Complex but with gear retract disabled?

[CJones]

I use something similar but I would suggest 'Mixture as required' instead of full rich. Full rich on a hot day at high altitude will result in a less than desirable go around attempt.

I fly at about 1200 sea level and it's always full rich around here anyways. But one of those if and when kind of things.

Same here. I was already in the habit of setting mixture to an EGT setting rather than 'full rich' even buzzing around Iowa. This became VERY handy when we flew to Las Vegas this spring. Taking off/landing at fields with 6000+MSL field elevation, if I went full rich, the thing just didn't want to run smooth at all.

 

[CJones]

i think our club is 5 hrs with CFI and 100 total time for a 180 hp Arrow. but its 90 bucks an hour and the 150s are 55. the arrow is slow enough that the 150 works out to be the cheapest per mile so thats what I usually fly.

I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the fact that you get to sit a lot closer to Leah in the 150 as opposed to the Arrow.

 

[tonycondon]

maybe Chris. but even if i go solo, im taking a 150

 

[JohnR]

I always just make up pages of check lists from the POH and use those.

Me, too. I've never been good at memorizing mnemonics - too much work for my brain1.0. As for looking out the window at the gear, that's fine, but you'll only see one of the three. I find it no more useful than making sure the tail is still attached. Not that that isn't useful, but a quick look at what's visible every time you scan for traffic takes care of all that.

 

[CJones]

maybe Chris. but even if i go solo, im taking a 150

It's funny how the math works out on that. When I was in the club in Moline, it actually worked out that the Cardinal RG was the best 'bang for the buck' in regards to speed, seating capacity, etc. Fortunately for me, it was also the most fun to fly. Not sure about that now, though, seems like rental rates have been going through the roof lately!

 

[tonycondon]

It's funny how the math works out on that. When I was in the club in Moline, it actually worked out that the Cardinal RG was the best 'bang for the buck' in regards to speed, seating capacity, etc. Fortunately for me, it was also the most fun to fly. Not sure about that now, though, seems like rental rates have been going through the roof lately!

yea well if the Arrow was a little faster it would make the difference. the 182RG beats the 172s at haps for miles/dollar so when i want to go places i always take it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I am sure that is how the FAA views it, and the insurance companies too. But in normal english, if the landing gear retract mechanism is not working the landing gear is not "retractable" until the mechanism is repaired.

Really? What dialect of English is that? Sounds like the ancient "IWantToGetAwayWithSomehtingAndWillTwistTheWordsToFit" dialect.

 

[nosehair]

Really? What dialect of English is that? Sounds like the ancient "IWantToGetAwayWithSomehtingAndWillTwistTheWordsToFit" dialect.

No, Mark, he is reading the regulation in pure form, or nomal english as he says; which is WITHOUT the understanding that these words in aviation regulatory language have a special meaning. If you understand that the endorsements apply to the aircraft as certified, then the words "retractable landing gear" have a different meaning.

If there were no certification of aircraft or pilots, and getting checked out in a retractable landing gear airplane was seen as a proficiency item only, then it is logical to think that flying a "retractable" with the gear locked into place would not require a checkout.

 

[gprellwitz]

I purposely do NOT do a gumps check on a fixed, because I do not want to gt into the habit of just going through the motions of saying U without actually doing anything.

IN a fixed/fixed I use FMS - fuel, mixture, switches/seats. That way if/when I upgrade to a retract, I don't go through the routine of doing nothing when I get to the critical stage, law of primacy and all...

Right. Law of primacy. You'll do an FMS check in the retract!

We use "U" to mean "under the airplane." Fixed and welded sometimes. Other times we check the cowl flaps, depending on the plane.

 

[Henning]

I say "gear down and locked" in the retracts, and "gear down and welded" in the fixed gear planes, and "gear up for water landing" or "gear down for runway landing" in the amphibs .

Same here.

 

[Henning]

maybe Chris. but even if i go solo, im taking a 150

If you're building time, that's fine (although after so many 150 hrs, employers may give more consideration to another applicant with same TT but more complex), but if you are going places, it's often cheaper to get the faster more expensive plane and use it for less time.

