Full flap/specialty landings - 172

[Colonel Sanders]

I just checked my POH for a 172R

Sorry, what I've got is a POH for a 172M which says:

Stall speed...Flaps
57 mph........0
52 mph........10
49 mph........40

Note that the first 10 flap dropped the stall speed 5 mph, but
the remaining 30 flap only dropped the stall speed another 3 mph.

I suspect that with 15 flap, you're probably around 51 mph which
is not far from the 49 mph at 40 flap.

The point is that after 15 flap, you get drag. Lots of it. And not
much more lift.

I find landing with 20 or 30 flap to be easier

Then for gosh sakes, do it! No one else can tell you what is
the best headset for you. Or whether or not you like tomato
sauce with your pasta.

[Shiny Side Up]

Personally I don't care how people have learned to land, lots of flaps, some flaps or none, as long as they can do it. What drives me figuratively insane though is how many people have been taught to modulate their approach by the use of their flaps, often as the primary means of doing so. It shows a gross misunderstanding of how to set up the approach and control it in the first place. Often with some pilots when I do check rides, stuff starts going awry on the approach and there's a "whoa, I'm really high, I need all the flaps" If I tell them they can't use them, there's always this panicked moment (where we proceed to get higher on the approach followed by their artistic interpretation of a slip and usually an overshoot.

[PilotDAR]

ATC asks, "Keep your speed up." I'm not using flap and probably landing long to avoid wake turbulence.

Wouldn't that be a "specialty" landing also?

Definitely yes, a "specialty" landing, and one of the more likely to result in nosewheel damage too. I pilot who is trying to get the plane well slowed down, and into a short runway, which is within the performance tables for the aircraft is probably safer from damaging the plane, than a pilot who is deliberately landing fast and flapless. For those times that I am asked to keep the speed up, I certainly oblige, overflying as much of the runway I feel appropriate, then performing a "normal" (ALWAYS full flap for me) landing on the portion of the runway I need to use, then clearing without delay.

I learned my lesson the startling way, landing a 182 at YYZ decades ago, where I though that with all that runway, I would just fly it on flapless. Well, I did not damage the plane, but I probably came as close as I ever have, and with a whole lot more stored energy than I cared to have to dissipate that close to the ground. That kind of landing, with the apparent "lots of room" masks a very real hazard of a careless, fast landing, and resulting ballooning, and pilot induced oscillation.

Every landing is the same - a proper approach, stabilized flare, dissipate the energy, hold the nose light, land and stop in the intended runway area. The fact that you might choose to overfly a few thousand feet of runway to do that is fine - just don't run off the end! While landing a Twin Otter on a 15,500 long runway in Africa, my Captain (who was right seat to me that day) looked over to me and said "Land long". Yes, I had figured that out!

As for WKF's observations about Cessna preferred flap settings for landing, you will find many opinions and threads on that subject, with everyone thinking they have the right answer. I do not seek to inflict my opinion on anyone, or to over ride the Cessna manuals. However, personally, after 38 years of flying just about every single Cessna out there, the only time I have ever landed with less than full flaps extended has been for zero flap practice, or during an actual flap system failure. I have never regretted choosing full flaps for landing, or felt I had less control. I have helped to clean up wrecks which were landed with less than full flap, where, in my opinion, more flap (and more pilot proficiency) would have prevented that crash. But, that's just my opinion....

And then there are flaps like this, and that's a whole different can of worms (though I still did use full flaps)

[dr.aero]

PilotDAR...

I'm not sure if I'd classify those as flaps or speed brakes...

[PilotDAR]

Interestingly, in that plane, when flying flaps 30, with someone in the back seat, the elevator, in stable level flight seems to be positioned so:



But, I'm guilty of thread drift....

[Beefitarian]

Bear with me folks. I'm lurnin™ here.

That's an excellent point that I can add flap for landing after getting out of the way keeping up my speed in the approach.

The nose wheel was not in danger at the time, I would bleed off energy with a nice long flare, land on the mains with a nice song from the stall indicator. I was pretty current when I was doing them all trip. The only problem I set myself up for, was once I got home and was fatigued from the longest day flying I ever did. I went to do one and realised my home airport didn't have nearly enough pavement. I had to overshoot and try again.

