Use of Flaps on Takeoff...?

[codenamejames]

May be a bit of a Flying 101 question:

I was recently taking off in a Cherokee 140 and was right at the MAUW. I was advised by an instructor to not use any flap on takeoff.
(not sure if this was a performance suggestion or safety suggestion for my benefit?)

We took off ok, but just got me thinking on Flap use on takeoff.

I know that some aircraft specify 1 notch of flap on takeoff, presumably as they increase lift (and drag). What are the protocols on using/not using flap if you're heavy/hot/high/short field?

[pcx]

James
A serious question that deserves a serious answer.
Aviation is rife with opinions and statements that have been handed down from pilot to pilot or instructor to student often presented as gospel. A classic is " don't operate a piston engine over square". We won't go into that one here.
The answer to your question lies within the Flight Manual, Pilots Operating Handbook or whatever the equivalent document is called.
Look for the performance section and you should find some reference to take off and landing charts. These charts will specify the take off configuration required to produce the predicted take off distance.
There may be charts for nil flap and also for one stage of flap. If so, provided the runway is suitable, with the prevailing conditions, then either flap setting would be suitable.
I do not have a manual for the Cherokee available so am not able to provide you with a definate answer.
Always remember, the Approved Flight Manual (or whatever it may be called) is your aviation bible and should take precedence over any other source of information.
Enjoy your flying and never be afraid to ask a question if you are not sure of the answer. The true professional pilot, and I include private, glider and ultralight pilots in this description, will respect you for your honesty and integrity in attempting to improve your aviation knowledge.

[VH-BCY]

If you are using any configuration other than what it says in the POH or owners manual, then the take off distance will increase and you are acting as a test pilot. Does your instructor thinks he is better than the very experienced test pilots who certified these aircrafts way back in the dark ages? Stick to what it says in the POH/owners/flight manual. Not all instructors know what they are doing and if you think they are wrong, question him/her and try and do your own research. If you are not satisfied with the answer, ask a more experienced instructor. :ok:

[go_soaring]

Case closed, top responses. I guess techniques for T/O is that all can be discussed now..


go_soaring! instead

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If you are using any configuration other than what it says in the POH or owners manual, then the take off distance will increase and you are acting as a test pilot

With all due respect - that is rubbish!

The POH for the V35B states nil flap for take-off, but the reality is that by using flap you can get the aeroplane off the ground in a fraction of distance that you will with nil flap.

Apparently the POH for earlier models of the V-tail gave much more detail on short-field take-off technique and performance than do later versions - for essentially the same aeroplane.

My advice is to start with the POH for the aeroplane, then use your common sense, your growing experience as a pilot and with the aeroplane - adjusted where appropriate by advice from highly experienced pilots that you know and respect.

But it is true - if you prang it the ATSB report will probably make a big deal out of the fact that you used a technique not approved by the manufacturer - as indicated in the POH!

Dr :8

PS: Just yesterday I took the FTDK into an interesting little "house" strip on a Cape York cattle station - requires a curved approach to very short final to dodge a large mango tree that encroaches on the approach path, over a crocodile infested lagoon (will try to get some pics tomorrow!). Departed using what I consider a max performance TO for the Bo (20o flap) cause I wanted to see how much strip it used (less than half) - tomorrow I will depart near MTOW.

[Mach E Avelli]

I don't have a POH for a Cherokee so this is just guessing. Your instructor probably should have explained that the climb capability with flap hanging out would be less, particularly at max weight.
However, if flap is certified for takeoff, it is almost certainly certified to be used at maximum weight. I am not aware of any limitations based on weight for any single-engine type where flap is allowed to be used.
If use of flap is optional for takeoff, it is up to the pilot to decide what is more importatnt - takeoff distance or initial climb performance. One is often at the expense of the other.
In multi-engine aircraft the use of flap is much more defined because it is based on runway versus initial climb requirements, assuming an engine failure. In a single, an engine failure soon after takeoff is likely to have an inevitable outcome regardless of flap. But if runway length permits, less flap will usually reduce the time when you could be exposed to obstacles in the takoff path, so maybe that was what your instructor was getting at.

[john_tullamarine]

What some of the posts are hinting at is certification and design standards.

If you operate in accordance with the POH configurations and techiques then your operation previously has had the various certification ticks in the boxes addressed. This situation is far easier to argue after the accident both with the insurer and at the enquiry.

If you operate other than in accordance with the POH, then you are responsible for making sure that you could run a defacto certification exercise and achieve all the relevant ticks in the boxes. Herein lies the problem as the pilot, typically, doesn't have the certification details to hand. This situation is somewhat less easily argued after the accident ....

As a side note, in previous lifetimes, CASA had the performance view that the second option was acceptable, provided that the pilot could tick the boxes ... I don't know that that view ever was tested in court, though ...

[Jabawocky]

Just another thought or two

Cherokee 140 :hmm: were all 140 ponies in good health? Did they have any Equine Flu or even Swine flu?? At 140HP they are blistering non performers. At any less :uhoh:.

Also with so few HP to play with, were your weights really at the prescribed limit? When was the last W&B for that plane? You may well find its gained weight over time. As have some pilots! :ooh:

J

[codenamejames]

Thanks Jaba - and actually - you're not half wrong...140 isn't much, and it felt a lot less than that on the day.

Completely agree, the POH is the first thing to consult, and with my experience, the thing to stick to.

So a couple more details: From memory, the POH for the Chrokee 140 says 1 notch for a max performance takeoff.
In this case the runway is over 700m long, so I would've thought enough for a fat little PA-28-140.
The 'climb-out' was interesting - I felt like we were just missing the tops of trees, despite bing inside the calculated balance envelope.
So, in this instance, I'm guessing that it be obstacle avoidance rather than runway length that would be the critical factor.

[john_tullamarine]

So, in this instance, I'm guessing that it be obstacle avoidance rather than runway length that would be the critical factor.

However, you can't look at the two considerations independently. In general ..

(a) a bit more flap results in a shorter roll but degraded climb

(b) a bit less flap results in a longer (often quite a bit longer due to the extra speed you are going for) roll but improved climb

with the result that

(a) on a short strip without obstacles, flap is your friend

(b) on a long strip with far away obstacles, avoid flap

(c) on a short strip with obstacles .. go by car

About 35 years since I have been in a Cherokee so the memory is a bit scratchy but I would have thought 700m should be reasonably comfortable near sea level ?

When was the last W&B for that plane ?

An important point .. all aircraft grow heavier (accumulated dirt and rubbish in the bilges and, for some private aircraft, the odd unrecorded minor mod or refurbishment here and there).

Best anecdote I can relate .. we modded a Commanche, years ago, and I was going to run the sums to adjust the 6.2/6.3. However, I had the scales in the back of the ute so we figured .. why not run it over the ramps.

Weight was out by a couple of hundred pounds .. which we eventually tracked down to a couple of radio mods and, mainly, a total interior refurbishment including a bunch of lead wool for soundproofing ...

.. logbook ... what's that ?

[Mark1234]

I'm going to discuss the 160, just because I know it, and not the 140. I suspect the 140 may be similar, but I won't assume.

with a 160 you have 2 options - nil flap, or 2 stages (by POH)

Flap will shorten the ground roll, and reduce the climb gradient.
Additionally (and many seem to overlook this), the best climb gradient with flap will occur at a slower airspeed. I.e. if you climb at normal speed with flap you're doubly bu**ered.

To my mind, if there is ground run available, you use nil flap. This gives the best airborne performance, and (usually - unless the obstacle is close) the best obstacle clearance. Independant of temp, alt etc.

If the runway is short, or the hot and high conditions mean you need more runway than is available, then a flapped short field departure comes into the picture. Think about your obstacle clearance carefully (the POH gives distances to 50ft screen height as well as ground roll.)

Also consider whether you're cutting it too close.. and be aware of the reduced climb speed. Last time I did a short field departure for real was in an arrow 4 at MTOW, and if memory serves me the initial climb was about 65kts. Kinda slow..

It sounds very much like flap was the wrong decision in your case - adequate runway and poor obstacle clearance, but without running the figures I don't know.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If you need to get out of a tight spot, max angle of climb is what you are looking for, not rate of climb.

For the V35B, Vx (max angle of climb) is 77 kts. Now that does tend to get your attention because the nose is way up in the air from where you normally expect it to be for a normal TO and climb out at 90-100 kts, but stall speed in that configuration is down around 60 kts so you still have a reasonable margin to play with.

If I was trying to get the Bo out of a short strip with potentially troublesome obstacles to clear, I would use 20o flap and focus most of my attention on nailing the correct airspeed. I would retract the gear as soon as I had a positive rate of climb, but would leave the 20o flap down until I was clear of the obstacles. Chances are that trying to retract the flap will cause more trouble (with sinking) than it is worth.

Not in the POH, but what you learn from 600 hrs of playing in one aeroplane.

Dr :8

[RadioSaigon]

it's a loooong time since I've flown a 140 -they were an initial trainer when I started! From memory, 2 POB, 1/2-tanks and a wallet each and you would be close to 15lb over MAUW!

I've been lurking this thread and really, I'm wondering whats so hard about it all? Manual flaps, a good length of prepared T/o surface -sure, obstacles to be cleared- but really, it's a doddle!

This departing clean has me wondering a bit... Why would you want to do that??? The aircraft is going to be longer and faster on the ground before she flies -more stress/wear on the undercarriage and airframe. Use a notch (or two!) initially, let her fly when she's ready, accelerate in ground effect, rotate to a positive ROC -and clean up your flap!!! Rotate again to Vx or Vy as required and fly it out! Simple, simple stuff. If initial acceleration on the ground is your concern, start the T/o roll clean, then passing say 45-50KIAS drop a notch or more of flap on her and she'll pop straight off the ground, proceed as above.

The beauty of the manual flap too, is you can feel where you are getting the best lift from the flap without going into the high-drag flap-extension range. Often that's between 1st and 2nd notches on the 140's, if I remember correctly.

Your AFM will have figures for Vx and Vy clean and with flap. Personally I'd be going for the clean speeds unless there was a compelling reason to not allow the aircraft to accelerate in ground-effect initially and clean up.

BTW: it takes a helluva long time to get a 140 to FL100 :} and some creative flying -even in considerably better than ISA conditions -but boy, did we have some fun on the way back down! :E

[jamsquat]

Most PA28-140's, those manufactured after about 1965 are actually 150hp. The -140 was kept to differentiate between the base model and the PA28-150. Which had a baggage door. The Flight manual in the one i fly, which is all of about 5pages thick, states all take-off performance figures for nil-flap. Knowledge passed down to me from many white haired pilots, and in practicing for myself, shows one stage of flap gets it off the ground much quicker but doesn't add much to the climb rate.

JS

[harrowing]

RadioSaigon
Surely the difference in drag and initial acceleration between zero flap and a notch or two for the initial take-off roll would be so small as to exist in theory only. At the risk of being cynical, this sounds like a myth. Playing around with flaps just before rotation would require a hand to come off the throttle.
I am not trying to be antagonistic, but perhaps I am out of touch with GA and just a little more cautious these days.

[RadioSaigon]

Fair call harrowing, and yup I agree. Any advantage gained by the lack of aerodynamic drag during initial acceleration in a 140 is going to be absolutely minimal. Lets face it, a 140's acceleration is fairly minimal under the very best of circumstances! I can't point you to any qualitative studies of the techniques' worth, was just throwing it out there in a thread that seemed to be going into a circular, theoretical discussion that's making something very hard out of something really very simple... another example of that was the recent thread about the legalities of a C172's configuration...

Again a fair call re hands off the throttle during the take-off roll. I know what's being taught and that some people take these 'teachings' (would I dare go as far as saying OWT's?) as absolute gospel that simply must not be contravened under any circumstances... as I'm sure you are aware, there are very few 'absolutes' in aviation -or for that matter, life in general. Every action and decision should be evaluated in the light of current circumstances and required performance. This technique is definitely one of those. It's a valid technique which I have used many times -and used to be taught pre-PPL in whatever airframe you were in! Is that no longer the case? I gaurantee it's a technique used by many C180/185 drivers operating from strips etc.

Techniques such as these are particularly useful in poor performing aircraft -they help to wring every last ounce of performance out of it when you don't have enough power to simply grunt through it. As with any other unfamiliar technique, before you try it seek instruction from someone that knows what they're doing and practice it in a place that doesn't need it before you use it in anger.

[remoak]

Having just started flying light aircraft again after many years just flying jets for a living, I find this quite interesting. However, my take on the POH is a little different.

Since the days of product liability suits in the US, POHs have been quite restrictive and are more of an exercise in limiting liability to the manufacturer, than a helpful document to the pilot. There is an awful lot that isn't in there, because the manufacturer wants to limit risk and would prefer that you only ever flew straight and level, and took off and landed from large concrete runways on sunny days with no wind. Therefore, the true capabilities of many aircraft are never properly laid out in the POH.

