Landing Flaps Summary thread

[Ed Cesnalis]

My thread got hi-jacked so I am placing a summary here.

 

2 primary reasons to avoid fast approaches and landings in a CT

 

1. Mishaps, when they happen (flat tire, wrong inupt, ...) involve more kinetic energy and result in more damage and injury.
2. Control authority, when overcome by conditions is postponed till later in the landing sequence (when wheels are on the runway) and this is an especially bad scenario in a CT that skips sideways more readily than any other aircraft I have ever flown.

In the 10 year discussion neither of the above points have been well countered. These points stand in spite the many lang standing retorts like:

• ford vs chevy - implies no safety difference when one clearly exists
• personal preference - ignores meaningful safety issues
• only 2-3 knots - wishful thinking, speed is reduce at flare with large pitch change that is only there with landing flaps
• plane will stall or wing will drop - just not true, sink rate has to be controlled in any landing technique, rapid sink on landing is not a stall its a failure to manage energy.

The latest contribution, that fast approaches minimize pitch changes and cause firm contracts is true but not desirable in a CTSW with its strait gear legs.

[Tom Baker]

Ed, it is good to have you back and posting.

 

I agree with most of what you are saying. I have never been a proponent of increasing speed for a crosswind landing. I am however in the camp of using 15° flaps for a normal landing, and reserving full flaps for short/soft field landing under ideal conditions. I will not use full flaps with strong gusty conditions, or those with a significant crosswind component.

For all landings I want to touch on the main gear first, and not force the airplane onto the ground. for me the difference between 15° and full flaps is indeed only 2-3 knots.

 

Personally I think if they had removed the flap coupling from the ailerons we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I learned early on with my first CT what having the flaps coupled to the ailerons could do. I was doing a checkout for a pilot in my CT when it was fairly new, and we were doing a power off stall. As we approached the stall the left wing started to drop, and the pilot made the mistake of trying to pick it up with aileron. He moved the stick quickly to the right, and we were just as quick rotating to the left with an abrupt nose down pitch. I had this happen on a couple other occasions besides the one I described.

 

So the question is what happened? My theory is that the application of aileron near stall speed increased the angle of attack on the left wing by having the aileron move down. This rapid increase of angle of attack along with the adverse yaw caused the tip of the left wing to stall. So how does this relate to landings.

 

In a crosswind landing with full flaps you have the same type of set up I experienced with the stall, plus you are yawing the airplane towards the lowered aileron as you align the airplane with the runway further decreasing the airspeed at the wingtip. Add a decreasing gust factor at the same time, and you have created the perfect storm to have the downwind wing tip stall. If this happens and you are more than a few feet off the ground you will wind up with damage. Now you can experience this without the coupled ailerons, but the coupling just aggravates the problem. Why does it aggravate the problem? Because there will be less drag on the upwind wing with the streamlined aileron compared to one that protrudes above the upper surface of the wing.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Tom,

 

Thanks for the kind words and thanks for a thoughtful response.

 

My major point is regarding landing at minimum speed and an ancillary issue is using landing flaps in order to support landing at minimum speed. You and I are primarily on the same page but at disagreement on the result of 15 vs 30 flap settings.

 

Notice how the basis for your support is an incorrect input leading to an expected result? My CTSW behaves the same way, much like my Skyhawk did, it takes 3 things to rotate left with nose down (spin entry) 1)stall, 2)left rudder, 3)right flaperon.  Because a student or transition pilot was doing the flying you are only sure about the stall and right flaperon input. Because of the nose down rotation we can assume crossed controls to some extent. In fact why did it drop the left wing in the first place?  My stalls don't do that but I instinctively keep the nose into the wind with rudder pressure.  When that left wing drops in a reasonably well behaved design that input must be lacking.

 

My old 180hp skyhawk would drop a left wing if the pilot stalled it with his feet flat on the floor and it would begin a nose low left rotation if you reacted with sudden right yoke, I'm sure of it.  That sure didn't lead to landing the Skyhawks at 10* because it was far too easy to lose it in the high speed roll out. Instead we used normal speeds and flaps and got off on the first turnoff and avoided much of the high speed wind sheer fun.  Our Mooney was heavier and didn't have the issue to a great extent.

