Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.
actually, I've changed my mine sooty. You're right. Its all a load of drivel. Prune has got boring now that its all doom and gloom and I just want a return to the days when we all had a go at each other and it was funny.
Dear original poster. I don't give a toss what flap setting you use.
We spend ages trying to teach people to fly stabilized normal approaches, why on earth would you want to destabilize an abnormal?
Most aircraft types I have flown calls for "Landing Flaps" / "Flaps 40" / "Flaps Full" etc, depending on type, not only "when landing assured" but also "AS REQUIRED". "AS REQUIRED" is the crucial statements on these check list. If I make the necessary corrections to my Vref and landing distance calculations for the lower flap setting BEFORE starting the approach then I think it is advisable not to make late flap changes. All aircraft I have flown so far have procedures in place to land with a lower than full flap setting, so the arguments seen here about "making up your own procedures" is simply not correct.
Also, when is "Landing assured" if you have weather right down to your minima? When you get visual contact with the runway environment? Because, as you all know, on a CAT 1 approach this would mean selecting flaps at 200'. Balloon just a tiny bit in this situation and you will find yourself going around, now with full flaps.
I have seen quite a few pilots doing this in the simulator so it is something that, apparently, is not very clear for a lot of pilots and also proves that the definition of "stabilized approach" is not clearly understood either.
CP, as BJJ pointed out, I´m a dinosaur with no clue, however what would you do in an airplane that has a MEMORY ITEM (so no choice there IF you follow CLs) that requires you to go from full flap (35°) to 15° even at short final?
Or does doing so not destabilize an approach? Say you have the engine fail at 50ft above minima and the mem item says flaps 15? you move the flaps and risk "dropping" to or below minima? or just deviate below GS which might force a G/A as well (granted , you`ll do that with the flaps in G/A position...)
OTOH the original q was regarding the flaps when plenty of RWY is there, when staying in 15 is probably the better choice, especially for a touch'n'go, albeit not (IMO) necessarly following the CL.
I personally am a fan of the idea that a pilot should be able to familiarize himself and cope with changes in pitch, control forces and power requirements associated with an egine failure and/or flap setting changes.
Even more so, when the pilot has no choice ("IF REQUIRED" - > and the RWY IS short) and he now faces something he did not train for at all.
Say you have the engine fail at 50ft above minima and the mem item says flaps 15?
You mean you are on the approach, flaps 35, get an engine failure 50' above your minimums, and your N-1 checklist calls for flaps 15 for landing?
When the engine failure occurs, as in example above, it does not (immediately) matter what your N-1 checklist (or equivalent) calls for, because in my opinion this is a mandatory go-around followed by a new approach that's been briefed and prepared as a single engine approach and landing.
The airbus is the exception (on the various aircraft I have flown, there may of course be more) to the go around in the above situation. If you are performing an autoland, and have an engine failure below 200' RA, you would continue and land. The difference with the airbus is also that there is a note in the QRH under "Straight-in approach with one engine inoperative" stating something along the lines of "For performance reasons, do not extend flap full until established on final descend.....if level off is required use flap 3....." and not "when landing assured" as many manufacturers states.
Remember, the stabilized approach criteria calls for "Aircraft in landing configuration" and any change to your landing configuration, below 500' / 1000' as per your company SOPs, makes it an unstable approach.
I would also add that if your aircraft type calls for a specific flap setting, when landing N-1, and the runway you are planning to land on is too short for that flap setting, then you have two choices (my opinion):
1. Divert and find an airport that allows you to land with your failure(-s) and associated flap setting. (Recommended option!!)
2. Use a flap setting that allows you to land within the runway length available. In this case could get you in to all sorts of performance issues in case of a go-around, and whatever you do make sure you can stand in front of a judge and explain your actions and that "it was in the interest of safety of the crew and passengers and as the Commander I decided to...etc etc".
You mean you are on the approach, flaps 35, get an engine failure 50' above your minimums, and your N-1 checklist calls for flaps 15 for landing?
When the engine failure occurs, as in example above, it does not (immediately) matter what your N-1 checklist (or equivalent) calls for, because in my opinion this is a mandatory go-around followed by a new approach that's been briefed and prepared as a single engine approach and landing.
Captain Prop, every time you take off I am sure you brief for the engine failure. From the above I can only assume that you don't do this for every approach. I can't speak for your SOPS, but ours are pretty clear on this and we brief to cover the eventuality of an engine failure during the approach. This means that both crew members know exactly what will be done should it happen either before DH, or at and after DH. The considerations you mention are therefore discussed and computed at or soon after TOD when time permits, and judgements need not be rushed in the heat of an abnormal situation.
Digressing very slightly, consider this. A previous poster (maybe you) pointed out that a stabilized approach featured a speed of between Vref -0/+15 at the appropriate "gate." I am of the opinion that there is no need to rush to get to Vref, and unless one is flying a steep approach Vap should be maintained for as long as possible, but then be bled off slowly so that Vref is achieved at the threshold. If this is done in practice there is no danger in reducing full flap by one notch at any point in the approach should an engine lose thrust - which is exactly what our checklist calls for.
Of course there is no "one fits all" answer, but IMHO briefing for the eventuality of an engine failure during the approach, and the considerations of it, is a wise precaution that you may like to consider...as you wish of course.
Brief in advance what will be done in event of engine failure during approach - yes of course. If this is not a sop, then I wonder what else is missing.
The meaning of landing assured is pretty self explanatory I would have thought. Common sense should be allowed to prevail, or do you need EASA to define everything? Imagine the exam question bank if they did!
So let me get this absolutely straight in my mind. You're in your plane, trundling down the ILS, the engine fails, and you immediately command a go-around and pitch the nose up and stick a load of power on and you've just got time to apply the power before the other one fails because you're in BA038.... We train as pilots and practice as pilots so that when that day arrives and it actually happens there are instincts and skills as well as rules that mean you make good decisions.
Has anyone else noticed that the bloke that started this thread has gone really quiet and started another on with a similar "does a siphon work on the moon" theme? 95% of whats on prune is drivel and I am beginning to suspect that the majority of the other 5% is trolling bollox.
There's got to be more to life than sitting in Brazzaville fannying around on Prune... I'm off to find a HIPPO!!
So let me get this absolutely straight in my mind. You're in your plane, trundling down the ILS, the engine fails, and you immediately command a go-around and pitch the nose up and stick a load of power on .....
Yep, this is the stuff that instructors dream up at their conventions, while trying to re-invent the wheel, and squeezing it in with discussing important matters like why is "landing assured" not defined.
Maybe they get brownie points for finding something new to re-invent, and extra points for adding it to the syllabus?
As the UK's only TRTO I thought I would say my bit as I spend a great deal of my time flying around on one engine!
The CJ is a simple aeroplane and can quite happily cope on one engine and full flap. The issue is usually what the operators SOPs are. Most will require a fully stabilised approach to be flown from 1000' agl. You cannot be fully stabilised if you still have a stage of flap to lower. In my opinion landing is never assured until you have landed!
In an aircraft such as the B200 (King Air) going around single engine fully configured is demanding but is very straight forward in the CJ. Unlike the King Air the CJ eats runway especially flapless so my advice is that you should always be fully configured by 3nm or 1000'agl.
The CJ is sufficiently easy to fly in the various configurations that it baffles me why people don't just do what the designers and factory test pilots intended you to do. The reason for going full flap before you touch down is - as was briefly mentioned a bunch of posts ago - because that is the only way to "arm" the lift dump that you need after you have landed.
You are already dealing with an engine failure. Why turn an incident into an emergency by using a non-standard configuration for the landing?
like so many threads here, drivel.
