Full Flap failure 3nm final: GA or land?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: OFFSHORE
Full Flap failure 3nm final: GA or land?
Hi guys,
Just a quick question. Had a full flap fail on a 3 mile final in VMC but just below the cloud base in a GLEX. We had slats out and 16. Would you go around or add 10-20 kts to REF and land. Understanding the aircrafts system of stall warning advance.
Just a quick question. Had a full flap fail on a 3 mile final in VMC but just below the cloud base in a GLEX. We had slats out and 16. Would you go around or add 10-20 kts to REF and land. Understanding the aircrafts system of stall warning advance.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Well a type would have been just a small clue! But do you really have to ask? Are you seriously proposing to go around with a failed flap drive, so you will be trying to go around with that flap setting? What will that get you- another approach with that same flap setting you have at that decision point? You are flying safely at that stage, you are close to land- put it down at a safe speed for that flap setting and apologise to the boss later!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: OFFSHORE
I'm asking because I wanted to land and the skipper said go around. Type? GLEX or Gloal Express. Th GLEX has more than enough pwr to drive it in a go around with every thing hanging out. The GLEX has had numerous problems with the slat/flap control unit. As it was, it fixed itself and we landed with full flap the second time. the joys of a computer driven aircraft.
any more from anyone else?
any more from anyone else?
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere where I can watch you
In my book, unless I am on fire or so short of fuel or somewhere to land, it is a g/a. You would be landing un-briefed, with no real idea of stopping distance, required brake and ?reverse? settings etc, and the safest option is to g/a, try to sort out the problem, re-brief both a full-flap and reduced flap landing and come in again. Then you have it all covered. I vote for the skipper's decision.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
From: uk
I'm with your skipper on this one, you may need a new Vref, different braking and retardation methods and possibly different flare technique, as well as confirming landing distance now required Vs landing distance available. Better to waste the time flying for a further 10-15 minutes than sit off the end of the runway wondering how to write up the reports!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
What sort of setting were the flaps failed on? If it was a first stage and the runway was short, yes, go-around. If it was an intermediate stage, how sure are you that you have go around capability on one engine? Opening up to go-around, say you had a stall/shutdown- would you be commited to hitting the ground on one engine? What is the single engine landing procedure for this type- does it use full flap or intermediate flap? If it uses intermediate flap on one engine, what is the problem with continuing to land with intermediate flap? You were 3 miles out and visual, how critical was the runway? All to be weighed off in seconds! I suspect adding a speed margin and putting it down would be no problem.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Some background:
Landing flaps on a GX is OUT/30. Standard go-around config is OUT/6. So this case was at neither the correct landing nor GA config.
The recommended Vref increment for a flaps 16 landing, per the AFM, is only +6 knots (not 10-20) and with that increment the ALD factor is about 40% (it depends a little on other factors, but not much). So, assuming that you flew the recommended speed and had no other problems, you'd be inside the nominal 67% LFL/ALD factor.
But, if you flew near +20, then looking at the flaps 0 case (where the recommended add is +20) you'd be getting close to 60% as a distance factor, which might be eating a lot of your margin.
(That's all assuming your message was FLAPS FAIL - if it was SLAT-FLAPS FAIL then you'd get higher adders and distances. )
Landing flaps on a GX is OUT/30. Standard go-around config is OUT/6. So this case was at neither the correct landing nor GA config.
The recommended Vref increment for a flaps 16 landing, per the AFM, is only +6 knots (not 10-20) and with that increment the ALD factor is about 40% (it depends a little on other factors, but not much). So, assuming that you flew the recommended speed and had no other problems, you'd be inside the nominal 67% LFL/ALD factor.
But, if you flew near +20, then looking at the flaps 0 case (where the recommended add is +20) you'd be getting close to 60% as a distance factor, which might be eating a lot of your margin.
(That's all assuming your message was FLAPS FAIL - if it was SLAT-FLAPS FAIL then you'd get higher adders and distances. )
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
So OUT/16 is single engine landing procedure....with a +6kt. increment? Is that the case? If so, what is the problem with a 2 engine OUT/16/higher autobrake landing?
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
From: Middle East / UK
What kind of failure was it?
Did the flaps fail to fully extend?
Was there an asymmetry?
Did they retract uncommanded?
At first glance, I would have re briefed (@3nm) on the approach for a partial flap landing, selected a new Vref, and landed with extra autobrake. Perhaps the type I fly B757/B767 lends itself to be able to do this more. At 3nm on a B757/B767 you would at least be @ Flap 20. Landing with Flap 20 or 30 in a B757/B767 makes little difference to landing distances. But again perhaps this type is not "normal."
