B350 question - FAR/Safety related

[satpak77]

In some hangar discussion at my place, the technique of "approach flaps only" landing was discussed as a possible strategy when dealing with landings in high winds. Some guys claim "the plane will do it, so therefore its ok" however my position was:

1. The Beech POH/AFM/etc has published checklists for FULL DOWN FLAP landings ("normal" landings) and ZERO/NO FLAP LANDINGS only.

2. Spin off from #1, no published landing distance charts exist for "approach flap landings". As we all know, the PIC is required to be familiar with the landing distance required for the particular flight.

3. Aerodynamically, a takeoff can be conducted with approach flaps, as it reduces runway takeoff length, however my non-Embry Riddle opinion is this actually will impede your ability to land it (flare, etc) because it gives more lift than it does drag. (acknowedgement that this is weak explanation but...)

Looking for discussion on how to "put this to rest" at my place

FAR cites always welcome

 

[Airboss]

In some hangar discussion at my place, the technique of "approach flaps only" landing was discussed as a possible strategy when dealing with landings in high winds. Some guys claim "the plane will do it, so therefore its ok" however my position was:

1. The Beech POH/AFM/etc has published checklists for FULL DOWN FLAP landings ("normal" landings) and ZERO/NO FLAP LANDINGS only.

You are correct. There are many operators that do flaps approach landings, but they do not have the performance to back it up unless you use the more conservative Zero Flap landings data. In that case, are you flying Ref +20?

The real issue is a single engine landing. There are only performance charts for a full flap SE landing. The checklist says when landing is assured, full flaps (Vref). When is landing assured? For this one, many people use the 'emergency authority'. But if they bend metal, they do not have any performance data to back that up.

2. Spin off from #1, no published landing distance charts exist for "approach flap landings". As we all know, the PIC is required to be familiar with the landing distance required for the particular flight.

See above, Single engine vs Dual Engine.

3. Aerodynamically, a takeoff can be conducted with approach flaps, as it reduces runway takeoff length, however my non-Embry Riddle opinion is this actually will impede your ability to land it (flare, etc) because it gives more lift than it does drag. (acknowedgement that this is weak explanation but...)

You would adjust Vref for landing without full flaps. Aerodynamically, the issue is Single Engine Go-Around. If you have full flaps, you CANNOT go around with 1 engine, the airplane does not have the performance, and you will not be able to accelerate to Ref+10 to put your flaps to approach without descending.

 

[Fblowjets]

Not legal, your insurance company will hang you if something goes wrong.

 

[ksu_aviator]

In some hangar discussion at my place, the technique of "approach flaps only" landing was discussed as a possible strategy when dealing with landings in high winds. Some guys claim "the plane will do it, so therefore its ok" however my position was:

1. The Beech POH/AFM/etc has published checklists for FULL DOWN FLAP landings ("normal" landings) and ZERO/NO FLAP LANDINGS only.

You are correct. There are many operators that do flaps approach landings, but they do not have the performance to back it up unless you use the more conservative Zero Flap landings data. In that case, are you flying Ref +20?

The real issue is a single engine landing. There are only performance charts for a full flap SE landing. The checklist says when landing is assured, full flaps (Vref). When is landing assured? For this one, many people use the 'emergency authority'. But if they bend metal, they do not have any performance data to back that up.

2. Spin off from #1, no published landing distance charts exist for "approach flap landings". As we all know, the PIC is required to be familiar with the landing distance required for the particular flight.


See above, Single engine vs Dual Engine.

First, the idea that the "plane will do it" so it is ok is just plain stupid. With that being said, there are no published landing distance numbers for flaps approach. Hawker Raytheon is advising that if you wish to land with approach flaps, you use the zero flap landing numbers for both landing distance and ref.

3. Aerodynamically, a takeoff can be conducted with approach flaps, as it reduces runway takeoff length, however my non-Embry Riddle opinion is this actually will impede your ability to land it (flare, etc) because it gives more lift than it does drag. (acknowedgement that this is weak explanation but...)

You would adjust Vref for landing without full flaps. Aerodynamically, the issue is Single Engine Go-Around. If you have full flaps, you CANNOT go around with 1 engine, the airplane does not have the performance, and you will not be able to accelerate to Ref+10 to put your flaps to approach without descending.

That is absolutely wrong. The correct procedure allows the aircraft to go missed from as low as 20 feet with out touching the ground and with full flaps...all while single engine. The key is to set the power and retract the flaps quickly...the aircraft will climb. Assuming, of course, you are not overloaded for the conditions.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Not legal, your insurance company will hang you if something goes wrong.

There are no limitations preventing the use of approach flaps for landing.

 

[RedGuy]

I don't fly a 350, but an older 100. I pretty much only use full flaps on short runways. Normally I use flaps 60 for most my landings. I've found that this flap setting works best in both normal landings and landings in high winds. It also causes less tendancies to float or ballon in the flare, or land in a 3 point attitude if you come in alittle fast. As KSU said above there's no limitaion against it, plus this is the way that both my Director of Ops and our fed recomended to me to make normal landings, both with considerably more expirence in a King Air than I. Now it's true you'll use alittle more runway, but most of the places I fly where I use this setting are 5,000ft+ which is well over what's required for even a flaps 0 landing. In the end it's really up to you and what you prefer.

 

[Mud Eagle]

There are no limitations preventing the use of approach flaps for landing.

The "limitation", according to FSI, is that since there is no procedure or data published by Beech on approach-flap landings, that it is not allowed.

The inference was that, should some incident happen in which a B300 pilot used approach flaps on landing, the FAA would show that the pilot was not operating the aircraft in accordance with the POH.

 

[satpak77]

There are no limitations preventing the use of approach flaps for landing.

no landing data

 

[T-1GUY]

If you are meeting zero flap charts, you are being more conservative and I would find this prudent. The argument being that if you have numbers for a zero flap approach, then you are within limits at flaps approach. Furthermore, you will have more rudder authority at a higher ref. This is the thought process for high cross winds and wind shear in the vicinity.

This was taught at CAE Simuflite by some of the most experienced instructors. I will go as far as to say that this was the philosophy taught be one of the most experienced King Air instructors and all round pilot I ever had the pleasure of working with. This guy was teaching into his eighties, retired USAF Col., NASA pilot, 30 years flying every type of King Air ever built.

As a prior USAF Instructor pilot, CAE Examiner, Air force one support pilot, etc I would argue this point until I'm blue in the face.....

 

[pilothouston123]

approach flaps vs full flaps... its all pilot technique. its all in your head and its all just conversation till someone gets hurt.