C-150 crash in Montreal

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:
Speaking of a 150. My point is : "I wont stop teaching my students from landing with full flaps because of they might forget the flaps on take off".

What percentage of their landings do you teach them to use full flaps under normal conditions?

What lesson would you say is not taught fully and is least understood by students, and by default not understood by new low time instructors?
Speaking of a 150/172.
I will always recommend a full flap landing, unless there is a strong crosswind, because yes you land slower.
I am not saying it is unsafe to land 0, 10,20,40 ...

Many do extend the full flaps once they are sure to make the runway or once authorized to land, that is fine with me. If you think you might have to overshoot, why not wait a little longer before extending flaps.
Overshot should be considered as an emergency procedure itself as well as the sideslip to accelerate the descent.

Students should be comfortable with overshoots with full flaps and should be taught to land in any configuration.

Anyways my 2 cents.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »


Speaking of a 150/172.
I will always recommend a full flap landing, unless there is a strong crosswind, because yes you land slower.
We obviously think different on this issue.

I am interested in your answer to the other question I asked.
What lesson would you say is not taught fully and is least understood by students, and by default not understood by new low time instructors?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

timel wrote:
Shiny Side Up wrote: This is the same way I train with them and the overshoot issue being the prime reason not to use all the flaps, especially since they're hardly necessary.

I was correcting you on that, now you have changed your speech. Yes yes yes, fly smart.
You won't have your students do full flaps landings because they might t-o with it not up, or because they might put flaps full up on overshoot instead or 20 degrees and than 10/10.
Its possible the translation is confusing things, but I sort of don't think so. I still stand by what I've said, and lets be clear, its not that I don't teach students how to land with full flaps, its that I teach them to think about using them. Lets do some thinking.

When it comes to the flaps in little airplanes, there's a lot of discretion involved, well not really since most will land just fine in a lot of configurations despite the myths perpetuated. Personally I'm of the opinion that you assess what's going on, then act appropriately, especially when it comes to the flaps. Rather than operate reactively, which usually means you're behind the plane. I reserve the ability to work reactively if I need to, but that means I've screwed up.

When doing touch and goes with a student, our landing roll is pretty much irrelevant since we'd better have a handle on what kind of space we need in the first place. If you don't have room to do it comfortably, you probably should have thought whether you should be doing touch and goes rather than how much flap you should be using. One might also consider that if the runway is slippery to the point of being hazardous, it might not be the best idea to have a new student out on it. Again, thinking about the wider picture. So now if circuits are our objective, any of the advantages that full flaps has are sort of moot, but all of the disadvantages are there. They take a minor bit of time extra to cycle back up, which nullifies the shorter landing distance if our purpose is to do a touch and go. If on the other hand we have to overshoot - and new students should be taught to overshoot rather than press on with a screwed up approach, indeed more pilots should have this in their head rather than that they are going to do some heroic maneuver to fix a screwed up approach, that new pilots might be conducting go arounds - or overshoots a lot. Having the full flaps down definitely imposes a problem here if there are any moments of indecision - and possibly the cause of the crash. Little airplanes that have way more drag than they do thrust, its somewhat of a riskier problem. Not as much in say the Maule, which with ample power easily climbs with the full flaps on - but we're not flying the Maule here.


So in the situation of most practicing, we don't need the full flaps of the 150, or the 170 or the 172 or the 182. In fact most normal circumstances where you have ample runway and no other concerns.

Again use discretion. Don't teach for the imaginary. We're doing circuits in a 150, we're not in the short field competition in Alaska.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Overshot should be considered as an emergency procedure itself as well as the sideslip to accelerate the descent.

Emergency?????

Now I am really confused.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:

Speaking of a 150/172.
I will always recommend a full flap landing, unless there is a strong crosswind, because yes you land slower.
We obviously think different on this issue.

I am interested in your answer to the other question I asked.
What lesson would you say is not taught fully and is least understood by students, and by default not understood by new low time instructors?
Haha it is fair enough, I wont retract on that one. Any my IR expired few months ago and I'll let it go.

Ich, gen speaking?

Definitely range and endurance. Loose them all in the graphs.
Basic flying skills ..like let the aircraft accelerate before setting cruise power and trims... They all forget when learning ex 22.

Stall the aircraft... full flaps, climbing, climbing turning, full power ... More with CPL though, you might make a PPL runaway.

