Full flap takeoffs: why not?

[Hedley]

The (momentary) application of full flaps in the recent Maule takeoff was quite planned. As I stated when this bizarre discussion started, that is a technique used before almost everyone here was born.

However, I once (accidentally) tried to take off with full flaps in a 160hp Apache. It was after midnight, I was tired, and I had assumed the pilot that had landed it had retracted the flaps - we hadn't even shut the engines down, we just did a pilot switch. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Takeoff was normal, but after establishing the normal climb angle, the airspeed started to decrease, so I had to drop the nose. I thought I must have lost an engine, but both were merrily chugging away, so I went back to basics and did:

Control (yup)
Power (m/p/t)
Drag (gear was up, HOLY SHIT the flaps are all the way down!)

Raised the flaps, everything was back to normal.

Now, it shall be interesting, after this admission of mine above, if my fan club at Transport decide to send me a registered letter for this, too.

It should be very interesting at the Tribunal, because not only did it occur BEFORE the current CARs were enacted, it occurred in a foreign country, me flying a foreign-registered aircraft, using my foreign pilot licence.

Transport has successfully argued at the Tribunal before, that a pilot does not need to be exercising his pilot licence to be charged and convicted with contravening the CARs. I was wondering this summer if they were going to come after me with a CAR 602.01 for being a throttle guy in the Poker Runs held on St Lawrence River this summer. Given that there is NO statute of limitations on the CARs, I suppose I shall have to wait a very, very long time to find out.

[mellow_pilot]

Well Hed, you pass my litmus test. The way I figure it, if an abnormal procedure does not affect safety and has been planned and thought out (and doesn't break the law, too much ), and is beneficial in terms of expanded experience, it's ok.

Everyone I've ever spoken to has gone lower than 500' over a deserted logging road (or similar) while practicing a forced approach. If you're not endangering anyone, including yourself, i think that's ok.

This doesn't mean you do touch and goes in the US without clearing customs, or land on the 401.

This means that you carefully considered the situation before starting the manouvre. This doesn't mean you just decide to 'go a little lower' once on the approach. If you consider the approach, the overshoot, possible obstacles, contingincies incase of engine failure, proximity to rescue, persons/property on the ground, set a hard number below which you will not descend, etc, etc, and decide that there is no extra-ordinary danger and the benefit of training warrants the risk... well then that's your choice.

The way I figure it, I'd rather be along for the ride with someone who has proved (at least to themselves) that they can go all the way down (not necessarily touch down, but to the point where you know you made the field, than someone who guesses they made it at 500.

Obviously this may not be black and white legal. The point, there is always and exception to every rule. Just don't make a habit of finding exceptions where they don't exist.

I'm gonna go have another drink, flame away.

[groupboard]

There is no rule that says you can't fly below 500 feet. If there was, all the training schools doing practise forced approaches would be breaking the law.
CAR 602.14(1) states that you cannot fly "at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure." Other rules apply in controlled airspace and in built-up areas, but elsewhere you can fly as low as you want as long as you're 500 feet away from any object.

[co-joe]

Hedley, for what it's worth, the Be 200 takes off great with full flap as well (unplanned), at least when you do it indoors at DFW. Things only went for shit when the critical engine took the rest of the day off. Then they really went for shit in a hurry.


BTW anybody got a 172 POH with the float plane supplement? I'd be interested to see what it says about flap selection. Just out of curiosity of course.

[BTD]

You can also fly less than 500 feet from the nearest person, vessel etc if in certain cirumstances as long as you do not create hazard to persons or property. What hazard is defined as who knows.

(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure

2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.

[Skookum]

Removed

[. ._]

BTW anybody got a 172 POH with the float plane supplement? I'd be interested to see what it says about flap selection. Just out of curiosity of course.

For the 1969 supplement I have it says 10 degrees for take offs.

To shorten the take off run, it recommends allowing "airspeed to build to 40mph, at which speed one float can be raised out of the water by slowly applying full aileron".

There could be a whole thread in itself debating the whole "one float vs. 20 degrees of flap".

-istp

[mellow_pilot]

There is no rule that says you can't fly below 500 feet. If there was, all the training schools doing practise forced approaches would be breaking the law.
CAR 602.14(1) states that you cannot fly "at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure." Other rules apply in controlled airspace and in built-up areas, but elsewhere you can fly as low as you want as long as you're 500 feet away from any object.

I realise this, but there is always the argument (however anal it amy be) that powerlines, fences, roads, etc count as objects/property/'built up". I'm not sure I would agree with that definition, but I wouldn't want to have to argue it at a tribunal.

I was trying to present a generic example, not argue CAR semantics.

[justplanecrazy]

BTW anybody got a 172 POH with the float plane supplement? I'd be interested to see what it says about flap selection. Just out of curiosity of course.

For the 1969 supplement I have it says 10 degrees for take offs.

To shorten the take off run, it recommends allowing "airspeed to build to 40mph, at which speed one float can be raised out of the water by slowly applying full aileron".

There could be a whole thread in itself debating the whole "one float vs. 20 degrees of flap".

