Commercial Single Engine Add On Tips?

Pachong said:
What type of flaps are on the 172, what are the operating limitations associated with flaps.
Plain flaps. Vso 39 KIAS. Vfe 85 KIAS. Slips not to be performed with flaps extended. Flaps are 10,20,30 & 40 degrees.
Click to expand...

Don't forget- Zero degrees is one of the flap positions too.
 
A150K said:
Avoid doesn't mean you can't.
Click to expand...

Does avoid mean you should do it on a checkride though? I believe the reason for avoiding it was because of the fluttering sound the flaps make especially when they're around 30-40 degrees. Was that right?
 
Pachong said:
Does avoid mean you should do it on a checkride though? I believe the reason for avoiding it was because of the fluttering sound the flaps make especially when they're around 30-40 degrees. Was that right?
Click to expand...

The word that I've heard, was regarding elevator effectiveness. Performing a slip with 40 degrees of flaps can/usually does result in some un-commanded control yoke movement. Basically, the yoke oscillates as if you were alternately pushing and pulling on it a little bit. The range of travel isn't extreme but it does happen fairly quickly. That was my experience anyway, in a 40-degree-flap slip. I've done most slips with 30 degrees of flaps down, and never once had an issue, it's that last 10 degrees that seems to cause problems. Although it's an easy problem to solve by just centering the rudder....

All of the slips I've done on checkrides were with 30 degrees down, and I've never taken a ride in a 172 that had 40 degrees available. I've never had an examiner give me a hard time about it....
 
pete2800 said:
The word that I've heard, was regarding elevator effectiveness. Performing a slip with 40 degrees of flaps can/usually does result in some un-commanded control yoke movement. Basically, the yoke oscillates as if you were alternately pushing and pulling on it a little bit. The range of travel isn't extreme but it does happen fairly quickly. That was my experience anyway, in a 40-degree-flap slip. I've done most slips with 30 degrees of flaps down, and never once had an issue, it's that last 10 degrees that seems to cause problems. Although it's an easy problem to solve by just centering the rudder....

All of the slips I've done on checkrides were with 30 degrees down, and I've never taken a ride in a 172 that had 40 degrees available. I've never had an examiner give me a hard time about it....
Click to expand...

That does sound familiar actually now that you say that. I'll keep that in mind, however I'm cautious to do something like that on a checkride with this particular DPE since he has failed someone for doing a power off 180 with 0 flaps. His point was that if you're taking the complex factor out of the complex aircraft, it doesn't count. Not sure what I think about that.

This reminds me, are go-arounds allowed on this maneuver?
 
Be sure to read all of the small NOTES under each performance chart. For example, if the examiner asks how much more runway would be required for a takeoff on grass instead of hard surface, a good answer might sound like; the POH has a note indication XX% additional distance for grass surface, but of course that would vary depending on other factors such as the height of the grass and the smoothness of the ground.
 
Good point. Luckily, I just took my Flight Instructor written and so I got those performance problems down pat. Thanks buddy.
 
Pachong said:
This reminds me, are go-arounds allowed on this maneuver?
Click to expand...
Go-arounds are allowed on every approach-to-land maneuver.
Every certification/rating PTS has a Go-Around as a required TASK. One of the evaluation points of that maneuver is "makes a timely decision to go-around".

The question is the how and why of the go-around. In this particular maneuver, a go-around might mean a failure of the maneuver, if the examiner's opinion is that you were way too far off to allow another countable attempt, and probably the rest of the ride was barely passing anyway.
If he was doing a good ride and the power-off 180 was a good coordinated gliding turn with normal good judgement in getting to the spot, but was obviously going to overshoot/undershoot a bit with no further recourse, then I think a go-around would be better than a landing way past the mark. Anyway, that's how you're supposed to teach it.
 
Mike H said:
Just a reminder- the Arrow doesn't qualify as a high performance airplane.
Click to expand...

Arrow PA-28R-201, 1HP is all it takes ;)
Got my HP endorsement in one back in one in '96

Edit: Hmmm, that engine in the R-201 still rated at 200, maybe it was a Turbo Arrow, I cannot remember now, will have to go look at my logs. The endorsement is there.

Edit again: Looks like it was a PA-28R-201 (actually flew a couple), but since it was pre-1997 that was appropriate... if I'm understanding the 1997 rule change correctly.
 
rframe said:
Arrow PA-28R-201, 1HP is all it takes ;)
Got my HP endorsement in one back in one in '96

Edit: Hmmm, that engine in the R-201 still rated at 200, maybe it was a Turbo Arrow, I cannot remember now, will have to go look at my logs. The endorsement is there.

