Need Pro's/Con's of 'Flapped' landings

[Dave Krall CFII]

Well, tonight I did 1.1 solo hrs in the pattern, experimenting with various flap settings on approach. I did 11 circuits of the pattern... 10 landings and 1 go-around. The winds were 160/12 and I was using rwy 17. What I found was that I did have to use a good bit more crab/side-slip to correct for the cross-wind the more flaps I used. Surprisingly enough (to me, anyway), was that I had the softest touch-down with 10 deg. of flaps. I also found that 0 flap forward slips-to-land are the most fun you can have in the pattern .

That's cool, and you and every pilot should be able to easily do a very smoothe landing at ANY flap setting and speed, even after approaching in the very useful full slip.

 

[t0r0nad0]

This thread inspired me to become more familiar with the various flap settings, so I took it upon myself to go practice up.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, He's got 27 hrs, 7 of which is solo, and he's fixing to do a cross country solo. I don't think it's just a beginning training thing.

He's an adult, and it's really irrelevant if I like his instructors style or not, so I'm not worried about getting over it... I'm just building shelter for the eventual storm I know is just around the corner!

Thanks!

If it's not a training thing, but a "you're supposed to do it this way" thing, then he's wrong -- as wrong as the folks who insist that it "has to be" full flaps.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's a good thing your son isn't training where I rent from... great place, but their policy for students is NO-FLAP landings in the C172 at 70 knots. The CFI's are required to teach it that way, and the students are expected to fly it that way. That's one of my very few beefs with this place... they really are a good FBO, school... have their act together. But I do have to shake my head on this one.

I'll have to scan a copy of their instruction/policy... but my car is at the shop right now, and the paperwork is in the trunk.

I've heard of similar policies. I briefly taught at a 61/141 school where it was no-flap landings until solo.

The policy was based on all the good reasons for using no-flap landings as a training technique (long runways also help ), but didn't account for the downside effect of the "law of exercise" when it came time to start bringing flaps into the picture.

 

[Henning]

My 18 y.o. son is learning to fly. This is good! His instructor is teaching him to make all landings with 20 degrees of flaps. I'm a 40 degree/ full stall kind of guy. This drives me nuts. I'm staying appropriately quiet, but eventually he'll get his ticket, and I'm gonna be making the argument...

No arguement will be necessary, as you said eventually he'll have his ticket. If by some miracle he comes through this without having transitioned to full flaps landings (he may bust a checkride when it come to short fields) you when you go flying with him can mearly say "Nice landing, now lets go do one with full flaps so you can see the difference" and then guide him through the differences.

 

[jesse]

Absent a compelling reason otherwise, full flaps for me.

Well said. Although I've really never had much of a compelling reason.

 

[jdwatson]

My initial training started with full flaps. 10 degrees abeam the landing point, 20 degrees on base, 30 degrees on final. 90kts downwind, 80kts base, 70kts on final, 65kts over the fence... hold it off, hold it off... squeak. Let the nose wheel come down on it's own.

Partial flaps and no flaps came later in training. My training was in a Cessna 172R

 

[gprellwitz]

JD, sounds exactly like my initial training.

 

[gismo]

JD, sounds exactly like my initial training.

Ditto, circa 1978. When I upgraded to a Bonanza that didn't have several preset flap positions, I just didn't know what to do.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ditto, circa 1969.

 

[SCCutler]

My training started, per flight school's policy, with no-flap landings, but home base and the field to which we went for T&Gs were both long runways.

After maybe two lessons, my instructor said, "enough of this," and the flaps were part of the program from then on.

 

[Everskyward]

A lot of procedures change as you move from one type of airplane to another, even in the same general performance class. Consistency is a good thing in general, but what works best in one type might not necessarily work best in another.

Exactly. I learned in C-150s which had 40 degrees of flaps. I was first taught to land with 20 or 30 degrees (I don't remember exactly how many), with 40 degrees being introduced later, primarily for short field landings. When I started teaching a number of years later, it was in C-152s which only had 30 degrees of flaps, and I had students use them all unless we were practicing no-flap or partial flap landings.

I think people ought to fly the airplane they are flying now as it was meant to be flown, and not in anticipation of something they may fly later. Conversely, it's not a great idea to hang on to the way you've always done something if it's not appropriate for the airplane at hand. As you move into different airplanes there are going to be new habits to learn and other ones to break, but that's just the way it is. There is something to be said for the law of primacy, but it's a good idea to be adaptable.

