Crash this weekend at my airport.

[CAP1]

.

[Slash27]

Do you know when that was?

HiTech

Oct. 11th

[colmbo]

My only comment was that if that was true, if a flight instructor taught him that flap settings are limited to 10% for a normal approach.  That instruction is incorrect. 

My CFI didn't say that, I didn't mean to imply that he did.  The hazards of a time-delay text-only conversation.   

I was just trying to point out that a no-flap landing in a Cessna isn't a big deal, some were questioning why the accident aircraft made a no flap approach.

Sure glad no one mentioned the "slips with flaps prohibited" thing.

[Oldman731]

Sure glad no one mentioned the "slips with flaps prohibited" thing.

Heh.  Probably no one has a pre-1972 172 manual.

- oldman

[CAP1]

Heh.  Probably no one has a pre-1972 172 manual.

- oldman

 i had one for the 62 i flew.

[Busher]

Almost all training in 172's is now no flap approaches. All my normal field training was with no flaps in a 172.

RV I typically use 10 deg just for a tad slower stall speed. Full flap landings make it  more difficult to have a feather soft touch down by rolling the wheels on.

HiTech

I have to question the instructors on this one....

Simplest question....ever wanna fly anything high performance or bigger?

As a former check pilot, I would expect to see all config landings demonstrated and consider a flapless landing an abnormal config.

[VonMessa]

Had the same thing happen at KLOM in about 1980, although I believe it was a Navajo.  Plane made a fine landing.

- oldman

Strange how that "Low flying aircraft" sign on Stenton Ave. makes me look up...

[Babalonian]

I don't know why in a 172 people wouldn't use full flaps. You don't float as much, you are carrying less energy (so less energy in the event of a crash - like this one) and less runway usage. Since your touchdown speed is slower it's also less wear on the tires & brakes.

From what I've been hearing from instructors that I talk with, the state your flaps are in is not what they want you to focus on when landing (as is being discussed here), but what your energy state is and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique).  I have no time in a 172, but lets play your scenario, one of your typical aproaches and you do have low energy + full flaps, but then what if someone pulls out on the runway 50-feet infront of you (and this is something happening more frequently these days as more pilots enter aviation while more ATCs "retire").  If you try to react immediatley in that state (turn or power-on), will also the plane?

[hitech]

I have to question the instructors on this one....

Simplest question....ever wanna fly anything high performance or bigger?

As a former check pilot, I would expect to see all config landings demonstrated and consider a flapless landing an abnormal config.

Where did I ever say that was the only way I was trained to land the 172? It was jut the normal touch and go practice configuration.

On the RV I change settings depend on what end of the field I am on and depending on conditions.   When landing 35 at 52F I like to trying to make the 450 ft turn off to my hangar hence full flaps. When landing 17 I never even touch the brakes after landing except to stop at the hangar.

HiTech

HiTech

[Tupac]

From what I've been hearing from instructors that I talk with, the state your flaps are in is not what they want you to focus on when landing (as is being discussed here), but what your energy state is and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique).  I have no time in a 172, but lets play your scenario, one of your typical aproaches and you do have low energy + full flaps, but then what if someone pulls out on the runway 50-feet infront of you (and this is something happening more frequently these days as more pilots enter aviation while more ATCs "retire").  If you try to react immediatley in that state (turn or power-on), will also the plane?

I would apply full power and sidestep, my 172 has plenty of power to go around with full flaps, and I've practiced the maneuver before.

[Ack-Ack]

Strange how that "Low flying aircraft" sign on Stenton Ave. makes me look up...

There used to be (not sure it still exists) one of those residential airports in Ramona and each stop sign had a small sign that read, "Look left, right and up for oncoming traffic".

ack-ack

[CAP1]

There used to be (not sure it still exists) one of those residential airports in Ramona and each stop sign had a small sign that read, "Look left, right and up for oncoming traffic".

ack-ack

 that sign would confuse the average nj driver. 

[colmbo]

.... and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique). 

Really?  Short final should be the most "low energy" portion of the flight....unless you like driving off the departure end of the runway.  Not once in 6000+ landings have I wondered if I have the "energy" to maneuver when landing.  My only real energy concern has been having enough to arrest the sink rate (sometimes on a steep, short field approach you need a bit of power in the flare to "cushion" the landing).

The odds of someone pulling out in front of you are pretty low (but I've had it happen), I'm not going to carry any extra speed "just in case".  The hazard of the extra speed outweighs the hazard of what "might" happen.

[B4Buster]

I was taught to and do use full flaps in a 172 (40 degrees in the aircraft I have most of my 172 time in). The 172 will climb with full flaps, just not very quickly. I have always thought it sloppy airmanship to come in with no/minimal flaps and fast (as a biproduct). That is just my opinion though - people do things differently and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not flying the trusty 172 much anymore which I am fine with. They feel slow and broken now that my time has been spent in Bonanzas and Barons lately.

[Babalonian]

I would apply full power and sidestep, my 172 has plenty of power to go around with full flaps, and I've practiced the maneuver before.

Ah yeah, you've mentioned the upgraded powerplant the previous owners installed a couple times, good deal (how fast can it climb with full flaps?). 

Really?  Short final should be the most "low energy" portion of the flight....unless you like driving off the departure end of the runway.  Not once in 6000+ landings have I wondered if I have the "energy" to maneuver when landing.  My only real energy concern has been having enough to arrest the sink rate (sometimes on a steep, short field approach you need a bit of power in the flare to "cushion" the landing).

The odds of someone pulling out in front of you are pretty low (but I've had it happen), I'm not going to carry any extra speed "just in case".  The hazard of the extra speed outweighs the hazard of what "might" happen.

Again, I have no 172 experience, but how much runway does it need to stop at 80knts?  The reason I even brought this up is coincidently just as you mentioned, I see 172s at least once a day with full flaps ~60knts (maybe less sometimes) and then having to really gun it to cushion it on the flare.  Maybe they're practicing techniques, but I'm not counting those more obviously practicing power-offs and such.

Buster jogged my memory a bit, someone before once told me a couple years ago full flaps on a 172 isn't really much defelction (due to I recall surface area and the 40deg limit) at full.  Funny coincidence again, that same person hasn't flown a 172 in a while as he also enjoys his BC a metric-ton more these days too (particulary the days that it doesn't need any fixing or work).