I would take the view that you should never do anything that is specifically prohibited in the POH, but by the same token you are free to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited, as long as you apply prudence and good airmanship. I don't agree that this makes you a test pilot - that is a standard saying in GA that has little basis in fact, and is just used by instructors to scare students into behaving themselves. Most light aircraft are absolutely benign unless deliberately provoked by serious mishandling. For example, if you were to ask a group of ten bush pilots about takeoff and landing techniques, you would probably get ten different answers - all valid and all of which work for the person concerned (and probably none of them in the POH). Some topics, like mixture control/leaning, have been endlessly argued by proponents of many different methods, none of them specifically approved by the manufacturer but all of which work.

So my point is... use common sense, take the POH as a starting point, and develop your own techniques. Don't do anything specifically prohibited by the POH, but by the same token don't not do stuff that is sensible, just because it isn't written down. Most of what you need to know in aviation isn't written down!

And on the subject of takeoff technique, you can take off with any flap setting you like... you will always get airborne... but some settings are sensible and some aren't. I once accidentally took off in a 172 with 40 degrees of flap after the electric flaps failed during a touch and go... we got airborne OK (with virtually no ground roll!), but if we had lost the engine, we would have been dead meat.

And just to illustrate that point a little more, the BAe146 that I used to fly could take off with flaps at 18, 24 or 30 degrees. Full flap was 33 degrees, so a 30 flap takeoff was virtually a full-flap takeoff. In terms of performance, when taking off from a short field (around 1200m), Flaps 30 was mandatory. Went up like an elevator!

Use common sense!

[RadioSaigon]

Very well spoken remoak; a thoughtful, insightful and very very valid response! :ok:

Couldn't agree more with your comments re POH's -they're a disgrace and at best, minimally useful document. That the regulators allow continued use of the manufacturers POH speaks volumes more about their political acumen & stance than it does of their responsibility to administration of safe, sustainable aviation.

[RadioSaigon]

Since the days of product liability suits in the US, POHs have been quite restrictive and are more of an exercise in limiting liability to the manufacturer, than a helpful document to the pilot. There is an awful lot that isn't in there, because the manufacturer wants to limit risk and would prefer that you only ever flew straight and level, and took off and landed from large concrete runways on sunny days with no wind. Therefore, the true capabilities of many aircraft are never properly laid out in the POH... I once accidentally took off in a 172 with 40 degrees of flap...

A magically pertinent example! As I'm sure you're aware, Cessna haven't produced a 172 (or any other light-single?) with 40deg flaps for quite some years now... if memory serves, the J models were about the last, somewhere in the early- mid-80's. The reason for that was the mind-boggling number of Yanks killing themselves when they attempted a go-around in a 172 with 40deg hanging out, stalled it and killed themselves. This despite the fact of the AFM of the time stating specifically that flaps had to be reduced immediately after application of power for the missed! The crazy civil liability laws of the US meant that the families of the deceased were able to bring suit against Cessna -and win bizarre damages, despite the patently obvious mishandling by the PinC. The whole debacle very nearly sounded the death-knell for the whole GA manufacturing industry!

Personally having flown both the 40's and the later model 30's, gimme a 40 every day!!! There are things you can do with that aircraft that very few others will ever come near.

[CoodaShooda]

Pulled out my 1977 vintage Handling Notes for the PA28-140/PA28-180.

Take off weight calculation charts mandate 0 degrees flap for the 140 and 10 degrees for the 180.

Power v drag?

[Lodown]

In SE's, a little bit of flap, full power, get the nosewheel off the ground asap and let ground effect be your friend. In many singles, especially Cessnas, you can be airborne before the needle gets to the first graduation on the ASI.

[remoak]

The crazy civil liability laws of the US meant that the families of the deceased were able to bring suit against Cessna -and win bizarre damages, despite the patently obvious mishandling by the PinC.The one I like was where an American bought a Cessna 195 that had been sitting in the open for over a year without being used. Hopped in - started 'er up - off he went, with skimpy checks and certainly no fuel drain... engine stopped just after takeoff when all the water in the tanks arrived at the carb and inconveniently refused to burn. Family sued Cessna on the basis that they should have informed the pilot of the need to perform a water drain before flying... and won a huge pile of money. Bizarre.

In many singles, especially Cessnas, you can be airborne before the needle gets to the first graduation on the ASI. A few multis too. If you do a max performance takeoff in a BN Islander, you can be airborne for ten seconds before the ASI even registers, if you are trying really hard. Of course you won't find that in the POH...

Another fun manouver is a full-flap takeoff in a Twin Otter. Not in the POH but commonly performed in the bush. The only way to get out of some strips.

[RadioSaigon]

... in a BN Islander, you can be airborne for ten seconds before the ASI even registers...

Ain't that a fact!

One occasion out of NZDN, 2 POB and about 20-30Kts right on the nose, 1 notch; lined-up, stopped and held the brakes, power-up & rotated -still not moving mind you- released the brakes, she rolled less than 5m and was airborne!!! Got to 65KIAS, cleaned up and maintained 65KIAS and was well through 1000AGL before passing the far threshold -and that was an intersection t/o on 21! She must have looked like a helicopter departure from the ground!

Could relate many more stories of the 'ol BN-2, but best I stop there before turning this thread into a pissing-match :}

[Joker 10]

Thrilling and daring become a test pilot, don't read the hand book just experiment, sooner or later you will get an experience to remember for the rest of your life however long that might be.

There is a reason the performance data is printed, its called staying alive and keeping unsuspecting passengers alive.

[RadioSaigon]

Oh I think you are taking this completely the wrong way Joker 10 -no one is advocating

Thrilling and daring become a test pilot...

at all. Far from it in fact. If you read carefully the comments posted, you'll see we are in fact lamenting the politically correct arse-covering legalese that current AFM's have become. That should be pretty readily apparent from this thread and the other recent 172 configuration discussion. There are people out there not doing things that would keep them safe because the AFM doesn't specifically say you can -nor does it say you can't. They're already worrying unnecessarily about the legal ramifications of doing something not specifically addressed in the AFM in the unlikely event of them coming unglued. I would suggest to those pilots that there are many other things they should be worrying about before any concern of potential legal ramifications comes into discussion at all.

If you are of the opinion that your AFM provides you with all the information you require to safely operate your aircraft in every situation you may encounter -or that blind compliance with that document will legally protect you in the unlikely event of coming unglued- then I'm afraid you are deluded, and not someone with whom I would chose to fly.

Far better the guy that recognises he'll never have all the information, but chooses to learn from the experience of many, many others that have preceeded him.

[remoak]

If you are of the opinion that your AFM provides you with all the information you require to safely operate your aircraft in every situation you may encounter -or that blind compliance with that document will legally protect you in the unlikely event of coming unglued- then I'm afraid you are deluded, and not someone with whom I would chose to fly.

Absolutely right. Anyone with any commercial experience at all knows that to be true. Just repeating what your instructor told you about the AFM/POH doesn't make you wise, it just confirms one's inexperience.

[Mach E Avelli]

To add to the Harowing/RadioSaigon debate. Many moons ago I worked on some performance tests to develop a rough-field version of the F27. It was set up with low pressure tyres and we tried various configurations on a variety of surfaces from sand to mud to gravel to tarmac.
In every case, the more flap we set for takeoff, the more rapid the acceleration. While we expected that to be the case in soft sand or mud, the same result on tarmac led us to conclude that the lift generated by greater flap settings resulted in getting the weight off the wheels quicker, thus assisting the acceleration regardless of the surface.
So, the so-called 'short-field' technique of starting the takeoff with little or no flap then banging it on at the vinegar stroke to leap into the air is a time-wasting and potentially dangerous furphy.
However, as also mentioned before, if obstacles in the takeoff path are your problem, it may be better to use less or no flap and stay on the ground longer in exchange for better climb once airborne.
When in doubt, hit the AFM or POH charts.

[RadioSaigon]

So, the so-called 'short-field' technique of starting the takeoff with little or no flap then banging it on at the vinegar stroke to leap into the air is a time-wasting and potentially dangerous furphy.

Seemingly so, from your experience with (and for) the F-27, but can you categorically state it is so for every airframe? I know quite a few pilots that will just as categorically state that it is a valid and effective technique in their airframes -and will quite happily prove it be so, should you ask them to.

[tio540]

My advice is to start with the POH for the aeroplane, then use your common sense, your growing experience as a pilot and with the aeroplane

The POH and Flight Manual directs how the aircraft must be flown. Any attempt to take off in a configuration contrary to a Performance Chart, at a flap setting determined around a bar or coffee table, is simply wrong.

There is no legal protection for a deliberate non standard flap setting, prior to death or injury, no matter how well intended.

[remoak]

The POH and Flight Manual directs how the aircraft must be flown

No, it absolutely doesn't. It offers advice and lays down SOME limitations that must be followed. But as RadioSaigon has said, most light aircraft POH/FM are woefully inadequate in this regard. It is therefore up to the PIC to use his experience, knowledge and common sense to operate the aircraft safely. So - for example - a friend of mine, luckily flying a C152A, got caught in a rapid cloud buildup (CB) that, becuase of the topography, left him no choice but to enter cloud. He wasn't instrument-rated, and to cut a long story short, ended up in an inverted spin. Now what does the POH/FM have to say about that? That's right, nothing. Just as well he was proficient at aeros.

There is no legal protection for a deliberate non standard flap setting, prior to death or injury, no matter how well intended.

You misunderstand the legal process. If you deliberately do something silly for no good reason, yes you are in trouble. However, if you can demonstrate that the technique you employed was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, you will be fine. That is why some operations have exceptions in their Ops Manuals that allow them to operate outside the POH/FM.

With regard to F-27s and lighter aircraft, what the F27 has that the Cherokee doesn't is (more) inertia. You can easily bounce a Cherokee into the air with the flap lever, but it isn't particularly smart because of what can happen when you put them away again. Having said that, it is a handy way of getting out of a boggy field but you have to be careful. It would never work with the F27, different type of wing and of course all those engine failure scenarios to think about.

I flew the F27 for a few years... just got out my old POH and a copy of the performance book, and the data there would seem to contradict Mach E Avelli's experience... so who is right? Maybe they both are? How was the factory data arrived at? etc etc...

The truth is that there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. I'd trust any of the POH/FMs I have for commercial aircraft to be as accurate and trustworthy as makes no difference, but most light aircraft equivalents are a joke, and require interpretation to be of any use at all. A good example would be the concept of a "demonstrated crosswind" which is NOT a limit... just advice. The designers of the aircraft know full well that the quality of pilots is extremely variable, and that whereas pilot "A" will be able to handle a 35 knot crosswind with ease, pilot "B" will struggle with 10 knots. They choose a figure that offers the best compromise between what the aircraft can actually do, and what most pilots can actually manage.

Anyway, I have always operated with a healthy respect for the POH/FM, but NOT slavish obedience to every word in them. In over 30 years flying, I have never damaged an aircraft or got myself into serious trouble. In one or two instances, I have discovered that following the FM actually made a problem worse... you have to think for yourself sometimes. Mostly, you have to know your aircraft, and know your own limitations.

[tio540]

However, if you can demonstrate that the technique you employed was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, you will be fine.


On what authority can you configure the aircraft in a non standard takeoff configuration, particulary where there is no 'P' chart to give you take off distance?

[Mach E Avelli]

Remoak, I was working with Fokker at the time, and the results even surprised their boffins. However, our tests were conducted some 20 years after the original certification work on a heavier and more powerful version of the original. The wing and flaps were the same as the original design but the fuselage grew a bit in length. The AFM data used here in Australia certainly predated those tests.
Re 'bouncing' aircraft into the air by going rapidly from no flap to whatever flap the pilot believes to be best - the 'bounce' may give the illusion that the takeoff roll has somehow been reduced. But I believe it is just that - an illusion. Compared with commencing the takeoff roll at the optimum flap setting and getting weight off wheels early, this seems to be a bit of an old wives tale. Someone care to run some tests to prove it one way or the other?
For a bit of occasional light relief, I fly a home-built which normally uses 10 degrees of flap for takeoff. I have tried it with zero flap and the roll is a bit longer, as one would expect. I will try it next time with 20 and 30 flap, but first I need to find an airfield with a hard surface (to get a constant result) and no obstacles (so as not to frighten myself once it gets airborne). If I work up the courage I may even try the 'bounce' theory but to access the flap handle I have to let go the throttle. Probably not a good idea....

[Joker 10]

Certification of the aircraft requires a fixed program of test flying which ultimately leads to the certifying authority issuing a type certificate which says that the performance of the Aircraft type is laid down in an approved CERTIFIED operating manual.

So all you brave test pilots go on devise your own flight profiles outside the Operating Manual, then be ready to explain to the coroner and Insurance Company how you were smarter than the Certifying Authority and Manufacturer.

Good Luck

[Mark1234]

Mach E Avelli: My first guess would be that the low pressure tires would be the culprit. Substantially more rolling resistance than a regular fully inflated tire on a tarmac runway, which would skew the whole thing in favour of getting weight off the wheels. Effectively you'd be carrying your own soft field.

To drift back to the original question; these techniques may be useful to certain people in certain circumstances, but for the situation addressed by the OP, there should really be no need to do anything dramatic. Why unnecessarily complicate things, especially given a wide range of pilot talent and currency?

