Slip to landing

That was the way I remembered it Jaybird, although my memory ain't what it used to be :) . I was glad Jeff posted the page for me to re-post here and that it included the P-word as I remembered. He also posted interesting info from the Bill Johnson, Cessna test pilot on what happened if you did slip the older C-172's with full flaps. A little more than just a minor oscillation, apparently, although I never had it happen to me.
Where can I find this?
 
In cessnas the flaps are so efficient that I can't see why one would need to slip if they are truly familiar with the Cessna they are flying. I've owned several older small aircraft without flaps that I slipped constantly. This includes a J3, tcraft, champ , Luscombe F, and a Stearman. The only cessnas I've flown much are a 180 and a 195. The flaps on the 195 were nothing special but the 180 had great flaps which negated the need for any slipping. Great airplane! Same with a 170 B.
 
Rather than steepen the approach nose down, you can do the same nose up. Pull the throttle and pull the nose up until the stall horn is chirping, see what your rate of sink is, you'll be impressed, and you won't scare passengers.

This was back on the first page, but it reminded me of the following report. Careful with that! Read the student pilot's version.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20010920X01973&ntsbno=CHI01LA307&akey=1

On August 30, 2001, at 1130 cdt, a Cessna 182-RG, N9984C, was substantially damaged when the aircraft landed hard at Manhattan Municipal Airport, Manhattan, Kansas while on an instructional flight. The instructor pilot and the student were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and the flight was not on a flight plan. The nose gear broke on the second landing after a bounced landing.

The Instructor Pilot stated "Flight departed on local IFR instructional flight in VMC - review for checkride. We did several approaches and were completing a practice ILS cleared for circle to land 21. ..... (student) was flying and arrived on short final @ 700' AGL, too high for normal approach. I took the yoke to demonstrate minimum safe approach speed as a way to loose (sp) altitude with minimum forward speed. As I discuss and demonstrated the procedure, we descended to land and being able to land w/out a go-around, I did, since there wasn't time to transfer controls back to .... (student) we landed normally, bounced a little and touched down again in a normal attitude. However a bracket had failed allowing the nose gear to retract forward in the normally retracted position. The student had his hand on the throttle at all times and it remained @ idle. Attachments provide additional evidence that this was not an unnecessarily hard landing. CONSIDERATIONS: This incident could have been prevented had I focused more on flying than instructing. This was perhaps not the ideal time to introduce this concept."

The Student Pilot stated: "I let him have the controls and he put the airplane into a nose high attitude with no power. Mr. ....... had a very high angle of attach (sp) and was pulling the control wheel all of the way to his chest. He looked at me and said something about this is what you would do if you lost an engine and are committed to landing in a tight spot. His exact words were 'you have to put it in your gut and work the rudders to keep it from stalling'. He also told me that you can land in an emergency without much forward airspeed. Mr. ....
continued the stall and the stall warning was on full audible tone. It was not intermittent, but a full stall warning bell. I don't know exactly how much time elapsed, but I know that we were in slow flight for a while. We went right past the fixed distance markers (1000 foot) and were over the runway. I honestly thought that Mr. ..... intended on applying full power and was going to put the nose down at some point soon. All of the sudden, Mr. .... began screaming 'power' 'power' 'power'. I reached up with my right hand and pushed the throttle to the firewall. It was too late. We hit extremely hard on the main landing gear with the right main gear touching first. The airplane then bounced up in the air approximately 15-20 feet and nosed over. We were in the air for some time between the landings......The airplane then went into a nose low attitude on the way back to the ground. Mr. .... was still on the control yoke with both hands. The airplane hit hard on the main gear and the next thing I heard was the prop striking the ground. The plane came to final rest on the nose with the tail standing high in the air."
 
In cessnas the flaps are so efficient that I can't see why one would need to slip if they are truly familiar with the Cessna they are flying.

Yep, Cessnas are such crappy slipping airplanes there's almost no point.
 
I might point out that Cessna cannot take your license for doing something they say is "prohibited".