Edit again: Looks like it was a PA-28R-201 (actually flew a couple), but since it was pre-1997 that was appropriate... if I'm understanding the 1997 rule change correctly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, AFAIK, there isn't a single Piper Arrow that is high performance. Even the Turbo Arrow's are only 200 horsepower. Might want to check on that.
 
Pachong said:
That does sound familiar actually now that you say that. I'll keep that in mind, however I'm cautious to do something like that on a checkride with this particular DPE since he has failed someone for doing a power off 180 with 0 flaps. His point was that if you're taking the complex factor out of the complex aircraft, it doesn't count. Not sure what I think about that.

This reminds me, are go-arounds allowed on this maneuver?
Click to expand...

what? Glad I haven't had to take a checkride with that guy,
 
Pachong said:
That does sound familiar actually now that you say that. I'll keep that in mind, however I'm cautious to do something like that on a checkride with this particular DPE since he has failed someone for doing a power off 180 with 0 flaps. His point was that if you're taking the complex factor out of the complex aircraft, it doesn't count. Not sure what I think about that.
Click to expand...

Thats retarded. Does it say flaps have to be used? If not, then it's the pilots discretion what kind of drag devices to use, when to use them, or even if to use them; situationally dependant. This weird concept called judgement.
 
NickH said:
The -201 indicates 200 HP, with the 1 meaning the later wing design.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that. Do you know if I should get a new HP endorsement, since mine was done in the Arrow in 1996. As far as I can tell it was a valid endorsement back then, but I'm not sure I understand if I'm 'grandfathered' or if I should get a new endorsement?
 
Prior to 1997 one endorsement covered complex and high performance, which is the one you have. After that date it was split into two endorsements. If you logged PIC in a complex airplane prior to 1997 (like your arrow) then you do not need another complex endorsement. If you logged PIC in a High Performance airplane prior to the 4th of August 1997, based on the NEW definition of 201HP or more (which does not include your Arrow), then you do not need a new endorsement. If you did not, then you do require one.
 
NickH said:
The -201 indicates 200 HP, with the 1 meaning the later wing design.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, AOPA seems to have gotten this wrong in it's letter to the FAA regarding the 1997 ruling:

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Council
Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-10)
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591

Gentlemen,

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), representing the aviation interests of more than 345,000 pilots and aircraft owners, submits the following petition for rulemaking under the authority of 14 C.F.R. 11.25. AOPA is concerned with the relatively new definition of a high performance airplane set forth in 14 C.F.R. 61.31(f)(1). Specifically, this section defines the characteristics of a "high performance" airplane and sets forth additional training requirements for pilots wishing to act as pilot-in-command of these aircraft. Under this petition, AOPA seeks to restore the definition of a high performance airplane in 61.31(f)(1) to the applicable portion of the definition that existed prior to the 1997 rewrite of part 61. This change would once again apply the defined high performance horsepower requirement to the total airplane rather than to each individual engine, as this is a better determinant of overall performance.

On April 4, 1997, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a final rule implementing numerous changes to Parts 61, 141, and 143. During this rewrite of part 61, the definition of a "high performance" airplane was changed from "an airplane with more than 200 horsepower" to "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower." At the time that the final rule was issued, this change appeared to be clarifying in nature and was not believed to have any substantive impact. However, with the passage of time, this seemingly benign editorial change has brought about a discrepancy in the applicability of additional training requirements for high performance airplanes.

Prior to the implementation of the new language in 61.31(f)(1), the definition of a high performance aircraft could easily be applied uniformly to all airplanes regardless of class. Under the old language, any airplane with more than 200 total horsepower was considered to be a high performance airplane regardless of whether the horsepower was contained within a single powerplant or distributed over several. Conversely, after the implementation of the new regulatory language in 1997 the definition of "high performance" airplane was changed to airplanes with an engine greater than 200 horsepower, regardless of the aircrafts total horsepower. This resulted in a very inconsistent regulatory requirement for additional training in high performance airplanes.

For example, prior to the 1997 rewrite an airman acting as pilot-in-command of a Piper PA-34-200 (Piper Seneca) twin-engine airplane could log that time as high performance time because the airplane had a total horsepower greater than 200 (400 horsepower to be exact). By the same token, it was the intent of the regulation to require that pilots have additional high performance training and a log book endorsement prior to acting as pilot- in-command in this type of airplane. However, after the 1997 final rule became effective this same pilot could not log high performance time in the PA-34-200 simply because each engine does not produce more than 200 horsepower. More importantly to the FAA, a pilot today is not required to have additional high performance training and an instructor endorsement to act as pilot-in-command of this 400 horsepower airplane.

