Granny Gas

[Cat Driver]

OK, Cat, what about the 208... or the 228 on land? We all agree it's a safe action... probably safer than the approved setting... but still illegal. The AOM does not approve it.

Just to be clear, I am not 100% on the 208... but probably 99.9%. The 228 I am sure.

I have never flown either airplane so I have never read their AOM's.

What exactly is the wording that prohibits the use of flaps to break ground?

My comments were concerning the Cessna 180/185/206 on floats which I have lots of time on.

So bezerker show me where it is illegal.

[Cat Driver]

While we are discussing limits when flying an airplane where do the rest of you draw the limits with X/winds?

Lets take this example.

You arrive at an airport and the wind is way off the forecast and is 50 knots at 90 degrees and there is only one runway, you do not have sufficient fuel to fly to another airport so you land.

Are you now subject to some charge for flying illegally?

If so then I guess I should be charged.

[Just another canuck]

What exactly is the wording that prohibits the use of flaps to break ground?

I can't recall exactly, but it is quite clear. Something like maximum allowable flap setting for takeoff...

You arrive at an airport and the wind is way off the forecast and is 50 knots at 90 degrees and there is only one runway, you do not have sufficient fuel to fly to another airport so you land.

Because you don't have the required fuel, wouldn't an emergency situation overrule the reg? Furthermore, the airplanes I've flown have maximum "demonstrated" crosswind capabilities. So, basically, if you can handle it, then you can handle it. I hope I've been reading that right.

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

As far as I knew, flap restrictions for takeoff are more common on Multi engine aircraft. Vmcg and all that crap. I can't ever recall any restriction for any single engine floatplane I ever flew. On floats, I often used that little extra pump of flap to get airborne in either shitty crosswinds or heavy seas. The 185 with the old school manual flap handle was great at this. One hand on the control column and one hand on the flap handle while you milked it into the air early and accelerated to some safer speed.

[Cat Driver]

Furthermore, the airplanes I've flown have maximum "demonstrated" crosswind capabilities. So, basically, if you can handle it, then you can handle it. I hope I've been reading that right.

You have.

As far as I knew, flap restrictions for takeoff are more common on Multi engine aircraft. Vmcg and all that crap. I can't ever recall any restriction for any single engine floatplane I ever flew. On floats, I often used that little extra pump of flap to get airborne in either shitty crosswinds or heavy seas. The 185 with the old school manual flap handle was great at this. One hand on the control column and one hand on the flap handle while you milked it into the air early and accelerated to some safer speed.

Exactly glorifiedtaxidriver, the problem we are having here is some people are having trouble understanding the subject being discussed....such as using flaps to get off the water as you and I are describing.....

[Just another canuck]

You have.

Do we have any Twotter drivers in this thread? What's your view on this if you're around?

Cat, I don't think anyone's having a problem understanding the subject at hand. I believe you with regards to the 180/185/206... in fact, it's been awhile, but I remember being able to takeoff with any flap setting in training on both the 172 and 180... but what about when it comes to a land airplane? Better yet, a multi-engined land airplane? Or even a multi-engine airplane on floats, such as the Twin Otter? Or a single-engine airplane like the Caravan where there is a maximum flap setting... even if it is on floats?

Is a safe, yet "supposedly" illegal practice OK? I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the above paragraph... not just on single engine piston float planes.

[bezerker]

Well, if a flap setting for take off (or anything else for that matter) isn't forbidden in the AFM, CARs, or elsewhere, then why would it be illegal?

Why was this brought up if it is permitted? What am I missing?

[Cat Driver]

Do we have any Twotter drivers in this thread? What's your view on this if you're around?

I used to drive Twin Otters both land and floats Just another canuck, but I have grown weary of this thread so I will now bow out of this conversation as it is getting boring.....

....However I have good news.....

....I have sold my Cub project and will be delivering it to its new owners in Vancouver on Monday...gotta go work on getting it all on the trailer...

You all carry on and enjoy this exciting argument...

[Just another canuck]

...I have sold my Cub project and will be delivering it to its new owners in Vancouver on Monday...gotta go work on getting it all on the trailer...

Congrats and good luck!!!

Why was this brought up if it is permitted? What am I missing?

Read back a bit and you'll understand... I think Cat made an assumption based on the fact that you used the word airmanship. He was the first one to associate the term with the discussion and had been talking about single engine cessna's at the time... which, we've pretty much agreed have no flap legalities.

There are other issues here that I'm still interested in hearing some opinions on though. Anyone? Cat's almost always good for some advice or opinions but he has bowed out.