 

My CTSW taught me early on that its purchase on the runway in a crosswind could be a problem more than anything else I have flown.

 

By going from classic spin entry input to 30* flap avoidance on landing you assumed some additional bias against the flaperon droop beyond 15*.  One doesn't really lead to the other.

 

The asymmetrical drag issue is handled with adequate speed that includes a workable margin. Classic speed is based on 1.3 VSo approach, a CTSW uses more margin than 1.3.  I have ~ 1,000 landings in wind sheer environments in my CT and have done the vast majority of them with 30* and the stick at the aft stop.  I have had a wing drop to touch down countless times but I have never had a hard landing.

 

[EPIPHANY]

 

Duh I see it now, if a pilot will not counter the wing drop with opposite rudder when demonstrating a stall then he is not ready to counter a wing drop with opposite rudder when doing a landing.  I see it now, your answer is a global approach but less advanced that leaves the student with more to learn over time or to become convinced that minimum speed landings, partially due to landing flaps are nothing more than an alternative style.

 

Over time we all learn to deal with wing drops instinctively probably without realizing that we counter them with opposite rudder and if we didn't we would have control issues or even damage.  You can even 'go with it' and allow the dropping wing to softly contact giving you a single pivot point and more control due to the correct pivot due to the tricycle configuration.  In wind sheer this is a skill I often need.

[Buckaroo]

My thread got hi-jacked so I am placing a summary here.

 

2 primary reasons to avoid fast approaches and landings in a CT

 

• Mishaps, when they happen (flat tire, wrong inupt, ...) involve more kinetic energy and result in more damage and injury.
• Control authority, when overcome by conditions is postponed till later in the landing sequence (when wheels are on the runway) and this is an especially bad scenario in a CT that skips sideways more readily than any other aircraft I have ever flown.

In the 10 year discussion neither of the above points have been well countered. These points stand in spite the many lang standing retorts like:

• ford vs chevy - implies no safety difference when one clearly exists
• personal preference - ignores meaningful safety issues
• only 2-3 knots - wishful thinking, speed is reduce at flare with large pitch change that is only there with landing flaps
• plane will stall or wing will drop - just not true, sink rate has to be controlled in any landing technique, rapid sink on landing is not a stall its a failure to manage energy.

The latest contribution, that fast approaches minimize pitch changes and cause firm contracts is true but not desirable in a CTSW with its strait gear legs.

I'm glad I contributed two new ideas that you say are true!????????

 

I think any minimum flap silky landing will weight the aircraft immediately compared to a full or 30 degree landing. This fact alone gives a lack of incident advantage to the less flap pilot!????

[Ed Cesnalis]

I'm glad I contributed two new ideas that you say are true!

 

I think any minimum flap silky landing will weight the aircraft immediately compared to a full or 30 degree landing. This fact alone gives a lack of incident advantage to the less flap pilot!

 

I think .... this fact ...   

 

Transference of weight to the mains takes time because the wings continue to produce lift until speed decays. If you try and reduce this by reducing the AOA then you weight the nosewheel at speed, not good.  The minimum flap landing with more speed and less drag will continue to produce more lift longer because it takes longer to slow down.

 

Weighting the aircraft immediately is not a good thing, better to be lightly weighted on a single main at first to maximize your control in the early stages of transferring weight.  Getting 2 or 3 wheels down early and then being unable to hold the centerline is one of the worst case scenarios in a CTSW.  The same gust when on the upwind main only will produce more yaw and less 'skipping sideways' which works well.

 

On your minimum flap landings the  vulnerable speed range remains later in the landing sequence, this cannot be denied. The clean / fast / min flaps argument continues to ignore this actual fact.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Ed, it is good to have you back and posting.

 

I agree with most of what you are saying. I have never been a proponent of increasing speed for a crosswind landing. I am however in the camp of using 15° flaps for a normal landing, and reserving full flaps for short/soft field landing under ideal conditions. I will not use full flaps with strong gusty conditions, or those with a significant crosswind component.

For all landings I want to touch on the main gear first, and not force the airplane onto the ground. for me the difference between 15° and full flaps is indeed only 2-3 knots.

