Full flap at 500ft in a C152?

[Mark1234]

Wow. Storm in a teacup? Seems the concern would be more around giving the student time to process / concentrate appropriately.

The difference in speed between flaps 30 as mentioned by the original poster, and say flaps 20, or flaps 10 for a 152 is precisely... naff all!! Maybe 5 knots if generous? In fact you can fly pretty much any reasonable approach speed with the flaps anywhere you choose - even 40degrees. It just requires varying amounts of engine input/glideslope. None of which is going to make any difference to the mythical kingair chasing you down final..

You are certainly NOT committed to land once full flap is out, be it 40 or 30. Firstly it *will* climb at full flap (even 40), unless your density alt is pretty scary, secondly there's a little lever that makes the flap go away. In fact you are never fully committed to land until you're turning off the runway ('interesting' and one way strips aside)

Beyond that, I have little to add.. for point/power/pitch etc.. I don't know which is more intuitive, either can work, neither is a recipie for 'stall and die'. The fundamental point is that you watch your airspeed... keep that up and there's no stall and die. Should I mention the 'stall stick position' concept?

[JohnRayner]

Sorry to intrude.

Not a FI, but interested in the drift topic of this thread!

Spent a chunk of time getting the idea of pitch=speed/power=height into my head for my PPL and now understand what I'm doing in terms of energy management using the above template. That there "stick and rudder" book re-enforces this somewhat.

I've looked for information online regarding the other method (which I would like to have a pop at if it's so intuitive!) but can find nothing. Yet.

Does anyone here have any links easy to hand?

Sorry for the drift. On the subject of full flap and when, I was taught to assess the situation and use them when I was happy e.g. if on base leg I seem to be a little too close in and high due to overcompensation for a perceived crosswind, then chuck the lot in and set up before turning final. If a bit further out and a bit lower down, leave it 'til I'm happy that full flap won't mean touching down in the pretty thicket that adorns the short final to our strip!

Regards

JR

[AreWeNearlyThere]

It al seems to be a mixture of common sense and personal preference really.

I learnt to fly at 2 different clubs throughout my time, one, as stated earlier, prefers 30° on short final and the 1st club I flew at tought me only to use the full 30° when you felt the need for it (High on approach, fast on approach or short field ops)

There really isn't much speed difference in these smaller types of a/c. There is a bit of a pitch difference for better view but thats all. Now it would be slighlty different for a larger a/c. The difference between a larger a/c flying approach with 15°, 25°, 30° or 40° flap, could be quite substancial depending on the MLM of said a/c. But thats a different topic!

Whats the LDA at this airfield? - For example, I learnt at an airfield where main rwy was 790m and was only told to use 20° for landing. Now, I fly at an airport with over 1800m and am instructed to use as much flap as humanly possible. Strange how some people think! - Personally, I would prefer just 20° at most times. Less drag flap = less drag!! Less drag = Less fuel consumed per hour. Less fue consumed = Cheaper flight!

Obviously, the final stages of flight where this induced drag is greatest isn't going to save a whole lot of fuel in a 152 if I decide to fly with less flap. But, if this fuel is saved on every trial, training, personal flight, there is a greater potential for saving fuel!!!

BTW, Im no tree hugger but if I can save a few extra ££ per month/year, I'm all up for it!


AWNT

[DB6]

Might as well pitch in......flaps as required for the stage of approach, not a good idea to leave deployment too late, use full flap as a matter of course but not blindly.
Attitude for airspeed/power for RoD - works for aircraft with low inertia and when it is not important to maintain an accurate glidepath
Point and power - works with any aircraft on any powered approach.
In all cases STAY IN TRIM!

[Final 3 Greens]

Once full flaps are extended, you are committed to land. The same principle applies to both powered and glide approaches.

A very dangerous mindset to get into, IMHO.

[AreWeNearlyThere]

Agreed,

There is always the option to abort. If the situation becomes dangerous or puts anything at risk, forget about SOP's and the idea that you are "committed" and get it back up to try again!

Most training accidents that occur these days are from the bounce. Student lands a little heavy and becomes airborne again but instead of getting the power on and aborting that landing, decided that its better to put the a/c back down. Alas... crunch and wallop.....

All that because they believe they are committed.

"He the one that runs away, lives to fight another day!" (or goes around in this case!)

[what next]

Good morning!

I've looked for information online regarding the other method (which I would like to have a pop at if it's so intuitive!) but can find nothing. Yet.

Does anyone here have any links easy to hand?

Links? You need no link for that. Just point the nose of your aeroplane at the threshold using your stick/yoke (or keep the glidepath-needle centered if you fly IFR) and use the power lever(s) to maintain the desired speed. It couldn't be easier and it works with _every_ powered aeroplane. But you have to watch your speed all the time - there is no "built-in stall protection" as in the other method.

Regarding the flaps: Our syllabus says that full flaps are only set on final and "when landing is assured".

