Full flap takeoffs: why not?

[Cat Driver]

I'm definetaly not dead, part of the reason is I'm not a paper pilot.

When did these poor creatures become so dependent on SOP's and all that other paper magic written quite often by people who never learned to fly ?

Cat

[justplanecrazy]

hahahaha... well Hedley you definately know how to argue one point and that is that you are better then me. Yes I have never shepherded an airplane or sheep for that matter anywhere. Yes, you've probably flown bigger and definately higher performance aircraft then I have. In fact you're probably taller, stonger and have a longer willy then I do also.

The thing we were discussing is when to tell a student to follow the POH and when not to. My whole point is that there are performance recomondations in the POH which I as a pilot over the course of a private licence, can easily teach a student when to deviate from them. ie. flaps from 10-20degrees on an aircraft that performs better with 20. In fact, if I don't tell them when to deviate from them, I'm failing them as an instructor. The student will end up so book smart that he'll do a precautionairy at 55kias because that's what the book said and it didn't mention about deviating for high gusting winds.

On the other hand, the certified limitations of an aircraft can be bent without killing you but how do you teach someone when to bend them. It is imposible to take a student and teach him how to make a proper judgement on whether going beyond the certified operating limits will let you live because each situation is different and only experience can tell you what to do. A student doesn't have the neccessary experience to make any judgement as to if its safe to operate outside of the certified limits after 45 hours of instruction.

If you think that you can operate a plane over gross with an aft c of g beyond the table outlined in the POH and drop the flaps before Vfe and dive past Vne and pull more than 3.8 g's or whatever the hell its certified for, then go right ahead. With your experience you probably could do all of those at the same time and still walk away from it. It wouldn't surprise me but to tell a student that those are just suggestions use your own judgement and 45 hours of experience to do what you feel is safe is absouletly insane!!!

The ignorance of pilots is truly frightening. Even the FAA routinely approves flights of 30% over published max gross for trans-atlantic ferry flights. I guess everyone here has done a lot of those recently too, huh

I hardly think a private pilot will be ferrying an aircraft on a transatlantic flight within the next couple of years after receiving their licence. But seeing as you brought it up, you went and got FAA approval to amend the POH for one specific flight. If you told the FAA you wanted to go 30% over gross to do a PPC for a new pilot, I kinda doubt they'd allow it. It would be stupid to pull any sort of higher g manouvers with a plane 30% over gross. Just cause they allowed it for one flight doesn't mean you can safely operate under all conditions now at that weight.

A higher weight won't kill you ... it will merely increase your stall speed, with associated effects on your takeoff distance, climb rate, cruise speed, etc. Not that anyone here could figure that out.

I think every private pilot knows that but what you also forgot was higher wing loading, higher gear stress, higher fuel burn, change in the c of g, etc. Any one of which could kill you if you don't have the experience to anticipate it and know how to handle it.

Here's another thing that you probably don't know, either ... the important thing is that your C of G is within an aerodynamically acceptable range. Let me guess, you haven't a clue as to what that is, either, do you?

No, isn't C of G a band or something... Yes I'm aware of it and understand that with a far enough aft certified C of G, you actually have a lifting tail and more aerodynamic efficiency and less stability in fact jets are often this way more often then not and no real danger exists. All certified aircraft have a positive dynamic stability and a c of g out of limits will only produce a static instability. They can still be controlled and a skilled pilot could keep it pegged right on the intended altitude without much work. Unfortunately we're talking about students with very little experience and to tell them to not follow the POH C of G could very well be the cause of a dangerous or fatal approach.

Here's an example closer to home, and even on topic: 1975 C172, max 2300 lbs. And the reason why is overshoot performance ... WITH FULL FLAPS! There is a little kit, where if you promise to never use 40 degrees of flaps, and instead use 30 degrees of flaps max, like the later 172's, your maximum gross weight goes up to 2400 (or 2450, I forget, and don't really care).

Wow you mean you can actually go 2% over gross and still be within that safety buffer that I refered to earlier. It's almost like you and I are agreeing. It's almost like when they did the certification, they did it for worst case scenario and added a little bit more for the wife and kids as I had mentioned earlier.

Fly a few more decades and tens of thousands of hours, and perhaps you might have a clue, JPC.

