Strong crosswind landing video CTSW

[Ed Cesnalis]

Stressing the gear at higher flap settings will cost you down the road.

 

I've been 'stressing the gear' at higher flap settings for 7 years now. When should I plan on this extra cost? How much will it be?

 

Why should i rely on VASI or PAPI lights when they mean I won't make the runway if my power fails?

 

'Especially the the airplane belongs to you.' what does that mean?

[Ian]

The FD CT lands optimally and at the best safety margin at 15 degree flaps at 62kts. Sure its good to practice no flap and higher flap landings, but the optimal and nominal landing configuration is to follow PAPI or VASI down, stay on glide slope with 15 degree flaps at 62kts. Hit the numbers and groove that in. Especially the the airplane belongs to you.

 

Stressing the gear at higher flap settings will cost you down the road.

 

Once again you seem to be talking nonsense and quoting numbers that are just plain wrong!

 

Here is a direct transcription of the information from the Aircraft Operating Handbook - provided by the manufacturer after expert flight testing:

_____________________________________________________________________

Before Landing

 

Safety harness Tight

Airspeed 110 kmph (61kts)

Wing Flaps 15 .... 35 degrees

Landing Light As required

 

Normal Landing

 

Approach Airspeed 100 kmph (54 kts)

Flaps on Finals 15 or 30 as required

Airspeed on Final 100 kmph (54 kts)

Flare smoothly nose not too high

After Touchdown stick smoothly back to relieve nose wheel

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Can you perhaps explain to other pilots on here why you choose to differ from what the manufacturer recommends?

Are you a test pilot?

[Ed Cesnalis]

The FD CT lands optimally and at the best safety margin at 15 degree flaps at 62kts. Sure its good to practice no flap and higher flap landings, but the optimal and nominal landing configuration is to follow PAPI or VASI down, stay on glide slope with 15 degree flaps at 62kts. Hit the numbers and groove that in. Especially the the airplane belongs to you.

 

Stressing the gear at higher flap settings will cost you down the road.

 

The FD CT lands

optimally and at the best safety margin

at 15 degree flaps at 62kts

. ... [T]he

optimal

and

nominal

landing configuration

is [3°] with 15 degree flaps at 62kts.

 

Lands optimally and at the best safety margin? Optimal and nominal configuration? 3° approach? Where does this stuff come from, someone is making it up it doesn't come from Flight Design.

 

Has the long standing 30% margin recommended by the FAA finally been debunked in favor of 59%? Are you going with the 3° based on your previous statement that loosing power in a CT on approach is no a big concern due to the CT's long glide slope [sIC]?

 

You are not arguing that high approach speeds have their place you are flat out declaring it to be optimal, best safety margin and nominal as well as throwing in low approaches. Thats a pretty bold statement, can you back it up beyond pointing out that your flight school is located next to Flight Design West?

[mocfly]

Maybe his plane is different then our "outdated" ones.

 

[Doug G.]

Can someone tell me why criticism gets you censored while consistently posting mis-information, I believe maliciously, does not? Admins? This person will not answer any questions about the source of their information and continues to post things that are contrary to the CFIs, aeronautical, and mechanical experts on this site and around the world. These are not just differences in opinon or style, they are also often against what FD and Rotax state...as well as accepted standard practices. It is very tiresome.

[WmInce]

Can someone tell me why criticism gets you censored while consistently posting mis-information, I believe maliciously, does not? Admins? This person will not answer any questions about the source of their information and continues to post things that are contrary to the CFIs, aeronautical, and mechanical experts on this site and around the world. These are not just differences in opinon or style, they are also often against what FD and Rotax state...as well as accepted standard practices. It is very tiresome.

 

Totally concur.

 

I have been censored also . . . just for asking what the individuals aviation background was . . . which he/she refuses to share.

 

If someone is going to post suspect material, what is wrong with inquiring about their level of aviation expertise and how much Flight Design experience they have?

 

Comments regarding this are welcomed.

