Lessons learned after getting my complex endorsement

Caramon13 said:
Wasn't a TFR, but Tampa approach kept me at 4,000 until about 2 miles from the field then switched me over to tower at KSRQ. That was fun :).
Click to expand...

I used to fly into KSQL(San Carlos) regularly from the east. VFR you're under the approach corridor to KSFO at about 1499 ft, so no big deal. IFR you're above it, so for the visual approach ATC usually drops you into midfield on the downwind at about 3000 ft. Luckily KSQL has a pretty wide pattern normally so it really wasn't much of a problem, but it was still fun.


MauleSkinner said:
Back in the "good old days" we used to go to idle in the Falcon 10 at 5000 ft over KMSP to land on 14 at KSTP. Energy and drag (52 degrees of flaps worth) management is a wonderful thing!
Click to expand...
Oh yea, that approach would have been very different in something like a Cirrus, especially if it didn't have speed brakes. The Mooney flaps are decent, but the gear is a wonderful drag source.
 
You guys seem to be arguing technique. If it works for you, roll with it. In aviation there is usually more than one way to get something done.
 
steingar said:
Pull them back out suddenly at the wrong moment and you're likely to regret it.
Click to expand...

Do anything suddenly at the wrong moment you're likely to regret it. There is no "need" to leave flaps in anymore than there is a "need" to leave the power in, because if you reduce it to idle at the wrong moment you'd regret that too.
 
denverpilot said:
I think what @midlifeflyer was trying to get across was FAST changes of power destabilize any aircraft, but the 182 specifically tends to be nose-heavy, so if you're already slow and there's therefore, little airflow over the nice big elevator, the nose tends to drop too quickly for most people to stop it without practice.
Click to expand...
exactly. If I recall correctly, that damage is a pretty common problem, well known to flight schools which rent and teach in 182s, and a relatively common issue discovered in a prebuy.
 
Mistake Not... said:
First thing I "learned" after my complex endorsement is that they'll climb better with the gear up, and if they're not performing as they usually do, check the gear and flaps...
Click to expand...
Flying a complex plane also reinforces checklist usage. At least for me it did.
 
Caramon13 said:
I said reduce power in the flareout. Or roundout if you prefer. If you are carrying power at some point you have to chop it or idle it. The "normal" time to do that is during roundout, which reduces speed along with AoA increase and a couple other factors.

Don't reduce power and you're doing a soft landing perhaps. Chop it from pattern altitude and glide it in isn't "normal". It can be argued that it's stable, but I disagree with that. No power = no ability to adjust or stabilize the approach BEYOND a certain point. Energy manage all you want, but if you need power to stabilize and you don't have it..it ain't stabilized.
Click to expand...

You’d better let the FAA know, because every single applicant for a Commercial rating is required to fly the power off 180 accuracy landing. ACS item CA.IV.M.K1, the very top item required to be evaluated by the examiner in the power off 180 accuracy landing, is:

“The applicant demonstrates understanding of: A stabilized approach. To include energy management concepts.”

If you can’t manage approach path and energy to *create* a stabilized approach? Don’t expect to be handed a new Temporary Airman Certificate at the end of the checkride. Expect to be asked if you’d like to continue after being informed you didn’t meet the standard.

Feel free to write to the FAA and tell them the requirement for the Certificate isn’t possible.

In the limitations appendix of the ACS, the examiner may also at their discretion, combine the steep spiral with the power off 180 accuracy landing. They consider that a “stabilized approach” also, apparently... or you’d fail the demonstration.
 
dmspilot said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Usually if they’re extended because you’re attempting to slow, you’ll then slow below the aircraft’s stall speed with them retracted. Retracting then would be rather “entertaining”.
 
denverpilot said:
...the very top item required to be evaluated by the examiner in the power off 180 accuracy landing, is:

“The applicant demonstrates understanding of: A stabilized approach. To include energy management concepts.”
Click to expand...

Somebody needs to let the FAA know that you cannot do a stabilized approach with power off. :rolleyes:
 
BrianNC said:
Somebody needs to let the FAA know that you cannot do a stabilized approach with power off. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Out of a power off steep spiral, even! ;)

That was my point. :)

It’s fun to mess with the “stabilized approach” people who think (from bad training about what the word “stabilized” means) that a “stabilized approach” has to be an airliner glidepath in a Cessna or Piper.

I can “stabilize” an approach in a full rudder slip in a Citabria. It isn’t going to be a 3 degree glidepath, but it’ll be plenty “stabilized”. And I’ll hit my spot.

A little sailplane time will help anyone get over their misconceptions about power and landings. Highly recommended. “Spoilers just froze. You don’t have them anymore. They’re stuck where they’re at. Land it on your spot.”
 
denverpilot said:
You’d better let the FAA know, because every single applicant for a Commercial rating is required to fly the power off 180 accuracy landing. ACS item CA.IV.M.K1, the very top item required to be evaluated by the examiner in the power off 180 accuracy landing, is:

“The applicant demonstrates understanding of: A stabilized approach. To include energy management concepts.”