I can only dream about one day being as great as you!!!

So, Hedley for someone with obviously way more experience than God himself, what should I tell the students the true limits are for C of G, Vfe, Vne, Gross, g ratings, etc. are when they ask. Should I tell them to use your 45 hours of experience and make your own judgement?






CPL_ATC if you want an example of when to not follow the POH take a look at a precautionairy landing. It says do it at 55kias and that is all. I hope you are using at least enough common sense to tell the kids to do it at 60 or even 75 depending on the wind speed and gust factor. So what's the difference between telling them that and telling them to use 20 degrees flaps??? If you look at the different sections of a POH you'll notice one titled Limitations. That's your bible section of the POH and be sure to emphasize that nothing in that section or the weight and balance is to be taken as a suggestion. Do not operate outside the limitations specified in the POH. Operating outside of these may not kill you but it will certainly increase your chances. Once your as old and ugly as Hedley, feel free to experiment how far you can extend the certified limits but by that point you should have enough experience to be able to react and fly the aircraft safely at the edge of the envelope, within reason.

[co-joe]

Well if I can't get airborne in a 172 on floats...with all of my 5 hours on floats, I'd say I'd taxi back to the dock, try not to nut myself on the "jesus wire" on the way to tying up your underpowered or overloaded wheel plane on floats, and:

a) take less cargo, or less fuel.
b) wait for cooler temperatures, or more ideal conditions.
or
c) sell the customer the 185 as this is obviously not a trip for a 172.

If you hand me a pink slip...oh well, I'm dry, and not dead, and well I have fresh PPC's on 2 king airs so what am I doing trying to fly floats for a living anyway?

CL guy, with respect:

just because the Duck needs full flap to get out of the water in the summer fully loaded doesn't make it a good idea for a 45 hour CPL student to try it in a buck seventy two (IMHO).

If one of your radials packs it in you can dump your load and instantly be thousands of pounds lighter, they can't.

As a side note, there was a guy at CYBW who used to tell me that taking off with 20 flap in the 172 worked great!

He's dead now.

Not from taking off with too much flap mind you, but rather from using piss poor PDM and taking off to do a mountain check on a day soo windy that nobody else left the ground at the whole of CYBW.

[justplanecrazy]

I think the point is using 20 degrees of flaps, decreases the danger factor. Loading a plane over gross increases it, as does taking off to go mountain flying with really high winds. You're not training them to push the limits, you're training them to learn how to fly safer.

Do you tell a kid to do a precautionairy at 55kias because that's what the POH states???

If so then I would expect your student to end up belly up before the guy getting taught how to do things not labled in the POH in order to increase the safety of this flight. I mean he's doing a power on landing at 10kts above stall. How often have you seen a student bleed off 10kts on the airspeed on a regular approach without noticing? To have them that close to a power on stall on approach is crazy. Get them to come in with another 5 knots plus the gust factor. Just one example of how deviating from the POH is definately safer.

If you do teach them to come in at a higher speed for a precautionairy why deviate from that speed and not deviate from flaps 10 vs. 20???

[Cat Driver]

" and well I have fresh PPC's on 2 king airs so what am I doing trying to fly floats for a living anyway? "


Hmmm ....I can't answer that question for you co-joe, but maybe you are better suited to that type of flying where you can have the soother of SOP's to do your thinking for you.

Judging from your comprehension of the use of 20 degrees flap on a 172 float plane you might have trouble finding someone to hire you for that type of flying anyhow.

A King Air PPC, man that is really impressive.

[co-joe]

Yup Cat, I'll just stick to my "by the numbers" approach to flying. It's kept me live thus far, and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. I am a professional pilot committed to coming home safely each and every night.

I may come across as a smart ass on Avcanada, and I really do have an overactive sense of humour, but when it comes to my life I don't mess around.

If you're in a position where you have to exceed the design limit of your aircraft just to get airborne, then IMHO you have used poor PDM to get you there, hopefuly you have the skill to back it up or it'll be a very short flight.

[Hedley]

At the risk of over-simplifying, there are roughly two different kinds of pilots.

Pilots in "Group A" over the years have been called bomber pilots, multi-engine pilots, or accountant-personality pilots.

Pilots in "Group B" over the years have been called fighter pilots, single-engine pilots, or cowboy-personality pilots.