[Rookie50]

It's true -- 172 R's full flap stall is 33 kias! No wonder those things don't want to actually land. Those planes need 40....for the extra drag.

Personally, I'll reduce my flaps In a cessna single to 20 say if the wind is howling...which I define as around 25 kts or more, particularly with some crosswind component.

I just find...with less flap there is less surface for a hard gust to catch in the flare...and plane sits down a bit easier. With so much wind...plane is hardly moving anyway in such a landing.

[photofly]

If you have a lot of speed to bleed off, don't wait until you're in ground effect to do it. Do it well before the flare.

[Rookie50]

If you have a lot of speed to bleed off, don't wait until you're in ground effect to do it. Do it well before the flare.

I definitely do! -- when flying those things. It's a 55 kias approach AC.

Ive gotten used to a bit heavier stuff, and the difference power off is striking....just highlighting that. The r and s models, are like gliders to me when approaching to land...slow to lose altitude. Rg models, more like a light brick, gear down, flaps full, no power.

[white_knuckle_flyer]

Personally I don't care how people have learned to land, lots of flaps, some flaps or none, as long as they can do it. What drives me figuratively insane though is how many people have been taught to modulate their approach by the use of their flaps, often as the primary means of doing so. It shows a gross misunderstanding of how to set up the approach and control it in the first place. Often with some pilots when I do check rides, stuff starts going awry on the approach and there's a "whoa, I'm really high, I need all the flaps" If I tell them they can't use them, there's always this panicked moment (where we proceed to get higher on the approach followed by their artistic interpretation of a slip and usually an overshoot.

I only have my instructors recommended solution for flying a too-high approach. I'm interested in what your protocol is. Would you have a student slip ? Reduce power ? Nose up ? Everything ???

[PilotDAR]

I'm interested in what your protocol is

While respecting instructors here by reminding readers that I am not an instructor, I none the less have an answer for this:

Would you have a student slip ? Reduce power ? Nose up ? Everything ???

None of the above. Recognize the learning opportunity for what it is - you botched the approach, recognize that, go around, and get it better next time, 'cause now you know what bad looks like.

Though in a 172 you have lots of capacity in the forgiving design to fix a horrible approach, there are many types where you will not be able to fix the approach - the plane is just not capable. A fixably high approach in a 172,m is not fixable when flown the same way in a Cub, or Moth, or other light types. Similarly, a low and slow approach can be fixed in the 172, but would be a disaster in a twin, if you mixed it in with a failed engine.

The key is to learn to feel the aircraft, its energy, and how you are managing it. 172's are easy, other types not so willing to tell you what they are doing, or are about to do. You are learning to fly. Learning to fly a 172 is a stepping stone to this.

But, over to the instructors.....

[photofly]

I suspect that SSU's point is that you should plan your flap usage well ahead ("for this landing I will lower 10 degrees of flap abeam the touchdown point and 20 degrees having rolled out on base, and complete the approach and landing with 20 degrees of flap") and modulate your flightpath with pitch and power to arrive at the points and speeds where you planned to adjust the flaps before doing so.

Everybody and their dog has rescued an approach by throwing in some extra flap, at some time or other, but he's saying it shouldn't be taught to you as a primary means of adjusting your flight path.

Personally I don't think you need to fly a 172 as though it's a twin, or a Cub, or a Moth; if the approach is horrible but fixable, I don't think you should go around: I think you should fix it, and vow to do better next time. The key is noticing that it's getting horrible earlier and earlier, so you can take the necessary steps sooner and sooner.

[Old Dog Flying]

I'm interested in what your protocol is

While respecting instructors here by reminding readers that I am not an instructor, I none the less have an answer for this:

Would you have a student slip ? Reduce power ? Nose up ? Everything ???

None of the above. A fixably high approach in a 172,m is not fixable when flown the same way in a Cub, or Moth, or other light types. ....

Having owned a partnership in both the Tiger Moth and a Cub, The reduction of power, a side slip would be the norm to bleed off altitude on final..when necessary...all the while maintaining the centre line and the proper approach speed.