If the flaps had retracted uncommanded, or had suddenly developed an asymmetry then I wouldn't be convinced they would retract for the go around (assuming single engine, as you have to do.). At that stage in the approach I think it would be safer to land. If however you type is prone to such problems, and they are known then a go-around is probably the best answer. I think the answer to your question is, it depends on the type!
Did the flaps fail to fully extend?
Was there an asymmetry?
Did they retract uncommanded?
At first glance, I would have re briefed (@3nm) on the approach for a partial flap landing, selected a new Vref, and landed with extra autobrake. Perhaps the type I fly B757/B767 lends itself to be able to do this more. At 3nm on a B757/B767 you would at least be @ Flap 20. Landing with Flap 20 or 30 in a B757/B767 makes little difference to landing distances. But again perhaps this type is not "normal."
If the flaps had retracted uncommanded, or had suddenly developed an asymmetry then I wouldn't be convinced they would retract for the go around (assuming single engine, as you have to do.). At that stage in the approach I think it would be safer to land. If however you type is prone to such problems, and they are known then a go-around is probably the best answer. I think the answer to your question is, it depends on the type!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
From: uk
If not stabilised by 1000ft aal - i.e. land flaps, Vref +increment, approach power set, then a go-around should be considered. If not stabilised by 500ft aal, then a go-around should be carried out - this is the current recommendation for airline ops to reduce approach and landing accidents (ALARS). This is why I think your Captain acted wisely in flying a go-around to solve the problem at leisure, rather than 'repent in haste'! As it was not an emergency, why risk turning it into one by landing unprepared?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: OFFSHORE
Thanks Guys,
I can understand the point of the go around, but also I understand the aircraft systems. We where stabilized, on speed for the setting, 11000’ rwy and our LD req was around 3000’ for our wgt. There was no flap retraction or asymmetry, as we still had the speed cue for flap 16, it posted on the CAS as a FLAP FAULT. The go around brought out more problems in itself as we where doing a vis app. So no published missed app proc. I had to call for the gear retract 3 times as he was on the radio. What happened to aviate, nav and com last. The flaps where not retracted in the GA.
I have spoken to a few people about this and I’ve got both sides of the story. Just land at a higher Ref and do the GA and sort it out.
Any way thanks again for your imput.
GL
I can understand the point of the go around, but also I understand the aircraft systems. We where stabilized, on speed for the setting, 11000’ rwy and our LD req was around 3000’ for our wgt. There was no flap retraction or asymmetry, as we still had the speed cue for flap 16, it posted on the CAS as a FLAP FAULT. The go around brought out more problems in itself as we where doing a vis app. So no published missed app proc. I had to call for the gear retract 3 times as he was on the radio. What happened to aviate, nav and com last. The flaps where not retracted in the GA.
I have spoken to a few people about this and I’ve got both sides of the story. Just land at a higher Ref and do the GA and sort it out.
Any way thanks again for your imput.
GL
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere where I can watch you
Sorry guys, but there would be a few 'heavy' interviews floating around for MJ and Rainboe.
Also not mentioned is whether you were out of fuel or on fire. Was the g/a dangerous? Did the gear NEED to come up? Did the flaps NEED to be retracted? Do you NEED a published g/a for a visual approach? Which is more 'dangerous'? A non-standard unbriefed landing or a non-standard unbriefed g/a?
I think this is an example of why we have a captain in the a/c. I stand by my vote. His responsibility, his decision. Endex.
Also not mentioned is whether you were out of fuel or on fire. Was the g/a dangerous? Did the gear NEED to come up? Did the flaps NEED to be retracted? Do you NEED a published g/a for a visual approach? Which is more 'dangerous'? A non-standard unbriefed landing or a non-standard unbriefed g/a?
I think this is an example of why we have a captain in the a/c. I stand by my vote. His responsibility, his decision. Endex.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Well as I am in the dock, I shall answer that! What concerns me is going around with stuck medium setting flaps. You will certainly have to raise the gear! But what if you surge and lose an engine? Go around on one possibly, flaps stuck at medium, gear raising 'uncertain' or maybe slow? Bad situation.....and you are overflying 11000' of concrete, for which you would have used 4000' or so landing? Stuck flaps to me is a flying control problem, which means get it down as soon as possible- wait- that's too long! Sooner! Taking into account runway length, visual conditions, lack of defined go-around, I would rather plonk the thing down and apologise later. That is not to say to go-around is wrong- it depends on what you consider to be the 'righter' answer!