Neither group of pilots particularly likes the other group of pilots very much, for a variety of reasons. They argue pointlessly for hours.

Group A pilots make very obedient airline pilots. They proudly follow SOPs, even if it causes their deaths. They usually make very bad cropdusters or float plane pilots, though.

Group B pilots usually are very unhappy airline pilots, but are usually very good cropdusters and float plane pilots.

The above has been the case since before all of you were born.

[justplanecrazy]

Yup Cat, I'll just stick to my "by the numbers" approach to flying. It's kept me live thus far, and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. I am a professional pilot committed to coming home safely each and every night.

I may come across as a smart ass on Avcanada, and I really do have an overactive sense of humour, but when it comes to my life I don't mess around.

If you're in a position where you have to exceed the design limit of your aircraft just to get airborne, then IMHO you have used poor PDM to get you there, hopefuly you have the skill to back it up or it'll be a very short flight.

EXCEED THE DESIGN LIMIT???? Man you really are showing your ignorance. The 10degree short field flap setting is not a design limit, how many times do I have to say this. Its what cessna found to work best for the aircraft that the testing was done on in the conditions of that day and the calculations of the engineers. Like I said there are a million factors that could change that to make 20 degrees a better performance setting then 10. Things like an old tired engine and or wings, different styles of floats, different water conditions etc. all make your plane react differently. The way they determined 10 degrees was the suggested short field was by seeing what flap setting produced the shortest runs. You as an instructor have probably logged way more hours on your aircraft than the test pilot had at the time of recommondation. In fact that test pilot has never flown your specific plane. In this case you should know better than the POH what works. To know it but ignore it is complete stupidity. I don't know how many times I've had to use every trick in the book to get an underpowered float plane on the step, but you obviously went straight to the books with only 5 hours on the water.

CO-JOE man, use your head. There are lots of numbers in the POH that are used as a guidline and each individual plane will perform better if you take into account the planes setup itself (the type of floats, etc.) or the conditions that are present that day. Let me show you some hard and fast numbers in the CFS that you better not be teaching as hard and fast.

-Maximum glide.... 60kias (I hope you're telling them to go faster for a headwind and slower for a tailwind)
-Precautionary landing.... 55kias (I hope you'r telling the students to stay a little further away from a power on stall until you have a few more hours. Add 5kts and be sure to add the gust factor)
-Short field landing approach... 52kias (same comments above)
-Normal landing, flaps down... 50-60kias (same comments above)
-Balked landing... 55kias (same comments)
-Short field takeoff, C150... flaps 0 (10 works much better)
-Enroute Climb 65-75kias (if you're doing 65kts from sea level to 10,000' you're probably going to toast the engine and not to mention your most efficient climb is to)

All of these figures show the planes best performance at time of the test. Any student should have a little more saftey buffer and shouldn't be told do as the book says period. They should be told, lets do it this way and once you've had your licence for a while and are confident that you can do an approach without deviating more then 2-3kts, then we'll go to a power on full flap approach within 10kts of the stall speed as the POH suggests, but until then lets be safe.

When book pilots mix with a bush pilots environment, book pilots get killed. If you were at a short field and weren't sure if you could get off, you'd probably take a look at the sock, estimate the wind, aircraft weight, pressure altitude etc. and pull out your computer and the POH. Then when you determined that you can take off, you'd never abort because the POH says you can take off so there shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately for you, by the time you were done your calculations the wind had dropped, temperature increased,you're load was slightly more then calculated and it was an upslope rwy. A bush smart pilot would jump in the plane, if he felt his chances were good, start a run and if by the halfway point, he hadn't made 70% of his rotation speed, then he'd abort and help dig you out of the trees.

Stick to your multi-engine high altitude low terrain excessively long runways because if you start flying floats in the bush with your book attitude, you'll wind up dead. If you think that requiring 20 degrees of flaps to avoid the bumps means that its unsafe to go flying, you must have got glass water in a beaver for your 5 hours and not asked the pilot any questions cause as someone with 2 king air PPC's, you obviously know better than a beaver pilot.