[remoak]

On what authority can you configure the aircraft in a non standard takeoff configuration, particulary where there is no 'P' chart to give you take off distance?On your authority as PIC, which, you will find, is the ULTIMATE authority when it comes to flying the aircraft.

Regulation 224 (3): The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the
disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and
for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

The point you are missing is that many flight manuals don't prohibit you from using what you call a "non-standard" flap setting, they just don't provide any performance data for that setting. A proper airline transport AFM will give you all the data for all possible configurations that are practically usable, but most light aircraft AFMs do not. If it isn't explicitly prohibited in the AFM, you can do it, but you still have to demonstrate that your actions were reasonable if you are ever taken to court. So in the end, how you fly the aircraft comes down to how confident you are in defending your actions in court.

Of course, experimenting with different techniques where field length is critical is unlikely to be seen as "reasonable", which is why you get to know your aircraft in a safe environment before you ever try anything "non-standard".

Mach E Avelli

Ah yes the old 500 series. Still a fine aircraft, and always intended for rough fields with that quaint pneumatics system. Pneumatic brakes... pneumatic steering... great fun.

The "bouncing with flap" thing does work, well in a PA28 anyway. Many years ago, we did some tests on a nice long flat runway for an upcoming club contest. We worked out that it reduces ground roll by about 5%. However, it's main value is when you find yourself trying to take off from a boggy field or where the grass is high, and you get close to rotation speed but not quite there and the aircraft stops accelerating, using the flap this way will get you off the ground and allow you to accelerate in ground effect. I'm not for one minute suggesting that you should try it, of course... :E

Glad my anal instructor days are way behind me!

[tio540]

remoak

How can I say this nicely, bullsh@t.


Regulation 224 (3): The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the
disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and
for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.



This section of the Act is not intended to give you test pilot credentials.

[remoak]

(shrugs)

Think what you want, operate how you like. That rule is intended to cover areas of operation that either aren't covered by the AFM or are outside of normal operating parameters. The rule is pretty clear. The buck stops with the pilot.

It has nothing to do with being a "test pilot".

[john_tullamarine]

The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command

As I'm not a legal chap, it follows that I am not competent to say what the regulation means at law - that's for the QCs to suggest and the judges to declare.

However, I suggest that the reg probably doesn't mean that you can elect arbitrarily to ignore another requirement ... unless there is a very good and compelling safety of flight reason for you to do so. The only circumstance I can forsee where this might not apply might be in respect of a mercy flight in appropriate circumstances ?

If my proposition is correct, then I suspect that you would need, also, to satisfy yourself (objectively) that you continue to meet all the other rules before you choose to operate in a non-AFM fashion. Indeed, after the accident, should there be one, you would expect to be called upon to demonstrate that you did meet such requirements.

Playing with different flap settings is not just about getting the aircraft out of the weeds on the day.

[remoak]

You don't have to be a legal chap, the law is there for PILOTS to read and apply, and the language is not in any way ambiguous.

However, I suggest that the reg probably doesn't mean that you can elect arbitrarily to ignore another requirement ... unless there is a very good and compelling safety of flight reason for you to do so

Correct. And what I have been saying from the beginning.

I suspect that you would need, also, to satisfy yourself (objectively) that you continue to meet all the other rules before you choose to operate in a non-AFM fashion. Indeed, after the accident, should there be one, you would expect to be called upon to demonstrate that you did meet such requirements

Also correct, and also what I have been saying from the beginning.

[bushy]

I always thought that the "bouncing with flap" procedure was merely an attention getting gimmick used by aeroplane salesmen.
As drag is proportional to the square of the speed I think minimising flap at minimum speed would have minimum effect.
Surely setting flap before commencing the takeoff is the sensible way to do things, allowing you to keep a hand on the throttle and concentrate on what you are doing.
Using two notches of flap on the bigger cherokees results in a shorter ground roll and better manners at low speeds. Putting flap down half way through a take off is for cowboys.
Flight manuals contain information that is legally required to be made available to the pilot. I would be very, very surprised if any of the AFM information was innaccurate.

[RadioSaigon]

OK, here's something for you guys who slavishly adhere to every word written in your AFM.

First, it's based on the BN-2 Islander which has been previously mentioned in this thread. It's slightly off-topic, but given that the discussion is now on the veracity of the AFM, it's still topical. These will be just a couple of examples I can think of that may illustrate the "less than complete" document the current AFM's have become. I don't have either an AFM or an Islander Pilots' Handbook to hand, so this is written entirely from memory -feel free to challenge my figures if you have the documentation to support your contentions.

First, the Islander AFM states the engine sump-capacity (Lycoming O-540's) to be 12 US quarts. That is a figure that is entirely accurate, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Those engines will run happily anywhere between 6-10 quarts. If you have to, 4 quarts will not cause any problems for a short flight.

We had 2 Islanders, 2 Islander pilots, 1 each -a nice symmetry. The other pilot was also of the opinion that the AFM was infallible, sacrosanct.
Every day, religiously, 1st flight of the day, he'd top his sumps off to 12 quarts -then at every pause in operations have to spend substantial periods of time cleaning oil blown out of his engines off his cowls, legs and fuselage. So, every day he'd top those sumps off with 2 quarts each... that's 4 quarts every day going into the aircraft. He also flew the aircraft strictly in accordance with AFM figures. His cruise was never any better than 120KIAS. He pretty regularly cracked cylinders and his brake pads might last 50 hrs. His fuel burn never any less than 60lph.

My machine: I ran my sumps at no more than 8 quarts, very rarely had to add any between 50hr inspections and a quick wipe once or twice a day was as much as she needed. I expected (and got) 120KIAS cruise-climb and 140KIAS in the cruise. My engines went TBO+10% effortlessly with the engineeer pulling them down asking "what the hell are they doing out of the airframe?". Fuel burn averaged around 56lph. Yes, I did run the engines over-square -until about 6,000' AMSL anyway :E

At another place I was lucky enough to have a CP that had something around 5,000hrs in the BN-2. You could say he had some idea of what he was talking about -and incidentally was the guy that trained me. We worked together for about 5 years, during which time he trained quite a few pilots on the BN-2. I remember walking out of the hangar after putting my machine away for the day and seeing the CP get out of another (we had 4 at that place) looking rather pale after a training flight. I said something fairly cheeky to him, which I won't repeat here, which prompted him to ask me if I'd ever done a VMCA roll -which of course, at that point I hadn't. Apparently he'd pulled one on his candidate during the cruise, the candidate either hadn't realised or just brain-farted and kept pulling back-pressure to maintain his cruise level. The CP let him go to see how long it would take before he realised. Long story short, he didn't; she entered a VMCA roll and the CP recovered the aircraft. The candidate didn't get his rating. So off go the CP and I into the books to find the numbers for VMCA -nada. There was mention of VMCA, but no numbers. So after the discussion and research, we're still going "what-if"... so we hop into one, get plenty of altitude and discover that she'll enter VMCA roll 2-3KIAS before she'll stall whatever the configuration. Handy information to have, don't you think?

Yes, some of the places I've flown are a little more demanding than YSBK-YCNK-YSBK VFR and yes, I do listen to the people that have the experience I would like to have. If that makes me a "cowboy" -as it seems I have been tagged in another thread, then that is a tag I'll wear with pride. From what I can see, many "urban" pilots seem to perceive "country" pilots as cowboys -it strikes me that that may be because you have little if any idea of what we do, how we do it or why we do it. As I've said in other similar threads, none of us set out to cause harm to self, pax or airframe. Our best protections are knowledge, practice, professionalism, skill, care and attention -which must underpin every flight. Just because someone does things a little differently to the way you consider "proper" doesn't make them an idiot, a test pilot or any other disparaging tag you may care to hang on them. In many cases they are extremely thoughtful, careful, professional pilots that care enough to find out the information their AFM simply does not provide.

[RadioSaigon]

If there are any current Islander pilots following this thread, how many of you know why when fully Up, your flaps still have a 2-3deg 'droop'? Or why your elevtor trim-tab is split? These too are things you should know -but I'll guarantee they are not in your AFM.

[glekichi]

R.S.

Do you fly in Australia?

There seems to be a disproportionate number of those blind followers over here, and even more that are eager to criticise anyone who does things slightly different to them.

Oh to work for P.K again... if only GA paid better in NZ.

[RadioSaigon]

doing a little glekichi -and yup, you busted me :ok:

[Chesty Morgan]

The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft is the person aboard the aircraft who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight

The PIC must be legally certified (or otherwise authorized) to operate the aircraft for the specific flight and flight conditions

The PIC is the person legally in charge of the aircraft and its flight safety and operation, and would normally be the primary person liable for an infraction of any flight rule.

Serving as "Pilot in Command"
Under U.S. FAA FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command", the FAA declares:[2]

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

ICAO and other countries equivalent rules are similar.

Especially interesting is FAR 91.3(b) which empowers the PIC to override any other regulation in an emergency, to take the safest course of action at his/her sole discretion. It essentially gives the PIC the final authority in any situation involving the safety of a flight, irrespective of any other laws or regulations.

You make your own mind up. But I would suggest that if you can't take off within the limitations of the POH and SOPs then you don't do it as it does not constitute an emergency.

Is the safest course of action to use a non standard flap setting ignoring all the numbers in the take off performance?

Just some food for thought.

[Joker 10]

Quantity of oil in sumps as justification for test flying, get a grip.

How about the Baron some years ago that took out all its passengers because the PIC on a flight to the Snow Fields for a weekend with his friends loaded aft of rear limit and over weight then took off burnt some fuel = aft Cof G lost control all lives lost.

Test pilot anyone ?????

[RadioSaigon]

Seems that I'm not the one in need of "getting a grip" Joker 10: nowhere have I said "ignore the AFM limits" as you seem to be implying with your crash example -quite the opposite in fact. remoak stated quite clearly that AFM limits must be adhered to -that's why they're called limits. Exceed them at your peril.

My examples are provided to illustrate my contention that whilst your AFM provides what may be termed factual information, it does not provide you with all the factual information. Challenge that, if you can.

A sensible pilot knows that and actively participates in the learning process. If you, Joker 10, want to stick your head in the sand, go hard. You are still not a pilot with whom I would choose to fly.

[remoak]

Actually it does rather make you wonder about how some of these guys are being trained. They are all talking like newly-minted PPLs, just repeating the mantra that their instructor told them and not bothering to think for themselves. In particular, it makes you wonder if the "stick-to-the-AFM-or-you-will-surely-die" crowd have ever even read their AFM and discovered just how much isn't in there.

What RadioSaigon is talking about is becoming intimately acquainted with your aircraft, as any craftsman would with his tools. Find out how it works, what it needs, what you can do with it and what you can't do with it. It has nothing to do with being a "test pilot", as you don't need to (and never should) go beyond any limit placed in the AFM. However, what he and I are both saying is that only a fraction of the information you need to operate safely and efficiently is found in the AFM, particularly the utterly inadequate AFMs found in most light aircraft.

At the end of the day, a C172 is an exceedingly simple machine, several orders of complexity simpler than virtually every car being made today. it is very, very difficult for any reasonably competent pilot to get into trouble in one unless you stall it at low level or exceed Vne in a dive. You would have to badly mishandle the aircraft to get into any trouble at all using the first two flap settings for takeoff. Going back to earlier in the thread, I have accidentally taken off in one with 40 degrees of flap and guess what, the experience was a non-event. Maybe if I had been able to raise the flaps all at once, I might have been able to stall it, but I doubt it. I'm not suggesting anyone should try it, I'm just saying that I've been there and it didn't hurt.

Also on the subject of flap settings in the C172, how many know that the reduction from 40 degrees of flap to 30 degrees was made, not for safety reasons, but in order to raise the MTOW to make the aircraft more attractive to buyers? So, if I were to find a C172 made before 1981 and re-enable the flaps to go to 40 degrees, I would be, according to Joker 10, a test pilot! But in actual fact, I would simply be doing what the aircraft was originally tested and certified to do. Of course, such an action is not allowed by the AFM, so I would surely die if I tried it... :rolleyes:

We could talk more about how much of the AFM is written not from a safety standpoint, but from a commercial one; how conservative P-charts are; and how, often, the data in the AFM bears little relation to what was found in flight testing. But those who think that the AFM is a Holy Thing wouldn't be interested... and it is that inability to see beyond what is written in the book that is most worrying.

[RadioSaigon]

...make you wonder about how some of these guys are being trained....just repeating the mantra that their instructor told them and not bothering to think for themselves....have ever even read their AFM and discovered just how much isn't in there.

I wonder if therein lies the answer?

I've been giving this whole thing a lot of thought over the last few days (too much time on my hands at present... but that's another story) and -at risk of perhaps displaying some preconceptions and prejudices of my own- wonder if the training system these newer people are being exposed to is entirely appropriate to the realities they'll face upon graduation?
My perception of the training facilities currently available -variously known as "pilot mills" or "sausage factories" or whatever you will- is that they train their candidates solely towards an airline career. This is in part at least driven by the airlines telling the trainers what they want in a candidate. Fair enough -but it ignores the fact that a 150-200hr candidate has (potentially) quite a few thousand hours to do in a totally different environment before the airlines will even consider looking at their CV.
So the trainers emphasise the importance of the comprehensive AFM's and QRH that the candidates may expect to be using in their airline careers -a dependence that is then ingrained and never questioned, carried into the 40+ year-old GA airframes upon which they'll build their experience and again never questioned, despite the sheer paucity of information available in those AFM's.
This issue is exacerbated by the fact of many of their instructors having been in industry only a matter of months longer than the candidates themselves, with no experience of the commercial realities of GA, and little experience of the airframes. The blind leading the blind.