[SmokinJoe]

All I am arguing is the legality of using unapproved flap settings. Since this topic was started about granny gas and it’s deemed illegal to be 400lbs heavier on a Hawker (or 200lbs or 100lbs or whatever for that matter), how is it not illegal to use an unapproved flap setting. Now I’m not arguing that it’s not a good idea, or that it doesn’t save the airframe or whatever, but if it’s not approved and your using it than is it not illegal? Now I want to be clear that if there is no limit on the flap to be used then go ahead and dump more to help get off the water, but if the MFG says max flap allowed for T/O is 20 and you go to 30 then I guess you just invalidated the CofA. Again i'm not arguing wether or not it's a smart idea, just the legality of it.

[Pratt]

I think you pretty much just nailed it, if in the AOM it says the only approved take off flap setttings are 7, 14 and 22 and you decide to do something else your ass is on the line. Don't matter if you are on floats or a runway.If you are using an unapproved setting your ass is on the line. Mind you these regs seem to only apply to over 12,5k aircraft, I don't recall seeing an aircraft below that with anything but recommended flap settings, not the same as approved settings.

On floats distance is more variable, you only need sufficient space, the tables published, if any, are only guidelines, not that they are more than on wheels, but your take off area can be alot dfifferent.

You would do alot better talking to the old drivers there to get an idea of what can be hauled from the spot than trying to figure it out for yourself for the first time , and the special items that you should know about it before you go there.

Trust in the experienced.


cheers

[beaverbob]

I don't think there is a such a thing as an "illegal" flap setting for most light aircraft, single or twin. There are recommended flap setting for various expected results. Takeoff distance, angle of climb, normal climb etc.
If what is recommended for a take off setting is exceeded as a means of shortening the take off distance you have not broken any laws. Land or sea, single or multi under 12,500.
Besides, if you loose an engine after take off on any twin I have ever flown the procedure included gear up and flaps retract, no matter what the setting.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out where you all got the Illegal flap setting crap.
Bob

[StudentPilot]

When I started on the Twin Otter I read the AFM and came across a letter (or AFM addition?) from TC. IIRC the gist of the letter was "We know some pilots have been taking off on floats with 30 degrees. This is not permitted. We remind you that the -100 series can take off with 30 degrees on wheels, but is prohibited from doing this on floats. The -300 series is not allowed to take off with 30 degrees on wheels or floats." Not like it stopped anyone from using 30 degrees when they thought they were justified...

So if TC says it's not allowed, is it illegal?

[Aviatard]

Care to provide a regulation and the wording of the charges for using that technique to get the airplane off the water, so all the bush pilots here can read it?

This is probably the regulation that people have in mind:

602.07 No person shall operate an aircraft unless it is operated in accordance with the operating limitations

(a) set out in the aircraft flight manual, where an aircraft flight manual is required by the applicable standards of airworthiness;

However, I don't remember ever seeing this listed in the limitation section. It's usually just a comment in the normal procedures, something like "Use of flap settings more than 20 degrees is not approved."

So, does that qualify as an operating limitation?

[Cat Driver]

However, I don't remember ever seeing this listed in the limitation section. It's usually just a comment in the normal procedures, something like "Use of flap settings more than 20 degrees is not approved."

Once again my comments were specific to the Cessna 180/185/206.

Can you post the exact wording from the AOH that prohibits selecting 20 degrees of flap to break free of the water?

So, does that qualify as an operating limitation?

You tell me.

[Doc]

Approved and legal are different terms. Like landing beyond the max demonstrated cross wind. An approved flap setting (in my book) is just that. Approved. Nothing more. Nothing less. If I feel like using a little extra flap to "suck" me off the soft runway a little early, I'll use it. End of story. eg. the King has no takeoff flap settings. If the ground is soft, I'll use approach flap for takeoff.

[Liquid Charlie]

Flaps -- granny gas -- little continental drift -- -- big airplanes -- certainly all performance is for specific flap settings -

Old airplanes -- float planes etc -- DC3 1/4 flap wheels 1/3 flap for skies -- that's what I used -- Beech 18 -- when the flap upper surface disappeared from sight -- that was T/O setting -- Cessna 180/185 usually set 20 degrees and then manipulated the flap lever between 20 and 40 on take off ad 0 and 40 on landing (except in glassy water where I set 20) -- some people will think I'm fuc'd in the head but it worked for me and worked damn good. Most of these planes specified no flap for takeoff but you were nuts if you didn't --

I have first hand knowledge of 2 C-402B accidents that would not of happened if they had used flap for take off -- which was not approved but on gravel strips made all the difference.

Beaver was pretty straight forward -- whore dyne -- 4 and 7(wraps) seemed to work - most of the ones I flew had the interconnect removed.