There's also the difference between a procedure and a technique. If the checklist in the POH or AFM says "flaps - down" then you probably should be putting them down because that is a procedure. If it says, "flaps - as desired" then it leaves it up to you. We could argue all day, and we do, about which technique is better but we're never going to come to any kind of conclusion.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That being said, I train in a 172N, which has a 40 deg setting. I typically only use that setting when doing a soft-field landing with calm winds. For most normal and short-field landings, I use 30 deg. The reason I use 30 instead of 40 is that the go-around procedure calls for full power, carb heat off, and flaps 20. You suffer less of a loss of lift going from 30-20 than you do from 40-20.

Do you really? Remember, the first notch of flaps is mostly lift. Second notch will be a fair amount of lift and some drag. The last notch(es) of flaps are mostly drag.

Also, it is a certification requirement that the airplane must be able to climb with full flaps at gross weight. You should be able to go around and leave the flaps at 40 (what you'd have to do if you had a mechanical failure with asymmetric retraction for example).

Climb it (full power, incl. carb heat off), clean it (flaps, gear, flaps, flaps), cool it (cowl flaps open), and call it ("Nxxxx, going around").

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think everyone who read this thread should get themselves over to http://www.pilotcast.com/ and listen to CFICast #003.

 

[tonycondon]

You should be able to go around and leave the flaps at 40 (what you'd have to do if you had a mechanical failure with asymmetric retraction for example).

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah



did a drag demo for my new student in the 150 last week. full flaps and full power resulted in no climb at any airspeed. 30 flaps resulted in 1-200 fpm at 55 mph, 20 flaps gave climb a little better at 65. no flaps gave normal climb of course at 70-75.

I look to her and say "how do you feel about going around"

better get those flaps back to 20 or 30 right away...

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah



did a drag demo for my new student in the 150 last week. full flaps and full power resulted in no climb at any airspeed. 30 flaps resulted in 1-200 fpm at 55 mph, 20 flaps gave climb a little better at 65. no flaps gave normal climb of course at 70-75.

I look to her and say "how do you feel about going around"

better get those flaps back to 20 or 30 right away...

With only the student (standard weight) and depending on wind component it will most often climb, slowly.

 

[gismo]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah



did a drag demo for my new student in the 150 last week. full flaps and full power resulted in no climb at any airspeed. 30 flaps resulted in 1-200 fpm at 55 mph, 20 flaps gave climb a little better at 65. no flaps gave normal climb of course at 70-75.

I look to her and say "how do you feel about going around"

better get those flaps back to 20 or 30 right away...

IIRC, that certification requirement applies to sea level, standard day conditions. Hardly a typical Iowa afternoon up in the sky.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Yeah, I know... Theoretically you should get book cruise speeds too.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Bill:

Another reason is to prepare for other planes he may fly in the future. As we all know, we carry over habits and it's best to learn good ones first. If we ever get him in the P-Baron, he can pay for the extra breaking required on the landing roll <g>. 4,000 foot strip will require some moderate breaking with less than full flaps.

I have approach and full flaps on the P-Barron. The only time I haven't deployed full flaps was when landing with ice on the plane (you can ask Lance about it <g>). Couple times, landing at my home strip, I landed without flaps, very noticeable difference in the touch down speed and subsequent landing roll. If the tower wants one to make a specific turn off; better know how much faster you'll be going without the flaps down. Don't want flat spots in the tires!

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

Also, it is a certification requirement that the airplane must be able to climb with full flaps at gross weight.

Only at sea level on a standard day.

You should be able to go around and leave the flaps at 40 (what you'd have to do if you had a mechanical failure with asymmetric retraction for example).

Try that at Cody WY (el 5800 or so) this month and you just land long.

 

[jesse]

Only at sea level on a standard day.Try that at Cody WY (el 5800 or so) this month and you just land long.

Also most of our trainers aren't Part 23. I'm not sure if the old regulations had the requirement or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

Also most of our trainers aren't Part 23. I'm not sure if the old regulations had the requirement or not.

CAR 3 had essentially the same requirement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Only at sea level on a standard day.Try that at Cody WY (el 5800 or so) this month and you just land long.

Only if we have time to get a group together to watch.

 

[jesse]

CAR 3 had essentially the same requirement.

Do you know of a place to read CAR 3? I spent a considerable amount of time one night trying to find a copy of CAR 3. I wanted to read the wording on the botched landing requirements.

 

[tonycondon]

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgccab.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

 

[jesse]

Thanks Tony.

CAR 3.85c

(c) Climb - balked landing conditions. The steady rate of climb at sea level shall not be less than 5 Vso or 200 feet per minute, whichever is the greater, with:

(1) Take-off power,

(2) Landing gear extended,

(3) Wing flaps in the landing position. If rapid retraction is possible with safety, without loss of altitude and without requiring sudden changes of angle of attack or exceptional skill on the part of the pilot, wing flaps may be retracted.

 

[spiderweb]

. . .

