Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Selecting flaps during turns

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Selecting flaps during turns

Old 4th Jan 2019, 18:46
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 418
Is that runway required with or without the 60% factor?
Vessbot is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 19:49
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,674
Advise emergency services of potential brake fire.
Burn or dump fuel down to minimum reserve plus enough for a second go just in case first go is untidy.
Complete appropriate checklist and fly appropriate speed for weight. Going below Vref for config invites a tail strike, so don’t do that!
Fly stable approach to touch down, do not accept float, a firm landing on the spot is what you want.
Land and throw everything at stopping - spoilers, brakes, reverse.
Exit runway if possible, but do not taxi to the ramp.
Complete hot brakes checklist.
Think aloud throughout - for the benefit of the tape.
Complete paperwork as to why you did not have the full performance ‘buffers’.
Tech Log entry to change brakes, wheels, tyres or whatever MOM calls for. Maintenance will want touch down groundspeed and rate of descent, so it is helpful if the FO can make a mental note of these. If not, give them PIDOOMA. or they can probably access it via QAR.

Been there and done it twice; both occasions the runway was limiting. One tyre fuse plug blew on one occasion, but only after we stopped.

Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 4th Jan 2019 at 20:30. Reason: Note to maintenance
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 00:08
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Vessbot View Post
Is that runway required with or without the 60% factor?
The proposed situation occurs once airborne. Dispatch planning no longer relevant.
Journey Man is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 00:28
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Journey Man View Post


The proposed situation occurs once airborne. Dispatch planning no longer relevant.
No matter, the "Runway length required" that Atlas Shrugged got and that was "well beyond the length of the runway" either does or doesn't include the extra pad, and its inclusion vs. exclusion drastically changes the picture.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 03:07
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,674
If you don’t have enough fuel to divert, nothing changes, except perhaps whether you call it a Mayday and put the pax in the brace position. I would only be going to that extreme if the runway was so short that an over run was likely. In the case of Wellington and a B767 I rather doubt that.
But if an over run WAS clearly inevitable AND a longer alternate could be safely reached by ignoring the FL200 limitation, I would rather go to the alternate.
The FL200 limitation does not mean that the aircraft will crash if it is exceeded.



Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 5th Jan 2019 at 03:22.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2019, 07:45
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 174
Boeing NSB 12 bulletin ( Boeing 737)

2. Maneuvering during flap​ retraction from Flaps 1​ to​ Flaps Up after takeoff ​
or during a missed approach when Engine Anti-Ice is ON or when Wing​ ​
Anti-Ice has been selected ON after liftoff.

NSB 12 describes nuisance stall warning stick shaker events that can occur under certain circumstances including item 2 described above, the mitigation is to reduce bank angle to 15 degrees.
EIFFS is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 05:16
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by Vessbot View Post
The right set of circumstances could come together as the flaps are deployed

1. in the middle of the turn, G is increased to tighten it up for unforeseen (but foreseeable) circumstances
2. extra drag from the G slows the plane
3. extra drag from the flaps slows the plane
4. pitching moment from the flaps slows the plane
5. crew is too distracted by #1 to act on the speed decay vis-a-vis power or trim, and too task saturated from everything. They only pull back more on the yoke to counteract the descending tendency, thus slowing the plane more

Planes have been stalled for stupider reasons than that, so I believe it.
This ^^^
You canít compare a multi engine jet with a light SE.
In a light GA aircraft you simply donít have the excess power or performance.
Inexperienced pilots or pilots with very marginal currency should avoid flap extension or retraction in a turn. Climbing or descending.
I always instructed my students not to do it.
During a turn you should be concentrating on other things and aerodynamic changes are a distraction.
B2N2 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 11:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli View Post
If you don’t have enough fuel to divert, nothing changes, except perhaps whether you call it a Mayday and put the pax in the brace position. I would only be going to that extreme if the runway was so short that an over run was likely. In the case of Wellington and a B767 I rather doubt that.
But if an over run WAS clearly inevitable AND a longer alternate could be safely reached by ignoring the FL200 limitation, I would rather go to the alternate.
The FL200 limitation does not mean that the aircraft will crash if it is exceeded.



