.

Going into ANY length airport with full flaps that have failed while fully deployed, such as when due to fuse blowing, motor burn out, etc, in an aircraft that won't climb or will only slowly climb with full flaps, will be an emergency situation, when trying to clear even the lowest airport buildings and other obstacles in High DA and GrWt.

And that's no matter what any pencil pushing desk-driver labels it when writing up the Regs.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Never hurts anyone much to review private pilot material.

No one should have any big problems IF it isn't hot, high altitude, &/or wet grass on the average 3000 foot. Now punch your numbers for the SHORT strip of 2000 feet or less, of grass/gravel/wet/what-have-you, at high DA and high GrWt. Look real good for any pilot, even an expert slipper?

As illustrated many ways above, one of the most significant factors of a flap malfunction is WHERE it occurs. Big or medium airport in favorable DA and Gr weights, no big deal. Otherwise common scenarios such as in high DA & GrWt &/or such as over hostile terrain or over rough water, think again!

I don't see anybody mentioning the other huge factor on the flap malfunction's ultimate severity, which is: Did the flaps fail when fully deployed and attempting a go-around?

Ever fly in a plane that WON'T CLIMB with full flaps? Or one that will only climb marginally with full flaps? They're numerous, and it doesn't matter what the experience level of the pilot is in that respect.

Going into ANY length airport with full flaps that have failed while fully deployed, such as when due to fuse blowing, motor burn out, etc, in an aircraft that won't climb or will only slowly climb with full flaps, will be an emergency situation, when trying to clear even the lowest airport buildings and other obstacles in High DA and GrWt.

And that's no matter what any pencil pushing desk-driver labels it when writing up the Regs.
Click to expand...

The wing falling off on final also creates an emergency. :rolleyes2: Having one of your floats fall off the airplane after takeoff would be an emergency. Do you make a contingency and emergency action for that as well? :rolleyes:

You can take any scenario you want and twist it into a catastrophic event. What was being discussed was a flap failure to where a pilot would have to perform a no flap landing and someone chimed in stating in their understanding that was an "emergency". Sorry, it's not.

But continue twisting all you want. :rolleyes:
 
Ron Levy said:
I speak poorly of any CFI who fails to do the regulatory minimum before sending a trainee solo. I'm sure we've all heard the line about "if the min wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the min," but if less than the min was good enough, the min would be lower, and the regulatory minimum for solo includes flapless landings. If you doubt me, I'll happily make the same bet with you that Wayne declined to accept.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything about flaps here, you???

As the internet geeks would say, FAIL

The Facts said:
(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane rating or privileges must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:
(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;
(2) Taxiing or surface operations, including runups;
(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind;
(4) Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions;
(5) Climbs and climbing turns;
(6) Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures;
(7) Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance;
(8) Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations;
(9) Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight;
(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
(11) Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions;
(12) Ground reference maneuvers;
(13) Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions;
(14) Slips to a landing; and
(15) Go-arounds.
Click to expand...


Dont see the word FLAP anywhere in here.... there is equipment malfunctions, but you could use the same argument to fault any CFI who didnt prep their student for a "head rest malfunction"

SLIPS are mentioned (as I stated), it dont take a rocket scientist to put a flapless 172 and slip together and get her down easily :dunno:

I've landed our Grand Caravan without flaps many times, mostly on 0 pax flights for the sheer F' of it, I can manage more or less the same ground roll with the use of slips and power. I sure as heck dont burn up 40% more runway! Same with the plethora of flap and no flap taildraggers I fly and have flown.


Personally, I have my guys do 0 flaps (when I train in a plane with flaps), I also have my guys do falling leaf stalls and spins, it's icing on the cake for my students, BUT I DONT TRY TO BS THAT IT IS REQUIRED TRAINING.

If you want to teach 0 flaps, that's cool, I'm sure everyone would agree you're a good CFI for having them do a few, but lets not try to say it's required eh??
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
The go-around issues are at the top of the list for schools that teach no-flap landings as SOP.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that SOP. Anything wrong with pilots that think?