Do us all a favor and call Cessna 316.517.6056. Tell them that you've found 20 degrees of flaps produces shorter take off distances but that you don't want to exceed the design limitations of the aircraft. After they stop laughing they'll tell you that 10 degrees is simply the flap setting that seemed to work best for them at the time of testing and if your plane runs better with 20, then use 20. It is not I repeat not a Design limit, just like best rate of 70kts is not a design limit, just suggested best performance numbers. The design limits are found in the LIMITATIONS section of the POH as well as the Weight and Balance!!!!!!!!!

[Cat Driver]

"If you're in a position where you have to exceed the design limit of your aircraft just to get airborne, then IMHO you have used poor PDM to get you there, hopefuly you have the skill to back it up or it'll be a very short flight. "

Well co-joe you have shown your lack of understanding of this subject with this last statement, to call yourself a professional pilot is an insult to aviation I wonder what training facility turned you out?

If my PDM capabilities were so poor how did I survive 54 years of flying and in some of the most difficult conditions on earth?

[co-joe]

That's funny. You say the hardest thing is learning when to say no, then in your own words tell us that you will do whatever it takes to get airborne!

My I never be one of your passengers or students .. I see now why TC put you out of business. WOW!

[co-joe]

JPC you obviously know better than the people at Cessna so why don't you sell a JPC AFM/POH for all the aircraft types that you know more about than the manufacturer...I'm sure your know it all would be greatly appreciated by pilots all over.

While your at it, maybe you can tell me where Beech went wrong. I'm sure you could teach me a thing or two abbout what the King Air can do that the manufacturer didn't know about.

[Spokes]

Boy, real touchy people here today..

[justplanecrazy]

Co-joe, I just got off the phone with Cessna and the guy had a good laugh at your comments. He said he was glad you fly a beech. He reaffirmed what I've been telling you all along. The only design limitations specified in the POH are found in the section labeled limitations. He said the performance section is based on a fleet of aircraft and individual aircraft will have slightly different performance standards than what are labeled. He says to deviate from what is written in that section is not against the law nor will it void your insurance etc. The only section you are required by law and insurance to follow is the limitations and weight and balance section. He says you have to use reason as some pilots will try some pretty stupid things but to be scared to try taking off with 20 degrees of flaps is ridiculous in his words.

POH's have a limitation section. THESE ARE THE DESIGN LIMITS. The performance section IS NOT THE AIRCRAFT DESIGN LIMITS.

The performance standards are not design limits, they are performance standards subject to a lot of variables and not hard and fast numbers.

There's the number 316.517.6000. I told him if he gets a call from a Beech pilot panicing about kids being taught to take off with 20 degrees flaps, to put you on hold and start a fresh pot of coffee. It might take a while for you to understand it.

That's funny. You say the hardest thing is learning when to say no, then in your own words tell us that you will do whatever it takes to get airborne!

I gotta take you float flying in a champ someday.

So to end this retarted bout, from the mouths of CESSNA, 20 degrees of flaps for short field take-off is perfectly acceptable.

CAT I can't wait to hear your response...

[Spokes]

Of course this thread is asking about taking off with full flaps...hmmmm

[justplanecrazy]

Which as the guy at Cessna said, isn't unsafe either. He said if it was a design limit, it'd be in the limitations section. The question that we should be dealing with is will it help get the plane off faster and over that 50 foot obstacle?? Well it'll most likely get off faster at least on floats but as CLguy says, the 50 foot obstacle might be better off with 20. Your best bet is to stick with the max lift to drag ratio which is 20 not 40. Save 40 for those rough long run days.

[justplanecrazy]

The sad thing is if you look back, what you quoted is exactly what I've been saying since the top of page 2. I guess until you say that Cessna confirmed this 5 seconds ago on the phone, no-one will sit down and consider it a possibility. Not everything written on paper is a hard and fast rule, common sense will allow you to fly safer than simply memorizing numbers without thinking. There are situations where you don't have time to consult a book and have to use common sense to figure out what is the safest way to get out of the situation. Not thinking about why things are written and simply memorizing makes a pretty ignorant and dangerous pilot.

You're right, there's no doubt that many pilots don't understand a simple concept of short field take offs and the POH. It's yet another testament of the poor quality of pilots being turned out of todays flight schools. I'm surprised how many people don't even know the basics still after building enough time to step into a King Air. Its the blind leading the blind and maybe we're at a point now where we're so unskilled that we actually deserve the $7.50/hr.