If you read that carefully, you'll start to understand why I personally seek new experiences and challenges in my GA flying -but in doing so, 1st seek an instructor I know either personally or by personal recommendation with whom to train. I want the guy that has spent a lot of time thinking about what he's teaching and is able to impart knowledge not found in the AFM.

It disappoints me tremendously that people place so much faith in a poorly prepared document like the average GA AFM. The limitations section is the bible, the rest of it best taken with a large grain of salt, best thought of as the manufacturers' wish-list or what their lawyers tell them will provide the least exposure to frivolous suit.

Here's another one for the GA AFM bible-bashers: what sort of magnetos are on your engine(s) -do you know? Is it in your AFM? Is what's on your engine(s) the same as what your AFM says??? (You'll probably have to ask you LAME to get the good oil on that one). Do you have Slicks, Bendix, Shower of Sparks or something else? Which one's the impulse? What are your cold-wx, flat-battery start procedures (with no external power-source available) in terms of the mags that are actually on your aircraft? Do you know? Is it in your AFM? Does your engine have generator or alternator? What does your AFM tell you?

No, I'm not pulling these out of my arse and yes, I can provide the answers for aircraft I'm familiar with. Can you? I'll guarantee you'll have trouble providing empirical information and answers to those based on your AFM. For example, every Islander I've flown (there's been few) has told me in the AFM that the engines have generators -there's even a big 'ol light or 2 on the panel placarded 'generator'. Every Islander has had alternators. Same with the mags. Every AFM stated either Slicks or Bendix, impulse L only. Most of them have had Shower of Sparks -and yes it makes a huge difference when you're at a remote location trying to start an aircraft with a cold-soaked battery. You have to know what you have got!

I'll give you one of those very rare 'absolutes' in aviation that I mentioned several posts ago: your learning never stops; certainly not upon graduation with a bright & shiny CPL, certainly not at the back-cover of your AFM -it is not a complete document. Anyone that believes it to be so is seriously naive.

[john_tullamarine]

It appears that we should reflect on the differences between

(a) a Flight Manual - which prescribes essential information only and has little to do with the "how" of flying a particular machine .. and

(b) the Operating Manual (by whatever name it might be titled) - which gives OEM guidance information on the "how" of flying. As to whether this manual is exhaustive in its content is a moot point and varies greatly from example to example.

The GAMA style manual confuses the issue by having the flight manual embedded within the operating manual .. bits are (typically) FAA-approved and associated with the certification while the bulk is OEM generated.

[Double Wasp]

I know I am wading into this discussion in the late stages of it however I have to agree with remoak and RS on this. I have seen it too many times training people and flying the line with them that people follow their SOP's blindly as well as their AFM's. The documents can not cover all situations, it would be impossible to do so. While 99% of the time they are right there are occasions where they are not the right way to do things, and not recognising when those situations are is equally if not more dangerous.

If there is only one way to operate an airplane why would CASA authorize different Operations Manuals for different operators. The POH is a general guide to operate an airplane but as previously stated there is a lot left out. The limitations are as previously stated, limits, but P charts are full of padding and there are different operational situations not covered under these charts where the aircraft can operate safely. Unfortunately the average private individual does not have the benefit of an operations department behind them and they have to use their better judgment. Some judgments are better that others however.


What I would like to see is pilots that learn their aircraft, learn their SOP's and then look logically how their procedures are constructed. See under what conditions they are based on and what the logical outcomes are for them. If you understand this process for the standard situation you can use the same logic, in most cases, for the non standard ones.


Lastly for anyone who doesn't think the "popping" of a notch of flaps doesn't work they obviously haven't flown out of a truly soft strip or on floats in an airplane at max weight on "glassy" water.

Now lets hear what the experts have to say...
DW;)

[remoak]

To follow on from that, here's something that every pilot should do.

1. Book an aircraft for an hour, and find the P-chart takeoff distance required for the aircraft you are flying.
2. If you are flying from a relatively quiet place, place a marker at the point by the side of the runway which equates to the P-chart takeoff figure - sandbag wrapped in a hi-viz vest or whatever. If you can't do that, work out how many runway lights have to pass by before you get to that point - centreline lights should be 15m apart (probably different in Oz, everything else is).
3. Do a series of takeoffs - standard technique, short-field technique, and if you are really really brave and the feds aren't looking, you could try using flaps. I promise you won't die. If you are really really really brave you could try using a second flap setting.
4 Compare the book figure with the actual distances you achieve.

Every pilot should do this because it is the ONLY WAY you will ever know what the performance of your aircraft really is.

If you don't better the P-chart figures by at least 30% I will be truly amazed.

P-charts are great for PPLs who don't want to have to think about performance, but if you tried to use them for commercial ops, you would probably never go anywhere.

[Joker 10]

Radio Saigon Likewise I certainly don't want you in command of anything that flies if I am in it !!

Having had 46 incident free years since 1st licenced and an ATP I certainly don't need to experience home grown test pilots.

[FGD135]

Joker 10,

I am not acquainted with RadioSaigon, but from his apparent approach to his flying and his machine, I would suspect that I would have no objection to him being the pilot of an aircraft on which I was a passenger.

But you, however, with your blinkered views, would cause me some concern, should an unusual situation (something requiring the possession and confident application of knowledge) arise.

I am curious as to just what you mean by "test pilot". To me, a test pilot is somebody that flies an aircraft before it has been certificated - and before the AFM has been written.

I once chose to takeoff - in a piston twin - with FULL flap. The field wasn't short but was particularly rough, with patches of deep mud. I knew that I would be in trouble should an engine fail immediately after lift off, but the overwhelmingly important consideration was for getting the weight off the wheels as rapidly and effectively as possible - and for a short takeoff roll. (Commercial considerations precluded repair of the strip, or for waiting a few days).

Was I a "test pilot" for that takeoff? I don't believe so, as I wasn't doing anything the aircraft hadn't been certificated to do.

Of course, there was no published takeoff data for a full flaps takeoff, but this doesn't mean the takeoff was somehow "illegal".

Only if the AFM had expressly forbidden it would it have been illegal. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

How about the Baron some years ago that took out all its passengers because the PIC ... ... Test pilot anyone ?????
That accident was the result of simple incompetence. I don't see the relevance to "test pilot". I wonder if you know the difference between error, incompetence, disobeyance of the AFM, and the doing of something for which there is no, or poor, guidance in the AFM?

A great many pilots don't possess the aeronautical knowledge they should. Many of these tend to "hide behind" the AFM as a way of masking their lack of knowledge.

How's your knowledge? We know that flaps increase lift but also drag. What sort of drag would that be? (i.e parasite drag, form drag, skin friction). You don't have to name it - just a brief rundown of how it happens will suffice.

Here's another question. Should you use the flaps to give drag assistance in a descent? What if you were in a piston aircraft, approaching the aerodrome to land, but thanks to ATC, now found yourself in a postion where a much steeper than normal descent was required?

Would you use flaps and/or undercarriage to assist the descent? I doubt the AFM would have any guidance for that situation.

What about if you needed to fly as slowly as possible? Any guidance in the AFM? Would you be a "test pilot" if you extended the flaps?

remoak,
Always a pleasure to read your posts. Yours is truly a voice of great wisdom and experience - a pity that others here cannot see that. I - and many others, I'm sure - greatly appreciate the time and effort you have put into this thread.

[remoak]

FGD135

Many thanks for the kind words... but what I really like is this:

Only if the AFM had expressly forbidden it would it have been illegal. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

Precisely, and that is what RadioSaigon and I are saying. There is stuff the AFM forbids, and stuff it tells you how to do, but between those two points there is a vast gulf of information that makes no appearance whatsoever in the AFM. Your examples are particularly pertinent - many thanks.

Another point you made that is worth thinking about is what a "test pilot" actually does - which is to take a machine with unknown flight characteristics and find out what happens when you fly it towards it's limits. Every conceivable manoeuvre is covered during certification, including aeros and other unusual manoeuvres. You can bet your boots that anything particularly dangerous about the flight characteristics of a particular aircraft would result in a big red "DO NOT..." in the AFM. It is almost inconceivable that the average pilot could do anything with the aircraft that had already not been done during certification testing. The lack of info in the average AFM is frustrating, but it is not a prohibition unless specifically stated as such.

[Dog One]

Tell us, FGD135, in contemplating the full flap take-off, you took into account the OEI performance of the aircraft. No doubt, in your endorsement training on the type, your instructor had demonstrated an engine failure with the aircraft configured with full flap, gear down, max t/off power and speed at V lift off. Was this why you felt confident in attempting the take-off?

[FGD135]

Tell us, FGD135, in contemplating the full flap take-off, you took into account the OEI performance ... Was this why you felt confident in attempting the take-off?

Perhaps you had difficulty reading my post. This is what I said about the OEI possibility:

I knew that I would be in trouble should an engine fail immediately after lift off ...

[Joker 10]

There is a real danger that young inexperienced pilots developing their operating style will read this and believe it is OK to ignore the POH/AFM and experiment.

The training for a Test Pilot approval is rigorous and exacting, testing is flown to very disciplined planning and engineering/areodynamic expert approvals.

It would be tragic if someone really believed some of the scribblings in this thread, went out and tried and came unstuck.

Inculcating bad habits early in the development of skills inevitably leads to bad things happening sooner or later.

The old wise folk are generally conservative people who don't take unnecessary risk to see what might happen.

Experimentation is an uncertain science and there is no way every experiment will work, to fool around whilst close to the ground in the slow phases of flight essentially totally dependent on 100% power plant delivery is fraught with to many things that can go wrong.

Are the POH/AFM complet documents, no they are not, but they do take into account differing skill levels ( as opposed to the skill of the test pilot team certifying the aircraft), ageing of airframes, the fact that the powerplant is not always capable of 100% rated power.

The manual / handbooks job is to keep us all alive, to suggest that one ignores parts of it or re writes it to ones own criteria is just not smart.

[remoak]

Joker 10

There is a real danger that young inexperienced pilots developing their operating style will read this and believe it is OK to ignore the POH/AFM and experiment.That's right... which is why NOBODY is suggesting they do so. Why don't you open your eyes a bit and read what is written, rather than jumping to ill-informed conclusions? As we have said... many times... if the AFM prohibits it, you shouldn't do it. If the AFM doesn't specify one way or the other, there is NO SUCH PROHIBITION, either in law or in fact.

And I really hope that young, inexperienced pilots DO read this, and DO decide to get to know their aircraft properly in a controlled and safe environment. Nothing being suggested in this thread will put them at any risk whatsoever, assuming they apply basic airmanship principles.

Inculcating bad habits early in the development of skills inevitably leads to bad things happening sooner or later.And a refusal to learn how your aircraft performs in the real world has a similar effect, usually when the weather is bad and the pressure is on.

The old wise folk are generally conservative people who don't take unnecessary risk to see what might happen.Every time you step into an aircraft you are taking an "unnecessary risk". You reduce that risk by knowing your aircraft intimately and ensuring that you know what it can (and can't) do.

Experimentation is an uncertain science and there is no way every experiment will work, to fool around whilst close to the ground in the slow phases of flight essentially totally dependent on 100% power plant delivery is fraught with to many things that can go wrong.That is so brainless a statement as to be almost amusing. There is very little that is uncertain about taking off with differing flap settings. You know what your stall speed will be (or at least the maximum value that it will be), there are no CG or weight issues to consider, and the very worst that can happen is that you may have to close the throttle and re-land. Luckily, you will be closer to a landing configuration than if you had taken off with zero flap and experienced an engine failure, with a lower stall speed and a lower nose attitude, so in every measurable way you are safer taking off with more than zero flap. As we know that we are exploring performance, we will always be ready to get the nose down and maintain flying speed, right? And before you start bleating on about the dangers of re-landing, I have already stated that you should only do this on a nice long runway.

The manual / handbooks job is to keep us all alive, to suggest that one ignores parts of it or re writes it to ones own criteria is just not smart.Another utterly brainless statement. The only reason the POH/AFM exists is to satisfy a certification and regulatory requirement, and to cover the manufacturers arse. In many ways it is no different to a placard in the cockpit. You would be amazed at how these documents differ in different countries, under different regulatory systems.

But more to the point, you have once again completely twisted what is being said here. Nobody is suggesting ignoring the POH/AFM, or re-writing it. We are suggesting filling in the gaps that these documents leave in our knowledge.

If you want to continue flying with the degree of ignorance of your aircraft's performance that you clearly aspire to, then be my guest... but it is neither smart nor safe to do so.

