Full flap/specialty landings - 172

[Cessna driver]

Thx for the inputs guys.

[Colonel Sanders]

I am getting a 182 rg with 40 degree flap capability. I would like to train on it, to master short and soft. Any thoughts about the benefit of the last 10 degrees?

Ok. Brief memo on the use of flaps in light singles.

The larger aircraft that I fly always use full flap for
every landing. I cannot imagine landing without
full flap in the L39, for example.

Don't confuse a light single with a jet.

I think of a light single as having 3 flap positions:

1) up
2) 15 degrees
3) full (30, 35, 40, whatever)

Normally you would use #1 for takeoff with an
underpowered single. However, if it has some
balls (eg C182) then you can use #2 for takeoff,
because it produces more lift at the cost of more
drag. However because you have lots of thrust
you don't care.

Now for position #3. Check your POH and see
what the stall speed is for position #2 vs #3. I
will bet they will be almost identical. What does
this mean?

It means that #3 only creates extra drag as
opposed to #2. When would you need that?
Well, theoretically, only when you need to approach
over an obstacle so incredibly steep, that even
with the power off, the airspeed increases.

So, if you don't approach over an incredibly
steep obstacle, you can use #2 for landing in
a light single.


tl;dr Screw 40 flap. With the tiny tires on a
182RG you aren't going to be landing anywhere
except a 3,000 foot paved runway, anyways.

[Cessna driver]

I preferred 40 degrees. The 172s i fly now are only up to 30.

[iflyforpie]

60 knots sounds too fast, even for 30 degrees. With my 172 with three people in it, I go down to 55 knots on final. If it is just me, 50 knots no problem. This is with 40 flap mind you, but as CS said, the difference between 30 and 40 is mostly drag. 30 on the gauge on my plane actually reads 25 on an inclinometer and it is just as stable at low speeds. Your 172 clean should be as happy as a pig in shite at 45 with the stall warning going off in slow flight.... so you sure aren't going to fall out of the sky at 55 dirty with two people.

The lower speed prevents float and ballooning and requires you to raise the nose higher to arrest the descent. Then it is just the simple exercise of preventing the aircraft from landing by gradually adding back pressure. If you are too high and the stall warning goes off or you get that sinking feeling, add a smidgen of power to smooth it out.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Ifly, just want to let you know you are one of the few pilots who has figured out the best job in aviation.

If you were to decide to move into bigger faster airplanes all that would do for you is take you further away from home for longer periods.

The magenta line gets real boring real fast.

Will be going over to Calgary in the motorhome come spring and will drop by and meet you.

. E.

[iflyforpie]

Thanks .. Sometimes I wonder if I am missing something, but statements like that confirm that I am not. Some float or rotary time is what I lust for the most these days.... but not at the expense of a life outside of aviation.

I'll look forward to your visit.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here is another real plus to flying small airplanes and being home every night.

You can talk to your shiney new jet that you have parked for the night in some strange city somewhere on the planet......but the conversation will be lonely.

[FlyYukon]

What I find funny about this topic is that throughout training for my PPL, a normal landing is full flap (Cessna 150). I forget it if was 30 or 40 degrees (most likely 30), but I carried that over to the 172 (with 40) once the school 'upgraded'.

When I went down to ZBB to finish off my CPL, full flap landings were the oddball - and I had to adjust to busing flapless be the 'normal'. I still consider full flap normal - unless the situation decides otherwise i.e. stiff crosswind.

What should be taught, in my opinion, is the real world scenarios as the 'normal' procedures. For example:

Full flap landings are what you most likely will be doing "in the bush", as well as flying on lower visibility days, on grass/gravel (another normal here in the Yukon), and crosswinds.

Again in ZBB I would request to go fly circuits etc. on the crappier days as I knew that was closer to real world experience. Needless to say, the circuits were pretty empty on those days - even at ZBB.

So, to keep this on topic - as a non-instructor - I would suggest starting a students training with full flaps, and then flapless landings will be a breeze,

. - your thoughts?

[Colonel Sanders]

starting a students training with full flaps

Let's say you are CFI. Your fleet is all 172's
but some are 30 max flap and some are 40
max flap. Because of the booking system
students randomly get aircraft assigned to
them every flight

Would you still have them use full flap every
landing, with them sometimes getting 30,
and sometimes getting 40?

What about overshoots with full flap? Would
increased density altitude in the summer make
a difference?

And as you pointed out, what about crosswinds?

What flap settings would you recommend, for what
components? Would it be something like max
flap for no crosswind, 30 flap for 5 knots, 20 flap
for 10 knots, 10 flap for 15 knots, and no flap for
20 knots of direct crosswind component? Or
would it be something more complicated?