If you can’t manage approach path and energy to *create* a stabilized approach? Don’t expect to be handed a new Temporary Airman Certificate at the end of the checkride. Expect to be asked if you’d like to continue after being informed you didn’t meet the standard.

Feel free to write to the FAA and tell them the requirement for the Certificate isn’t possible.

In the limitations appendix of the ACS, the examiner may also at their discretion, combine the steep spiral with the power off 180 accuracy landing. They consider that a “stabilized approach” also, apparently... or you’d fail the demonstration.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks!
 
Kritchlow said:
You guys seem to be arguing technique. If it works for you, roll with it. In aviation there is usually more than one way to get something done.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but this is what makes POA the great resource it is. I love to read other peoples technique and I always seem to learn a few things in threads like this.

All, continue arguing and I'll keep reading and pick up a trick or 2 in between the insults :)
 
neilw2 said:
Totally agree, but this is what makes POA the great resource it is. I love to read other peoples technique and I always seem to learn a few things in threads like this.

All, continue arguing and I'll keep reading and pick up a trick or 2 in between the insults :)
Click to expand...

I don't think there have been any insults, more just arguing about conflicting language in numerous articles. I find it curious that in one place something is implied as true and then they go and contradict themselves in 4 other places. That's the government for you I guess...who would expect anything different?
 
Caramon13 said:
I don't think there have been any insults, more just arguing about conflicting language in numerous articles. I find it curious that in one place something is implied as true and then they go and contradict themselves in 4 other places. That's the government for you I guess...who would expect anything different?
Click to expand...
I’m curious what you are referring to in terms of this subject.
 
denverpilot said:
Anyone who's ever done a Commercial rating has pulled the power at pattern altitude, abeam the numbers, and never put it back in, all the way to touchdown, lots and lots and lots of times. ;)

Your instructor has done it. Have them show you one. ;) Try a couple.

It's both fun and educational about energy management... of a brick.. with the landing gear extended just to give you the joy of a little more drag. :)

Thus... "You don't need power to land either one."
Click to expand...
That only works if you're #1 in the pattern. It's also
An emergency maneuver. I carry a little power right to touchdown. A Hershey bar Cherokee is the closet spam can to a space shuttle in glide characteristics and is quite nose heavy with two up front. Not to mention a tiny horiz stab the makes it difficult to keep the nose up in the flare.
 
Last edited:
jordane93 said:
Flying a complex plane also reinforces checklist usage. At least for me it did.
Click to expand...
Me too. The funniest thing is I used to always use a checklist for preflight and never in flight. The preflight checklists for my airplane suck so I don't use them (bad know, I'll develop one when I get around to it). But I use checklists routinely in flight. My aircraft is fairly busy in takeoff, so I always brief the takeoff before I put in the power. And I always deal with gear and flaps well away from the airport, usually before I hit downwind. I'm a little unusual in this regard, but I figure the landing pattern is where you look for other aircraft, not where you fiddle with your own.
 
denverpilot said:
Usually if they’re extended because you’re attempting to slow, you’ll then slow below the aircraft’s stall speed with them retracted.
Click to expand...

Never seen that in years of watching other people fly, some of them rather poorly. So no, the flaps will not "usually" slow you below Vs1.

Retracting then would be rather “entertaining”.
Click to expand...

Usually aircraft have more than the two flap positions of "extended" and "retracted".
 
dmspilot said:
Usually aircraft have more than the two flap positions of "extended" and "retracted".
Click to expand...
Mine are hydraulic, and actuated with a pump. You pull a knob to bring them back in. No detents or anything. There's a nice indicator on the floor that'll show you the flap position if you're too busy to look at them outside.
 
denverpilot said:
You’d better let the FAA know, because every single applicant for a Commercial rating is required to fly the power off 180 accuracy landing. ACS item CA.IV.M.K1, the very top item required to be evaluated by the examiner in the power off 180 accuracy landing, is:

“The applicant demonstrates understanding of: A stabilized approach. To include energy management concepts.”

If you can’t manage approach path and energy to *create* a stabilized approach? Don’t expect to be handed a new Temporary Airman Certificate at the end of the checkride. Expect to be asked if you’d like to continue after being informed you didn’t meet the standard.

Feel free to write to the FAA and tell them the requirement for the Certificate isn’t possible.

In the limitations appendix of the ACS, the examiner may also at their discretion, combine the steep spiral with the power off 180 accuracy landing. They consider that a “stabilized approach” also, apparently... or you’d fail the demonstration.
Click to expand...
Why are you harping on the commercial requirements? Who flies like that normally? Cropdusters and rag flyers...
 
paflyer said:
Try a 3 deg glideslope w/o power...
Click to expand...

Stabilized or not, you're not flying a three-degree glideslope without a lot of power. The FAA doesn't hold that a three degree glideslope is optimal however. In fact, it is clear from the AFH that you want to vary your glideslope with the situation. The "stabilized" issue is that once you decide on what you want, you want to maintain a reasonably stable glidepath and airspeed.
 
flyingron said:
Stabilized or not, you're not flying a three-degree glideslope without a lot of power. The FAA doesn't hold that a three degree glideslope is optimal however. In fact, it is clear from the AFH that you want to vary your glideslope with the situation. The "stabilized" issue is that once you decide on what you want, you want to maintain a reasonably stable glidepath and airspeed.
Click to expand...
How many ILS have something greater than 3 deg?
 
paflyer said:
How many ILS have something greater than 3 deg?
Click to expand...