Dog One

No doubt, in your endorsement training on the type, your instructor had demonstrated an engine failure with the aircraft configured with full flap, gear down, max t/off power and speed at V lift off. Was this why you felt confident in attempting the take-off?I can't speak for FGD135, but in most multi training, just such a manoeuver is demonstrated and taught - it is called an engine-out go-around or baulked landing. Maybe it isn't taught in Australia, but it is in NZ, Europe and the USA. Admittedly it isn't done at "V lift off", which isn't actually a real V-speed in any case. If the failure happened at Vr (which is what you are really talking about, and on which performance figures are based), you just close the throttles and hit the brakes. In the case FGD was talking about, you would stop pretty quickly. It doesn't really matter as the difference between Vr and Vref is minimal in any case(by design).

Again, I can't speak for FGD135, but if it was me, I would have accepted the possibility, before departure, that if an engine failed I may have land straight ahead. That is, in any case, true of many light twins if they are anywhere near their gross weight (ie the Apache, Aztec, and other older twins would fall into that category).

All flying is a risk, it is how you manage the risk that determines your skill as a pilot.

[Joker 10]

So now we are in our FAR 23 certified twin doing full flap takeoffs and we suddenly lose one engine and we are now into a ful flap demonstration of how to avoid a VMCA incident with max drag , low airspeed close to the ground and only 2 hands to complete all the drills, fly the aircraft and stay alive.

FAR 23 was never intended to certify for this, good idea to read the FAR.

The coroner in W.A. recently dealt with an incident/accident involving a FAR 23 twin flown by a very experienced pilot who lost an engine shortly after takeoff in conditions with a relatively high density altitude, the aircraft crashed parallel to the runway trying to make it back, the takeoff was in accord with the AFM flapless, the engine lost a fuel pump and quit, the aircraft was within W/B limits but close to gross.

There are 2 certain ways to meet the Coroner, one as a witness the other as the subject of the Inquest, neither way is good.

If one takes a position say to advocate experimenting with flap in the takeoff phase and then one really doesn't want to lose the argument by way of reason then one descends into specious reason to defend one's position.

Yes most of this thread has said one should read and indeed understand the AFM/POH but then in part by a number of posters the position is put that if the AFM/POH is silent on a point it can be read as that might be acceptable to experiment with because the author/certifying authority has not prohibited the activity on which the AFM/POH is silent. This legally a very difficult position.

One can only assume that part of a professional pilots training would be an understanding of the limits of the various levels of certification and how those limits are applied in day to day operation, FAR 23 is very restricted.

[tio540]

I just hope some of the above posters do their 'experimentation' with their own aircraft, and no other crew/pax need to fly the machine thereafter.

The 727 crew who deployed the leading edge slats and pulled the breaker in the cruise comes to mind. Nothing mentioned in the QRH or POH, and they paid the price.

Coffee cup test pilots/engineers/cowboys have no place in an aeroplane, or the sky.

[Joker 10]

Radio Saigon, Now I understand you are a person of great skill from whom I can learn.

Would you be kind and tell me how one might achieve VMCA in the cruise ??

Explain the derivation of your statement:

of the hangar after putting my machine away for the day and seeing the CP get out of another (we had 4 at that place) looking rather pale after a training flight. I said something fairly cheeky to him, which I won't repeat here, which prompted him to ask me if I'd ever done a VMCA roll -which of course, at that point I hadn't. Apparently he'd pulled one on his candidate during the cruise,

A VMCA roll in a Bongo , that is something I never want to see, I want to stay alive.

[Towering Q]

A very interesting and thought provoking debate.:ok:

However, up to this point I find myself agreeing with the views put forward by Radio Saigon and remoak.....hope that doesn't make me a Cowboy.:eek:

[RadioSaigon]

Nice try Joker 10, but no cigar. I would have thought that anyone reading that post carefully and fully comprehending it would understand that when I used the term "pulled one in the cruise" that I was referring to an engine -not a VMCA roll. Seems that in every case (bar one) the people reading and posting subsequently did in fact understand.

]A VMCA roll in a Bongo , that is something I never want to see...[/COLOR]

In my experience the VMCA roll in an Islander is a relatively benign event. Any competent pilot will recognise the event in the incipient stages and take the appropriate action -in the Islanders' case, close both throttles, nose down to regain 65KIAS and recover with attitude and available power. There is little need for an excessively steep pitch-down, or height loss. Again something any normally competent pilot should handle with ease.

...I want to stay alive.

Quite. Something I am sure you would find much easier to achieve were you to find yourself in a VMCA situation, if you already knew what to expect, recognise and recover appropriately.

As for your opening sarcasm... I'm afraid I'm going to treat that with the contempt it deserves. I have another considerably more (personally) challenging post to write now.

[RadioSaigon]

Wow. I'm humbled. I thank you FGD135, remoak and others that have contacted via PM. I will be in touch as time permits.

As with many others whose opinions I have come to respect -and there are more than a few of you in here, I try to speak only from deep personal conviction. The longer I spend in this industry (past 30 years now) and the more opinions I am exposed to, the more I am challenged (sometimes forced, kicking & screaming all the way :}) to examine and evaluate my own convictions and beliefs -not only as a pilot, but also as a person. As much as anyone else in here, I am a student of aviation practice -never really was that good at theory, was always telling people; don't tell me why it's so, show me why it is!!! Still do, in fact.

This forum is a brilliant resource, sometimes subverted but always challenging, personally and professionally. One major drawback that I have realised is how easy it is to take anothers words in the wrong way. In here, we all miss the subtle clues of inflection, facial expression and body-language upon which we (often subconsciously) rely to fully understand anothers meaning in face-to-face coversation. That can and does lead to misinterpretation in the absence of those clues. I know it has on more than one occasion in my case and that I have disported myself poorly as a consequence.

Given that my subsequent dummy-spits have been public, so then must this:

remoak: I have disagreed with your point of view on more than a few occasions and consequently spoken quite harshly to you. I unreservedly apologise. A difference of opinion is not a good reason for making personal attacks, especially in public. I'm ashamed of that behaviour. I don't necessarily concede the point of difference :} but have definitely grown to appreciate your articulate, thoughtful considered views. Thank you, keep it up and don't let me away with it when I'm just talking ****!

As I have with the FTDK; again, you & I have crossed swords on more than a few occasions. I have grown now to appreciate your dry wit and am better able to recognise when you are being a devils advocate -sometimes I'm quite literally rolling on the floor pissing myself laughing! For those occasions I have let fly, again I unreservedly apologise. Your posts on many topics are worth their weight in gold -particularly the GPS ones and many others!

There are others too, who's handles elude me at the minute, perhaps deserving.

Before I turn this into some sort of a love-in though, there are a few that have caught a barrel for whatever reason to whom I tender no apology. You got what was coming. You can remain nameless here. There are always a few muppets.

OK, that's it. Back to the argument...

[Joker 10]

A corrected VMCA departure from normal flight path is one very different animal than a VMCA roll which in general end up very badly and should never be initiated below 5000 ft

I have experienced one VMCA roll in a Navaho and never want to do that again, the roll was bloody quick the earth appeared in the top of the wind screen and the recovery was way beyond unusual attitude recovery.

So in my view VMCA is not something one toys with at any time, quite different from securing an engine in cruise on a training flight, the amount of airspeed that would need to be lost to get to a VMCA incident is way beyond what would happen normally to a FAR 23 twin in cruise, in other words the VMCA demonstration would require speed to wash off approaching VYSE which is not feasable in cruise, level flight, unless the second engine has also reduced power delivery and the aircraft is above its single engine ceiling.

The ability in the takeoff phase after VRand before V2 to get to VMCA with a high drag configuration if one loses an engine and end up upside down into the ground is something every light twin pilot should think about every time they open the taps, there is no real room to recover, drag is the enemy.

Even qualified test pilots I know, highly respected folk, approach VMCA with a great deal of respect and caution, it is simply not a good place to be.

[RadioSaigon]

A corrected VMCA departure from normal flight path...

Again, quite.

That's why pilots need to understand, demonstrate and be competent at VMCA recovery. To bring the discussion back on track, in many GA AFM's there may be mention of VMCA, but precious little in the way of speeds, recovery or avoidance. And surely the purpose of the exercise is to be able to recognise a VMCA departure and take the appropriate corrective action in good time and with minimal height-loss before it develops into a VMCA Roll -which would in all probability require more than average skill to recover.

But your argument is that to do so requires all involved to "become a test-pilot" because there were no procedures laid out in the AFM -something you seem to abhor. I wonder then, what were you in your VMCA roll in the Navajo?

[remoak]

Ah, now I see where you got your user name from, as you must be joking with this nonsense.

So now we are in our FAR 23 certified twin doing full flap takeoffs and we suddenly lose one engine and we are now into a ful flap demonstration of how to avoid a VMCA incident with max drag , low airspeed close to the ground and only 2 hands to complete all the drills, fly the aircraft and stay alive.

FAR 23 was never intended to certify for this, good idea to read the FAR.


FAR 23 was indeed intended to certify for this, because the manouever you describe is essentially a baulked landing. A baulked landing certification demonstration is done from a very low altitude (ie less than 50 feet) in exactly the configuration you describe. Please explain what the difference is, other than one or two knots.

You are also clearly not experienced in multi-engine ops, if you were you would know that the last thing you do in that situation is "drills". You fly the aircraft until at a safe height before you even think of doing "drills". In any case, the only drill required is to gently raise the flaps in appropriate stages.

The coroner in W.A. recently dealt with an incident/accident involving a FAR 23 twin flown by a very experienced pilot who lost an engine shortly after takeoff in conditions with a relatively high density altitude, the aircraft crashed parallel to the runway trying to make it back, the takeoff was in accord with the AFM flapless, the engine lost a fuel pump and quit, the aircraft was within W/B limits but close to gross.


Are you for real? There will ALWAYS be a coroners inquest following an aircraft crash, it is legally required, if only for the tox screen (ie looking for drugs/alcohol). In this case it sounds as though he turned back and probably mis-handled the turn and lost control. A classic case of bad airmanship, if that is what happened. The standard procedure in a (marginal) light twin is to either put it down straight ahead, or get things fully under control, with adequate altitude and airspeed, before trying to return to the field.

one descends into specious reason to defend one's position.

Assuming that you are trying to say specious argument - please feel free to poke holes in my assertions using stuff like facts and logic. You haven't managed to do that yet, but I live in hope.

if the AFM/POH is silent on a point it can be read as that might be acceptable to experiment with because the author/certifying authority has not prohibited the activity on which the AFM/POH is silent. This legally a very difficult position.

No, it is an exceedingly simple legal position. If it is not prohibited, you can do it, but you have to be able to prove that you acted reasonably in so doing. This has already been established a few times in the preceding posts, Chesty Morgan's post being particularly relevant.

The ability in the takeoff phase after VRand before V2 to get to VMCA with a high drag configuration if one loses an engine and end up upside down into the ground is something every light twin pilot should think about every time they open the taps, there is no real room to recover, drag is the enemy.

As Vmca in the Chieftain is, from memory, under both Vr and V2 (depending on whether you are talking about static or dynamic Vmca, amongst other factors), you must be talking about a situation where the pilot is losing airspeed following an engine failure and approaching Vmca (which is about 76 KIAS in the Chieftain/Navajo if I remember correctly, with a dirty stall speed of 74 knots). So we are presumably talking about an aircraft that cannot meet it's certification requirements. The answer is simple, close the taps and land straight ahead. It isn't your day. No need to get anywhere near a Vmca roll.

tio540

The 727 crew who deployed the leading edge slats and pulled the breaker in the cruise comes to mind. Nothing mentioned in the QRH or POH, and they paid the price.

So what is your point? Doesn't that action strike you as exceedingly foolish? And in any case it is mentioned in the FM, there is a speed limitation on slat deployment and they clearly broke it.

RadioSaigon

Hey, no worries. I absolutely refuse to get offended by anything I read on a forum... but I do value having a good, direct, and hopefully intelligent debate. I'd buy you a beer any time! :ok:

[RadioSaigon]

I'd buy you a beer any time! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You can expect me to hold you to that -and return the favour :} Will look forward to it -it's bound to be a robust discussion!

[Joker 10]

Absolute horse ****, I would one day like to meet Remoak if he /she is still alive.

FAR 23 specifically says the take off performance is not to be considered as part of the Balked apprach when the aircraft has stored energy.

Maybe you are reading FAR 25 but then I guess all you want to do is be a smart arse.

I hope you live through you FAR 23 rejected takeoff in the light twin most brakes don't cut it.

After take off failure your drills may save you if you have enough time and you are real quick and on the ball 5 degrees into the remaining engine and all cleaned up on to blue line, really the second engine is there to take you to the scene of the accident.

The pilot in the W.A. accident was a very experienced man flying for one of Australias most experienced Air Survey Operators, he really tried to fly the aircraft through the loss of engine, no go and it wasn't a bug smasher either.

The Coroner is reqired to investigate all unexplained deaths, not for Tox Screen but for the reason the life was extinct, learn the law.

Why was I sarcastic with Radio Saigon, for the same reason I am sarcastic now how many lives does it take to give sense to a simple fact, more lives have been lost by pilots not adhering to the AFM/POH than lives saved by pilots who design their own operating standards.