 

Personally I think if they had removed the flap coupling from the ailerons we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I learned early on with my first CT what having the flaps coupled to the ailerons could do. I was doing a checkout for a pilot in my CT when it was fairly new, and we were doing a power off stall. As we approached the stall the left wing started to drop, and the pilot made the mistake of trying to pick it up with aileron. He moved the stick quickly to the right, and we were just as quick rotating to the left with an abrupt nose down pitch. I had this happen on a couple other occasions besides the one I described.

 

So the question is what happened? My theory is that the application of aileron near stall speed increased the angle of attack on the left wing by having the aileron move down. This rapid increase of angle of attack along with the adverse yaw caused the tip of the left wing to stall. So how does this relate to landings.

 

In a crosswind landing with full flaps you have the same type of set up I experienced with the stall, plus you are yawing the airplane towards the lowered aileron as you align the airplane with the runway further decreasing the airspeed at the wingtip. Add a decreasing gust factor at the same time, and you have created the perfect storm to have the downwind wing tip stall. If this happens and you are more than a few feet off the ground you will wind up with damage. Now you can experience this without the coupled ailerons, but the coupling just aggravates the problem. Why does it aggravate the problem? Because there will be less drag on the upwind wing with the streamlined aileron compared to one that protrudes above the upper surface of the wing.

 

 

A simpler way of putting this:

 

What you are describing Tom, is the end result of skidding, if only from the sudden left yaw. Rate of turn too great for angle of bank sets the stage for a spin.

 

But when landing in a crosswind we are slipping - a much more benign situation. 

 

The first serious situation shouldn't lead to avoiding the 2nd benign one, right?

[Buckaroo]

I think .... this fact ...

 

Transference of weight to the mains takes time because the wings continue to produce lift until speed decays. If you try and reduce this by reducing the AOA then you weight the nosewheel at speed, not good. The minimum flap landing with more speed and less drag will continue to produce more lift longer because it takes longer to slow down.

 

Weighting the aircraft immediately is not a good thing, better to be lightly weighted on a single main at first to maximize your control in the early stages of transferring weight. Getting 2 or 3 wheels down early and then being unable to hold the centerline is one of the worst case scenarios in a CTSW. The same gust when on the upwind main only will produce more yaw and less 'skipping sideways' which works well.

 

On your minimum flap landings the vulnerable speed range remains later in the landing sequence, this cannot be denied. The clean / fast / min flaps argument continues to ignore this actual fact.

You are assuming that I land 3 on. My crosswind landing has the upwind tire touching first always followed by the other main and then nose wheel.

 

I would argue that a clean faster airplane would have less crab and therefore require less slip (cross control) to the landing set up. Your airplane will require more pitch adjustment and also more rudder and aileron (cross control) at lower speeds and closer to stall. Never good!

 

My airplane has a little more speed but requires a lot less close to the ground adjustments near stall while uncoordinated! Less chance of human error or outside error and less dangerous in my opinion.

[JLang]

For all landings I want to touch on the main gear first, and not force the airplane onto the ground. for me the difference between 15° and full flaps is indeed only 2-3 knots.

 

With great interest I have devoured this and similar threads on this topic.  I am a low-time pilot and have found that although I greatly prefer the flexibility of using full flaps, my "success rate" (defined as smooth wheel touch, no bounce, no go-around) has been much better with 15 degrees, even in light winds.  I have attributed this mostly due to my lack of skill / experience, but have also wondered how much of this, if any, is inherent to the configuration.  Of course I plan to continue to practice full flap landings, with other maneuvers, to improve my skill.

 

Question about Tom's comment, and related to the aspect of speed at approach through wheel touch: is this necessarily faster with 15 than 30 or 40 degrees?  The POH only calls out 39kts stall for 40 degrees; nothing for 30 or 15.  42kts is stated for 0.  I would like to test this myself but due to lousy weather have been unable to the past few days -- what have others found?

[Ed Cesnalis]

With great interest I have devoured this and similar threads on this topic.  I am a low-time pilot and have found that although I greatly prefer the flexibility of using full flaps, my "success rate" (defined as smooth wheel touch, no bounce, no go-around) has been much better with 15 degrees, even in light winds.  I have attributed this mostly due to my lack of skill / experience, but have also wondered how much of this, if any, is inherent to the configuration.  Of course I plan to continue to practice full flap landings, with other maneuvers, to improve my skill.