 

[jesse]

If you're building time, that's fine (although after so many 150 hrs, employers may give more consideration to another applicant with same TT but more complex), but if you are going places, it's often cheaper to get the faster more expensive plane and use it for less time.

He already ran the math:

the arrow is slow enough that the 150 works out to be the cheapest per mile so thats what I usually fly.

DA-20 is way cheaper per mile for me then a 172 which is why I always fly it.

 

[tonycondon]

If you're building time, that's fine (although after so many 150 hrs, employers may give more consideration to another applicant with same TT but more complex), but if you are going places, it's often cheaper to get the faster more expensive plane and use it for less time.

yep like i said, arrow is just not fast enough relatively for the nearly double price increase. im not on a quest to maximize complex time, i just want cheap travel at this point.

flying to Chips a month ago the arrow woulda been at least 100 bucks more than a 150. plus i woulda had to get checked out.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No, Mark, he is reading the regulation in pure form, or nomal english as he says; which is WITHOUT the understanding that these words in aviation regulatory language have a special meaning. If you understand that the endorsements apply to the aircraft as certified, then the words "retractable landing gear" have a different meaning.

I'm just screwing around with this but I don't think that this involves some hidden regulatory meaning.

The normal English words are

"an airplane that has a retractable landing gear..."

Let's change it to

"a person that has glasses..."

If I'm wearing glasses that are broken or with the lenses covered with tape to black them out, I'm wearing broken glasses or glasses covered with tape; I'm not suddenly not wearing glasses at all.

I guess the "confusion" is whether

"retractable landing gear..."

means

(1) landing gear, of whatever design, that is capable of being retracted right now (like the disabled gear in the OP's post or a 182 after a =very= hard landing) ;

(2) a landing gear system that is designed for retraction

Me, just on normal English, I'd go with (2). I'd bet that if you ran the question on a non-aviation board, that's the answer you'd get.

There's plenty of "terms of art" and Regulese in aviation, both in and out of the FAR, but I really don't think this is one of the examples.

 

[poadeleted20]

The normal English words are:
"an airplane that has a retractable landing gear..."

Please note the phrase "a retractable landing gear" -- a VariEze on which only the nose gear retracts is complex if it also has a constant speed prop.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Mark and Ron,

I get it. All I am saying is in other situations, you say that something must be ****able to qualify for something, and if it can't be done it does not qualify. Retractable in common usage means it can be retracted. Not that it should be retractable, but does not retract. You tell me a retractable landing gear that is inop is still retractable. Ok. I believe you. But if it is still retractable, how come the plane is not airworthy?

I understand that the aircraft is still considered complex even with an inop retraction system, and is actually a not-airworthy complex. I am still doubtful that actually means an inop retraction system is still a retractable landing gear. It is not retractable. That is just not the issue. The issue is that it is still complex, and you need to fix it and fly it with a complex endorsement. That does not make the inop gear retractable, even if the inop gear was designed for retraction. "Designed for retraction" and "retractable" mean two very different things.

As for the "person that has glasses" example: Ok you are required to have glasses to drive or fly. You have glasses, but the lenses are broken and all you have are the bent frames and the lense pieces. You have the glasses, but are you legal to fly? Of course not. You need functional glasses to meet the criteria, and THAT is the equivalent situation to an inop retraction system. It needs to be functional to be retractable; but again, that is not the real issue with the complex endorsement requirement.

And Ron, I understand the FAA interprets this in its own way. Fine by me. Not trying to say it means something else.

And Mark, I am focused on "retractable" and asking "does it retract". I get it. The FAA (and you) interpret it different. But in common usage other than aviation , retractable would mean it retracts.

 

[poadeleted20]

Dwight:

Per Administrator v. Merrell and NTSB, 190 F. 3d 571,577 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the FAR's mean what the FAA says they do, not how they read to us. That's just the way it is.