One of the soft field beach landing screw-ups that jambed the nosegear up into the engine on a Cessna was the pilot who told me, "No, I've never used full-flaps for anything!" Well, it's high time to start using them then. All soft field landings proceedures I've ever seen call for MAXIMUM lift throughout the rolls, which means full flaps, last I checked.

We end up with pilots and CFIs not using full-flaps because anyone could forget to retract them on take-off. Well then put a notch back in right away and correct your pitch for it. Pilots have to think to retract flaps if needed for climb because there is no one-size-fits-all for flap proceedures.
 
My PPL check-ride 51 years ago was in a 172. I don't remember when the use of flaps became SOP, but for the first few years the planes were on the line I know for a fact that no-flaps was taught as the way it should be done except for situations where the pilot discovered he/she was high on final approach.

I also know that the FAA entered the debate at some point with the notion that max flaps for the applicable operations were preferred, an opinion that I shared at the time and still believe now.

The biggest plane in which I have personally taught no-flap landings is the G-V and the procedure isn't an emergency in that plane either.



Dave Krall CFII said:
Oh yeah, that SOP. Anything wrong with pilots that think?

One of the soft field beach landing screw-ups that jambed the nosegear up into the engine on a Cessna was the pilot who told me, "No, I've never used full-flaps for anything!" Well, it's high time to start using them then. All soft field landings proceedures I've ever seen call for MAXIMUM lift throughout the rolls, which means full flaps, last I checked.

We end up with pilots and CFIs not using full-flaps because anyone could forget to retract them on take-off. Well then put a notch back in right away and correct your pitch for it. Pilots have to think to retract flaps if needed for climb because there is no one-size-fits-all for flap proceedures.
Click to expand...
 
MAKG1 said:
What IS the correct soft field landing technique for a C182?

It's not in the POH. Neither is a soft field takeoff. Short fields call for full flaps on landing, 20 deg on takeoff.

I prefer to do all my landings with full flaps, unless there is some reason not to (including practicing reduced flap landings). But soft field landings like that don't seem to be very soft, even with some power in.
Click to expand...
Soft fields are not in the POH, but are in the FTH.

Speeds are not published in the POH, because soft fields are not about speeds, but about technique and feel, and flying in ground effect.

It's really slow flight to the ground; flying into ground effect at just above a stall, and rolling the wheels on at just above a stall, then after accepting the suitability of the runway surface to bear the weight of the airplane, reducing the power to transition thru the stall with mains gradually bearing more weight while keeping enough power/thrust over the elevator to keep the nose up out of the impending mush.

This creates a smooth transition from the wings bearing the weight to the wheels bearing the weight. The pilot controls this transition by slowflying onto the ground, sort of into a wheelie position, which is how the soft fiels take off is done; nose up at first out of the mush, with minimum power to avoid slingin mush or hittin the prop, get that nose up and out first, then gradually add full power with max nose up until te mains are off, the an immediate level off in ground effect until you've checked speed and climd, etc.

Here the main skill is slow flying in ground effect down the runway and controlling the airplane and picking the spot where it seems to be landable, then slowflying onto that area of the surface.

So much fun. That's where the skill of take offs and landings can be practiced for no matter what you want to use it for...

I have the over all practice of teaching and learning all the uses of flaps.

Generally, for a normal landing, I use about half flaps.

Disregarding landing distances and speeds, for this purpose, I'm talking about landing skill and practice.

Full flaps give slow speeds and short distances, but less aircraft control, slower control response. No flaps give higher speeds and longer distances and more aircraft control, quicker control response. The pilot should be familiar with his craft to be able to make the decisions about when to do what when things are not normal, or routine.