[Admin2]

Information right or wrong is fine to post and we all all can rebut any thing we don't agree with. You can post supporting documentation if you choose or not. Any personal attacks big or small need to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with the subject avaiation. Maybe you can ask your personal questions in a form that doesn't sound as an attack or with any overt criticism or malicious jab. Remember these post are black and white and no emotions or voice expressions are in play so look at your post that 100 people may read and ask yourself, is what they read and understand what you really meant. Could it be taken the wrong way personally.

I have typed many a post that were long and after re-reading or coming back in ten minutes I deleted them because they could be taken the wrong way or weren't on subject and went off an a tangent.

 

Questions, info and document all you want. Information good or bad is the nature of all forums, but the admins won't allow post to detiriate into personal dueling.

Many of us know each other here on the forum and we make funny jabs at each other, but that's all those are and the receiver knows it and they are usually accompanied by funny emotions or LOL.

 

Think before you hit send and how your post will be interpreted and will everyone get your intended meaning.

 

You can't kick everyone off the Internet that post mis-information or it would only be 1/2 its size and then what would you do with newspapers.

 

Enjoy our forum and leave politics, religion and ill feelings out.

[Ian]

Admin - I agree with your sentiment, and I hope you will see that where I've seen misinformation I've tried to correct it.

 

But there is a more serious point here - whilst there are many experienced pilots on this forum, there are also a number of students & low houred folk: When apparently authoritative statements are made which could be downright dangerous if such advice were followed is there not a duty of care to point out the errors. Indeed in such a litigious society as you have that side of the pond I'm slightly surprised that you do not police things a little more strictly?

[WmInce]

Information right or wrong is fine to post and we all all can rebut any thing we don't agree with. You can post supporting documentation if you choose or not. Any personal attacks big or small need to be curtailed. It has nothing to do with the subject avaiation. Maybe you can ask your personal questions in a form that doesn't sound as an attack or with any overt criticism or malicious jab. Remember these post are black and white and no emotions or voice expressions are in play so look at your post that 100 people may read and ask yourself, is what they read and understand what you really meant. Could it be taken the wrong way personally.

I have typed many a post that were long and after re-reading or coming back in ten minutes I deleted them because they could be taken the wrong way or weren't on subject and went off an a tangent.

 

Questions, info and document all you want. Information good or bad is the nature of all forums, but the admins won't allow post to detiriate into personal dueling.

Many of us know each other here on the forum and we make funny jabs at each other, but that's all those are and the receiver knows it and they are usually accompanied by funny emotions or LOL.

 

Think before you hit send and how your post will be interpreted and will everyone get your intended meaning.

 

You can't kick everyone off the Internet that post mis-information or it would only be 1/2 its size and then what would you do with newspapers.

 

Enjoy our forum and leave politics, religion and ill feelings out.

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I agree with most of what you said and understand, however, since when is it "offensive" just to ask someone their level of aviation experience and how much flight time/landings they have in Flight Design airplanes? In some cases, I think it is pertinent. If you are implying that it never is, then I have to respectfully disagree.

 

In some cases, would it not be helpful to know, we are reading something posted by a student pilot with 5 hours or an aeronautical engineer with an ATP?

[FastEddieB]

Back on topic...

 

First of all, I'm reluctant to constantly say how many years I've been flying, my total hours and my hours instructing. To harp on these may certainly come across as braggadocio.

 

I do have a résumé saved, and would be happy to send a copy to anyone who might wish to see my background. I think I've mentioned my experience before on this site, so it could also be searched for.

 

Now to my point - a flight school that prohibits students from even being exposed to 30° flap setting or more.

 

They have a right to do so. I can only guess that they fear that 30° flap landings are more likely to cause damage, due to their difficulty. Fine, it's their plane.

 

But I strongly disagree.

 

As background, ALL of my students have had full flap landings put forth as their normal landing from hour one. None have bent a plane while under my tutelage due to the flap setting, and I don't know of any accidents they've had due to that since leaving the nest.

 

I think limiting a student to 15° of flaps introduces risks higher than a bent plane. If a student has an engine failure on his first or any subsequent solo, he may be faced with a landing in a field, in a parking lot, or on a road. In each case, any pilot recognizes the benefit of landing at the lowest possible speed, something a pilot who can only land with 15° flaps absolutely cannot do. Hit an obstacle, and the difference between 39k and 45k (let's say) can be the difference between no injuries and something much worse.