Avoid flying by instincts, like you should be able to draw your pattern procedures by heart in order to build strong bases and than work from those when you have plan changes.


Don't be scared to fly more hours with students than the minimums and fly into rough weather. I haven't met many completed PPL feeling comfortable 25 kts crosswind.

Even if all avoid shit weather, they all end up getting into situations they will get stressed out and feel they are not ready for it. (Storm, unplanned strong winds, light snow shower on the runway...)
And the only thing they will remember at that point is that little sentence you taught them to make it out safe, or not? And if you are not able to teach a student more than flying in CAVOK weather you are a weak instructor IMO.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4157
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by CpnCrunch »

timel wrote:
Cat Driver wrote: How much lower is the stall speed between flaps 20 degrees and full flaps in a C150/152?
I agree it might be just a few knots, maybe 5kts, maybe less. I don't have the AFM.
I'll help you out here. It's a full 1mph less!
1968 Cessna 150 Owner's Handbook wrote:STALLING SPEED MPH=CAS, 1600lbs

Flaps up: 55
Flaps 20: 49
Flaps 40: 48
The above figures are for zero bank, but even with 40 degrees of bank the difference between flaps 20 and 40 is still only 2mph.

I normally use flaps 20 on long runways, as it just gives a better/easier landing and there isn't really any advantage of using more flaps. Anything about 20 is purely drag flap - all it's really doing is giving you a steeper descent profile.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

From my personal experience observing the end product that the FTU's turn out the least taught and least understood lesson is attitudes and movements.

The reason for this is difficult to understand because I have never figured out how a anyone can be issued a flight instructors rating and not have demonstrated to the person doing the check ride they can properly teach attitudes and movements....
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

I'll help you out here. It's a full 1mph less!
Exactly my point.

Therefore common sense should dictate the difference in speed is so insignificant it is meaningless.

So why make the landing and a possible go around more difficult by using full flaps? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

CpnCrunch wrote:
timel wrote:
Cat Driver wrote: How much lower is the stall speed between flaps 20 degrees and full flaps in a C150/152?
I agree it might be just a few knots, maybe 5kts, maybe less. I don't have the AFM.
I'll help you out here. It's a full 1mph less!
1968 Cessna 150 Owner's Handbook wrote:STALLING SPEED MPH=CAS, 1600lbs

Flaps up: 55
Flaps 20: 49
Flaps 40: 48
The above figures are for zero bank, but even with 40 degrees of bank the difference between flaps 20 and 40 is still only 2mph.

I normally use flaps 20 on long runways, as it just gives a better/easier landing and there isn't really any advantage of using more flaps. Anything about 20 is purely drag flap - all it's really doing is giving you a steeper descent profile.

Thanks all right, 1mph!

Still unless they are blocked from using you'll have to learn with full flaps, why? Because you can use them. And even if you tell your 16 years old solo not to land more than 20 degrees flaps, know what he will do? He will use them, because it is cool, he is a top gun... and if he has to overshoot for whatever reason and he was never taught how to retract, know what will happen?

Once he knows how to overshoot with 40 degrees, use 20 if you like for the rest of the time, yes I agree it make less pronounced flares, and if you think it is safer than fine.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Timel before this goes any further we should agree that the discussion stays on a logical professional level.

I am assuming you are a relatively low time flight instructor?

Also I gathered from your previous comments you teach them to use full flaps for all normal landings in the Cessna trainers?

150 is under power, full flaps with 172 is fine.
The weight to power ratio in the 172 is so much better than the weight to power ratio in a 150 that you can ignore the excessive drag of full flaps on a go around?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:Timel before this goes any further we should agree that the discussion stays on a logical professional level.

I am assuming you are a relatively low time flight instructor?

Also I gathered from your previous comments you teach them to use full flaps for all normal landings in the Cessna trainers?

150 is under power, full flaps with 172 is fine.
The weight to power ratio in the 172 is so much better than the weight to power ratio in a 150 that you can ignore the excessive drag of full flaps on a go around?
Ok I am getting a bit annoyed.

I have to admit I have flown much more the 172 than 150 (and it's been a while for the 150), I taught on 170,172, 182, 206, 210...piper, rockwell...


Yes full flaps on most i guess, less on taildraggers, I have a lot of solos and over thirty licences recommendations. I don't get the full flap issue. Yes I you make 4 miles final at 1000', don't put it full flaps


Del...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Ok I am getting a bit annoyed.
It is you who said you teach them to always land with full flaps.