So, I use 1/2 flaps as a base to start getting the feel, then add or reduce from there depending on many many things.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yea, I mean with an additional 204 feet being added to a landing roll of 585 feet how in the heck would anyone get that airplane stopped on a 3000 foot runway???:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
As a former ASI, you are certainly aware that folks fail to stop 172's on 3000 feet of runway all the time -- even with fulll flaps. That's why keeping control on landings is #1 on the hit parade for the FAASTeam.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
I didn't see anything about flaps here, you???

As the internet geeks would say, FAIL




Dont see the word FLAP anywhere in here.... there is equipment malfunctions, but you could use the same argument to fault any CFI who didnt prep their student for a "head rest malfunction"

SLIPS are mentioned (as I stated), it dont take a rocket scientist to put a flapless 172 and slip together and get her down easily :dunno:

I've landed our Grand Caravan without flaps many times, mostly on 0 pax flights for the sheer F' of it, I can manage more or less the same ground roll with the use of slips and power. I sure as heck dont burn up 40% more runway! Same with the plethora of flap and no flap taildraggers I fly and have flown.


Personally, I have my guys do 0 flaps (when I train in a plane with flaps), I also have my guys do falling leaf stalls and spins, it's icing on the cake for my students, BUT I DONT TRY TO BS THAT IT IS REQUIRED TRAINING.

If you want to teach 0 flaps, that's cool, I'm sure everyone would agree you're a good CFI for having them do a few, but lets not try to say it's required eh??
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part about equipment malfunctions?

And you're a CFI?

:sigh:

My wager offer still stands to any other CFI's who thinks no-flap approaches are not required before solo. Put your tickets where your mouth is.
 
My bet that they are not and never have been an emergency still stands, and depending on flight school SOP aren't even an abnormal.


Ron Levy said:
Did you miss the part about equipment malfunctions?

And you're a CFI?

:sigh:

My wager offer still stands to any other CFI's who thinks no-flap approaches are not required before solo. Put your tickets where your mouth is.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
In some cases no-flap landings are taught as SOP, even when the planes are so equipped. What should I tell the school at Northwest Regional that teaches no-flap as SOP in their 172 trainers?
Click to expand...

I would tell them to watch out for Volvos :dunno:

:D
 
Also FWIW Jesse is the first instructor I ever flew with that had me do a no-flap landing. Although my DPE did want me to demonstrate a no-flap landing on my private pilot checkride (it was your buddy Wayne) and out of the probably 10 instructors I've ever flown with Jesse is the only one who ever had me do a no-flap landing.
 
While I'm surprised that there are pilots who get all the way through training without doing a no-flap landing, I also don't think they're a big deal in small airplanes. It would be nice to see one with an instructor or someone else before you are forced to do one on your own though, if just for the sake of confidence.
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you miss the part about equipment malfunctions?
Click to expand...

Oh so you assumed they meant flap malfunctions huh?


I hope thats not the crutch you're
standing on while you proclaim this, the way I read it it could be how they handle a malfunction of the vents on the dash, or a malfunction of the 12v plug for their iWhatever, radio malfunctions, or, or...

Ron Levy said:
And you're a CFI?
Click to expand...

Yep, gold seal too :wink2:

And like I said chief, I teach 0 flaps, I just dont believe it's necessary, many of the things I do for my students are not required, just things I do to be better then my competitors and because I enjoy producing kick ass pilots.

Ron Levy said:
My wager offer still stands to any other CFI's who thinks no-flap approaches are not required before solo. Put your tickets where your mouth is.
Click to expand...

Dude, how bout you post the reg that says "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"????

I dont see the word flap anywhere in that reg that I POSTED,

SO do it,
Post a reg stating "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"
Post a letter from the head fed saying "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"


I'll check to see if you did after I get done with my flight lessons and Van flying tomorrow. Good luck
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
Also FWIW Jesse is the first instructor I ever flew with that had me do a no-flap landing. Although my DPE did want me to demonstrate a no-flap landing on my private pilot checkride (it was your buddy Wayne) and out of the probably 10 instructors I've ever flown with Jesse is the only one who ever had me do a no-flap landing.
Click to expand...