[goldeneagle]

Anyway last month at Sim the PF accidentally tried a V1 cut without reading the checklist and subsequently attempted a single engine climb out, with a negative auto feather, and the flaps still at full. Guess what? After a GPWS warning or two, we crashed and died.

Guess it never crossed the co-jo's mind to actually step up to the plate, and do something to prevent the crash?

[co-joe]

Things happen pretty fast in the sim. Especially when your doing "batting practice". When I was the PF I treated every single takeoff like the real thing and followed every single checklist, but when I was the PNF, the PF decided checklists were not for sims, and were only for the real thing.

He brought up the powers without asking for the before takeoffs, so I prompted him and asked if he wanted to do them. "NO WE'RE GOING" was his response. I chuckled to myself and let him. Since my PNF duties required me to set max power, monitor engine instruments, call out V speeds, and the engine failure came at V1+1 so there wasn't much time.

We made lots of mistakes in the sim. That's what sims are for. And that's why they are the best place to train, so you can make mistakes, learn from them and on the next "at bat" correct them.

Taking off with full flap was a mistake. That's obvious to me. So was not using the fucking checklist, that won't happen again.

Now with this 20 flap thing. You guy are getting a little carried away here. "well what about 21% flap" or "well what about 22% flap"? Holy shit! Is it really that difficult to just follow procedures? Are you people that perfect that you can just make up your own wherever and whenever they suit you?

I'm not a bush pilot, but I have considerable experience "up north", and I never needed to use more that book numbers to get airborne. So what the @#$! are you people doing wrong? Are you over loading? Are you out of C of G? I mean those are just guidlines right? A/C manufacturers just make those to cover their asses so why follow any publisghed numbers? Let's just pick and choose what limitations we want to follow today.

And best of all let's insult anybody who advocates following the rules. They're obviously from the puppy mills of flight training and they can't think on their own.

[Cat Driver]

" That's funny. You say the hardest thing is learning when to say no, then in your own words tell us that you will do whatever it takes to get airborne!

My I never be one of your passengers or students .. I see now why TC put you out of business. WOW! "

Co-Joe the above comments by you demonstrates the futility of trying to discuss a subject such as flying airplanes with an anonymous person on an internet forum.

But I have decided to at least clarify one issue here, and then make some comments based on having been in aviation over five decades without ever having been violated for infractions of the rules nor ever having had to fill out an accident report.

First and most important my issues with TC had zero to do with flying or my qualifications to teach or do any other type of flying, my issues were strictly with several TC people in top management who were in the end found found guilty of acting unlawfully trying to protect a couple of their inspectors who were abusing the power of their office.

It is very unlikely you will be one of my students because I only teach professionals.

Having read all of your posts I will grant that you may have a PPC on a King Air.

However being in possesion of a Canadian PPC only means that you passed a ritual that showed on a given day you were able to demonstrate that you could perform at the level of a marginally skilled robot, it does not mean that you are a skilled pilot who understands the subject of how airplanes fly or how to fly them to their most efficient level.

Reading your posts are proof positive you do not understand even the most basic concepts of flying and I suspect your performance in an airplane would confirm that.

By the way Co-Pilot you would be wise to remain anonymous.

[justplanecrazy]

Taking off with full flap was a mistake. That's obvious to me. So was not using the fucking checklist, that won't happen again.

Now with this 20 flap thing. You guy are getting a little carried away here. "well what about 21% flap" or "well what about 22% flap"? Holy shit! Is it really that difficult to just follow procedures? Are you people that perfect that you can just make up your own wherever and whenever they suit you?

I'm not a bush pilot, but I have considerable experience "up north", and I never needed to use more that book numbers to get airborne. So what the @#$! are you people doing wrong? Are you over loading? Are you out of C of G? I mean those are just guidlines right? A/C manufacturers just make those to cover their asses so why follow any publisghed numbers? Let's just pick and choose what limitations we want to follow today.

And best of all let's insult anybody who advocates following the rules. They're obviously from the puppy mills of flight training and they can't think on their own.