No one here has said we do not teach them how to fly the airplane through its full envelope so why are you annoyed?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Shiny Side Up wrote:
timel wrote:
Shiny Side Up wrote: This is the same way I train with them and the overshoot issue being the prime reason not to use all the flaps, especially since they're hardly necessary.

I was correcting you on that, now you have changed your speech. Yes yes yes, fly smart.
You won't have your students do full flaps landings because they might t-o with it not up, or because they might put flaps full up on overshoot instead or 20 degrees and than 10/10.
Its possible the translation is confusing things, but I sort of don't think so. I still stand by what I've said, and lets be clear, its not that I don't teach students how to land with full flaps, its that I teach them to think about using them. Lets do some thinking.
Guess I understand what you are saying.
I agree to fly smart, as long as there is no taboo about operating in any envelop of the aircraft in any situations, I guess we will all agree.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:
Ok I am getting a bit annoyed.
It is you who said you teach them to always land with full flaps.

No one here has said we do not teach them how to fly the airplane through its full envelope so why are you annoyed?
Of course not, land with spoilers, flaps up on one wheel if you like... all I am saying is instructor should make sure the student is comfortable in any situation. But maybe we all agree.

After that, yes 20 degrees is more easy to land and if a caribooo walks on your 8000' runway it will be definitely easier to overshot 50' from the ground. Since a Cessna does not climb when over 20 degrees of flaps and full power but it does not descend either or very lightly...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Let's say you had both a 150 and 152 to fly.

150 has 40 flap. But 152 only has 30 flap,
which I understand is a big problem for
you. Would you illegally alter the limit
switches on the 152, to get the 40 flap
that you "need"?

Same thing with early 172 (40 flap) and
later 172 (30 flap). Would you crawl under
the dash of the later 172 with a screwdriver,
to move the limit switches, to get the 40 flap?

I am really interested in your answers to this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

Flight training should be the most important sector of aviation, but for some reason someone decided that unlike most other professions the teachers can be the less experienced individuals in said profession.

It is best demonstrated by the lack of attention to exercise number 5 in Canada's flight training manual.

I prefer the FAA training system.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Colonel Sanders wrote:Let's say you had both a 150 and 152 to fly.

150 has 40 flap. But 152 only has 30 flap,
which I understand is a big problem for
you. Would you illegally alter the limit
switches on the 152, to get the 40 flap
that you "need"?

Same thing with early 172 (40 flap) and
later 172 (30 flap). Would you crawl under
the dash of the later 172 with a screwdriver,
to move the limit switches, to get the 40 flap?

I am really interested in your answers to this.
Of course I would not, for what? :rolleyes:

Ok I guess we have misunderstanding.

I don't mind landing in any configuration, and the student should be comfortable landing flap less or with full flaps, and should be able to overshoot in any configuration, with flaps or without flaps.

Whatever the aircraft is max 30 flaps or max 40. The student should be able to execute an overshoot in any of these configurations, that is all I am saying.

Now if you favour 20 degrees approach and landings (for multiple reasons you believe to be safe) instead of 40 for a 150, I am fine with that. And I will be as long as the student has the aptitudes for overshooting full flaps (30 or 40).
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

I was teaching mainly from a 2500' runway.
Before that I also taught on a grass runway for two years and that was 3000' with a steep approach due to ground proximity.

It might alter our views of full flaps landings, that is why I said I would always recommend them full flaps I guess, but I don't make it an absolute rule, it has just been a standard approach I guess.

I tend to forget people fly on 8000' runways.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

The longest paved runway I ever operated off was 15,502 feet long in Harrare Zimbawbe.

And I never ever used flaps.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Shiny Side Up »

timel wrote:I was teaching mainly from a 2500' runway.
Oooooh! Did they give you a cookie for that? You must be one of those instructors that come and tell me my runway is dangerous and needs special techniques!
I tend to forget people fly on 8000' runways.
Guess again Bub.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Colonel Sanders »

I tend to forget people fly on 8000' runways
My "long" runway is 4000x75, which I land
L39's on (125 knots short final). What jets
with a Vref over 120 knots, do you take off
and land, from 4000 feet?

I have two other runways that I use for training,
and when it's convenient.

One runway is a grass 1000 foot runway,
parallel to the paved 4000 "long" runway,
that I use for real world soft/short training.