And in my Grumman AA1A, if I'm asked to keep it in close for traffic, all of the above..full flaps, reduce power, slip in the turn to final while maintaining the correct approach speed. What the hell, this is what I was taught more than 60 years ago and it still works today.

Remember the old "Attitude, Power and Trim"? or "Power, Attitude, Trim"? None of the students that I trained had problems with any of this because they had it drilled into them from the first lesson.

Barney..Old School, Old Fart

[Beefitarian]

Sorry, I should have mentioned those long landings at the busy airports were in a Warrior II, I know it flies different than a 172, the lack of floating for miles might have been crucial to what I was doing at the time.

[Rookie50]

Sorry, I should have mentioned those long landings at the busy airports were in a Warrior II, I know it flies different than a 172, the lack of floating for miles might have been crucial to what I was doing at the time.

Likely get flamed for this from the controller segment....but here it is. I have flown into a few of these busy airports with a light single, having been asked! to keep speed up "all the way in". I will do that on a long final....but at a mile....the speed comes right off.

To me, its the controllers job...to sequence the traffic properly...not to browbeat a 172 into a 100 knot short final....those kind of approaches don't work too well. Better to slow it down, land, get off the runway quickly.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I will do that on a long final....but at a mile....the speed comes right off.

To me, its the controllers job...to sequence the traffic properly...not to browbeat a 172 into a 100 knot short final...

Look at it from a controllers viewpoint, for that last mile you now have increased the closure speed on you of any following jets to at least 80 knots faster than you are going.

You may have four people in your 172 but the following jet may have 400 people on board.

[Beefitarian]

Easy .. I think a mile is a little early. If I ever get to fly a 172 again I'll have to discuss this with the guy that makes sure I'm not doing crazy things or getting lazy with the controls while I taxi and stuff.

[Old Dog Flying]

Rookie...I've done that many times going into YYZ when I needed spares from the north end. The most memorable..orbitting Terminal Two at 500' waiting for R32..."Whiskey Blue..Cleared to land 32 ..keep the speed up ..land long, B707 0n final to follow". The American came back "yur cuttin' it close aren't you tower?" Towers reply "We know his capability but we don't know yours" Big laughter from multiple sources.

The thing here is to be able to use all of your abilities to get the job done and that only comes with good training and practice and knowing your aircraft limitations.

Barney

[Rookie50]

I agree...to dawdle down a 7 mile final at 65, at a busy airport is not cool at all....its the repeated demands to keep it up when approaching a mile....that I thought a bit much. Very rare though....most controllers do a great job mixing all kinds of traffic! Tough job too.

[Rookie50]

Rookie...I've done that many times going into YYZ when I needed spares from the north end. The most memorable..orbitting Terminal Two at 500' waiting for R32..."Whiskey Blue..Cleared to land 32 ..keep the speed up ..land long, B707 0n final to follow". The American came back "yur cuttin' it close aren't you tower?" Towers reply "We know his capability but we don't know yours" Big laughter from multiple sources.

The thing here is to be able to use all of your abilities to get the job done and that only comes with good training and practice and knowing your aircraft limitations.

Barney

Never happened here, in the US...but I think at least they let us little guys into these big places...., so not really complaining....tons of runway of course. Man indianapolis is a LARGE airport when one needs to taxi to the other side!

[photofly]

I agree with Rookie, give or take.

There's an interesting article online somewhere about testing the minimum time, altitude and distance taken to slow from cruise speed to a sensible threshold speed while flying an ILS in a light single. It's not very much.

I found that, in a 182, starting at 120 kts at 400 (300?) agl and maybe a mile-ish final it wasn't much challenge to slow, land, and turn off in 1500 feet. If I can do it, I'm sure most people could.

Look at it from a controllers viewpoint, for that last mile you now have increased the closure speed on you of any following jets to at least 80 knots faster than you are going.

Scenario 1: you fly over the threshold at 120 knots and spend 30 seconds slowing to touchdown speed and turn off at the far end. The airliner is still gaining on you all that time.

Scenario 2: you maintain 120 knots until 20 seconds before threshold; bleeding off the speed in the air where you have more drag. You fly over the threshold at 65 knots, touchdown, and exit 2000' from the threshold. You're out of the way of the airliner much earlier than scenario 1.