Greetings, Max

[sprthompson]

I'm learning to fly and have 6 hours so probably the least qualified to speak about this subject, however to me 'power and point' seems daft compared to 'elevator for speed, throttle for height'.

One of the 'airmenship' principles they teach you as a learner is that if you lose airspeed then you should pitch down and accept the loss of height, this makes a lot of sense because it's better to be in controlled flight near the ground than to be stalling 200ft above it.

I have heard that jet pilots use power and point and this is why some schools teach this to students, so they get into the seat of a jet as quick as possible, but in my opinion the other approach teaches students that airspeed is the priority, which makes a lot of sense! Lots of crashes (e.g. schipol) seem to be caused by pilots pitching up and increasing power (trying to make the runway) rather than pitching down and trying to keep flying so that if they land short they are atleast in control.

Interestingly the instructor teaching me elevator for speed, is former RAF

As for full flaps, I'm learning in a c152 and so far only put full flaps down when told but this seems to be about 200ft up with 65kt airspeed and runway is nice and big in the window...

[philr]

PITCH FOR AIRSPEED and full flap in a turn...

I had occassion to check a Senior Instructor to type several days ago...he is of the 'airspeed is controlled by pitch' and ROD by power....I'm afraid that the approach was hardly a stable one on a day of 12 knots X/W at 70 degrees to RWCL. I find that students learn much more quickly (intuitively) using the point-and-power technique....great for aiming point discipline too (airspeed-centreline-aiming point)

Re Flap on base...too hard for many and if the engine fails then what?...we teach 'when you are sure that you can achieve your aiming point AND have considered X/wind conditions then select FULL flaps ... landing with full flap is not actually REQUIRED in the POH last time I looked and in the high wing Cessna types is positively dangerous.

Fly-on

[JonathanB]

Originally Posted by philr

landing with full flap [...] in the high wing Cessna types is positively dangerous.

Errrr... what exactly is the full flap setting for then if, as you say, it's dangerous...

Seems to be a little bit generalised!

[DB6]

sprthompson, CFIT accidents are in controlled flight near the ground right up until they hit it; even a full stall recovery will not use up anywhere near 200 feet with power. You are just starting out - don't become blinkered so early. The RAF flies Grob Tutors as well as C17s and Typhoons - think about it. And then try it .

[ReverseFlight]

I love the way you guys jump at my words as if I were some infamous politician from Canberra.

When I said you are "committed to land", you decide in your own mind that (as what next said) landing is assured. As I said in my post, it is a judgement call. You cannot forcibly commit yourself to land if you are way too high/low or off track. The fact that your nose is pointing at the threshold is not a statement that you are committed to land. If that were the case, nobody would be practising go-arounds.

I was just making the point that full flap is not like "flying the figures" in IFR - it must be viewed within the greater scheme of things, such as aimpoint/aspect/airspeed etc. If you or your instructor flies each VFR circuit with exactly the same numbers, I dare say you are flying a procedure, not the aircraft.

[Runaway Gun]

Sorry if I jumped the starting blocks RF, it just read a bit wrong to me.

Just got to be careful how I read things I guess.

And if I can do it, I bet some students can mis-comprehend it as well.

[SNS3Guppy]

Full flap when turning base leg to final approach is going to inevitably lead to someone spinning in, simple as that.

Not true. That said, however, I prefer that a student handles landing gear and flaps before or after a turn largely to limit wear and tear on the airplane. Whether the airplane stalls or spins is 100% within the control of the student and instructor, and hardly a consequence of flap application.

I do a lot of different kinds of flying, and among that work, I do ag and firefighting. Raising and lowering flaps constantly in turns is normal as a way to increase or decrease turn rate, as stall protection, to vary performance or hold a speed, etc. It doesn't cause a spin, and lowering flaps doesn't commit me to land in a field or the bottom of a canyon. Flaps are a tool to be used as necessary.

That said, with students, I tend to approach flap useage incrementally. Just as a student is initially rather limited in the scope of what can or should be expected of him or her, one may not wish to introduce the full range of flap useage, types of approaches or landings, etc...in the first few lessons. Accordingly, initially I teach the student about landings by using one airspeed for takeoff, pattern, and landing. I do it at the best glide speed, which in most light trainers, closely approximates the best climb speed, too. In a Cessna 152 for example, one might use 60 knots for the climb, simply power back on the downwind a little, and use 60 knots for the approach to land...all the way down. The first introduction to landings may involve no flaps at all. Simply concentrating on keeping a descent path and airspeed going. Before the student knows it, the student has a grasp on flying no flaps at best glide speed to a landing...the single most important thing the student should know.

Then flaps are introduced. Now the student still flies the same speeds, but with the introduction of flaps. Initially one flap introdution, trim, and approach to land. A small, single change, and the student digests it quickly. Then the introduction of another flap increment, and no speed changes. Then another, and after that's mastered, speed changes with each flap increment.

The student should be fully comfortable with any flap setting, and ultimately, any flap setting introduced at any time. In the training environment, however, especially the early training environment, the more stable the approach, and the more specific the direction, the better the student can focus on learning one thing at a time, and building upon the last thing learned.