And For Radio Saigon, part of an endorsement, very bloody scary I can assure you

But your argument is that to do so requires all involved to "become a test-pilot" because there were no procedures laid out in the AFM -something you seem to abhor. I wonder then, what were you in your VMCA roll in the Navajo?

Very experienced instructor and above 5000 ft

[Dog One]

As Vmca in the Chieftain is, from memory, under both Vr and V2 (depending on whether you are talking about static or dynamic Vmca, amongst other factors).

How long has a Chieftain has Vr/V2 speeds? Having flown and endorsed many pilots on PA31 aircraft when they were introduced into Australia, CAO 20.1.7b didn't apply this type of aircraft because they were not certified in Transport Category. The only speed on take off was Vtoss, which was shown on the P charts. What has changed that they now have speeds which indicate gauranteed OEI climb performance?

In regard to the assymetric go around from 50' in the landing configuration, ie gear down/landing flap extended,is there a chart in the Chieftain Flight Manual which shows what performance can be expected under various weight/temperature combinations.

[remoak]

Dog One

How long has a Chieftain has Vr/V2 speeds?

It doesn't, it has a generic rotate speed and a blue line. I was using the terminology used by Joker 10 in an attempt to illustrate, through the use of irony, how far away his contentions are from reality. Probably a step too far on my part!

In regard to the assymetric go around from 50' in the landing configuration, ie gear down/landing flap extended,is there a chart in the Chieftain Flight Manual which shows what performance can be expected under various weight/temperature combinations.

Dunno, I don't have access to one, but as it has been considered for certification, the data must exist somewhere.

Joker 10

FAR 23 specifically says the take off performance is not to be considered as part of the Balked apprach when the aircraft has stored energy

Of course you can't use T/O performance to prove the Baulked Landing case. But let me ask you this - if you have to go around from say 20 feet at Vref or whatever the Chieftain equivalent speed is - how much stored energy do you have? I'll give you a hint - the figure is very close to zero. Now, given that scenario, what is the performance difference between an aircraft rotating for takeoff with full flap, and one about to touch down with full flap? Use the same hint as before - the figure is roughly ZERO.

We "test pilots" know this because we take the time and trouble to fill in the holes left by the FM. You have no idea at all, because you can't see past the pathetic excuse for a FM sitting in your aircraft. I wonder which of us is better equipped to cope with the unexpected?

I hope you live through you FAR 23 rejected takeoff in the light twin most brakes don't cut it.

Possibly true if field length is very limiting, but if I reject my T/O with full flap I will stop a lot more quickly than you will if you reject with no flap, mainly because I will be rejecting from a lower speed. Or are you suggesting that you wouldn't reject a takeoff if one fails before rotation?

more lives have been lost by pilots not adhering to the AFM/POH than lives saved by pilots who design their own operating standards.

Another brainless statement. How do you quantify how many people have been saved by working stuff out for themselves and not relying solely on the FM? I certainly fit into that category. How many others? You will never know as it is never recorded. On the other hand, how many people have died because they directly contravened their AFM/POH?

A good idea can be found here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Power_loss_twin_engine_aircraft.pdf

To quote from that document:

• Just over one-third of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during a non-asymmetric power loss. The majority of these were related to fuel management, and no benefit was derived from the presence of a second engine.
• The vast majority (86 per cent) of non-asymmetric power loss accidents
occurred following a power loss in either the en route or approach phases and resulted in aircraft being forced landed.
• Almost two-thirds of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during an asymmetric power loss. The reasons for these power losses were more varied than those in the non-asymmetric power loss group, with fuel management, fuel system problems, engine and propeller malfunctions, perceived power losses, simulated engine failures and power losses for undetermined reasons all identified as causes of power loss.
• More accidents (46 per cent) occurred following an asymmetric power loss in the take-off phase than in any other phase of flight.

As you can see, few of those accidents seem toi have anything at all to do with ignoring the FM/PH, other than in an indirect way.

I note that you have, as yet, not managed to refute any of the performance issues that I have raised that the FM/POH does not cater for. perhaps you should give that a try before hiding behind FAR23.

[Joker 10]

GAWD I am astounded, you say numerics don't have any validity then attempt to use them to prove your argument, I retire whilst I am still alive and I really hope you can also.

Testing the argument using semantics reminds me of pavlovs dogs, predictable butb meaningless.

Just staying alive will do me , you test pilots enjoy what you have left, however long that might be.

Full flap takeoffs , bugger me, not on my watch.

[remoak]

Lol you really are a joker.

You didn't provide any "numerics", sunshine. You alluded to a completely unprovable statistic, whereas I provided you with statistics compiled by your own government.

Good luck on staying alive. It'll be more through good luck than good management. Maybe when you get to fly something bigger than old Chieftains and semi-warbirds, and advance beyond FAR23, you will start to understand what performance really is, and how it works.

-----------------------------

And a great big "Thank You" to all those who sent PMs supporting the position that myself and RadioSaigon have taken. I had no idea there so many people with an interest in this debate... much appreciated.

[Captain Sand Dune]

An interesting discussion here, although it looks like it's degenerating into willy-waving. On PPRuNE - who'da thunk it?!:}
Initially I was on the side of the "AFM = gospel" brigade. However upon reflection I realized that this was because of the quality of the manuals given to ADF pilots (yes, I'm one of those). As opposed to the "civvy" AFMs which seem to be written by lawyers in order to minimize the possibility of a law suit, all military manuals I've used contain much more information.
All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles, rather than being transmitted by word of mouth as seems to be the case in the civvy world.
Therefore the mindset of adhering to the flight maual is more prevalent in military aviation because we have flight manuals that are much more comprehensive and therefore actually useful.
We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.

[john_tullamarine]

It needs to be kept in mind that a civil Flight Manual doesn't purport to be a "how to do it" compendium of all things for all people. The document gives (often the minimum of) essential certification information.

The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits of how the aircraft ought to be operated.

It is an oft held lemma that the OEM knows best how to design and manufacture but that the (experienced) operator knows best how to operate.

The concern is where pilots, often with only a part of the story, fill in the gaps in a less disciplined manner. Generally, this is only going to be tested in court after an accident .. and the latter may or may not have anything much to do with the pilot's quasi-certification activities.

.. or am I just an old fashioned fuddy duddy ?

Captain Sand Dune is, I presume, current or ex-, RAAF and his comments are right on the mark. ADF flight manuals endeavour to be both pertinent to the specific aircraft and comprehensive. The military folk have a considerable problem when faced with the typical, far more generic (in that multiple serial ranges may be addressed) civil flight manual. Those of us who have some exposure to both worlds see this with the increasing incidence of civil Types being brought across into the ADF environment via a military type certification process which, necessarily, has to rely to a large extent on the existing civil Type Certificate process.

[RadioSaigon]

At last! Captain Sand Dune and John Tullamarine -thank you. In a very few words you have highlighted what remoak and I have been trying to get across. If I may, I'll paraphrase a few of your comments, hopefully to further focus the discussion:

All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles...

What a wonderful luxury that must be! Most GA AFM's published and able to be purchased today are identical in every respect (bar perhaps the cover illustration) to the original certification document written and published in 196X. There was another discussion here some months ago that also ventured into this AFM arena, and it was I think Chimbu Chuckles or the FTDK that related the story of having purchased a "new" AFM for the V35, only to find upon delivery that the document was identical to the 30-odd year old manual already in the aircraft. I can't find that discussion now after a quick search, but it'll be there somewhere. The point of course is that many of the components that the manufacturer installed or mandated in the manual probably have been updated to newer "next gen" equipment, but those changes are not reflected in the AFM. Likewise the experience and knowledge gained by a world-wide operational fleet never makes it into the GA AFM. About the only changes most GA AFM's ever see in their lifetime is that mandated by AD's or TSO equipment installed, which may be supported by an AFM supplement. Inevitably legalese upon legalese.

The document gives (often the minimum of) essential certification information...

Precisely. Although personally I would have used "predominantly" where you used "often".

The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits...

Again, precisely. Although I think it's regrettable that the "supporting documents" available to GA pilots are committed only to the oldest form of documentation known to mankind -word of mouth. It is very very hard to find anything operationally useful available, unless someone has written and published a book broadly pertinent to your needs. Some examples of those might include titles like: The Advanced Pilots' Flight Manual -Kershner; Guide to Bush Flying -Potts; Flying a Floatplane -Faure; Water Flying Concepts -de Remer, to name just a few. Before anyone pounces on me re the relevance of these texts, have a read of one or more of them. Although by their titles you may be able to deduce that they're pretty activity-specific texts, you'd best believe that most of the material written there is immediately relevant and pertinent to whatever you fly, wherever you fly it. Another brilliant example that springs to mind is the Cowboys Guide to the Cessna 185. Run a Google search, it'll pop straight up. That's a text that pulls no punches and again most of it is relevant to whatever and wherever you fly. There should be more texts like it IMO and a pox on politically correct arse-covering documents feebly supported by gutless regulators.

It is an oft held lemma that the OEM knows best how to design and manufacture but that the (experienced) operator knows best how to operate.

Hoorah. Ain't gonna be getting no argument from me on that one. Have to wonder though, how much does the "experienced operator" rely on the OEM AFM in his daily operation -beyond the limitations section? Waddya reckon??? :}

[Joker 10]

Capt Sand Dune,

Quite right and as it should be:

We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.

[Lodown]

Conversation has deviated a little from the original topic and question. Joker 10 has been taking the conservative line and Radio Saigon and Remoak have been espousing a little more freedom. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with any of their arguments. Joker 10 flies one way and Re and Radio fly slightly differently. Maybe more of a result of the different environments in which they fly rather than different philosophies.

Chances are if you've flown an Islander, you've had to operate off short, dirt strips on a regular basis. You learn how to get the thing into the air quickly because there's nothing in the flight manual that mentions takeoff distance with puddles, mud, large rocks, loose dirt, stones, and a Chief Pilot who doesn't like stone chips in the propellor, etc. The AFM is a guide, not a bible. It defines the limits of the flight envelope with a little wriggle room. If you've spent most of your flying time on sealed strips, chances are you've had the luxury of not having to worry too much about variable runway conditions and the AFM can be referred to in black and white interpretation.

If the instructor tells you to fly a certain way, then fly that way. The methods that Re and Radio mention work and work well, but they do increase the requirements for attention on takeoff. If you're not prepared for it, then don't do it.

[RadioSaigon]

...more of a result of the different environments in which they fly rather than different philosophies...

A good point, well raised; and one I have been pondering myself of late. I think in all probability that has a lot to do with it.

As you say, I (and many others) don't always have the luxury of a sealed runway disappearing over the horizon at either end of our operations. We are (more or less) frequently operating in conditions which the AFM simply does not consider -or for which little or no relevant information is provided. That does not make us fools, test pilots, cowboys or anything else -as long as we are operating within the parameters defined in the limitations section of our AFM, which we are. The gaps in the information available have to be filled by discussion with those experienced and competent in the operation in question, reference to existing supplementary documentation where available and individual experience.

Oh btw -if I ever have to wait for the CP to gyp me for stone-chipped props, then I deserve my arse kicked!!! One of my personal pet hates :ok:

If the instructor tells you to fly a certain way, then fly that way...

whoops. There's a statement that needs some serious qualification if ever I've seen one!

That depends entirely on the instructor. There are (a majority) whose opinions and words can be relied upon, but there's also a growing cadre of muppets there too... don't reckon you'd have to look too far to find one either.

[remoak]

John

The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits of how the aircraft ought to be operated.

Now wouldn't that be good? But then what type-specific, approved documents are there for a civvy pilot to refer to? The books that RadioSaigon mentions are good ones, and there is always the old standby, Fate is the Hunter. But none of them carry any sort of approval, and could not be used as a reference in an enquiry. In the airline world we have Handling the Big Jets, which is a wonderful book but again, has no official standing.

The concern is where pilots, often with only a part of the story, fill in the gaps in a less disciplined manner.

Couldn't agree more, but what is the alternative? When I was a young whippersnapper, my (elderly) instructor MADE me go out and practice different takeoff configurations and such like. The young guy who took over from him didn't like that one bit, but then he had no experience to refer to and just took the normal approach in that situation, which was to refuse to step into unknown territory. Personally, I'm glad I had the old guy to teach me that stuff - firstly, because it has saved my bacon on more than one occasion (including when flying the jet transports I currently work on); and secondly, because nothing he got me to do was intrinsically unsafe.

These days - and this will probably upset somebody - most young instructors know just enough to be dangerous. Some go the extra yard and learn aeros etc, but most don't - all they want to do is put in their hours and get to the airlines.

If you think about it, the instruction model is all wrong - it should be the old, experienced guys doing the instructing, not the young guys with 250 hours, a brand new CPL, and no experience. But then, POH/FMs should be proper documents too.

Interestingly, the NZ CAA bangs on about the lack of experience in the instructor pool, but I found that when I went to renew all my old instructor quals, in order to help out at the local aero club, the process was so convoluted and expensive that it simply wasn't worth it. You would think that over 10K hours of airline flying and a JAA airline check and training qualification and background would mean something, but they don't. Well, not to the CAA, anyway... and there was also a lot of resistance from young instructors who felt I was going to "steal their hours". The way we do pilot training really is a joke.