Co-joe if you read the fu*$ing post you'd realise that Cessna themselves are telling you that the performance section is not a rule, nor does changing it void your insurance, nor is it a limitation. F$#k you make my head hurt. Pull out a POH before you say another word and you'll see a big old section called limitations. The numbers found in that section and only that section are the limit of the aircraft. As Cessna said themselves, individual aircraft will have different performance numbers and the numbers in a POH are based on a fleet of aircraft.

Co-joe, try getting more than 5 hours on floats or do some real bush flying and you'll understand why its important to know how to get maximum performance out of your aircraft. Until that time how about reading what is written and actually learning something. Listen to someone who flys a water bomber or a Cat and realise that maybe just maybe these individuals know more than you do.

You're worried about us telling students to do something that's not spelled out in a POH, telling us that we're exceeding the design limitations of an aircraft. Then after 3 pages of us making it painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about the design limits of an aircraft, you turn around and tell us that it doesn't make a difference if you use 10 or 20. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and until you do we'd all appreciate it if you kept your comments to yourself.

I pray that you may always be a co-pilot so that at least one person in the cockpit knows what they're doing.

[Cat Driver]

Groupboard. I see we have another anonymous poster here cherry picking to prove a point that is not being discussed.

So once again with regard to flying a Cessna 172/180/185/206 on floats they all break water quicker with the application of 20 degrees of flap.

The use of flap to shorten the water run with Cessnas has been recognized as a means to cut down on the time on the water at full power ever since bush pilots flew these machines, my comments on using 20 degrees of flap in this thread was based on float flying.

Flap settings are at the discression of the pilot. Flap settings are not limiting, they are performance issues.

I have no idea what I said to you in the past but you obviously are another ignorant ill informed poster because you not only seem to be ignorant of flying but you sure as hell don't know sweet fu.k all about my dealings with TC.

So shut the fuc. up and quit making stupid comments.

TC did not shut me down for anything pertaining to flying...teaching flying or anything else concerned with flying.

How in fu.k could TC shut down something that did not exist? Are you so fu.kin stupid you can't read or think....I WAS NOT INSTRUCTING NOR FLYING IN CANADA WHEN I HAD MY PROBLEM WITH TC.

My problem with TC had nothing to do with my flying or any other issue surounding flying.


And once again how fu.king stupid can you be to wish TC is reading this thread, what exactly are they going to do?

Jeses I get tired of arguing with people who haven't a clue, but I can see why you guys work for peanuts hell I'm suprised you are even paid period if in fact you do fly commercially.

Cat

[Cat Driver]

Double post

[gr8gazu]

Double post

Should have left it in Cat. It was worthy of repeat!

We have to keep in mind that some just don't want to learn from others experience. They need to do it on their own! Either way, we need them around if for nothing else but keeping the statistics up!

[co-joe]

Groupboard. I see we have another anonymous poster here cherry picking to prove a point that is not being discussed.

So once again with regard to flying a Cessna 172/180/185/206 on floats they all break water quicker with the application of 20 degrees of flap.

The use of flap to shorten the water run with Cessnas has been recognized as a means to cut down on the time on the water at full power ever since bush pilots flew these machines, my comments on using 20 degrees of flap in this thread was based on float flying.

...

Cat

Yeah okay Cat. We get you.

Folks if you fly floats and you want to use whatever flap setting your boss, or the owner of the aircraft you fly says to use, then bob's you'r uncle. Have at er. Really Cat. I could care less. I'm not ever going to fly with you so I don't care.


Now back to the original post before the hijack.

Q: Why can't you take off with FULL FLAP?

A: Because;

a) the additional lift created by full flap selection is far overcome by the additional induced drag once out of ground effect.

b) Additional drag decreases climb performance, and decreases your chance of a successful return to the water or earth in the even of an engine failre at the critical moment.

c) If the flap moter takes that moment to pack it in, (and why not? most shitty things happen at the worst possible time) you're stuck with an aircraft that probably won't climb out of ground effect. Oh Shit! Eh?

You float guys do whatever you want. Cat you have survived this long, you must be doing a thing or two right. But the fact is the lessons you posess are far better taught to advanced pontoon students later on in their training, not here for anyone to pick up and kill themselves with.

IMHO, (that's in my humble opinion)

Blue skies, safe flights, and beers when it's all over.

CJ

[Cat Driver]

" Cat you have survived this long, you must be doing a thing or two right. "

Now thats simply profound.