Does all of this decrease workload and increase
safety for a pre-solo student?

PS Talk to me about full flap in a DHC-2. And
talk to me about using full flap in a Cub, Champ
or T-craft.

[Old Dog Flying]

[quote="

Again in ZBB I would request to go fly circuits etc. on the crappier days as I knew that was closer to real world experience. Needless to say, the circuits were pretty empty on those days - even at ZBB.

So, to keep this on topic - as a non-instructor - I would suggest starting a students training with full flaps, and then flapless landings will be a breeze,

. - your thoughts?[/quote]

This has come up so many times in the past..flap/flapless...and at ZBB one school in particular made it a policy to NOT even mention flaps until after the student went solo then only a bit of fear mongering dual. That school had a terrible accident rate from students/renters/instructors having runway EXcursions..off the end.

I watched numerous students sent solo who tried despirately to use only the last bit of runway to land on. I saw the results of a new Cl4 instructor checking out a 900 hr renter in a C172 who touched down on a grass runway with only 400 feet of runway remaining then attempted a go around over obsticals..bushes, trees, power lines and a barn. The results..no injuries except to the aircraft, power lines, bushes and barn.

Thus grass runways were banned as were runways under 3000' after a person from the same FTU went off the end of the runway at Langley (2000') damaging the aircraft. In both of these cases the pilot attempted to land a C172 with 10* of flap..too fast and no attempt to overshoot while there was still plenty of time.

I was told by the CFI of the school that flap usage was dangerous and only super beings such as military students should ever use them. I could rant on about this subject but the point is...teach the use of flaps (if the aircraft has them) from the very beginning and do teach the student from the beginning to fly the aircraft with precission..the "Good Enough" syndrome is BS

Barney..retired after 40 years of instructing.
Time for another cuppa coffee

[iflyforpie]

One of the most ridiculous statements I heard was that flaps were like the 'black keys' on the piano, and of course piano students learn everything in C major before progressing to other scales which require black keys to use.

To me, flaps make things easier. The increase in coefficient of lift allows for lower safe approach speeds. The drag allows for easier airspeed control on final. The drag also reduces the potential for float since any excess energy is bled off much faster. There's a reason why flapless landings on larger aircraft are an emergency procedure.... it's just not quite as extreme on a trainer.

After I got into a groove with full flap landings in the 172 full of passengers, I decide to try a flapless landing by myself. It was a disaster.... well, it would have been if I had decided to use the remaining 1500 feet of the runway to land like I normally do rather than the full 3000. I must have floated a good thousand feet!

I worked on it some more, using side slips to keep airspeed and descent angle in check and managed to get good results.... but it's a lot harder for me than using flaps.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

. - your thoughts?

Barney saved me a whole lot of typing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Cessna

A full flap landing in a Cessna is harder for a low time pilot than a partial flap landing. This is because the airplane has a nose down attitude in level flight and high pitch forces in the flare as well as being more prone to ballooning. For this reason I start students off with 20 deg flap landings and when they get OK at those introduce more and less flap.

But if a student is having trouble with full flap landings the IMO issue is not how much flap is being used, it is a problem with the fundamentals of landing.

Like :

- Holding a pitch attitude that will give the correct approach speed.

- Holding the pitch attitude steady. That is the nose is continually pitching up and down a sure sign he/she is chasing the ASI.

- has aircraft been properly trimmed.

- Is the aircraft established on the proper flight path. There should be little to no power changes on final, just a nice slide down to the touchdown point.

- Is the aircraft touching down at the chosen point or just hitting the runway at some random point ?

- is the flare started at the correct height ?

- Is there a nice steady pitch up to the landing attitude or is the stick being pumped back and forth in the flare, something that just invites a nose wheel first touchdown and/or a big balloon.

- Finally is the aircraft consistently touching down in the proper tail low attiude with the nose wheel well clear of the runway ?

In your case I bet the student is not having trouble with full flap landings, he/she is having trouble with all landings.

I would also suggest that you sit down with your CFI and ask why you are the max weight landing speed in a light airplane. Like I said earlier 55 kts works better and in fact provides the same margin above stall at 2 up and half tanks as 60 kts does for an airplane at max weight.

BTW the best way to keep students from chasing the airspeed on final (or any other time, for that matter) is to cover the ASI. It is amazing how the airplane will settle down for the student when they stop chasing airspeed.

[LousyFisherman]

Cessna
A full flap landing in a Cessna is harder for a low time pilot than a partial flap landing.

