Archer crosswind component and slips

granlistillo said:
First, you are correct that it is not a limitation. I've seen "avoid prolonged slips with flap extended" placards, but the manual says the plane remains controllable.

Now is it a good practice to have these pitch oscillations? I think a good landing follows a good approach, and if I screwed up that bad, I think I would just take it around. That is, unless there was a real compelling need to get on the ground right away.

I know a guy that busted his part 141 CFI initial checkride at American Fylers. He was inbound on approach with 30 degrees flaps and the examiner asked if he could demonstrate a slip. He does so and the examiner busts him for it and has him read the placard. Fair, eh I don't think so, but with some the distinction is not that big, and they would err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

That's sux, on my private ride, the examiner ASKED for a slip with full flaps extended. I told him that that was not recommended and he about bit my head off. He screamed, SLIPPIT DOWN!!!!
 
tgrayson said:
I don't generally agree with tailoring one's instruction to match the ignorance of someone else. The only people that can really police the examiners are the instructors, and for us to put up with that sort of behavior from examiners tends to encourage it. The instructor in that instance should have gone to the examiner's POI and expressed dissatisfaction not only with the examiner's expertise but also his integrity.
Click to expand...

My gut reaction to the story was that is was way unfair... But is was AF CFI academy 141 program, and I was told that it was against the FOM or company rules. Not sure if it was a Fed, DPE or AF check airman.

But you can be busted for showing poor judgement in the examiner's estimation, no?


hack1982 said:
That's sux, on my private ride, the examiner ASKED for a slip with full flaps extended. I told him that that was not recommended and he about bit my head off. He screamed, SLIPPIT DOWN!!!!
Click to expand...
Dude I am no expert in checkride gamemanship. That said, I really don't like checkrides, but have never failed one. In my opinion, you handled it right by wanting to follow the manufacturer's recommendation. As for the behaviour of the examiner, sheesh I hope I wouldn't be put in that position. Did you acquiesce or did you stand your ground? Outcome?
 
granlistillo said:
But you can be busted for showing poor judgement in the examiner's estimation, no?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but in this case, it would merely make him look inexperienced and foolish. Anyone with any training experience in the post-K models of C172 know that slipping with full flaps is a non issue.
 
The Information Manual for a 2003 172S does not list slips with full flaps as a limitation, but under the Normal Operations section, it does mention that full rudder slips with flaps beyond 20* can result in elevator oscillations that do not affect the controllability of the aircraft.
 
granlistillo said:
My gut reaction to the story was that is was way unfair... But is was AF CFI academy 141 program, and I was told that it was against the FOM or company rules. Not sure if it was a Fed, DPE or AF check airman.

But you can be busted for showing poor judgement in the examiner's estimation, no?
Click to expand...


The examiner can't set you up to fail(Setting a trap, I think:confused:). i.e. asking you do do something that he is going to bust you for. I would have wanted to talk to the FSDO about this one, and tried to get it removed from my record.

FWIW, I was standing there listening to a FAA Pilot Examiner get a ground review (not give, but get) for a Citabria. There were some very basic FAR's in the review. He wanted to rent from us. Anyways, the CFI giving the review was teaching him the FAR's. And this was from a guy that was an "expert" witness at an NTSB hearing where they were tried to revoke a friends certs who was climbing at Vy and was violated for aerobatics. And I quote "You climb in a 172 the exact same way you climb in a Extra 300 to achive Vy speed." Expert my (explative deleted).
 
clestudentpilot said:
Right, I understand that, and I think you were replying to the other person who replied there. I know that you can do it in whatever you want to do it in, but if the NTSB or FAA gets involved in something, and the x-wind component is 18, you're screwed.
Click to expand...
Says who? Got a referrence? Case history? Any kind of precedent?

If you bend an airplane during a crosswind landing, I don't think you'd be any more screwed at 18kts than you would at 15kts. Pilot error is pilot error and the max demonstrated is not a limitation.
 
Joe Gremlin said:
Says who? Got a referrence? Case history? Any kind of precedent?

If you bend an airplane during a crosswind landing, I don't think you'd be any more screwed at 18kts than you would at 15kts. Pilot error is pilot error and the max demonstrated is not a limitation.
Click to expand...


I doubt at 15 kts they could get you for reckless ops (assuming that they weren't able to get you on something else), but at 18, you went past the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, so all of the sudden you're in violation of 91.13, and I would bet quite a bit of money that the penalties at 18 kts would be worse than at 17 kts. Obviously I don't know, and never care to find out, but basic common sense would dictate that would be the case
 
clestudentpilot said:
Obviously I don't know, and never care to find out, but basic common sense would dictate that would be the case
Click to expand...
So you're making a claim about what the FAA will violate a pilot for and yet you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of the FAA going after a pilot for exceeding the max demonstrated crosswind component. If you have evidence that they have, bring it. If you don't then please stop spreading myths about what you think they'll do.
 
Joe Gremlin said:
So you're making a claim about what the FAA will violate a pilot for and yet you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of the FAA going after a pilot for exceeding the max demonstrated crosswind component. If you have evidence that they have, bring it. If you don't then please stop spreading myths about what you think they'll do.
Click to expand...


Slow your roll man... He is just stating what usually happens. When you bend an airplane, if they don't violate you , or make you take a 709 ride, your lucky, and an exception to the rule. No need to get all violent.:whatever:

A useful bit of info for ya. We had a guy go off the end of the runway at the airport about 3-4 months ago. No damage to the plane, or anything on the ground. Someone called the fire dept., and the FAA got involved. Guess who had to take a 709 ride. Yup, the guy who went of the end of the runway. The only thing that happened was some grass stains on the wheel pants. And he was working with a brand new airplane (unfamiliar), on a relatively short runway (2600ft).
 
mshunter said:
Slow your roll man... He is just stating what usually happens. When you bend an airplane, if they don't violate you , or make you take a 709 ride, your lucky, and an exception to the rule. No need to get all violent.:whatever:
Click to expand...
There are far too many myths and misunderstandings in aviation as it is. We don't need more and we don't the existing ones reinforced IMO so I call them out when I see someone who is guilty of same. If that makes me a bad guy them I guess I'll just have to find a way to live with myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top