 

And a student who has no experience with full flap landings has no business trying them for the first time in a real emergency. That could easily result in a stall if the student did not have experience with the pitch changes that maximum flaps require.

 

I would say that if a student were ever injured or killed by a partial flap off airport landing, his flight school or instructor could easily find themselves in civil court with a lot of 'splainin' to do, especially if the POH calls for full flaps in off airport landing, which at least the CTSW POH does (40° flaps and 43k on final).

 

"Instructor Jones, do you mean to tell me that you solo'd student Smith with him totally unprepared to perform an emergency landing as the plane's manual describes?" I, for one, would never want to be Instructor Jones.

 

One large caveat - I might soften my position slightly if the school made it clear that off airport landings were to NEVER be considered - that BRS was the ONLY option in a power failure emergency. Still, I think that also fails as a strategy, since a student should have all options available in an emergency.

[Ed Cesnalis]

... One large caveat - I might soften my position slightly if the school made it clear that off airport landings were to NEVER be considered - that BRS was the ONLY option in a power failure emergency. Still, I think that also fails as a strategy, since a student should have all options available in an emergency.

 

What if the BRS fails?

[GravityKnight]

Back on topic...

 

First of all, I'm reluctant to constantly say how many years I've been flying, my total hours and my hours instructing. To harp on these may certainly come across as braggadocio.

 

I do have a résumé saved, and would be happy to send a copy to anyone who might wish to see my background. I think I've mentioned my experience before on this site, so it could also be searched for.

 

Now to my point - a flight school that prohibits students from even being exposed to 30° flap setting or more.

 

They have a right to do so. I can only guess that they fear that 30° flap landings are more likely to cause damage, due to their difficulty. Fine, it's their plane.

 

But I strongly disagree.

 

As background, ALL of my students have had full flap landings put forth as their normal landing from hour one. None have bent a plane while under my tutelage due to the flap setting, and I don't know of any accidents they've had due to that since leaving the nest.

 

I think limiting a student to 15° of flaps introduces risks higher than a bent plane. If a student has an engine failure on his first or any subsequent solo, he may be faced with a landing in a field, in a parking lot, or on a road. In each case, any pilot recognizes the benefit of landing at the lowest possible speed, something a pilot who can only land with 15° flaps absolutely cannot do. Hit an obstacle, and the difference between 39k and 45k (let's say) can be the difference between no injuries and something much worse.

 

And a student who has no experience with full flap landings has no business trying them for the first time in a real emergency. That could easily result in a stall if the student did not have experience with the pitch changes that maximum flaps require.

 

I would say that if a student were ever injured or killed by a partial flap off airport landing, his flight school or instructor could easily find themselves in civil court with a lot of 'splainin' to do, especially if the POH calls for full flaps in off airport landing, which at least the CTSW POH does (40° flaps and 43k on final).

 

"Instructor Jones, do you mean to tell me that you solo'd student Smith with him totally unprepared to perform an emergency landing as the plane's manual describes?" I, for one, would never want to be Instructor Jones.

 

One large caveat - I might soften my position slightly if the school made it clear that off airport landings were to NEVER be considered - that BRS was the ONLY option in a power failure emergency. Still, I think that also fails as a strategy, since a student should have all options available in an emergency.

 

Agreed!!

 

My instructor feels the same way. He actually let me land it with 30 deg... shhhh.. no one knows that , I'm the only student who he's let do it because I've picked everything up quick. This was back when it was just a verbal policy though. Now, since then it was brought to light by another instructor who feels no more than 15 deg is required (he is the only instructor there that would argue this) that my instructor was demonstrating 30 degree landings for students just so they would have a basic feel for it.. and he got in trouble. Now the planes all have labels across the 30 deg and higher settings that read 15 deg flaps only! And it's an official rule of the school now.

 

Another interesting question.. while on the topic of flaps. When winds are bad... obviously I want the flaps up as soon as I'm planted on the ground so the wind will be less likely to cause an issue during taxi.. pretty straight forward.... and after taxing in 35 knot cross winds with my instructor a while back I got to thinking... would flipping the flaps up to -6 actually help that situation just that much more? do you gain anything over 0? Common sense tells me that -6 creates less lift/ and less drag, so it should make taxi-ing in high winds just a touch safer... what do you guys think?