On the paved runway, I have people approach
at 70, then 65, then 60 mph. When they can
consistently approach at 60 mph and touch
down on the numbers, I shift them over to
the parallel grass strip, which we can usually
stop within 500 feet.

Another runway is a north/south grass strip
with high trees at one end. It's often soaking
wet, and 1400 feet. Requires an unusual full
flap, power off, sideslipping approach. A real
world soft/short/obstacle landing.

8000 feet, my ass.
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Shiny Side Up wrote:
timel wrote:I was teaching mainly from a 2500' runway.
Oooooh! Did they give you a cookie for that? You must be one of those instructors that come and tell me my runway is dangerous and needs special techniques!
I tend to forget people fly on 8000' runways.
Guess again Bub.
What ever, no point wasting my time. Safe flights buddy, I am sure you are a great instructor and you know what you do!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by Cat Driver »

As long as we are reminiscing about memorable short landings I may as well jump in and relate a real tough one I was forced into many moons ago.

Late one fall I arrived at POV in northern Quebec to find the fu.kin bay had frozen over during the night.

My only choice was to land on the winter strip.....however had a big ditch cut in it by runoff.

We had 16 passengers and freight on board which meant we were a bit heavy for such a short strip....after I landed and got it stopped just before the ditch across the runway which was sand we walked it several times and found it was only 1600 feet long.

The company had to send another airplane to finish the sked run because we had to wait several days for a strong wind so we could get the thing off the short sand strip.

Sometimes you are forced to land short so it helps to know how.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by timel »

Cat Driver wrote:As long as we are reminiscing about memorable short landings I may as well jump in and relate a real tough one I was forced into many moons ago.

Late one fall I arrived at POV in northern Quebec to find the fu.kin bay had frozen over during the night.

My only choice was to land on the winter strip.....however had a big ditch cut in it by runoff.

We had 16 passengers and freight on board which meant we were a bit heavy for such a short strip....after I landed and got it stopped just before the ditch across the runway which was sand we walked it several times and found it was only 1600 feet long.

The company had to send another airplane to finish the sked run because we had to wait several days for a strong wind so we could get the thing off the short sand strip.

Sometimes you are forced to land short so it helps to know how.
:mrgreen:

They have a few ones up there they do with twin otters, guys doing pretty impressive stuffs actually.

It is much more welcoming in CYPX than it used to be for you guys. Did the airports from Georges River all the way up to Salluit, I never understood what were upslope and downslope runways until I landed at those place.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: C-150 crash in Montreal

Post by PilotDAR »

Since a Cessna does not climb when over 20 degrees of flaps and full power
Horsefeathers. Any certified aircraft will climb adequately with full flap extended, its a certification requirement. No full flap climb, no certification. Every aircraft I have to climb test, will have a "balked landing" climb test too. I have never had a plane which did not pass, though I had one which would not pass the basic climb test.

Other than for the occasional practice zero flap landing, every landing I do will be flown full flaps. They were installed on the aircraft for a reason. If the crosswind is too strong for me to control a full flap landing, its too strong for me to land at all. I have not attempted a 25 knot direct crosswind in the 150, though I have in other larger types. In the 150, I once did go to a runway of a different direction, when the wind was 37 G 43. I still landed full flaps.

The stall speed may only be 1 MPH different 20 to 40, but I opine that the touchdown speed will be greater than 1 MPH slower when full flaps are used, and a fully stalled landing has a much lesser risk of striking the tail.

I see many no, or partial flap landings, I suspect that most are not being flown by the person who pays to maintain the aircraft. To me, a partial flap landing makes about the same sense as a partial power takeoff. A good skill to practice simply for skills development and flying finesse, but otherwise not for me.

The unfortunate pilot in Montreal tried to climb away with full flaps in a 150? It takes a bit more skill, but it can be done. Retracting the flaps is better though.

And Cat, yes, I too landed on the 15,502 foot runway in Harrare, flying a Twin Otter. Okay, I did not use full flaps for that, but with full flaps a Twin Otter is a bit of a different plane, than a Cessna. Upon seeing all of that hard top, my captain just said to me: "Land long."

Yes, speaking of short runways up north, I paced off Rapid Lake's runway the week before last. I make it to be 750 feet long, and I saw the Twin Otter tire marks in the sand. That demands skill indeed!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”