Ron

 

[gismo]

terry, the idea is that after countless hours of sitting in your 172 and saying "gear down" and having *nothing* change on the aircraft i.e. pitch attitude, configuration etc. that you will not pay attention to those important cues when actually flying a rectractable gear aircraft. you will say "gear down" and the airplane will keep flying the way it always has been, and that will be normal to you.

A friend of mine had a CompAir experimental he had built. When he wanted to "upgrade" his PPL to a Commercial certificate he had the bright idea of adding a switch and three lights on the panel for complex training". Then he went one better by adding the retractable landing gear from a model airplane so there were actual "wheels" that retracted. He tried to get a DE to buy into the idea for a checkride but there was no sale.

 

[poadeleted20]

A friend of mine had a CompAir experimental he had built. When he wanted to "upgrade" his PPL to a Commercial certificate he had the bright idea of adding a switch and three lights on the panel for complex training". Then he went one better by adding the retractable landing gear from a model airplane so there were actual "wheels" that retracted. He tried to get a DE to buy into the idea for a checkride but there was no sale.

Actually, Diamond Aircraft has been in discussions with the FAA for a couple of years on the idea of building a version of the CS-prop DA-40 for "complex" training for Commercial and CFI. The aircraft would incorporate a gear handle and lights, and to make it feel like the gear is going up and down, small drag brakes operated by the "gear handle." It would include a warning horn triggered by gear up/low power, and some sort of device to scream if you land with the gear handle up. The beauty of the system is that it would train as a complex but be insured as a fixed gear. The FAA is thinking about it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark and Ron,

I get it. All I am saying is in other situations, you say that something must be ****able to qualify for something, and if it can't be done it does not qualify. Retractable in common usage means it can be retracted.

I am just saying that "retractable landing gear" refers to type of landing gear system.

You are focusing on one word "retractable" and asking, 'is it retractable right now." I am suggesting that ,even in common English, you need to focus on the phrase "retractable landing gear" as describing a system and ask whether such a system is on the aircraft.

I can't remember them right now, but I recall that people (not pilots or lawyers) would go through a series of identical phrases whose meaning changed completely depending on which word in the phrase is being emphasized. That's sort of what we're dealing with here.

 

[KennyFlys]

Actually, Diamond Aircraft has been in discussions with the FAA for a couple of years on the idea of building a version of the CS-prop DA-40 for "complex" training for Commercial and CFI. The aircraft would incorporate a gear handle and lights, and to make it feel like the gear is going up and down, small drag brakes operated by the "gear handle." It would include a warning horn triggered by gear up/low power, and some sort of device to scream if you land with the gear handle up. The beauty of the system is that it would train as a complex but be insured as a fixed gear. The FAA is thinking about it.

That seems like the absolutely only safe way to incorporate such a system. There needs to be the indicators and warnings to adapt to. And, a physical effect similar to drag from the gear wouldn't be so bad, either.

Realism is a great teacher. I know a CFI who just failed his interview with an airline after becoming disoriented in a full-motion simulator. It was a surprise to him after sending up a half dozen students this past year.

I think one caveat would be if the aircraft was ever resold as a non-training aircraft, those features should be disabled or removed as part of the certification outside of a non-training environment. It's outside of the non-training environment where they would more likely be ignored and establish a complacency that transfers to other aircraft. I might be off on this but it's just a thought that came to mind.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think one caveat would be if the aircraft was ever resold as a non-training aircraft, those features should be disabled or removed as part of the certification outside of a non-training environment.

I can't see anyone buying one of these if they're not planning to use it as a trainer -- too much expense for maintaining the extra systems plus the weight penalty (the actuators and structure will have to eat some payload).

 

[ChadScott]

This is an odd question. If you have a complex aircraft for sale, but a buyer does not have the complex endorsement, can the seller have the gear retract system disabled so it is effectively a fixed gear plane for the purpose of the buyer getting the plane home? At the cost of some speed and fuel, could this get the plane moved legally without a complex endorsement?

Getting a complex endorsement is maybe 10 hours tops... disabling the gear would cost way more than just going up with a CFI if it was even possible.