 

Question about Tom's comment, and related to the aspect of speed at approach through wheel touch: is this necessarily faster with 15 than 30 or 40 degrees?  The POH only calls out 39kts stall for 40 degrees; nothing for 30 or 15.  42kts is stated for 0.  I would like to test this myself but due to lousy weather have been unable to the past few days -- what have others found?

 

 

Everyone can get more consistent results at 15* than 30/40.  Fewer changes make it easier.

 

Book stall speeds are similar between flap settings but you are in charge.  Chances are you will be incrementally faster with each increment then the book speed.  Tail strikes are one reason that a high angle of attack isn't used without flaps and this increases speed.  Otherwise the smaller pitch change with less flaps will mean you will retain more speed through your flare or lack of it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

You are assuming that I land 3 on. My crosswind landing has the upwind tire touching first always followed by the other main and then nose wheel.

 

I would argue that a clean faster airplane would have less crab and therefore require less slip (cross control) to the landing set up. Your airplane will require more pitch adjustment and also more rudder and aileron (cross control) at lower speeds and closer to stall. Never good!

 

My airplane has a little more speed but requires a lot less close to the ground adjustments near stall while uncoordinated! Less chance of human error or outside error and less dangerous in my opinion.

 

Yes your statement that you get all you weight your gear immediately led me there, sorry.

 

You continue to argue the benefits of more speed at touchdown when I agree completely that the crisper controls make that phase easer.

 

You never comment on the fact that this technique of getting on the ground clean and fast leaves you vulnerable to sheer that you cannot overcome with controls later in the landing sequence during your roll out.  No one in your camp in 10 years has ever addressed this and this a primary reason why speed is a poor choice to deal with sheer.

[Tom Baker]

 

A simpler way of putting this:

 

What you are describing Tom, is the end result of skidding, if only from the sudden left yaw. Rate of turn too great for angle of bank sets the stage for a spin.

 

But when landing in a crosswind we are slipping - a much more benign situation. 

 

The first serious situation shouldn't lead to avoiding the 2nd benign one, right?

 

 

With a gust in a crosswind which direction do you have to move the controls? Think about which aileron goes down and which direction you will have to yaw to maintain alignment.

[Buckaroo]

 

Yes your statement that you get all you weight your gear immediately led me there, sorry.

 

You continue to argue the benefits of more speed at touchdown when I agree completely that the crisper controls make that phase easer.

 

You never comment on the fact that this technique of getting on the ground clean and fast leaves you vulnerable to sheer that you cannot overcome with controls later in the landing sequence during your roll out. No one in your camp in 10 years has ever addressed this and this a primary reason why speed is a poor choice to deal with sheer.[/quote

 

AOPA doesn't agree with your position on flaps or airspeed during cross wind landings!

 

This is right out of the AOPA reference:

 

Crosswind Landing Techniques

 

POHWhen it comes to crosswind landings, it is all about technique. There are two methods of executing the landing. Both require that you fly the final approach with a crab into the wind to maintain centerline alignment. In the first method, you maintain the crab into the flare, and at the last moment, you use the rudder to kick the airplane straight. The hope here is that you are aligned with the centerline and minimize drift. It requires perfect timing, and does not leave much margin for error.

 

The second method is to slip the airplane as you flare. As you flare, you add aileron into the wind and use the rudder to maintain runway alignment. You want to carry a few knots of extra speed to maintain full control authority. Done right, this will result in a landing on one of the main wheels, and a sharp pilot can keep it on one wheel for a few seconds until the airplane settles on the other main and the nose.

 

Doing your crosswind landings this way takes more finesse and control, but it is a more controlled landing, and it greatly reduces the risk of drifting off the runway. It also reduces the side load on the landing gear.