If one is instructing a student toward a position in the right seat of an airline operation, then fully configured and stabilized is quite appropriate at 500'. I do some instructing presently in aircraft ranging from Cessna 210's to turbocommanders and 400 series Cessnas, and I may be configured or have the student configured in a traffic pattern anywhere from abeam the numbers to turning final. It all depends what I'm looking for or to accomplish, what traffic there is to follow, etc. I may have someone fully configure in a light twin, for example on the downwind leg in order to fit with slower traffic using the pattern. Not a problem. Other times, the student may be counseled to wait until later, or even to apply the gear and flaps as he or she sees fit.

As for having the runway "made," I've always thought this to be a ridiculous concept. It's so widely spread, however. What does one do on final if the engine fails? The popular notion is that one must "always be able to make the runway." The truth is that during most of one's flight, one can't make the runway...and that includes just after takeoff, most of the cruise flight or maneuvering during training, and the return to the airport. Yet somehow it becomes all-fired important to be able to "make the runway" when one is on final approach. When people say "make the runway" of course, they mean make it if the engine fails...when for 99% of the flight it would be impossible to "make the runway" if the engine fails. Now, all of a sudden, it's such a critical issue. Why?

Again, the truth is that during a normal stable, configured approach, one may not be able to make the runway at all if the engine fails. It's that simple. Therefore, the notion of delaying flap application until the last moment so one can "make the runway" in the event of a power failure...is total nonsense.

One should always have an option in mind for a safe forced landing in the event of a power loss in a single engine airplane. This option needn't necessarily be the runway, any more than the runway is an option just after takeoff with an engine failure. Other options must also exist, and that's a big part of what we teach...the judgement to be constantly looking for a good place to set down. In the case of a multi engine airplane, more options are often available, but a good instructor still keeps the student thinking about options beyond the finite universe of the runway environment for forced landing options. One need not, and often cannot "make the runway" during the course of any given flight. Predicating when to apply flaps on that sole nonsensical criteria, is a foolish notion, and should be discarded.

[chrisbl]

The point going back to the OP is that having a SOP should ensure consistancy by all instructors so that students do not get differing messages from differing instructors.

This the biggest single complaint from students. Surely that is the point of the SOP getting consistancy with the customers or is that too much to agree on.

The pitch power argument is irrelevant.

[SNS3Guppy]

That again, depends on the type of training environment. In a flight school with an inflexible training regime, then SOP is important to some degree. It's also very limiting in many environments.

I don't care to work with a student when placed under a restriction that the student *must* be configured as such-and-such by 500'. This is fine and dandy for the flight department where everybody acts the same in the company aircraft. It's not fine for the training environment in which the student should be encouraged to use and explore the range of configurations, techniques, and practices, in order to better learn.

[BEagle]

Fortunately the UK CAA recommends that any particular school should have a standard technique - which makes things a lot easier for the school's students.

[what next]

Hello!

It's not fine for the training environment in which the student should be encouraged to use and explore the range of configurations, techniques, and practices, in order to better learn.

Well defined "training procedures" (I only know the term "SOP" from commercial flying, not from the flying school environment) do not preclude this!

For example, when we fly "CPL patterns" with IFR and CPL/ATPL students, they always come in packs of four (on Piper singles and twins): Flapless, Flaps 10, 25 and 40. Sticking to the procedures and yet giving the student all possible configurations to explore!

Greetings, Max

[SNS3Guppy]

Fortunately the UK CAA recommends that any particular school should have a standard technique - which makes things a lot easier for the school's students.

Perhaps that's why I see a disproportionately higher number of UK students on here complaining that they don't understand carb heat or leaning or this or that...because they're under too rigid a training environment. Same applies to the use of flaps, and the flexibility to use all or none at any point in the approach. It seems much of the basics just aren't getting taught...and those same individuals turn around and become instructor and pass on the same heritage of inexperience and improper thought.

That's not good.

[Spunky Monkey]

Sorry I have to take issue here with a couple of points and I don't mean to offend.

I was taught to be an FI by one of the most respected teachers in the country, he RAN the test pilots school for many a year.

He did not teach point and power in a light aircraft, for the simple reason of teaching FLWP.
In that instance when you are using a constant aspect to the field in the turn, you cannot use the engine because it is out. Pitch controls airspeed, why teach two different methods to a student?

As when the pressure is on after a failure, are they going to start thinking which method is best?

Also if you start using comments like "Commited to Land" a student will believe that is the correct terminology. Hence why people picked up on this point.

At the small grass strip I frequent, I teach to drop 30deg (C152) after clearing the trees or cables that live at the end of the runway.
I only use full flap 40deg in a strong wind when I am trying to go backwards!
Flaps in a turn - not if I can help it, change of centre of pressure, movement of CofG, change of stll speed et al.
A student should understand that the approach should be unhurried, stable and enjoyable.
Definately not by rote.