Con's: Not as easy to grease'em in (takes more practice)
Always has extra speed built in for gusty conditions as needed
Fun to go fast close to ground
Easier to keep speed up than it is to go slow
Less chance for malfunction of control surface/apparatus

As my cousin, Mike Myers, would say in his "All Things Scottish" skit--
THAT'S CRAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!

(and I assume you know I have a smile on my face right now.)

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks Tony.

CAR 3.85c

(c) Climb - balked landing conditions. The steady rate of climb at sea level shall not be less than 5 Vso or 200 feet per minute, whichever is the greater, with:

(1) Take-off power,

(2) Landing gear extended,

(3) Wing flaps in the landing position. If rapid retraction is possible with safety, without loss of altitude and without requiring sudden changes of angle of attack or exceptional skill on the part of the pilot, wing flaps may be retracted.

And since it does take a big change in pitch to avoid sinking during rapid flap retraction in a C-150/172, the flaps would have to be in the full-down position to meet this requirement.

 

[Terry]

I was taught to use full flaps unless I had strong winds.

I got into the habit of using one notch of flaps and when I started my instrument training my CFII got on my case and made me start using full flaps or 2 notches but not one notch.

One notch makes you float forever instead of landing.

My 2 cents worth.

I use the amount of flaps necessary to make a "perfect" landing. Or at least try to.

Terry

 

[TangoWhiskey]

(c) Climb - balked landing conditions. The steady rate of climb at sea level shall not be less than 5 Vso or 200 feet per minute, whichever is the greater, with:

"less than 5 Vso"... I don't get that. Do they mean 5 x stall speed in the landing configuration?

 

[RogerT]

I was always a member of the 1.3Vso (1.2Vso short final) and full flaps,
full stall landing crowd unless there was a real compelling reason not
to do it that way (like strong gusty crosswinds). It gave a real stabilized
approach .. especially on an instrument approach.

However .. the flaps are just one more flight control to get the plane
to do what you want. With my experimental now (~925 lbs with me in
it, pusher config) it's not recommended to do full stall landings because
of the probability of coming down on the tail. And with full flaps (~50 degrees) there is very little flare .. you just arrive. So I find carrying just
a little power and about 20 -25 flaps works best. But I've tested with
all settings.

I think the CFI should be working with him on landing with all different
flap settings and discussing the differences in the touchdown attitude
and speeds and when each setting might be used. That way he'll be
able to select what's best for the conditions on each landing.

RT

 

[poadeleted20]

With my experimental now (~925 lbs with me in
it, pusher config) it's not recommended to do full stall landings because
of the probability of coming down on the tail. And with full flaps (~50 degrees) there is very little flare .. you just arrive. So I find carrying just
a little power and about 20 -25 flaps works best.

When you're dealing with an aircraft that does not meet FAA Part 23/25 or CAR 3 certification standards, all bets are off when it comes to normal advice on normal flying procedures/techniques. Even two "identical" Experimentals may fly totally differently.

 

[gismo]

"less than 5 Vso"... I don't get that. Do they mean 5 x stall speed in the landing configuration?

Probably. What's missing is the units of measure, and I suspect that it's KCAS. So with a 40 KCAS Vso you'd be right at the 200 FPM certification minimum. Faster singles would require more and one with the maximum 61 Kt Vso would require 305 FPM.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Anybody wanna take any bets that his instructor learned on a plane with only 20 deg of flaps (or learned from an instructor that did), and hence thinks that is the "right way" to land?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Anybody wanna take any bets that his instructor learned on a plane with only 20 deg of flaps (or learned from an instructor that did), and hence thinks that is the "right way" to land?

I'd take the other side of that bet.

In general, starting with the assumption that using the amount of flaps appropriate to the runway conditions is acceptable (in itself one of the things people argue about), I know more than one pilot (and instructor) for whom in a Cessna 172, 20° is seen as a good compromise between the relatively high final approach pitch attitude of the no-flap landing and the quasi-short field drop of full flaps and 1.3 Vso.

So I can see a CFI who believes this passing it on. But why it would be passed on as the "right way to land" rather than as "one way to land" is beyond me, unless is simply a matter of, as you point out, the unfortunately common, "I was taught that way."

 

[Everskyward]

But why it would be passed on as the "right way to land" rather than as "one way to land" is beyond me, unless is simply a matter of, as you point out, the unfortunately common, "I was taught that way."

I think it has a lot to do with personality. Some people have a rigid idea of how things should be done where other people are in the "it depends" camp. If you look at many discussions on this board you will see it, whether it's about how to enter the pattern, what radio calls to make, how to time an approach, and many other topics including the non-aviation ones. The people who post that THIS is the way to do something seem to do it over a large range of topics while people who think it depends on the situation also seem to feel that way on most subjects. I've seen this in real life with pilots, as I'm sure you have too. Dunno why this is an interesting phenomenon for me, but it is.