While I'm on it -- granny gas -- I'm thinking this had it's origin back when there were standard loads. I can still remember -- 600 - 180 750 - 185 - 1200 beaver - 1800 Norseman and 2200 beach -- didn't matter the length of trip -- pilot and gas were never considered. - Beach 18 on skies with mains and 3/10 in the nose was legal for about 160 lbs. It is a fact that NWO air carriers association tried to get the Beach declared in the same category as a single engine airplane performance wise and increase the gross weight so they could carry more or at least be legal -- wtf were they smoking --

Seems to me there are a lot more incidents/accidents related to running out of fuel than carrying a little extra -- it all boils down to common sense and being able to stand up to your decisions and feel good about them - do it safely and do it well and there should never be a time when the thought "am I legal" will consume your day to the point of distraction. (violins playing in the background)

Enough Bullshit -- I'm starting to ramble --

Who says this business isn't strange --

[beaverbob]

You got that right, Liquid Charlie.
By the way, the C180 or 185 does not prohibit or require any amount of flap.
I think 20 degrees for a soft/short field is recommended, but more is not specifically disallowed.
I don't think Cessna specifies any take off as a no flap take off.
Bob

[Doc]

"C402 crashes that wouldn't have happened with flaps...."

A shinning example if how "blind" adherence to SOP's can kill you.

[Just another canuck]

You're not allowed on the Caravan and you're not allowed on the Twotter... but everyone still does it. Why is it OK to break the law sometimes and not others? Safe or not, it's still illegal... we've agreed upon the small piston float planes... what about the others? Or multi's over 12.5?

I understand that deviating from SOP's is sometimes necessary and deviating from the AOM is sometimes safer, but if it's illegal, it's illegal. I've done it myself, but I think you all know the point I'm trying to make. A little "granny gas" isn't really that unsafe but it's been deemed as poor airmanship in this thread... what makes unauthorized flap settings any different?

[Doc]

It's not ILLEGAL to use unapproved flap settings. Sometimes it may not be wise....and sometimes it may save your bacon, but there is nothing "illegal" about it.

[Just another canuck]

It's not ILLEGAL to use unapproved flap settings. Sometimes it may not be wise....and sometimes it may save your bacon, but there is nothing "illegal" about it.

Well, what does this mean then:

"We know some pilots have been taking off on floats with 30 degrees. This is not permitted. We remind you that the -100 series can take off with 30 degrees on wheels, but is prohibited from doing this on floats. The -300 series is not allowed to take off with 30 degrees on wheels or floats."

and I'm quite sure it's prohibited to use Flaps 2 on takeoff on the 228 as well. If it's not illegal, what is it? It's more than just a recommendation.

And furthermore, if you go off the end with one of these flap settings, what do you think the outcome will be? Do you think the insurance company would pay up?

[iflyforpie]

It's not ILLEGAL to use unapproved flap settings. Sometimes it may not be wise....and sometimes it may save your bacon, but there is nothing "illegal" about it.

Well, what does this mean then:

"We know some pilots have been taking off on floats with 30 degrees. This is not permitted. We remind you that the -100 series can take off with 30 degrees on wheels, but is prohibited from doing this on floats. The -300 series is not allowed to take off with 30 degrees on wheels or floats."

and I'm quite sure it's prohibited to use Flaps 2 on takeoff on the 228 as well. If it's not illegal, what is it? It's more than just a recommendation.

And furthermore, if you go off the end with one of these flap settings, what do you think the outcome will be? Do you think the insurance company would pay up?

Those sound like limitations in the AFM. So in these cases, the use of more flap than specified is illegal.

But for the 180/185/206, a maximum flap setting for takeoff isn't in the limitations. The flap settings are recommended in the operating procedures sections, usually for wheels only. The only limitations for flaps are maximum operating speeds and G loadings.

To me, it is like climbing at a slower speed than Vx. There is nothing saying that I can't--even though in most circumstances it is not wise. But if I have a lightly loaded aircraft, the actual Vx will be lower than the Vx is in the book anyways.

[Aviatard]

Once again my comments were specific to the Cessna 180/185/206.
Can you post the exact wording from the AOH that prohibits selecting 20 degrees of flap to break free of the water?

The 180 manual that I have says:

Other Limitations
Flap Limitations
Approved takeoff range 0 to 20 degrees.

Therefore I would conclude that 20 degrees of flap is not prohibited. In fact the normal procedures section specifies 20 degrees for takeoff. I don't have manuals for those other types.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks Aviatard:

If you used more than 20 degrees briefly to get unstuck from glassy water or to get off real rough water would that be " ILLEGAL " ?