+1
I was taught the no flap landing first. I think the first landings should be with 20 degree flaps.
The energy management is easier allowing the student to progress faster.

I agree practicing short/soft/obstacle TOs and landings on pavement with no obstacle is a waste.

Pavement I usually use no flaps and slip to lose energy.
Bush strips, which are all 3000' here, I usually use 20 degrees and a fairly fast approach to give me the most options if wind shear occurs.
2000' feet with no obstacles is about the shortest I'll go into. Book says it takes me 1600 to get off pavement.

LF

[photofly]

One of the most ridiculous statements I heard was that flaps were like the 'black keys' on the piano, and of course piano students learn everything in C major before progressing to other scales which require black keys to use.

At the risk of a diversion, C major is one of the hardest keys to play in properly: even scales in C major are very difficult.

I wonder if there's a piano forum where they debate this kind of thing, and where they use landing with and without flaps as a metaphor for learning the piano?

[Colonel Sanders]

[iflyforpie]

Really? I always thought that C major and its companion A minor were the easiest because you don't have to remember which black keys to use. As a guitarist, I always heard the most complaints from keyboardists about E major because of all the sharps in it.

Unfortunately, music is much more universal than aviation so I doubt they use any aviation analogies when debating.

[photofly]

I only learned piano for a year or so; but from what I remember it took only about three weeks to learn which notes are in which keys. However to learn to play even scales, in all of them, without "thumping" the thumb or having awkward pauses as the thumb goes under or over is a lifetime's work. C major is particularly difficult because all the notes are the same distance from the wrist so the hand position is awkward.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_major) that was Chopin's opinion; it's what my piano teacher told me too.

As a guitarist, I always heard the most complaints from keyboardists about E major because of all the sharps in it.

Echoing what my teacher told me (her father was a guitarist, so she had some experience) - keyboards are better suited to the "flat" keys - F major, B flat major, E flat major, A flat major etc, while guitars are better suited to the "sharp" keys - D major, A major, E major etc. Not because of the number of black keys but because of where they fall in the scale.

[Cessna driver]

This is supposed to be about aviation...not playing piano

[trey kule]

What were the designers at Cessna thinking? Complicating the wing and adding extra expense by putting flaps on the plane..And it was not even an add on option.. Stupid useless flaps.

Has aviation training become so dumbed down now that learning how to land with flaps is advanced training?

Just a couple of thoughts about the posts...someone asked about light singles.. Generalizing to all light singles from a 172 might just get you in trouble one day..CS mentioned the Beaver...Full flap landings are interesting.
And IIRC, the flaps on a C140 do diddly (it has been several decades so maybe it was not the 140)

The second thing was a post talking about real world scenarios..forget the scenarios..Teach the student how to fly the plane. This is not an X-box game.

I did hear about an outfit at ZBB that flew Duchesses and told thier IF students not to use them so as to keep things simple. A brilliant piece of instructing... Then the poor sods get a job and climb in a plane with a cranky old guy like me and end up forgetting to put the flaps down on a plane where a flapless landing is almost an emergency..and then have to be trained as to when to add flaps at different parts of the approach because they have never had to think about it before.. it is very hard on the back of their heads..

Someone who has a C172 POH.. Is a normal landing flapless? If it is not why are people teaching it as primary procedure? Landing with flaps, (even the 40 deg on the old ones) is just not that big a deal in a 172.
And nothing a ppl student should not be able to master quickly.

[white_knuckle_flyer]

Three separate quoted passages:

To me, flaps make things easier. The drag allows for easier airspeed control on final. The drag also reduces the potential for float since any excess energy is bled off much faster.

The lower speed prevents float and ballooning and requires you to raise the nose higher to arrest the descent

A full flap landing in a Cessna is harder for a low time pilot than a partial flap landing. This is because the airplane has a nose down attitude in level flight and high pitch forces in the flare as well as being more prone to ballooning.

The first two seem in agreement with each other, in that both suggest a negative correlation between degree of flaps and potential for floating/ballooning, but then the third statement, or at least my interpretation of it, is suggesting the opposite ~ more flap = more ballooning potential.

Is there a disconnect here, or is it another one of those frustrating cases of "Here's the rule, now here's the exception" or "Here's the rule, now here are the parameters within which that rule is in effect" ?

[trey kule]

Without further getting into this silly discussion, the third part is not a disconnect..It gives a comparision of full flap to less that full flap settings. Maybe you have to read more than the tweetable first part.
.I expect the thinking is that a full flap landing is harder than landing with less than full flaps. Definitely super special pilot technique needed here. I have to go from memory.. I once owned a 172 ... 30 years ago.But unless you have excessive speed which is hard to do with full flaps, ballooning is not an issue, but raising the nose due to the limited elevator authority can be an issue on a power off steep approach with full flaps..sometimes , as someone posted, a little touch of power to give you the elevator authority to nicely put the plane in the landing attitude..Read "touch"..not go to full power and blindly pull back on the control column..