What??? You must have flown with so many instructors who violated the regs and should have there tickets yanked. :rolleyes:

Everskyward said:
While I'm surprised that there are pilots who get all the way through training without doing a no-flap landing, I also don't think they're a big deal in small airplanes. It would be nice to see one with an instructor or someone else before you are forced to do one on your own though, if just for the sake of confidence.
Click to expand...

That is kinda the who idea with this thread is thing we can show and do with student and things students have seen that is good to cover even if its just for the confidence of having seen it once before. But it got a little side tracked ;)

iflyblog.com said:
This poor thread needs to be renamed, "The no-flap thread"...
Click to expand...
Ha that's the truth.
 
My memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure my examiner made me do a no-flap landing on the checkride. I had practiced it plenty of times before so it was not an issue at all. I am surprised to hear of people with PPL's who haven't done one because I honestly thought it was a required part of training.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Oh so you assumed they meant flap malfunctions huh?


I hope thats not the crutch you're
standing on while you proclaim this, the way I read it it could be how they handle a malfunction of the vents on the dash, or a malfunction of the 12v plug for their iWhatever, radio malfunctions, or, or...



Yep, gold seal too :wink2:

And like I said chief, I teach 0 flaps, I just dont believe it's necessary, many of the things I do for my students are not required, just things I do to be better then my competitors and because I enjoy producing kick ass pilots.



Dude, how bout you post the reg that says "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"????

I dont see the word flap anywhere in that reg that I POSTED,

SO do it,
Post a reg stating "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"
Post a letter from the head fed saying "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"


I'll check to see if you did after I get done with my flight lessons and Van flying tomorrow. Good luck
Click to expand...
Bet offer stands -- either take it or stop telling me it's not required.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
Dude, how bout you post the reg that says "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"????

I dont see the word flap anywhere in that reg that I POSTED,

SO do it,
Post a reg stating "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"
Post a letter from the head fed saying "0 flap landings MUST be taught before solo"
......
Click to expand...

My computer must be messed up, I cant see your post with that reg :confused:
 
Sheesh, people. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen here in a while.

"Emergency" training pre-solo is required. As Ron pointed out, many newer airplanes have moved things like flap failures to "Abnormal Procedures" from the "Emergency" section because in most cases, it's not going to be a situation where you'll declare. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that the FAA meant "Emergency and abnormal procedures," it's just that they're moving at the speed of government and haven't caught Part 61 up with the newer practice of having "Abnormal procedures."

Those of you who are arguing that "malfunction of the vents on the dash" are required based on that literal reading sound like idiots. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the intent is to teach malfunctions of systems related to flying the airplane.

Ron, I also highly doubt that anyone's ticket is going to get yanked because they don't teach no-flap landings. Even if the FAA's intent is that they are taught, and I believe it probably is, if an instructor who otherwise does what the FAA wants isn't teaching no-flap landings, I think they'll simply be counseled and maybe watched a bit closer, but this doesn't rise to the severity of offense that should result in a CFI certificate being suspended or revoked. You like to cite case law, can you find us a case like this?

As far as schools who teach no-flap landings as standard early on, while I disagree with that practice, it does mean that there's one less thing for the student to worry about and it wouldn't matter if the flap system was failed if that's what's normally taught there, so I don't think it'd apply. I do think the FAA might want to counsel that flight school that they should teach landings with flaps, but again I don't think that anyone's ticket is going to be pulled.

So can we quit now? This could have been a really valuable thread, and it's been reduced to worthless mudslinging. Are you all happy now? :rolleyes:
 
A hot start is also an abnormal. How should that procedure be handled?

flyingcheesehead said:
Sheesh, people. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen here in a while.