 

A common mistake with all landings, but especially with crosswind landings, is for the pilot to stop flying the airplane just because it is on the ground. On crosswind landings especially, it is critical that you continue to make control inputs and stay situationaly aware of what is going on. Once the airplane is on the ground, you need to properly position the ailerons and elevator for ground operation, and braking should be done slowly and evenly until the airplane has slowed to taxi speed. It is easy to forget that rudder continues to act as a weathervane, and if the wind is blowing at any appreciable speed, the wings will produce lift.

 

Additionally, it is good practice to make your final approach long, and powered. This means extending your downwind leg, and postponing your initial descent. The long final will give you a chance to get a feel for how the wind is affecting you, as well as time to get comfortable with the approach. The purpose of making a powered approach (one where you are constantly increasing and/or decreasing power) is to have more control over your position on the glide slope. The use of power will also make it easier to “catch” the aircraft if you enter a downdraft, microburst, or wind shear. Always remember – Attitude controls airspeed, power controls altitude.

 

Additional Crosswind Landing Tips

 

PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE: Confidence in crosswind landings will come only through repetition. Take advantage of a windy day and go up with your CFI to get as comfortable with crosswinds as you are with headwinds.

KEEP YOUR SPEED UP: Carry a few extra knots on final to ensure that you maintain full control authority throughout the landing.

DON'T STOP FLYING THE AIRPLANE: Once you are on the ground, you need to continue to fly the airplane until you have parked the airplane. Utilize proper flight control inputs on the ground to prevent a loss of control.

GET LINED UP EARLY: You may have heard the old aviation adage "A great landing starts 10 miles out." What that really means is that a great landing usually follows a great approach.

USE PARTIAL FLAPS: In a crosswind or gusty situation, full-flap landings can be more trouble than they're worth. This is because fully extended flaps present a larger surface area for that crosswind to affect, blowing you around. Flaps catch the wind just like a kite. Remember however – when using partial or no flap use a higher approach speed, and expect a longer landing roll (for exact figures please reference your POH).

[Ed Cesnalis]

With a gust in a crosswind which direction do you have to move the controls? Think about which aileron goes down and which direction you will have to yaw to maintain alignment.

 

Gust in a crosswind can call for opposing rudder if it is weathervaning you and flaperon into the gust. I don't maintain alignment with aileron I yaw with rudder.

 

With all due respect Tom it feels like you are changing the subject. Your basis for avoiding landing without flaperons is important.

[FlyingMonkey]

Yes your statement that you get all you weight your gear immediately led me there, sorry.

 

You continue to argue the benefits of more speed at touchdown when I agree completely that the crisper controls make that phase easer.

 

You never comment on the fact that this technique of getting on the ground clean and fast leaves you vulnerable to sheer that you cannot overcome with controls later in the landing sequence during your roll out.  No one in your camp in 10 years has ever addressed this and this a primary reason why speed is a poor choice to deal with sheer.

 

How many airplanes landing using the "Tom's Camp" technique have been flipped over, pushed off the runway, or otherwise come to grief by gusts/shear during the slow rollout phase?  I'm sure it may have happened I don't know of any and certainly not in numbers proportional to the number of CT pilots landing with 15° flaps.  So while there may be merit to your argument from a theoretical standpoint, as a practical matter it seems like perhaps a non-issue. 

 

If your argument about the vulnerability of airplanes in rollout were a huge problem, wouldn't it be doubly true on taxi, where speeds and control authority are even lower?  After all, winds don't know the difference between a taxiway and a runway.  You'd think taxiing CTs would be flipping over left and right while taxing through all these gusts and shears with no control authority to speak of.  But that is not happening either.

 

I'm not disregarding your opinion here, just trying to talk through the logic of it.  I see some holes here I'd like you to fill in.   

[Ed Cesnalis]

AOPA doesn't agree with your position on flaps or airspeed during cross wind landings!

 

 

 

You still fail to address my point.  I am pretty much in agreement with AOPA, they advocate a few knots more and less flaps but don't even get into steady state vs sheer.  I too use a few more knots and even 15 vs 30 in order to land at minimum speed for conditions.

 

The few knots that AOPA advocates isn't enough to give you crisp controls to touchdown in your CT.

 

AOPA is a bit like this forum in that it is influenced by consensus.  Today consensus here and for light aircraft in general has moved to your camp and has to ignore the postponing of vulnerability plus the extra energy issues to get there.  

