One-engine landing with C525; flaps setting???
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dear original poster. I don't give a toss what flap setting you use.
like so many threads here, drivel.Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with BizJetJock
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
We spend ages trying to teach people to fly stabilized normal approaches, why on earth would you want to destabilize an abnormal?
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
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say you have the engine fail at 50ft above minima and the mem item says flaps 15?
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".
CP
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .....
Maybe they get brownie points for finding something new to re-invent, and extra points for adding it to the syllabus?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cj & flaps
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 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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
You are already dealing with an engine failure. Why turn an incident into an emergency by using a non-standard configuration for the landing?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Upper Deck
Age: 40
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never landed with flap not fully extended?
'cause you will turn into a non stabilized approach?
Why turn an incident into an emergency by using a non-standard configuration for the landing?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: ak
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Assured
I am a mei, part 142 TCE w/certificate action, Part 135/121 check airman.
I would never change the flap setting in any multi aircraft single engine.
You have the data, (you can use 0 flap data which is more conservative), why do you want to de stabilize the approach, be distracted at low altitude, give up the go around ability, for what gain, landing 200' shorter, REALLY.
There are many reasons to land at approach setting and few if any to land at full. Large aircraft cannot change settings, ask yourself why not????
AND as far as the checklist goes, you ARE following it, it says "flaps full WHEN landing assured" or something very close to that. When is a limiting word, you cannot proceed until the when is meet, therefore if you believe the landing is in question, (and i also do, until coming to a stop) then landing at app setting is following the checklist to the "t".
** systems reasons - (i noticed the CJ lift dump system) don't fly CJ's but the hawker has the lift dump which you have to be in full flaps to access, we still land with app then upon touchdown go to full flaps and get the dump ability, IF you fly an airplane which it is not feasible to do something like that THEN you may have no choice, very poor design by manufacturer, shame on them but what can you do, don't lose an engine.
i have logged some 6000+ landings, i will tell you only 3 were assured. period. we could not have gone around, 2 fuel and 1 weather, and no i don't cut my fuel short but when crossing oceans and un-forecast wind and weather you don't have much choice.
i have not had a CAA or FAA have a problem with this logic.
This landing assured crap dates back to the boot icing thing and the 400' min 3rd segment thing, both of which have been changed for good reason, this is the next one that needs to be addressed, if you look at where these rules came from they made sense 60 years ago, but not today.....
Just my 2 cents......
I would never change the flap setting in any multi aircraft single engine.
You have the data, (you can use 0 flap data which is more conservative), why do you want to de stabilize the approach, be distracted at low altitude, give up the go around ability, for what gain, landing 200' shorter, REALLY.
There are many reasons to land at approach setting and few if any to land at full. Large aircraft cannot change settings, ask yourself why not????
AND as far as the checklist goes, you ARE following it, it says "flaps full WHEN landing assured" or something very close to that. When is a limiting word, you cannot proceed until the when is meet, therefore if you believe the landing is in question, (and i also do, until coming to a stop) then landing at app setting is following the checklist to the "t".
** systems reasons - (i noticed the CJ lift dump system) don't fly CJ's but the hawker has the lift dump which you have to be in full flaps to access, we still land with app then upon touchdown go to full flaps and get the dump ability, IF you fly an airplane which it is not feasible to do something like that THEN you may have no choice, very poor design by manufacturer, shame on them but what can you do, don't lose an engine.
i have logged some 6000+ landings, i will tell you only 3 were assured. period. we could not have gone around, 2 fuel and 1 weather, and no i don't cut my fuel short but when crossing oceans and un-forecast wind and weather you don't have much choice.
i have not had a CAA or FAA have a problem with this logic.
This landing assured crap dates back to the boot icing thing and the 400' min 3rd segment thing, both of which have been changed for good reason, this is the next one that needs to be addressed, if you look at where these rules came from they made sense 60 years ago, but not today.....
Just my 2 cents......
Last edited by roadrash; 30th Nov 2013 at 16:31. Reason: forgot something
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know nothing about these Cessna aircraft that you all are discussing but find your discussion "interesting" (for want of a better term).
Here's a dumb question: Is it safe to assume that these aircraft are certified in the "Normal" category under FAR Part 23?
The question is asked because your conversation appears to indicate a great deal of guessing and confusion about what your aircraft can be expected to do (or be capable of doing) with regard to proper aircraft configuration(s) and procedures during engine-out operations.
Here's a dumb question: Is it safe to assume that these aircraft are certified in the "Normal" category under FAR Part 23?
The question is asked because your conversation appears to indicate a great deal of guessing and confusion about what your aircraft can be expected to do (or be capable of doing) with regard to proper aircraft configuration(s) and procedures during engine-out operations.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a matter of picking the VREF for the landing flap you have! i know that re currents I have flown in the past, my examiner would like full flap flaps approach and flaps land.
Obviously clean you will land flatter and faster and single engine for real you would take landing flap when landing is assured bar an act of God!
But for training purposes all configurations work.
I must say i am talking about the 500/550/560 but would not expect the CJ to be miles apart.
I think landing (IE coming back to earth) is assured albeit not in the way you are suggesting
You cannot stay up there forever 
but yes take your point as no one knows that a startled Deer will not run across the runway as you are flaring
it is surprising how many Deer collisions there are see the sad remains of a Citation deer collision below
PLANE CRASHES AFTER HITTING DEER - GwdToday - Greenwood, SC
Obviously clean you will land flatter and faster and single engine for real you would take landing flap when landing is assured bar an act of God!
But for training purposes all configurations work.
I must say i am talking about the 500/550/560 but would not expect the CJ to be miles apart.
No landing is ever assured.
You cannot stay up there forever but yes take your point as no one knows that a startled Deer will not run across the runway as you are flaringit is surprising how many Deer collisions there are see the sad remains of a Citation deer collision below
PLANE CRASHES AFTER HITTING DEER - GwdToday - Greenwood, SC
Last edited by Pace; 5th Dec 2013 at 14:21.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bucket
No landing is ever assured.
(c)AY
******
We talked about this recently with our TRI/E and we reasoned it as follows:
Only gash fools reconfigure on one engine at 200ft (ie - when you break out and see the lights) so that option is not available.
Therefore it's a question of either, F35 at 3 miles / 1000ft, or staying with F15 to the runway.
If you're AOC you've factored the runway by 1.67. Under an emergency (which by definition is not planned) that ceases to be an issue so the 1.25 factor for a F15 landing is already assured - even in the wet.
So, given no landing distance issues and no requirement to reconfigure on approach or on go-around single engine - it seems like a no-lose solution to leave the flaps in 15 and carry on down.
YMMV.
Last edited by JonDyer; 5th Dec 2013 at 18:11.