Oddly, under the current regulatory language a pilot operating an aircraft of comparatively lower performance such as the single-engine PA-28R-201 (Piper Arrow) would be required to receive additional training and can log that time as high performance time. Even though this particular aircraft has 199 less total aircraft horsepower than a Piper Seneca twin-engine airplane, it qualifies as a high performance aircraft under the current definition simply because its one engine produces slightly more than 200 horsepower.

It is AOPAs contention that this discrepancy in the application of additional high performance training requirements does not meet the spirit or intent of the original regulation. Further, this discrepancy is not isolated, but rather it applies to a number of multi-engine airplanes in the existing general aviation fleet. Affected aircraft models include, among others, the Piper PA-34 (Seneca), PA-44 (Seminole), PA-30 (Twin Comanche), PA-23 (Apache), Beechcraft BE-95 (Travel Air), BE-76 (Duchess), and the Grumman GA-7 (Cougar).

Although the change in the definition of a high performance aircraft included in the 1997 rewrite of part 61 did not appear to have any substantive impact, the resulting lack of consistency in its application has been the cause of considerable confusion in the general aviation community. Furthermore, the pilots of many multi-engine aircraft with a total of 300-400 horsepower are not required to undergo any high performance aircraft training because each of the engines produces 200 horsepower or less. Conversely, under the current rule, pilots with considerable multi-engine flying time find themselves confronted with a need to have additional training and an instructor endorsement in order to fly a Cessna 182 or a Piper Turbo-Arrow. The system of training requirements simply doesnt make sense any more.

Additionally, AOPA has had a number of member contacts concerning this issue. Primarily, AOPA members are concerned with the current lack of high performance aircraft available for training purposes. It is AOPAs contention that the current lack of available high performance aircraft in the training fleet is a result of the 1997 change to the applicability of the definition a high performance aircraft. Returning the applicable portions of the definition of a high performance aircraft to its pre-rewrite state will alleviate these problems by effectively increasing the number of qualified aircraft in the training fleet.

A review of Docket No. 25910 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 14 C.F.R. Parts 1, 61, et. al. published on August 11, 1995 revealed that the NPRM and its preamble contained no reference to the change in 61.31(f)(1) from "an airplane with more than 200 horsepower" to "an airplane with an engine of more than 200 horsepower." For this reason AOPA maintains that the change in language of 14 C.F.R. 61.31(f)(1) follows neither the intent of the FAA at the time of the rewrite nor the spirit of the regulation that predated the rewrite.

In summary, AOPA proposes that the language of 61.31(f)(1) be changed from "an airplane with an engine greater than 200 horsepower" to its pre-rewrite form of "an airplane that has more than 200 horsepower." Broadening the applicability of this definition will increase the availability of aircraft to airman seeking a high performance endorsement and will alleviate the current lack of high performance aircraft available for flight training. Additionally, AOPA maintains that this change will directly benefit the public in that it will create consistency in the applicability of the definition of a high performance aircraft. We thank you for your time and consideration on this matter and stand ready to assist the FAA in reconsidering this regulation.

Respectfully,


Douglas C. Macnair
Director
Regulatory and Certification Policy
Click to expand...
 
Interesting they also picked the Seneca as an example. Capable of 220hp a side and not high performance. Maybe.
 
Pachong said:
I'm cautious to do something like that on a checkride with this particular DPE since he has failed someone for doing a power off 180 with 0 flaps. His point was that if you're taking the complex factor out of the complex aircraft, it doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Right. Because flaps are the part of a complex aircraft that usually get people in trouble.
 
Pachong said:
His point was that if you're taking the complex factor out of the complex aircraft, it doesn't count. ?
Click to expand...
Since when does having flaps factor into an airplane being complex or not? I am just speculating but maybe there were other things the examiner did not like during the check-ride but just pulled the trigger on that maneuver.

Know the MX log books well. Be able to point out all the required MX including A.D.s. Print out the A.D.s for the plane and sit down with whoever is responsible for the log books.

I would ask the examiner how he want the maneuver to be done. Explain to him your thought process and your research and ask for his opinion, after all his is the one that counts. If you are not comfortable with the runway left, I suggest a go around no matter what, that may be part of the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top