Who says we're flying the ILS? How many short fields have ILSs? How many light airplanes ever fly ILSs (I bet it's a small fraction of the operations).
 
flyingron said:
Stabilized or not, you're not flying a three-degree glideslope without a lot of power. The FAA doesn't hold that a three degree glideslope is optimal however. In fact, it is clear from the AFH that you want to vary your glideslope with the situation. The "stabilized" issue is that once you decide on what you want, you want to maintain a reasonably stable glidepath and airspeed.
Click to expand...
My cherokee is about 1600 RPM on the GS.
 
paflyer said:
That only works if you're #1 in the pattern. It's also
An emergency maneuver. I carry a little power right to touchdown. A Hershey bar Cherokee is the closet spam can to a space shuttle in glide characteristics and is quite nose heavy with two up front. Not to mention a tiny horiz stab the makes it difficult to keep the nose up in the flare.
Click to expand...

Not an emergency maneuver. A precision maneuver. And considered stabilized by FAA or you fail them.

Required to be demonstrated by hundreds of people (who all practiced them quite a bit before they demonstrated them for an examiner).

And lots and lots of them done in Hershey bar Pipers and stuff that performs even worse for many many years.

Consider also that FAA considers the ACS (or old PTS) as a *minimum* standard of flying to be a Commercial Airman. One should have a greater mastery of the aircraft even than the minimum.
 
Pilawt said:
KVNY 16R = 3.50°. Final approach fix is over higher terrain at Newhall Pass. In a slick airplane it can be a trick to go down and slow down without dropping the gear at the FAF, eight nm from the runway.
Click to expand...

I always drop the gear at the FAF. Isn't that why it has the lightning bolt symbol?
 
denverpilot said:
Usually if they’re extended because you’re attempting to slow, you’ll then slow below the aircraft’s stall speed with them retracted. Retracting then would be rather “entertaining”.
Click to expand...

I'm confused . . . It's possible, even likely, that if I extend my flaps to slow down, that retracting them will slow me down more? Why bother extending them in the first place, just leave them up and slow down! :p
 
steingar said:
Mine are hydraulic, and actuated with a pump. You pull a knob to bring them back in. No detents or anything. There's a nice indicator on the floor that'll show you the flap position if you're too busy to look at them outside.
Click to expand...

My flaps are electric, and move up and down as long as I'm pushing on the toggle switch. AKA, "infinitely variable." I like that!

Furthermore, the Landing checklist in my Owners Manual says "FLAPS--Landing or as desired," so I use them as another control (with throttle, prop, yoke and rudder) to put the plane where i want it to be on the runway.
 
Hank S said:
My flaps are electric, and move up and down as long as I'm pushing on the toggle switch. AKA, "infinitely variable." I like that!

Furthermore, the Landing checklist in my Owners Manual says "FLAPS--Landing or as desired," so I use them as another control (with throttle, prop, yoke and rudder) to put the plane where i want it to be on the runway.
Click to expand...
I go for full flaps on just about every landing. I haven't flown in conditions sufficiently gusty to need partial flaps. That said, in my aircraft the flaps only lower the stall speed 10 mph. Wha they're really good for is changing the pitch angle so you can actually see the runway over the nose of the aircraft.
 
Hank S said:
I always drop the gear at the FAF. Isn't that why it has the lightning bolt symbol?
Click to expand...

That bolt represents where the most lightning strikes have occurred near airports. Oddly enough just about every airport has the same lightning strike location. Strange.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
I'm confused . . . It's possible, even likely, that if I extend my flaps to slow down, that retracting them will slow me down more? Why bother extending them in the first place, just leave them up and slow down! :p
Click to expand...

I just saw this. Sorry, Tapatalk updated and moved things in their UI and I’ve been too busy to figure out where until today.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Slow down with or without them however you like.

What I was saying is if you slow with the flaps below clean stall speed (but fine with flaps), retracting them THEN might make your day turn worse than just being too fast on final. So generally to avoid that, if the flaps are going down I’m committed to leaving them down.

Especially in the STOL bird where the difference/gap between clean stall speed no flap and stall speed with them at 40 degrees is a big gap. It’ll land indicating (because of calibration error) at something below 40. Clean stall is up in the mid to upper 50s depending on weight.

If I put them down to slow, I’m not likely to retract them in that airplane. It can be done in a big range from Vfe down to mid 50s safely, but below that, it’s going to take a BIG push over of the nose and regaining speed immediately to stay flying. And that’s not good in the flare. :) :) :)
 
Kritchlow said:
You guys seem to be arguing technique.
Click to expand...
Which is a good reminder not to forget about the difference in technology.
Cessna gear is very springy by design vs the Oleo struts on PA-28s which do not spring as much and allow for better arrivals without bouncing all over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top