Obviously.

As an instructor, however, I can imagine myself on the stand in either a civil case or an administrative action, and being asked to justify why I taught a procedure that was contrary to the manufacturer's recommendations, cautions, warnings, or prohibitions.

"Mr. B, were you aware that the Cirrus POH calls for only full flap landings in a "CAUTION"?"

"Yes, sir".

"And yet you taught my client to use partial flaps in crosswinds, is that correct?"

"Yes, sir".

"Would you please list the engineering credentials you have that made you think you knew better than the manufacturer how to land their planes?"

And so on.

In general, it's hard to go wrong respecting suggestion or cautions or whatever in a plane's POH. One should have very clear and articulable reasons to operate "outside the book" and be prepared to defend those reasons if necessary.
 
Last edited:
In general, it's hard to go wrong respecting suggestion or cautions or whatever in a plane's POH. One should have very clear and articulable reasons to operate "outside the book" and be prepared to defend those reasons if necessary.
I agree. However, on the Cessna flap issue, I don't think I'd have any problem doing that, and I could come up with a lot of safety reasons why one should be using flaps and slipping when landing a 172 in a crosswind.

OTOH, I know of a number of good reasons not to land a Cirrus (especially a short-leg one) with partial flaps, even without the POH telling me not to do that. ;)
 
There's also a difference between doing something in your own airplane that you think is safe that the manufacturer doesn't recommend, and *teaching* it to student pilots.
 
There's also a difference between doing something in your own airplane that you think is safe that the manufacturer doesn't recommend, and *teaching* it to student pilots.
I agree to a point, but you have to understand when the lawyers are writing the POH instead of the engineers and pilots. In particular, I teach a lot slower final approach in 172's than Cessna recommends because the speed they recommend (65-70 KIAS regardless of weight or flap setting) leads directly to landing problems like ballooning and porpoising, and those lead to landing accidents. After 45 years of flying 172's, and 40 years of instructing in 172's, I'll stick with the 1.3 Vs0 the FAA recommends over the 1.5 Vs0 Cessna recommends, and I'm not worried about defending that position before the FAA or any court in the land.
 
There's also a difference between doing something in your own airplane that you think is safe that the manufacturer doesn't recommend, and *teaching* it to student pilots.

There's also a difference in understanding what is happening and following rote dogma. Teaching dogma never has a positive outcome.
 
because the speed they recommend (65-70 KIAS regardless of weight or flap setting) leads directly to landing problems like ballooning and porpoising, and those lead to landing accidents.
What manuals are you reading? Here's my '78 172N manual (2300 lb MGW), and the current 172S (2550 lb MGW) ...
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.49.17 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.49.17 AM.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 10
  • Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.50.47 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.50.47 AM.png
    70.2 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
I agree to a point, but you have to understand when the lawyers are writing the POH instead of the engineers and pilots. In particular, I teach a lot slower final approach in 172's than Cessna recommends because the speed they recommend (65-70 KIAS regardless of weight or flap setting) leads directly to landing problems like ballooning and porpoising, and those lead to landing accidents. After 45 years of flying 172's, and 40 years of instructing in 172's, I'll stick with the 1.3 Vs0 the FAA recommends over the 1.5 Vs0 Cessna recommends, and I'm not worried about defending that position before the FAA or any court in the land.

Sure...but if the manual said 1.3Vso and your experience led you to the conclusion that 1.1Vso gave much better results in a particular type, you might use that speed when flying yourself in that airplane, but still teach 1.3Vso to your students since its more in line with generalized doctrine and gives better safety margins.
 
Sure...but if the manual said 1.3Vso and your experience led you to the conclusion that 1.1Vso gave much better results in a particular type, you might use that speed when flying yourself in that airplane, but still teach 1.3Vso to your students since its more in line with generalized doctrine and gives better safety margins.
I'm not seeing me flying approaches at 1.1Vs0 in any plane with which I'm familiar -- just too little stall margin.
 
Back
Top