It's quite different in the airline world, where you can't step into check and training without significant experience and a pretty tough certification process (in JAA-land, anyway).

Anyway...

Joker 10

Quite right and as it should be:

We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.

Sure, but we DON'T have that in the civil world, so what are we going to do? Refuse to even ask the question?

[FGD135]

It needs to be kept in mind that a civil Flight Manual doesn't purport to be a "how to do it" compendium of all things for all people. The document gives (often the minimum of) essential certification information.

Of course, there is no practical way that a book, or volume of books, could convey all the information that a pilot, in an abnormal situation, could require.

Joker 10,
You brought up the example of the twin that crashed in WA recently. Perhaps you shouldn't have, as that example illustrates perfectly what remoak, among others, are saying. More on this below.

But first, to the question of "experimentation". For a while there, you moved away from the expression "test pilots" and were using "experimentation" instead. tio540 came out with the following:
I just hope some of the above posters do their 'experimentation' with their own aircraft
I took that as a reference to my post about the full flaps takeoff. I would like to ask Joker 10 and tio540 just how it was that I was "experimenting"?

To me, "experimenting" is when you don't know what the outcome will be.

But I knew exactly what the outcome would be, what the risks were and what the benefits would be. I was using the flaps for the precise purpose they had been fitted to the aircraft, and had been given the blessing of the test pilots when they originally certificated the aircraft.

So how was I "experimenting"?

Of course, you won't answer that question - just as you have refused to answer every other question put to you. How's that answer to my question about flap drag coming along?

About that twin crash in W.A.; As it happens, I am well acquainted with the circumstances.

It was in 2003, the aircraft was VH-ANV, a C404 taking off from Jandakot. The takeoff weight was, from memory, about 50 Kg below MTOW. The starboard engine driven fuel pump failed a few seconds after the aircraft left the ground. There was insufficient runway (or clearway) on which to put the aircraft back on the ground.

The pilot cleaned the aircraft up very smartly and began manoeuvering to avoid power lines, initially, but then return the aircraft for a landing at Jandakot.

The pilot was in more of a hurry to get the aircraft back to Jandakot than he needed to be, and on his second turn (the turn that brought the aircraft to the reciprocal of the takeoff heading), allowed the aircraft to lose too much airspeed. Both turns were to the left.

The aircraft contacted trees (in a wings level attitude), crashed and there was an intense fire. One man died at the scene and another several months later. Ten children lost their fathers that day.

So, as it happens, precisely the circumstances surmised by remoak when he said:
In this case it sounds as though he turned back and probably mis-handled the turn and lost control.

The point that everybody is trying to get across to you is that the AFM for these aircraft usually do not give any instructions or guidance for the situation that this pilot was confronted with (after having cleaned up the aircraft).

So, how was this pilot supposed to go about manoeuvering the aircraft in order to return to the aerodrome? A very critical and important phase of flight, but are there any instructions or guidance in the AFM on how to go about that?

There aren't. So did this make him a "test pilot"? Was he "experimenting"?

Training, experience and knowledge must be used to fill in the AFM gaps. That didn't happen successfully in this case, of course, as the pilot forgot, or wasn't sufficiently aware of, in the first place, how costly turns can be when performance is marginal.

EDITED TO ADD: Posts 78-81 have all appeared since I started composing this post, so I apologise if this post is now slightly off topic.

[Chimbu chuckles]

RS that was me writing about the CASA requirement for aircraft owners to pay for an 'updated' AFM and 'amendment service' for their aircraft some years ago...in my case an A36. Beechcraft were perfectly happy to sell me a A36 AFM, for several hundred dollars, but when asked about the amendment service over the phone the nice lady simply said "A what? We don't have an amendment service."

When my new AFM arrived it was identical in all respects except the cover...even the same part number as my 1970 original.

Just another example of CASA incompetence and complete lack of accountability.

I am reminded of the 55 series Baron manuals that had in them a short field technique that included use of flap...until the lawyers got involved and it was removed lest someone suffer an engine failure just airborne and lose control. You could get a Baby Baron in and out of < 500 meters but in the incredibly unlikely circumstance of suffering a complete engine failure in the first few seconds airborne it was deemed to expose Beechcraft to litigation and so they removed it.

This is the reason why you will find very little of anything useful in modern GA AFMs. There is the limitation section and a section with performance graphs (unfactored) and some generic sections on things like aircon/heaters/ etc that may or may not be fitted to the aircraft in question...anything else scares the fck out of the company lawyers who advise the companies that saying nothing is better than giving advice on technique which when applied by the average hamfisted pilot/aircraft owner will likely lead to expensive law suits.:rolleyes:

The same reason we no longer have the aircraft specific Australian Flight Manuals which DID have useful information in them.:ugh:

Thus a modern AFM has the following;

Airframe Limitations section - should be viewed as inviolate.

Performance section - should be viewed with a very jaundiced eye given it is raw, non factored, data produced by company test pilots under ideal conditions. Virtually no information on how to fly the aircraft.

There will be a section which recommends you operate your engine in a manner near guaranteed to limit the life of your engine to something less than the recommended TBO and NOTHING that reflects the technology advances of the last 40 years, like digital engine monitors.

At least 4 or 5 chapters which are completely useless to you because they don't apply to the equipment status of your particular aircraft.

[RadioSaigon]

Thanks for the clarification Chimbu Chuckles -I was pretty sure I was on the right track in broad strokes, if nothing else.

The rest of your post further validates the reasoning we have been trying to communicate... welcome aboard :E

[remoak]

Chimbu Chuckles

I am reminded of the 55 series Baron manuals that had in them a short field technique that included use of flap...until the lawyers got involved

Interesting you should mention that. Many moons ago I used to fly a Jetstream 31. This was in the UK, but the aircraft we acquired had just been imported from the USA and required a few changes. One of them was to reduce the Vmo by about 27kts. It turned out that the Americans certified it to a certain speed (after verification of UK flight test data), but the Brits reduced the speed because they believed that, at that speed and at the aircraft's service ceiling (and ONLY at the service ceiling), the aircraft could exhibit a tendency to mach tuck. Never mind that you would have to start a dive (considerably) higher than the service ceiling to ever achieve that speed at the service ceiling (in other words it was only a theoretical possibility, it was essentially impossible to do). The Americans refused to lower the speed as they believed that it was a practical impossibility to get there in the first place. Anyway, it became common practice in our airline to pull the airspeed warning horn CB, in order to get to the "real" Vmo in descent. Illegal? Yes. Stupid? yes, because you then have no Vmo protection. However, nobody would ever have been tempted to do it if the certifying authorities had not taken such different tacks, and for such a bizarre reason.

The above being a comment on human nature in relation to aircraft limitations... if people think the limit is stupid or unnecessary, they will likely ignore it. Not something either RS or I am advocating.

[john_tullamarine]

Some observations -

All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles... What a wonderful luxury that must be!

The military flight manual is treated in a manner somewhat analogous to a civil operating/operations manual and all the stuff tends to be prescriptively compulsory, or so it seems to me. The civil flight manual is an adjunct to the certification process and is intended to provide essential information only. The operating documents are the vehicle through which the expanded information is supposed to flow to the pilots. We all are the poorer for the control exercised by the litigious protections within the OEM ranks.

.. the story of having purchased a "new" AFM for the V35, only to find upon delivery that the document was identical to the 30-odd year old manual already in the aircraft.

I hesitate to speak to the specifics as I have no OEM data to support such. However, I would raise consideration of the Part 23 requirements for flight manuals which distinguish between below 6000 lb and heavier Types.

The point of course is that many of the components that the manufacturer installed or mandated in the manual probably have been updated to newer "next gen" equipment, but those changes are not reflected in the AFM.

The TC holder will only address the original (or TC updated equipment). A lot of the aftermarket equipment is described in FMS issued by the STC holders. The TC holder generally will not provide this sort of data and the owner needs to seek it from the STC holders.

Likewise the experience and knowledge gained by a world-wide operational fleet never makes it into the GA AFM.

It would be nice if we did see this information. However, in the civil paradigm, the vehicle is the operating/operations manual, not the flight manual

It is very very hard to find anything operationally useful available

This should be provided within the AOC operations manual style of document. I understand all too well that the philosophy is not matched by the industry reality in most cases. Moreover, regardless of whether we like it or not, the legal considerations inevitably will constrain what is written other than in non-operating technical references. So far as what a Regulator will approve, you will be hard pressed to find anything more than the regulations require being approved for obvious reasons of liability.

.. and a pox on politically correct arse-covering documents feebly supported by gutless regulators.

While I might empathise with your position, the real world dictates that civil flight manuals are not the vehicle for the nice to know stuff. The reality is that the flight manual is not intended to be used in isolation and should be read in conjunction with the operating documents.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with any of their arguments

My concern is that the newchums who might read this thread may assign too great a weight to individual thoughts expressed by some of the experienced pilots. All fine so long as they understand that the enquiry and court will probably assign a much weightier value to approved data.

You learn how to get the thing into the air quickly because there's nothing in the flight manual that mentions takeoff distance with puddles, mud, large rocks, loose dirt, stones

For the very simple reason that such considerations are, by their nature, not particularly amenable to repeatability in execution.

The AFM is a guide, not a bible

.. subject to the consideration of what weight the enquiry or judge may assign to the document.

We are (more or less) frequently operating in conditions which the AFM simply does not consider -or for which little or no relevant information is provided.

I concur. However, the way to get around this is to prescribe that additional data in the AOC operating manuals

as long as we are operating within the parameters defined in the limitations section of our AFM

At the expense of repetition, one needs to consider what one's story will be at the enquiry when the inevitable questions relating to informal compliance with design standards are raised. If you don't have good answers then expect to be at risk of legal penalty which may well be financially severe.

But then what type-specific, approved documents are there for a civvy pilot to refer to?

The reference books are fine for background study and reading but, at the expense of time and dollars, the better option is to put the required data into the AOC operating documents. This also provides you with a sounder basis for legal defence after a mishap.

most young instructors know just enough to be dangerous.

This probably always has been the case and is the reason for the requirement for supervision of such instructors by their senior colleagues

it should be the old, experienced guys doing the instructing, not the young guys with 250 hours, a brand new CPL, and no experience.

With this statement, I have nothing but concurrence. I was fortunate to do all my instruction with the other end of the spectrum and have always been appreciative of that privilege.

We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required. Sure, but we DON'T have that in the civil world,

That's a bit wide of the mark. The civil regulators employ appropriate TPs and the OEMs have competent flight test departments. Not all use experienced ex-military TPs but the end result generally is adequate. I note that there is a move in the JAA community to tighten this aspect up somewhat.

As an aside, I would note that I have seen some output from ARDU which was not very technically impressive .. even the experts can get it wrong or be guilty of sloppy work on occasion.

I was using the flaps for the precise purpose they had been fitted to the aircraft, and had been given the blessing of the test pilots when they originally certificated the aircraft.

One of the problems we need to consider is that the military flight test development generally will explore in more detail than the civil .. and for the sensible reason that the military operation exploits the aircraft to a degree far greater than is intended for the civil. Much of the terseness in the civil flight manual revolves around the philosophy that the aircraft will be operated conservatively with respect to the flight manual .. which is a moot point in the real world of GA. The other point to keep in mind is that the certification cost goes up with increased levels of investigation. This is an unfortunate lemma and one which may provide a less than desirable product when the details are examined.

a C404 taking off from Jandakot. The takeoff weight was, from memory, about 50 Kg below MTOW. The starboard engine driven fuel pump failed a few seconds after the aircraft left the ground. There was insufficient runway (or clearway) on which to put the aircraft back on the ground

This class of aircraft has precious little OEI capability in the takeoff situation. Unless the terrain, weather, and ambient conditions is/are benign, the option of putting it on the ground, whilst missing the hard bits, has much to recommend it. A significant risk of loss is associated with attempting to fly the aircraft away in other than a benign environment, especially if there is any shortcoming in operational management of an emergency. The reality is that these aircraft have little going for them, OEI, until cleaned up, at or above blue line, and safely above the rocky bits.

So, how was this pilot supposed to go about manoeuvering the aircraft in order to return to the aerodrome? A very critical and important phase of flight, but are there any instructions or guidance in the AFM on how to go about that?

Without commenting specifically, once the aircraft was cleaned up and above the obstacles, the matter becomes an operational management consideration rather than a certification matter.

Beechcraft were perfectly happy to sell me a A36 AFM, for several hundred dollars, but when asked about the amendment service over the phone the nice lady simply said "A what? We don't have an amendment service."

While unfortunate (and I have a jaundiced view of what was going on at that time in Australian aviation regulation), probably a better strategy may have been to compare the original with the current and put a case to the Regulator not to purchase the current version. As an observation, Beech certainly does have an amendment service for their larger twins ...

..until the lawyers got involved and it was removed lest someone suffer an engine failure just airborne and lose control.

Unfortunately, that is the reality in recent times and it's not likely to alter.

NOTHING that reflects the technology advances of the last 40 years, like digital engine monitors.

Such information should come in the form of a FMS when the STC holder sells the owner the new school gadget upgrade. Certainly, it is not the responsibility of the aircraft OEM unless the OEM is raising the mod STC.