[Buckaroo]

You still fail to address my point. I am pretty much in agreement with AOPA, they advocate a few knots more and less flaps but don't even get into steady state vs sheer. I too use a few more knots and even 15 vs 30 in order to land at minimum speed for conditions.

 

The few knots that AOPA advocates isn't enough to give you crisp controls to touchdown in your CT.

 

AOPA is a bit like this forum in that it is influenced by consensus. Today consensus here and for light aircraft in general has moved to your camp and has to ignore the postponing of vulnerability plus the extra energy issues to get there.

I can agree with you on one thing! If I had to choose my crash or your crash I'd pick yours! ???? Lower speed equals nicer crash unless your slow crash results in a 30 foot balloon followed by eating some dirt!????

[Roger Lee]

There must be at least 100+ pages of debate on this on our forum alone since 2006 on this subject. It always comes up when a new CT owner comes on board and ask the question.

 

There is no right answer whether you want to argue this point until death do us part as proven by 1800+ CT's and a few thousand more light aircraft that do it different ways.

 

It all works just do what works for you. There can be no debate winner on this subject. Not even the experts have agreed since flight took place.

 

Just go fly and do what you need to do to land..

[FlyingMonkey]

Telling pilots not to argue about landing technique is like telling fish not to swim.    

[Ed Cesnalis]

How many airplanes landing using the "Tom's Camp" technique have been flipped over, pushed off the runway, or otherwise come to grief by gusts/shear during the slow rollout phase?  I'm sure it may have happened I don't know of any and certainly not in numbers proportional to the number of CT pilots landing with 15° flaps.  So while there may be merit to your argument from a theoretical standpoint, as a practical matter it seems like perhaps a non-issue. 

 

If your argument about the vulnerability of airplanes in rollout were a huge problem, wouldn't it be doubly true on taxi, where speeds and control authority are even lower?  After all, winds don't know the difference between a taxiway and a runway.  You'd think taxiing CTs would be flipping over left and right while taxing through all these gusts and shears with no control authority to speak of.  But that is not happening either.

 

I'm not disregarding your opinion here, just trying to talk through the logic of it.  I see some holes here I'd like you to fill in.   

 

It's a numbers game Andy.  3 decades ago we would see this scenario every few weeks here at Mammoth but its near zero now.  The amount of light plane traffic is now close to zero, that doesn't mean the risk went away it just means the.

 

Another thing you don't see so often today are pilots calling the FBO for wing walkers so they can turn off the runway and taxi. That need too still exists even if you don't commonly see it.

 

My CT spent hours one day off the ground while tied down at Lee Vining Airport.  Another CT owner called and warned me.  sustained flying of my CTSW while tied down is a great example.

 

Roger Fane and I both landed in Tonopah with winds above 30kts, I landed twice.  We found that we could turn cross and taxi (correctly positioned controlls) at a walking speed without issue.  Rollout has all speeds from 39kts+ all the way down to walking speed where the wings are providing lift.

 

I did a sunset flight last night and on my 30* landing with my stick already at the aft stop I got gusted first from the south and then from the north and I then landed near the center line.  This was a real life CTSW example that happened in the last 24 hours.  If I had done a faster landing with minimum flaps those same 2 gusts would have challenged my control when I had 2 wheels on the ground. In stead even though I was quite slow I was still in the air and was able to make two major corrections.

 

CT crashes on landing almost always begin with loss of control on rollout.  When excess speed and sheer are factors fault will be 'pilot error' and 'loss of control'.  Extra speed is a poor substitute for landing skills. Roger H's video is one of very few and it is a crash that is the result of loss of control on roll out. 

 

I can't agree its not applicable, if our pilots often find a need to land fast its applicable.  If we had 1975 Cessna numbers we would be rich with examples.

[Ed Cesnalis]

There must be at least 100+ pages of debate on this on our forum alone since 2006 on this subject. It always comes up when a new CT owner comes on board and ask the question.

 

There is no right answer whether you want to argue this point until death do us part as proven by 1800+ CT's and a few thousand more light aircraft that do it different ways.

 

It all works just do what works for you. There can be no debate winner on this subject. Not even the experts have agreed since flight took place.