You might be right, but might be wrong. For my aircraft Embraer decided that flying above FL200 with flap out was too dangerous because of critical mach and buffet problems. They state multiple times in the AOM (and my airline repeats in SOP) that this limitation is not to be exceeded. The QRH says in all instances that if we have a flap retraction issue that FL200 is our top altitude.
theNotoriousPIC is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 14:48
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
Originally Posted by theNotoriousPIC View Post
You might be right, but might be wrong. For my aircraft Embraer decided that flying above FL200 with flap out was too dangerous because of critical mach and buffet problems. They state multiple times in the AOM (and my airline repeats in SOP) that this limitation is not to be exceeded. The QRH says in all instances that if we have a flap retraction issue that FL200 is our top altitude.
Your embraer won't crash. Don't ask how I know.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 17:41
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 306
Fixed it for you:


Originally Posted by Check Airman View Post
Your embraer won't crash. Don't ask how I know.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

The statements contained herein may contain certain forward-looking statements relating to the Group that are based on the beliefs of the Group’s management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Group’s management. These forward-looking statements are, by their nature, subject to significant risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements relating to the Group’s business prospects, future developments, trends and conditions in the industry and geographical markets in which the Group operates, its strategies, plans, objectives and goals, its ability to control costs, statements relating to prices, volumes, operations, margins, overall market trends, risk management and exchange rates.

When used herein, the words “won't", "anticipate”, “believe”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “going forward”, “intend”, “may”, “ought to”, “plan”, “project”, “seek”, “should”, “will”, “would” and similar expressions, as they relate to the Group or the Group’s management, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect the Group’s current views with respect to future events and are not a guarantee of future performance or developments. You are strongly cautioned that reliance on any forward-looking statements involves known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results and events may differ materially from information contained in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including any changes in the laws, rules and regulations relating to any aspects of the Group’s business operations, general economic, market and business conditions, including capital market developments, changes or volatility in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equity prices or other rates or prices, the actions and developments of the Group’s competitors and the effects of competition in the insurance industry on the demand for, and price of, the Group’s products and services, various business opportunities that the Group may or may not pursue, changes in population growth and other demographic trends, including mortality, morbidity and longevity rates, persistency levels, the Group’s ability to identify, measure, monitor and control risks in the Group’s business, including its ability to manage and adapt its overall risk profile and risk management practices, its ability to properly price its products and services and establish reserves for future policy benefits and claims, seasonal fluctuations and factors beyond the Group’s control. Subject to the requirements of the Listing Rules, the Group does not intend to update or otherwise revise such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. As a result of these and other risks, uncertainties and assumptions, forward-looking events and circumstances discussed herein might not occur in the way the Group expects, or at all. Accordingly, you should not place reliance on any forward-looking information or statements. All forward-looking statements herein are qualified by reference to the cautionary statements set forth in this section.
What you meant to say was "mine didn't crash"
hans brinker is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2019, 21:50
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,674
The original reasoning behind the 20000 ft limitation for flap extension (for Boeing at least) was that there was such a small probability that flaps would ever be required above that level, there was no point in extending the test program to validate handling. Perhaps Embraer thought the same. Certainly, had their aircraft exhibited any undesirable handling at FL200 during the test program, they would have either addressed it, or imposed a lower flap extension limit to provide a safety buffer.
Built-in asymmetry protection is expected to safeguard handling if the flap system goes out to lunch, but can't be expected to cover cases of other structural failure. One such case occurred with an old B732 which had the L.E. slat on one side partially break loose and wrap itself back over the wing during a missed approach. The crew found themselves in the classic 'between a brick and a hard place' situation. They could not land at the destination because the weather and runway length etc made that far too risky. But as they climbed out to divert to the alternate the aircraft quickly reached a speed where roll control was no longer possible. Fortunately, by very careful handling of speed, altitude and thrust they did make it to the alternate, but ate into their final fixed fuel reserve to do so.
A crew fixated on observing all limitations may well have decided to ditch. In the dark, over open sea, that would have been a far worse outcome.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2019, 03:32
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
Fixed it for you:




What you meant to say was "mine didn't crash"
That assumes that I was there at the time, which I will neither confirm nor deny.

I'll definitely use that disclaimer in the future though
Check Airman is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2019, 15:30
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 306
Smile

Originally Posted by Check Airman View Post
That assumes that I was there at the time, which I will neither confirm nor deny.

I'll definitely use that disclaimer in the future though


fillerfiller
hans brinker is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2019, 18:22
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 213
Are any commercial airplanes certified for flaps above FL200 ( note - certified)?
t-bag is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.