[Ed Cesnalis]

Once you are planted you no longer want the flaps, you want to remain planted. The correct method to teach this is to retract as soon as you clear the runway. Some like me that know I am not destined to upgrade to retractables will even retract our flaps as soon as our mains are planted.

 

We don't want a gust to get us in the air after our landing, negative flaps make you stick to the runway / taxiway, landing flaps make you vulnerable to getting airborne again.

[GravityKnight]

Once you are planted you no longer want the flaps, you want to remain planted. The correct method to teach this is to retract as soon as you clear the runway. Some like me that know I am not destined to upgrade to retractables will even retract our flaps as soon as our mains are planted.

 

We don't want a gust to get us in the air after our landing, negative flaps make you stick to the runway / taxiway, landing flaps make you vulnerable to getting airborne again.

 

Right, and I know what your saying about the retractable gear. When it's real windy I bring them up quickly... but what I'm wondering is if -6 gives just a touch more margain of safety vs 0 when taxiing in high wind/x-wind? I think it theoretically makes the wing create less lift which is a good thing... I brought this up when a few of us were sitting around talking the other day- but the owner of the school/CFI told me there is no difference in this instance between 0 and -6... I was just curious....

[Ed Cesnalis]

Look at the stall speeds, -6 is faster than 0

[Doug G.]

I nearly always taxi with -6. It just makes sense. The only time I go to 0 is if I have a good tailwind on the ground -6 increases the taxi speed.

[FastEddieB]

 

Right, and I know what your saying about the retractable gear. When it's real windy I bring them up quickly...

 

If in doubt, a good policy is to do it the way the FAA wants, unless there's a very strong reason not to. They are pretty clear about it in the Airplane Flying Handbook, and I think most examiners would frown on any configuration changes on the runway.

 

I never touch the flaps on a full stop landing until clear of the runway. I have never been lifted off of the runway by a gust following a normal landing. I think if it's so windy as to require immediate flap retraction, then less flaps or none should have been used in in the first place. I also just retract to 10°, since that's my takeoff setting, and I've never had an issue with that either. But if experienced pilots feel flap retraction after landing benefits them, or if their POH calls for it, I think it falls into the area of pilot preference.

 

As far as Ed's "what if the BRS fails", I think I addressed that when I said I thought a student should have all options available. I think BRS is usually the safest option in a power failure, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[Jim Meade]

Well, there is the book way and the real world way.

 

The book says reconfigure when you're off the runway.

 

For those of us who will never upgrade to a retrac, it is patently - on the face of it - a foolish restriction to limit the plane configuration based on concern that a person might mistake the gear and flap switches when that will never happen. Oh, you may say, you shouldn't even be flying in weather where that kind of configuration becomes important. True - probably shouldn't take off, but one hopes the weather never changes and catches you by surprise when a late afternoon TS pops up and the wind gusts won't wait.

 

The genesis of this protocol seems to be in the bad old days of poorly designed cockpit ergonomics. Even by the 60's the gear lever and flap lever on many planes were shaped differently so that a person could tell on a dark and stormy night, in a turbulence tossed cockpit, which control was being selected based solely on touch. The round one (wheel) is the gear lever, the flat or airfoil shaped handle is for is the flaps.

 

Nearly all retracs have squat switches of some design so that the gear should not retract when the airplane is resting on it. When I flew light jets on charter, we would often retract the flaps on rollout. Of course, that was a two-man crew. And, in spite of that, an FAA King Air, much to the delight of the rest of the pilot population, managed to do a bouncy landing in which the PNF selected gear up when he meant flaps up (they're not even that close together on the KA) and when the plane got a little light on it's pins the gear did was it was told.

 

In teaching primary students who were facing a checkride and might be aiming for higher ratings, I would teach them all of the above and tell them that while under my tutelage I wanted the plane to not be reconfigured until off the runway. But, if I was giving one of you crusty, old geezers a flight review and I could see no one would hire you to fly their Swearengen SX 300 or even taxi it to the gas pump, I could care less when you "up flaps".