[Shiny Side Up]

Would you have a student slip ? Reduce power ? Nose up ? Everything ???

None of the above. Recognize the learning opportunity for what it is - you botched the approach, recognize that, go around, and get it better next time, 'cause now you know what bad looks like.

Bingo. The flaps shouldn't be going in because you are trying to correct a screw up, they should be going down because you planned to put them down. The approach should already be under control. In lots of cases when I see this done, they're high, they're fast and still attempt to push a bad approach into a landing until the very end. Usually you have to remind them to go around, we're not doing anything so important to do or die in a Cessna after all. What's troublesome though is when some pilots just don't seem to learn from previous mistakes. Something about doing the same thing expecting different results comes to mind, people are sometimes depressingly unimaginative in their problem solving technique.

Though in a 172 you have lots of capacity in the forgiving design to fix a horrible approach, there are many types where you will not be able to fix the approach - the plane is just not capable. A fixably high approach in a 172,m is not fixable when flown the same way in a Cub, or Moth, or other light types. Similarly, a low and slow approach can be fixed in the 172, but would be a disaster in a twin, if you mixed it in with a failed engine.

Very correct. You can slip like a stone with a 172, its got a reasonable enough ammount of power to respond to any misjudgements to be able to go around at almost any segment of the whole thing. Not only is it student friendly, but instructor friendly in how far it can be pushed and still be able to easily enough be brought back into something more reasonable. Just because the airplane can be flown so terrribly though, doesn't mean one should accept that, set the bar a bit higher.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Scenario 1: you fly over the threshold at 120 knots and spend 30 seconds slowing to touchdown speed and turn off at the far end. The airliner is still gaining on you all that time.

Scenario 2: you maintain 120 knots until 20 seconds before threshold; bleeding off the speed in the air where you have more drag. You fly over the threshold at 65 knots, touchdown, and exit 2000' from the threshold. You're out of the way of the airliner much earlier than scenario 1.

How dumb of me not to have considered the above.

Especially in a thread where people are over stressed with the complexity and challenge involved in landing a 172 with full flaps.

I never learn.

[Rookie50]

I agree with Rookie, give or take.

There's an interesting article online somewhere about testing the minimum time, altitude and distance taken to slow from cruise speed to a sensible threshold speed while flying an ILS in a light single. It's not very much.

I found that, in a 182, starting at 120 kts at 400 (300?) agl and maybe a mile-ish final it wasn't much challenge to slow, land, and turn off in 1500 feet. If I can do it, I'm sure most people could.

Look at it from a controllers viewpoint, for that last mile you now have increased the closure speed on you of any following jets to at least 80 knots faster than you are going.

Scenario 1: you fly over the threshold at 120 knots and spend 30 seconds slowing to touchdown speed and turn off at the far end. The airliner is still gaining on you all that time.


Scenario 2: you maintain 120 knots until 20 seconds before threshold; bleeding off the speed in the air where you have more drag. You fly over the threshold at 65 knots, touchdown, and exit 2000' from the threshold. You're out of the way of the airliner much earlier than scenario 1.

Exactly my thought photo. Bit of a thread drift.

On another note...any school not comfortable with teaching full flap usage at the outset...not sure I get that. I learned on a short, 40 ft wide runway...kind of glad I did.

I wonder if it's a lack of comfort with the student, in slow flight controllability. The student is drilled, properly, that stalling low in the pattern is fatal perhaps. Then, its easy to form the habit -- I had this for a bit and trained out of it -- of carrying way too much energy on final for the aircraft. Got to be common -- with all the overruns you hear of. It is a bit of an art, takes practice, to carry exactly the right amount of energy into the flare, and not a bit too much. Amazing how little runway you need when done right.

[LousyFisherman]

snip......
landing a Twin Otter on a 15,500 long runway in Africa, my Captain (who was right seat to me that day) looked over to me and said "Land long". Yes, I had figured that out!

Huh, at Springbank, I always land long (between 5000 and 7000 feet) on their 10,000 footer. 100% of the time, as I pass the 2000 foot mark ATC pops up with "BZX, are you planning a go around?"



LF