Using wing flaps in Class G Airspace

[buzzard86]

Wow the Valuejet reading was grizzly

Don't intend to make this thread creep, but I too found the ValuJet story to be compelling. But even more fascinating, I followed the Wikipedia link and learned that not only did Eastern 401 crash just 2 miles from the ValuJet site, but also that Eastern salvaged and reused parts from the L-1011 wreckage. Wow.

 

[Captain]

So, now want = safe?

Still not equivalent. There are no safety situations that require a Coke, though there are some that preclude that.

The point of the exception is obviously to avoid prohibiting safety. You would prefer the reg would prohibit flaps at a short field that requires it? A determination of safety does not free you from consequences. Like busting Class B avoiding a midair is a textbook use for 91.3(b), but you may have to justify the decision afterward.

If I'm not mistaken there is no requirement for a PIC to provide proof of safety. So yes, in this case, 'want = safe'.

 

[MAKG1]

If I'm not mistaken there is no requirement for a PIC to provide proof of safety. So yes, in this case, 'want = safe'.

14 CFR 91.3(c).

 

[denverpilot]

Don't intend to make this thread creep, but I too found the ValuJet story to be compelling. But even more fascinating, I followed the Wikipedia link and learned that not only did Eastern 401 crash just 2 miles from the ValuJet site, but also that Eastern salvaged and reused parts from the L-1011 wreckage. Wow.

Haven't read "The Ghost of Flight 401" or seen the awful movie rendition, huh?

 

[buzzard86]

Haven't read "The Ghost of Flight 401" or seen the awful movie rendition, huh?

No, but I now plan to.

 

[DJTorrente]

You might do that to keep the engines spooled up, if you were concerned about the possibility of wind shear etc...

You never, ever spool down the engines until in the flair in jets. It is a major criterion for what constitutes a stabilized approach. High bypass turbofans aren't as critical as the old straight pipe engines, but it still takes time to spool things up.

I have a recollection of my undergrad aerostructures class (Hi, Dr. K!) that due to the lag time in turbine spool-up, it was beneficial (safe, wise) to design an approach configuration where you intentionally added drag in order to come in with non-zero thrust. That provided a quicker go-around response. As noted, thrust == noise, and if a little drag + a little thrust is good, surely some pilots discovered that more drag + more thrust is better. So the gov't writes a FAR that is largely unbreakable, but exists to remind pilots to fly it by the numbers.

 

[Fearless Tower]

As noted, thrust == noise, and if a little drag + a little thrust is good, surely some pilots discovered that more drag + more thrust is better.

Th real issue (as mentioned earlier) is that the earlier jets needed more time to spool up. Back then a little thrust and a little drag was simply insufficient. The increased flaps and increased thrust came after a lot of accidents in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Dead Stick]

It can get a bit more complicated when you factor in stuff like Approach Climb gradient requirements. This can bite guys at airports like ASE or cause you to "ring the bell" at airports like SMO.