"Emergency" training pre-solo is required. As Ron pointed out, many newer airplanes have moved things like flap failures to "Abnormal Procedures" from the "Emergency" section because in most cases, it's not going to be a situation where you'll declare. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that the FAA meant "Emergency and abnormal procedures," it's just that they're moving at the speed of government and haven't caught Part 61 up with the newer practice of having "Abnormal procedures."

Those of you who are arguing that "malfunction of the vents on the dash" are required based on that literal reading sound like idiots. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the intent is to teach malfunctions of systems related to flying the airplane.

Ron, I also highly doubt that anyone's ticket is going to get yanked because they don't teach no-flap landings. Even if the FAA's intent is that they are taught, and I believe it probably is, if an instructor who otherwise does what the FAA wants isn't teaching no-flap landings, I think they'll simply be counseled and maybe watched a bit closer, but this doesn't rise to the severity of offense that should result in a CFI certificate being suspended or revoked. You like to cite case law, can you find us a case like this?

As far as schools who teach no-flap landings as standard early on, while I disagree with that practice, it does mean that there's one less thing for the student to worry about and it wouldn't matter if the flap system was failed if that's what's normally taught there, so I don't think it'd apply. I do think the FAA might want to counsel that flight school that they should teach landings with flaps, but again I don't think that anyone's ticket is going to be pulled.

So can we quit now? This could have been a really valuable thread, and it's been reduced to worthless mudslinging. Are you all happy now? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
nosehair said:
? Why ?
Click to expand...

Extra energy in a real emergency landing situation, leading to lower survivability. Flaps are almost as basic as the stick, rudder, and throttle.

I'm also of the opinion that every landing should have full flaps in, but that's an entirely new thread.
 
wabower said:
A hot start is also an abnormal. How should that procedure be handled?
Click to expand...

Well, it's pretty tough for it to be a safety of flight issue when you can't get the engine started, so I'm fine with leaving that one alone and I bet the FAA is too. ;)
 
wabower said:
A hot start is also an abnormal. How should that procedure be handled?
Click to expand...


Fuel cut off, set to motor, watch ITT/EGT, call maintenance if any limits were exceeded, possible hot section inspection.

Not many Ab-Initio students start off in turbines though :wink2:
 
Henning said:
Yes, but that is a procedure, a turbine hot start is an accident.
Click to expand...

Correct, but unless I missed the track change, we were talking about emergencies and abnormal conditions....before accidents happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
At the risk of interjecting a comment unrelated to no-flap landings...

In talking to a couple of flight schools lately I was amazed to discover that their insurance carriers are the ones being prescriptive in what and how they teach. Of course they have to teach enough for people to get their ratings, but here are some examples of the restrictions:

No off-field landings of any kind
No operations off grass
No operations into any field less than 3000'
No operations at 10K or above
10 knot maximum crosswind component with instructor, 5 solo
No training with the gust factor over 10 knots
No training in anything other than school owned aircraft
No training with ceilings less than 1000
No maneuvering <2000 agl.
etc.

This is second/third hand info and I don't know all the details, specifics, etc.

It is consistent in that on even the slightest weather days the schools referenced are not flying.

In this case I am sure the CFI's would like to do more, but they can't. So this might be part of the reason for the lack of real experience in the new pilot population.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Oh yeah, that SOP. Anything wrong with pilots that think?

One of the soft field beach landing screw-ups that jambed the nosegear up into the engine on a Cessna was the pilot who told me, "No, I've never used full-flaps for anything!" Well, it's high time to start using them then. All soft field landings proceedures I've ever seen call for MAXIMUM lift throughout the rolls, which means full flaps, last I checked.
Click to expand...

In the 150 the 40 deg position is more drag than lift and, in my opinion, is more a detriment than help in a soft field scenario. I recommend the 30 deg setting for that, and usually only us 40 deg for seriously short short-fields.

As in all cases, much depends on the particular aircraft. There is seldom a "one size fits all" recommendation on this issues.

This whole discussion reminds me of this article:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182656-1.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top