 

Just go fly and do what you need to do to land..

 

 

Okay, I'll give up on that, the boss speaks, but without addressing my 2 points.  No-one has addressed them but Andy.

[FlyingMonkey]

Everybody has anecdotes from their own flying.  I landed 30° flaps two days ago in a stiff crosswind, and as soon as I touched down a gust tried to pick up the right wing and push me across the runway.  So landing slow with full flaps doesn't make you immune.  In fact, the issue had nothing to do with my flaps setting, but instead failure to put adequate aileron into the wind.  I immediately added aileron and the issue vanished.   

 

My question stands though:  where are all the examples of CTs landing at 15° flaps and then losing control on rollout?  If it's a "numbers game" we should see statistically higher incident/accident rates for 15° flaps landings.  I'd bet there are more examples of bent or busted gear at 30° flaps than loss of control on the runway at 15°.

 

Most of us are taking a "whatever works" approach to landing the CTSW.  CharlieTango, you are clearly saying that anybody not using your method is "doing it wrong".  So I think it's on you to provide compelling evidence that half or more of the CT community is making a grave error in judgment using their chosen technique.  If you can't point to a statistically significant increase in landing mishaps at 15°, you are failing to meet that threshold.

[Doug G.]

I love it when people ask for data! It doesn't happen often enough.

[WmInce]

I love it when people ask for data! It doesn't happen often enough.

With all due respect Doug, I kinda' disagree there.

Actually, asking for that data does happen often.

It is the delivery of that data that often falls short.

This forum has recently gotten better though. It's right where it should be right now. Good discussions and no attacks or narcissism.

I am liking it again.

Keep it up guys!

[Ed Cesnalis]

Everybody has anecdotes from their own flying.  I landed 30° flaps two days ago in a stiff crosswind, and as soon as I touched down a gust tried to pick up the right wing and push me across the runway.  So landing slow with full flaps doesn't make you immune.  In fact, the issue had nothing to do with my flaps setting, but instead failure to put adequate aileron into the wind.  I immediately added aileron and the issue vanished.   

 

My question stands though:  where are all the examples of CTs landing at 15° flaps and then losing control on rollout?  If it's a "numbers game" we should see statistically higher incident/accident rates for 15° flaps landings.  I'd bet there are more examples of bent or busted gear at 30° flaps than loss of control on the runway at 15°.

 

Most of us are taking a "whatever works" approach to landing the CTSW.  CharlieTango, you are clearly saying that anybody not using your method is "doing it wrong".  So I think it's on you to provide compelling evidence that half or more of the CT community is making a grave error in judgment using their chosen technique.  If you can't point to a statistically significant increase in landing mishaps at 15°, you are failing to meet that threshold.

 

 

I can't prove what you claim my position is to the standards you require so go ahead and label me failure.

 

Why put words in my mouth and those resulting requirements?

 

I have only made 2 points, more energy = more risk, and extra speed only postpones the vulnerable speed, failing to solve the issue instead making the timing a bit worse.

 

I never said anyone was wrong I only pointed out that the counter-arguments never address my 2 points.

 

Light general aviation is dying and statistics that you demand aren't available because of diminishing numbers as well as how mishaps are reported. This is not a CT issue but a light airplane issue.

 

Decades ago Mammoth and South Lake Tahoe had the worst safety records in the nation and were busy with light aircraft. Then the more frequent rate of mishaps made it easy to see that they often were loss of control on rollout when wind sheer is present.  The teaching that fast only postpones the vulnerable stage comes from an older generation of pilots that have now moved on.

[John Vance]

Ed, for what it's worth, I've been reading this thread and basically agree with your stance. I have about 170 hours in my CTLS, still in the learning mode, and have experienced that transition-zone weirdness when landing with 15 flaps just a tad too fast. I don't really care about the data - I don't like that feeling. My standard landing is now 35 flaps but I have to admit some of the approaches are a little wild, especially with strong crosswinds + tree banks, but I agree that that's probably a good tradeoff if it reduces the amount of time when you don't have a viable out, i.e. full throttle. I still wimp out sometimes and use 15, but the goal is 35 for all. I enjoy your posts - keep it up!