If student pilots were actually taught attitudes and movements properly, and then the lesson was reinforced during slow flight training I dont think we would be talking about these problems. It is just so simple..You put the plane in the attitude you want and use what ever control imputs are necessary to keep it there...Not mindlessly just pull back on the control column.. .

Here is a thought..If any pilot cannot land a C172 with full flaps they should not be given a pilots license.
And any instructor who needs to make a special lesson plan to teach full flap landings in a 172 should have their instructor rating taken away..

We should be disucssing when to use full or partial flaps ( ie, wind considerations, required steep approach). Instead we are talking about student difficulty. And as usual , some FTU discussion that is somehow safer to land a 172 flaps up.. How this type of thinking seeps into an FTU's thinking is beyond me..I guess if you say the "S" word no one would dare to speak up and say idiots...
I still would like to have someone actually pick up a C172 POH and see what it says about landing the plane...Not what it can do, (ie..zero to 30 or 40), but what is to be used in normal circumstances.

[Colonel Sanders]

I still would like to have someone actually pick up a C172 POH and see what it says about landing the plane

There are many different models of 172 but I have
a 1975 C172M POH and on page 2-18 it says:

LANDINGS.
Normal landings are made power-off with any flap setting desired.

It goes on to say:

CROSSWIND LANDING.
When landing in a strong crosswind, use the minimum flap setting required for the field length

I know people like to fly 172's like they are Boeings,
but as someone else previously observed, they have
an awful lot more in common with a Decathlon, or
Champ, or T-craft.

In trainer aircraft with flaps, I like to use (and have my students
use) around 10 to 20 degrees of flaps for a "normal"
landing. That generally gives them the lowest stall speed
(check your POH) which is good for safety in the turn
to base and final, and also should give minimum touchdown
speed which is also objectively good. Also, they can
overshoot when things go wrong and they can initially
concentrate on flying the airplane during the overshoot
instead of getting their heads inside the cockpit at 5
feet or so, reaching for the flap control. Also, students
like to dump all the flaps at once, which is interesting
at 5 feet.

Flying a larger, heavier aircraft, sure, a normal landing
is full flaps. But a 172 is not a larger, heavier aircraft.

I do not understand why people think all aircraft are
the same. They are not. Because they are not, you
fly them differently. This is not a bad thing. I would
be very unhappy if all aircraft in the world flew like an
8 engine bomber, although I am sure that would please
many people. I do not like 8 engine bombers.

[trey kule]

Thanks CS for taking a moment to actually look at a POH to see what is says.

Your use of flaps on a 172 makes sense to me.

Perhaps my memory fails me, but is it really so hard to land a 172 that some FTUs have a no flap policy?

Now share with an old non instructor..What is a "speciality" landing in a 172...Is that like 2 for one?

BTW, as near as I can tell, the colleges are teaching students to fly
Boeings, and the similarity between them and a 172 is quite remarkable.. ask any of their instructors.

[Colonel Sanders]

is it really so hard to land a 172

uh, no.

What is a "speciality" landing in a 172...

But wait, there's more! If you call in the next 15
minutes (because we can't do this all day) ...

As far as I can tell, the way it works is that before a
student has mastered a normal landing - and long
before they have mastered a crosswind landing -
instructors like to throw complicated simulations
at students (soft/rough field, short field, short and
soft field).

So instead of focussing on maintaining the proper
glidepath and runway centerline alignment and
airspeed, students are taught to do all sorts of
weird things with an airplane with very little experience.

The kicker is that all of this "specialty" training
in NO WAY prepares the student for a real soft/rough/short
landing, which he will never actually experience
during this PPL training, and if he sometime wanted
to do one for real after his PPL, he would have to
seek out "advanced" training to learn how to really
do it.

This would all be pretty funny if it wasn't such
a tragic waste of the student's time and money.

I am really happy when a student can fly a normal
and a crosswind landing precisely. I am in heaven
when they can additionally do it smoothly. IMHO
you have to hammer on these fundamental skills
and they have to be solid, before you start wasting
their time doing useless stuff. The fact of the matter
is that students are trained to fly from one 3,000
foot paved runway at a certified airport to another
3,000 foot paved runway at another certified airport.
I would be very happy if they could simply do that.
Unfortunately many PPLs struggle with the basics
and this is direct reflection of the marginal flight
training that they received.