-istp

We've gone from flaps, to TC, to mudslinging, to amending the training forum, to min. altitudes, we might as well throw in a few 1 vs. 2 float comments. I won't be the one to do that though, well not in depth anyways. ISTP can you please clear up all this crap seeing as you have access to a c172 POH. Please quote all the comments relating to 10 degrees of flaps on take-off and what section they fall under. Does it say, never use more than 10 degrees of flaps on take-off? Does it say anything about this in the limitations section? Or does it simply say use up to 10 degrees flaps for short field take-off, at 40mph, lift a float etc.?

It's funny that it states lift a float cause like you said that's a very debatable subject. In fact the only time its really considered a significant advantage or an advantage at all, is during glassy water, max gross, or high density altitude. Yet it doesn't happen to mention any of the other tricks like rocking on to the step. So if you follow the ridiculous train of thought mentioned in this thread, if you want a shorter run, thou shall use the one float take off.

[Hedley]

FWIW I have a 1975 C172 "Owner's Manual" on my desk (I have the misfortune to have instructed around 1000 hours in various C172) and Section II, "Description and Operating Details" on page 2-14 in the paragraph titled "Wing Flap Settings" it says:

Flap settings greater than 10 degrees are not recommended at any time for takeoff

Now, if I flip forward to Section IV, "Operating Limitations", nowhere does it mention the subject of flaps and takeoffs.

Therefore, one could conclude that the C of A was still valid with a 20 degree flap takeoff, because the aircraft is not being operated contrary to the operating limitations in the manual or placards.

Go back and re-read carefully what Cessna says about flaps and takeoff. All they're saying is that they're not promoting flaps with more than 10 degrees of flaps for takeoff.

Really, this should be covered in the float STC addendum to the manual.

[. ._]

justplanecrazy,

I don't have time to quote the POH today, but I looked up some more stuff.

For the 1969 Cessna 172, the POH mentions only 10 degrees on take off in the Description and Operating Details section. There are "shoulds" but no "musts".

The Operating Limitations are the same as the land plane- where the word "flap" never appears.

It may be different in later models' POHs, as I think they're a bit more in depth.

In the land plane POH part, all takeoff checklists are with 0 degrees flap- including short-field takeoffs. But again, there's no "the pilot will crash and die if other flap settings are used" mentioned.

So it seems to me, that like many things in aviation, it's ambiguous as to what's legal, safe, recommended or efficient when it comes to flap operation on take off.

-istp

[groupboard]

I realise this, but there is always the argument (however anal it amy be) that powerlines, fences, roads, etc count as objects/property/'built up". I'm not sure I would agree with that definition, but I wouldn't want to have to argue it at a tribunal.

I'm not sure if a powerline counts as a structure (I would imagine it does), but powerlines are one of the main reasons why it's a bad idea to fly low unless you know what you're doing. There are a lot of accident reports of dozy pilots flying 50 feet above the surface of a reservoir (or similar), and then hit the powerlines because they haven't been looking out for them.

[justplanecrazy]

FWIW I have a 1975 C172 "Owner's Manual" on my desk (I have the misfortune to have instructed around 1000 hours in various C172) and Section II, "Description and Operating Details" on page 2-14 in the paragraph titled "Wing Flap Settings" it says:

Flap settings greater than 10 degrees are not recommended at any time for takeoff

Now, if I flip forward to Section IV, "Operating Limitations", nowhere does it mention the subject of flaps and takeoffs.

Therefore, one could conclude that the C of A was still valid with a 20 degree flap takeoff, because the aircraft is not being operated contrary to the operating limitations in the manual or placards.

Thank-you Hedley. Hopefully this thread will curl up and die now!!!!!!

So in conclusion (hopefully), teach the student how to do a 20 degree flap take-off or even 40 and tell him when and where you would use this, what the dangers are in using it, and how the aircraft will handle when doing it. Then on the pre-flight test tell the student that TC wants to see that you can fly the plane by the POH's recommondations. At no point can TC or anyone shut you down for teaching 20 degrees or even full flap take offs as there are no regulations against it. They may dock you marks on the ride because they want to see you following the recomondations of the POH. According to Cessna themselves, anything outside of the limitations and weight and balance section of the POH are simply recomondations and to go against them, does not void the airworthiness certificate!!!!

[CD]

I'm not sure if a powerline counts as a structure (I would imagine it does), but powerlines are one of the main reasons why it's a bad idea to fly low unless you know what you're doing. There are a lot of accident reports of dozy pilots flying 50 feet above the surface of a reservoir (or similar), and then hit the powerlines because they haven't been looking out for them.

Cows as well... I've got some great photos around here somewhere of a 172 rolled up into a ball near YQF after having a near-ground collision with a bovine.

[tailwind]

In the C185 I flew this summer, it was equipped with the Robertson Stol Kit and in the supplement for it is stated for short field take-offs, Start the takeoff run with 20 degrees of flap, once on the step (floats obviously).. move flaps to 30 to become airborne quicker...drop flaps in stages with safe airspeeeds for climbout.

This worked great and even helped to get on the step when you were almost there.

[co-joe]

Hunh. Page 6 actually got interesting once the flames stopped. I learned a thing or two here. Thanks boys.

[youngflier]

lift to drag ratio is considerably smaller with full flaps