 

There. A typically convoluted, situationally dependent answer. Just what you wanted.

[Ed Cesnalis]

There is an east vs west issue here. In the west some fields are subject to wind sheer that can cause you grief during your roll out. 20 gusting to 40 is no big deal hear and can happen daily. Very light aircraft are more susceptible.

 

Yesterday I did a downwind landing again, the socks didn't show it on approach and the AWOS said calm but in fact >10kt tailwinds were my options. If I land with a tailwind and head into sheer that becomes a head wind, anything can happen. I have been gusted back into the air, blown sideways after being planted and wheel barrowed into a crosswind almost off of the runway and almost a prop strike.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Dust devils occur where there is soil that is picked up by the thermal, the same thing happens in runway environments without the visual clues.

http://bcove.me/d9p9nm1k

 

Dust devils have been implicated in around 100 aircraft accidents [11] some of which were simple taxiing problems, but a few were fatal in-flight incidents.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Dust_devil

 

 

 

Thunderstorms dominate our summer skies in the afternoons. Gust fronts and micro-bursts, even small ones can be big to our light planes.

 

 

Microbursts that occur near airports are particularly dangerous. Strong winds from above, below, and sideways buffet aircraft in just a few seconds. Planes that are landing or taking off are pushed into the ground, causing deadly crashes.

 

http://whyfiles.org/...s-a-microburst/

[FastEddieB]

Well, there is the book way and the real world way.

 

The book says reconfigure when you're off the runway.

 

 

I think CFI's must tread cautiously here.

 

Of course, we need to teach skills. But equally important, I think, is the attitudes we impart to our students, knowingly or not.

 

Any time an instructor says, "I know what the book says, but in the real world...", consider what is really being imparted to the student.

 

If its a POH item, he's learned that the POH is just a suggestion, to be followed or not depending on whim.

 

If its a regulation, same thing - my instructor picks and chooses which ones are important, so later I guess I can do the same thing.

 

If its checkride standards, it sends the message that once he passes the checkride, none of those standards really matter.

 

I'm no saint, but I WANT my students pointing out to me any time something I say differs from the POH, FAR's or what they've heard from another instructor. If in conflict, I see three possible reasons:

 

1) I've got something wrong. Nobody knows everything and it's never too late to learn.

 

2) The student is misreading or otherwise misunderstanding something he's read or been told. In that case it's usually pretty easy to get out the appropriate "book" and set him straight.

 

3) What's under discussion is really a matter of technique with no right or wrong.

 

In any case, consider how mich latitude airline pilots have on how much flaps to use, when to put them down and when to raise them. For the most part, very little. And the airlines have safety records far, far better than GA. There are many reasons for this, but standardized procedures and doing things "the book way" every time are major factors.

[sandpiper]

All instructors should know what the "Law of Primacy" is. It means that first learned activities are what we will revert to when under stress, like when everything is turning brown. So, that is why we teach not to touch anything until off the runway, how to do stall recoveries, etc. The not touch rule is especially important for those who will advance to complex aircraft. It is also important, IMHO, for those who may never go beyond a light sport. My reasoning is that new pilots, or those getting a check out in a new aircraft, should be concentrating on getting the plane safely on the ground and stopped or at least slowed to a walk. They don't need to be fooling with anything inside the cockpit.

 

Having said that, in the real world, I have been known to do otherwise.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Here in the land of dust devils and other demonic atmospheric forces I will continue to retract on the runway. There are a lot of good dust devil stories, here's one I enjoyed. http://www.myfirst1000hours.com/2012/06/death-vortex.html

[Jim Meade]

Eddie, you gave an eloquent answer as if you read the first part of my post but not the last. Whatever.

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, you gave an eloquent answer...

 

Thanks!

 

...as if you read the first part of my post but not the last. Whatever.

 

Nope - I read the whole thing, and it was well put.

 

I don't think we disagree. Retracting flaps after landing is a tiny matter of technique. I never do it, and have never (yet) come to grief for not having done so. So I don't really see the need. But for those who see the extra lift provided by the flaps as a real concern, and feel better getting rid of the flaps, by all means do so.

 

Bygones?