At least 4 or 5 chapters which are completely useless to you because they don't apply to the equipment status of your particular aircraft.

An unfortunate fact of how the animal is presented .. saves having a multiplicity of versions in the military style of things.

This was in the UK, but the aircraft we acquired had just been imported from the USA and required a few changes

Similar stories are legion (look at the early Caravan in Oz) and, unfortunately, do make a mockery of any attempt to talk sensible certification. Hopefully, the move toward regulatory harmonisation will see this sort of nonsensical thing become a thing of the past ...


I trust that my comments are not seen as being needlessly pessimistic. However, I do get the impression that some of the folk have an unrealistic, and perhaps idealistic, view of what the GA civil flight manual sets out to achieve.

[remoak]

We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required. Sure, but we DON'T have that in the civil world,

That's a bit wide of the mark. The civil regulators employ appropriate TPs and the OEMs have competent flight test departments. Not all use experienced ex-military TPs but the end result generally is adequate. I note that there is a move in the JAA community to tighten this aspect up somewhat.

The point I was making was that there is virtually no official "trickle down" of information in the civil GA world, as there is in the military and air transport worlds.

All my airline Ops Manuals (of which the FM is an integral part) are comprehensive, updated on a 28 day cycle, and offer not only factual information but a lot of advice and more general information. I have literally dozens of CD-ROMs and DVDs on subjects like icing, short field performance, technical issues, you name it. All of it carries the seal of approval of the manufacturer and the JAA.

But in GA, it is quite the reverse. The paucity of information is such that you end up with two choices: put up with the lack of information, or go and find stuff out for yourself. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is, so I have to deal with it. I have yet to see an effective operations manual at an aero club or flight school, and the ones I have seen just regurgitate the FM and then add a bunch of non-aircraft specific information that relates solely to the operation of the club or school - but not the aircraft. This is almost certainly a reflection of the certification environment, the fear of litigation, and the costs involved in producing and maintaining a proper ops manual.

If you own your own aircraft, there IS no operations manual, just the FM/POH. So then what do you do?

I noticed that there is an awful lot of talk of the famed "subsequent enquiry". I can't speak for Australia, but certainly in Europe you would have to do something pretty stupid to find yourself on the wrong end of the JAA's wrath. There have been many cases where a pilot deviated from the Ops Manual or FM/POH, but was exonerated by the subsequent enquiry because the decision made was the best one in the circumstances. I can remember a particularly nasty night in the UK where un-forecast fog closed virtually every airport south of Carlisle, other than those with Cat III runways. I, and quite a few others, ended up shooting ILS approaches to well below Cat I minima, because none of the airports we had fuel to get to were any better wx-wise than our destination. We filled out an MOR, the tower guy filed a report (as he is legally required to do if an aircraft breaks an approach ban), and we had a short discussion with our CAA Flight Ops Inspector. He just shrugged his shoulders and said "what else could you do"? Case closed. Never even got close to an enquiry.

I guess my point is that if your only consideration is what might happen at the subsequent enquiry, you are likely to eventually find yourself between a rock and a hard place, with no plan and no way out. Many have travelled that path before.

The wider point is that I would never do anything that I cannot demonstrate is the safest option in the circumstances. For example, the one time I tried a full-flap takeoff in a Twin Otter, I was on an ambulance flight, the person in the back was in critical condition and needed to get to a hospital quickly, and the full-flap departure was the only way to get out of the tight space available.

Was it technically illegal? Sure it was.
Was it unsafe? If I had experienced an engine failure, quite possibly. but I had considered that possibility and had a plan... not a very good one... but still...
Was it the best option in the circumstances? I dunno, you tell me. The person in the back, who recovered and got to raise her kids herself, certainly thought so.

If I had been sitting there thinking about the "subsequent enquiry", I would be safe from litigation, but she would be dead.

Not always quite so simple, is it?

[john_tullamarine]

there is virtually no official "trickle down" of information in the civil GA world

Probably a fair comment. In the civil world that process is "hidden" to an extent within regulatory guidance material.

But in GA, it is quite the reverse

Indeed. However, I can't see the OEM output changing and it comes down, largely, to the operator.

I have yet to see an effective operations manual at an aero club or flight school

Agree. This remains the delinquency of the particular organisation.

So then what do you do?

Precisely what you are doing. I don't have a concern with that desire for information .. only the need for the newchums here to be aware of the gotchas existing in the event of a mishap .. regardless of the relationship between what might be done by the pilot and the mishap .. at the end of the day, the aftermath often goes for the neck regardless of sense and reason.

but was exonerated by the subsequent enquiry

Indeed. However, and certainly for the local Australian experience, there have been examples of witch hunts. Not the way one might prefer it but it happens. The main concern is that the pilot needs to be both careful and circumspect in his/her protocols.

He just shrugged his shoulders and said "what else could you do"?

.. and similar has happened here. This is a good example of what most of us would see the pilot's emergency powers as addressing. However, it is important to keep in mind that there is no "one size fits all".

find yourself between a rock and a hard place

I don't suggest that one should predicate one's operation on the fear of an enquiry. However, that reality ought to instill a degree of conservatism into an operation.

The wider point is that I would never do anything that I cannot demonstrate is the safest option in the circumstances.

. .. and that, I suggest, is a good approach to the problem. On an aside, it follows that the pilot would need a very catholic knowledge of regulatory processes to have some confidence in the belief. Your example is quite pertinent providing that there was no reasonable alternative mode of transport available .. on this latter point there are mercy flight examples which have come unstuck after the event.

Not always quite so simple, is it?

Often not at all simple .. which is what command is all about.

I don't think we have a difference in basic philosophy ..

[RadioSaigon]

No John Tullamarine I didn't see your comments as excessively pessimistic at all, rather frighteningly realistic.

It's a tragic indictment of our regulatory realities that it is so. The very body charged with regulating our safety environment is so ****-scared of possible litigation against themselves that their only available courses of action then become limited to:

Regulating themselves to an absolute standstill (we're almost there now) or
Devolving responsibility from themselves by way of regulatory instrument onto industry participants at all levels (a process well underway already).Need it be so? Is it unrealistic, idealistic or naive to expect it to be otherwise?

Not IMO.

If you were able to scratch through the layers of beauraucratic bull**** to the original legislation and instruments of incorporation that gave rise to the formation of these regulatory bodies, you would probably find that their original charter charged them with responsibility for "the safe, sustainable regulation and growth of General Aviation activities" (there wasn't much other than GA way-back-when) -or words to that intent and effect. Strikes me that, given the current penchant for political correctness and awareness, the growth of the Nanny-state and of course civil liability, that the regulators stance has become one of "let them have responsibility of their own safety planning and information resources and we'll thrash them through the courts when it all comes unglued." Adversarial regulation. No one needs to look too far to see that strategy in operation now, do they?

Is it naive to expect the regulator to ensure that pilots are getting the very best, most current, complete information about operating their aircraft (that is after all, what we do) without fear of litigation? Again, not IMO -as i perceive it, that is one of the regulators primary responsibilities. But it's devolved to Ops Manuals -where they exist, as remoak stated and actually contain information useful and pertinent to the operation in question, rather than the warm-fuzzy horse-hockey nonsense mandated by the politically correct woolly liberal muppets of the public service. Yeah, I've written and revised several ops manuals over the last several years -and I **** you not; I'm shaking my head wondering "what the hell is this doing in here" more often than not -only to find its inclusion is mandated in Reg xx or CAR yy section xx.gg.ff.kkkk

Do we as pilots have a responsibility to fill the gaps in our knowledge caused by incomplete AFM's and inappropriate Ops Manuals? Damn right we do. Just try defending yourself against a gap in your knowledge exposed by an accident (god forbid) or incident investigated by the regulator. The bastards will crucify you -publicly too, like Herrod washing his hands of the whole damn too-hard-basket issue. But will that same regulator make absolutely certain that that very pertinent information is made available to you? Well, that's rather become the point of this thread now, hasn't it...

[remoak]

providing that there was no reasonable alternative mode of transport available

It was a dark, stormy night in the middle of winter, on a remote island in the Orkneys, north of Scotland. Too rough for boats to land and in any case it would have taken many hours by boat and time was of the essence. We had landed on the beach using the headlights of a dozen local landrovers... however the front went through and the wind shifted enough to prevent us using the obstacle-free takeoff path, so it was a departure towards a headland only 500m from the takeoff point. Full-flap takeoff and an immediate turn after departure... remember, we couldn't see the headland, we had to "sense" it (although we did use the wx radar for guidance). Glad I don't do that stuff any more!


I don't think we have a difference in basic philosophy

I agree.

[tio540]

I have a simple question then, how does your 'insurer', chief pilot, legal department, company auditor, customer (BHP or Shell) and CASA feel about your non standard procedures, and deviation from QRH/checklist?

Have you advised them that you intend to continue this practice, and what is their response?

[RadioSaigon]

I have a simple question then, how does your 'insurer', chief pilot, legal department, company auditor, customer (BHP or Shell) and CASA feel about your non standard procedures, and deviation from QRH/checklist?

Bloody hell man, this is GA we're talking about here, not heavy jet RPT!!! There is no such animal as a QRH in many (most?) GA airframes. Predominantly the AFM provides no guidance at all -that's the guts of this discussion. Maybe you need to roll back a few pages and have a thorough read of whats been written!

[tio540]

Bloody hell man why are you on the Professional Pilots network then!!!

[RadioSaigon]

Am I to assume from that petty post that your perception of GA pilots is that; we are less professional because we don't fly the jets on RPT?

If indeed that is the case, then I have no further time to waste on you.

You don't go by the moniker Call Me Captain on another site (http://www.**********/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9987) that shall remain nameless do you? The attitude appears to be the same...

[tio540]

Not me, sorry. I have great respect for GA pilots, as some of the best I have ever flown with were GA.:)

[Lodown]

Tio, I mentioned in a previous post about stone chips in the prop/s and it raises an interesting point if I may digress a little. If you're a professional GA pilot operating a piston from an entirely gravel strip, do you follow the checklist line for line and park the aircraft to do runups? (There aren't many experienced GA charter pilots that park the aircraft anytime for runups.) There are big gaps in GA AFM's, just as there are gaps in law.

[remoak]

tio540

Not sure who you are talking to, but on the off-chance it was me...

I have a simple question then, how does your 'insurer', chief pilot, legal department, company auditor, customer (BHP or Shell) and CASA feel about your non standard procedures, and deviation from QRH/checklist?

Have you advised them that you intend to continue this practice, and what is their response?

Our insurers, Chief Pilot, legal department etc all understand that there are risks associated with aviation. They also understand that when you undertake an ambulance contract, the risk will be higher than normal and insurance premiums (and the cost to the government) will be higher as well. They understand that the mission may occasionally require an inventive solution to the problems it brings.

In most organisations, a deviation from SOPs would require a quick phone call to the Chief Pilot to get his permission. Such permission was never refused while I was there. If there was a question regarding aircraft performance (which was very rare because we made sure we had enough info), we simply called the manufacturer for an urgent answer.

Dunno what Shell, BHP or CASA have to do with an operation in Scotland.

The point is that people who know what they are doing just get on with it. If the mission isn't possible, we stay home, but if there is any way you can get it done and save a life while ensuring, as much as you can, that everyone is safe, we do so while accepting the increased risk as an inevitable consequence of that type of flying. Or in my case, did. I fly other stuff now.

[tio540]

Dunno what Shell, BHP or CASA have to do with an operation in Scotland.



Shell and BHP are international companies who have budgets larger than the GDP of Scotland. They have strict guidelines and auditing of the aviation section/charter companies they use, and do not tolerate any non standard procedures.


If you're a professional GA pilot operating a piston from an entirely gravel strip, do you follow the checklist line for line and park the aircraft to do runups?


That would be a whole subject of it's own.

[LeadSled]

The same reason we no longer have the aircraft specific Australian Flight Manuals which DID have useful information in them.

Chimbu,
No, not the same reason at all. The Australian FM's ceased to legally exist, when the legislation that gave rise to their existence was repealed in 1998.

As a matter of interest, some of the performance data in Australian FMs was highly suspect, one type had factored grass T/O distances less than the manufacturer's un-factored figures for a runway.

A suitably rated test pilot/aeronautical engineer (just so there will be no claims of do-it -yourself test pilots) with much certification experience, very smartly established that the DCA figures were wildly optimistic.We were never able to find out who was responsible for that flight test data.

One once popular British training type was found to have never been "legally" certified in Australia, under the pre-1998 regulations, which came as quite a surprise to those of us who had owned one, complete with DCA FM.

Under the post 1998 rules, some aircraft do not have to have an AFM at all, if the original manufacturer never produced one, which also caused some angst amongst those who are much better at flying a desk than an aeroplane.


"Regulatory Authorities" can be wonderfully opaque --- when there is skin and hair flying.

Tootle pip!!

[trex450]

Yet another method in the Islander (not in POH) for operating on a rough strip or in snow that is a little to deep is to start the take off roll with no flap which enables the weak nose wheel to be raised instantly and then dropping the flap during the roll. Once the nose is raised it will not sink back down as the flap is dropped.