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,985
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Global Local:
As a US GLEX driver, I have been in similar position (no Slats, CAS: Slat Fault) in Lanseria. We went around (beautiful day) sorted out the checklists and landed. Mysteriously, the slats extended and landing config was normal. In your case, either landing or go-around is appropriate, plenty of runway and the plane would go-around in nearly all cases. I also had a similar problem in the B727, got only inboard flaps extended, I was the wrench--quick Vref correction for the pilots, new card and landed. So, either action worked; I would resist stating either was right or wrong.
All that said, as long as I had no doubts of the go, I would go, sort it all out airborne and make a planned, briefed landing with the non-standard config. Ensures all the possible problems, corrections, etc. are worked out while options exist. Not much to do when the end is coming up fast and something was missed.
GF
Mad Scientist: are you a Bombardier engineer?? PM me, please.
As a US GLEX driver, I have been in similar position (no Slats, CAS: Slat Fault) in Lanseria. We went around (beautiful day) sorted out the checklists and landed. Mysteriously, the slats extended and landing config was normal. In your case, either landing or go-around is appropriate, plenty of runway and the plane would go-around in nearly all cases. I also had a similar problem in the B727, got only inboard flaps extended, I was the wrench--quick Vref correction for the pilots, new card and landed. So, either action worked; I would resist stating either was right or wrong.
All that said, as long as I had no doubts of the go, I would go, sort it all out airborne and make a planned, briefed landing with the non-standard config. Ensures all the possible problems, corrections, etc. are worked out while options exist. Not much to do when the end is coming up fast and something was missed.
GF
Mad Scientist: are you a Bombardier engineer?? PM me, please.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Sorry guys, but there would be a few 'heavy' interviews floating around for MJ and Rainboe.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere where I can watch you
Not for you to know, Rainboe. Are you a moderator, perchance? Sufficient to say the question was asked - "what would you do" and I have answered, and now defended my answer.
If it is any help, it has happened to me and I went round - different type - and no interview.
Just to make it clear - I am not saying it is necessarily dangerous to land straight away. Nor does 'paranoid pilot' need to worry about that double failure ie an engine in the g/a. Aviation risk is not assessed on that basis. Otherwise we would have to worry about all sorts of things. Do you plot all the asteroids via your hobby in case one might strike you during the g/a? I am merely putting forward what I think is the safest option in the circumstances described.
You have an a/c that is safely flying in that configuration. You have possibly never landed it in that configuration. A skiesfull says, you have a possible company determinant for a mandatory g/a at 500' or some other height as well. I CANNOT see why retracting the gear and moving the flap would be needed in a g/a from 3 miles either at a landing weight. Statements like "You will certainly have to raise the gear!" make me dubious.
Anyway, at the 'end of the day' it was the Captain's decision, not yours. Rule 1 applies. The decision lays with the responsibility. I am saying I think it was right. You obviously are not. That is what the forum is for. Not for 'show me your credentials' stuff.
If it is any help, it has happened to me and I went round - different type - and no interview.
Just to make it clear - I am not saying it is necessarily dangerous to land straight away. Nor does 'paranoid pilot' need to worry about that double failure ie an engine in the g/a. Aviation risk is not assessed on that basis. Otherwise we would have to worry about all sorts of things. Do you plot all the asteroids via your hobby in case one might strike you during the g/a? I am merely putting forward what I think is the safest option in the circumstances described.
You have an a/c that is safely flying in that configuration. You have possibly never landed it in that configuration. A skiesfull says, you have a possible company determinant for a mandatory g/a at 500' or some other height as well. I CANNOT see why retracting the gear and moving the flap would be needed in a g/a from 3 miles either at a landing weight. Statements like "You will certainly have to raise the gear!" make me dubious.
Anyway, at the 'end of the day' it was the Captain's decision, not yours. Rule 1 applies. The decision lays with the responsibility. I am saying I think it was right. You obviously are not. That is what the forum is for. Not for 'show me your credentials' stuff.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Well I understood we had a situation of an unknown amount of medium flap stuck in a flap failure situation, so doing a go-around with stuck flap becomes slightly more hazardous in my opinion that landing straight ahead on a runway you woould still not use much more than one third of. You have a flight control surface problem- even in a go-around I would not like to move them. Difficult to conclude a right answer when you are not familiar with the type, but at least I know I would be safely on the FM's mat landing ahead rather than going around into an uncertain flight regime with flap failure. As I said- it's a moot point which is the 'righter' answer- you need to know your type well. But if you are going to deliver a verdict like that, I think you should at least say from what basis and expertise you are speaking rather than be 'Mr. Totally Anonymous, UK'.