I am definitely in the "it depends" camp on most subjects. I also sometimes wonder if people are neglecting to see the forest for the trees.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think that a lot of us who believe there's a best "standard" way to do things, with all else relegated to the "use only as necessary" bin, have come to thinking that way over decades of instructing and reviewing accident reports. For myself, I find that when we're talking about folks who don't fly a lot (the typical 50-75 hrs/year personal flying PPL), the failure to do things that one "standard" way all the time leads to them performing those diverse methods with a low level of proficiency. OTOH, those in that group who stick to that "standard" way as much as feasible tend to do that one way much better than the diverse group does their many different ways. Further, accident reports very often reflect folks doing things unnecessarily differently from the "standard" way of doing that task.

IOW, the law of exercise has a solid basis in the opeational experience, and those in that "typical PPL" group who stick with the book-standard way of flying tend to be better at what they do, and better at avoiding accidents. For that reason, among those who don't fly as much as a professional pilot does (usually 300-1000 hrs/yr, with those on the low end usually in very intense flying environments like fighter pilots where one hour aloft is like three or four in a transport operation), I preach sticking with the "best practices" methods, as espoused in the FAA guidelines such as the "Landings" pamphlets (which recommend stabilized approaches and as much flap as you've got for landings unless there's a real good reason to do it another way).

BTW, the folks in the civilian flying world with the most rigid ideas on how to do things are the air carriers, and they have the best safety record in aviation. OTOH, the least standardized community is the personal flying light GA community, and in comparison to the airlines, our safety record stinks.

 

[docmirror]

I will preface my comments by saying that I have only a few hours in the 172, and it's been a long time. Having said that. here's a few cents worth. Being a philosopher, I like knowing the why of things. The 172 is a four place airplane, typically used as a training tool with only a pilot, and CFI, both sitting in front. Since this is a trike configuration, the elevator controls are someone more limited in size, deflection, and effectiveness than the comparable 170 model. with only two aboard, and no baggage it's probable that the CG is at or near the forward limit of the plane. Now, it'll fly and land just fine with this load, but think of the job the elevator is trying to do, in landing configuration, with full flaps.

In this configuration, the plane will have a pretty serious nose down tendency. so, the answer is to trim for that, and remove the pressure from the elevator. By trimming, we remove effective and actual elevator area from the moveable surface(trim tab deflects down, elevator deflects up, all is well). The full flaps also brings the plane to a lower speed which will also contribute to less elevator effectiveness overall.

So, although I can see the reasons for having full flaps down on all landings, I can also see a reason to limit the flap travel to 20deg when landing with only two aboard in a 4 place aircraft. Now, if one were to have 4 folks, and a bit of baggage, then the full flaps will produce the low speeds desired, without the concomitant poorer elevator control or deflection. I find this is very relevant in the short fuselage Bonanza, with 30deg of flaps and no one in back. I typically land with 10-20deg with one or two aboard.

this is the sole reason the school in DFW doesn't let the primary students land with flaps. The owner of the school has suffered several prop strikes due to nose first, or porposed landings, and considers the cost of gear/brake repair acceptable over the cost of prop/engine/nose gear repairs shoud a student bash up the front of the plane. Not that it's right, or even defensible, but I'm just the messenger.

Let the slings and arrows begin!

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think that a lot of us who believe there's a best "standard" way to do things, with all else relegated to the "use only as necessary" bin, have come to thinking that way over decades of instructing and reviewing accident reports.

OTOH, the common refrain I hear when people talk about checklists is that the manufacturer checklists are all "written by lawyers" whose =only= concern is liability. Given that, the Cessna advice to use flaps appropriate to the runway =must= be the safest way to go, right?

 

[poadeleted20]

this is the sole reason the school in DFW doesn't let the primary students land with flaps. The owner of the school has suffered several prop strikes due to nose first, or porposed landings, and considers the cost of gear/brake repair acceptable over the cost of prop/engine/nose gear repairs shoud a student bash up the front of the plane. Not that it's right, or even defensible, but I'm just the messenger.

If the 172 is trimmed properly and flown "on speed" for the light weight configuration, porpoised landings and/or prop strikes just don't happen, even with nothing aboard but two big people up front. OTOH, even with a full aft cg load, if you fly it wrong, you can still bugger the landing. Where you get in trouble in a lightly loaded 172 is trying to fly it at 70 KIAS with full flaps. Fly it at 55-60 KIAS (that's 1.3 Vs0 for the actual configuration and loading), and it lands fine.