FWIW, on the TB20 the baloon effect is strong but is easily controlled with a BIG push on the yoke.
You don’t want to go full flap while on the autopilot because it won’t control the baloon (but it does work; it’s just really messy). None of the 1990s and earlier autopilot models have a flap position input which they could use to get an early warning. Well, the signal is there on the KFC225 but is not wired up in the STCd installation…
The DFC90 (if the “Flap Wire” is installed) will stay exactly on the GS and not balloon at all. It is approved for full flap operations. But I prefer to do full flaps after switching of the A/P. If you have a bit of of talent for these things you will just anticipate the slight ballooning and push the yoke forward while the flaps extend … if you do that in a coordinated way you will feel no ballooning at all.
But of course there’s a certain number of pilots who will never be able to develop a feeling for that …
Josh wrote:
Use the automatics as much as possible, don’t change your configuration (a surprising number of SEP pilots seem to have been taught to fly instrument approaches half flap and take full flap when visual) and make very smooth, minor control inputs when flying manually
I agree Josh, when flying a jet that is standard practice, but on the King Air we were taught by Flight Safety not to add landing flap till DA or visual.
I agree Josh, when flying a jet that is standard practice, but on the King Air we were taught by Flight Safety not to add landing flap till DA or visual.
Isn’t that due to not wanting it all hanging out during a go around? In the last SEP I flew I added full flap at top of glide on an ILS.
BTW the G1000 autopilot balloons a bit if you are at the high end of the flap extend speed range when you drop them.
That stuff about the King Air is interesting Neil – what was the rationale behind it? Ability to meet missed approach climb gradients? When I flew MEPs I was trained similarly in not selecting flap until landing assured and was quite happy to do so in VMC but the aircraft could land quite happily partial flap and that was the SOP in poor vis (our limit was 800m single pilot)
I wasn’t aware of the flapless tailstrike issue on the Cirrus, which is good reason to take appropriate flap. Just to clarify, I am advocating this approach in the case of limited visibility at limits, not off every approach. Where you have clear VMC below cloud it isn’t a problem at all, but I do see a lot of value in varying tchnique as discussed. I would be interested to hear the Cirrus view as you are potentially disengaging the autopilot when visual, then immediately reconfiguring then attempting a challenging landing. Is the reason solely commonality of procedure to make it easier to track people, a difference of opinion like we’re having here, or legal advice regarding liability on their SOPs?
JasonC wrote:
Isn’t that due to not wanting it all hanging out during a go around?
Yes, so logically it doesn’t apply to SE types in that respect However you face the same problems of altering configuration, with the different view and danger of ballooning etc which has clearly been decided to be the lesser evil by the manufacturer/Flight Safety. What the Americans call a Balked Landing is not difficult in a King Air with both engines, but it’s different OEI, I wouldn’t fancy that on a grotty day.
Josh wrote:
That stuff about the King Air is interesting Neil – what was the rationale behind it?
There was some discussion on the course about that, and I would have to look back at the notes.
I think the certification basis of a King Air is rather similar to a piston twin with regard to single engine climb, but the landing is normally only done with full flap. I am not sure whether the manufacturer even publishes a Flaps Approach Landing Distance chart etc.
It certainly adds a touch of excitement to a landing with a 200ft cloudbase and 550 RVR, a situation I have only experienced in the Sim when flying this aircraft.type
Peter wrote:
Does anyone have a reference for the 150m “absolute limit” which I posted? It would be relevant to an airport which has no departure minima (most UK Class G airports, and probably all non-ATC ones).
UK ANO Art 109(2)(b)
(1) This article applies to aerial work aircraft and private aircraft.
(2) An aircraft to which this article applies must not:
(a) conduct a Category II, Category IIIA or Category IIIB approach and landing; or
(b) take off when the relevant runway visual range is less than 150 metres,
otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of an approval to do so granted in accordance with the law of the country in which it is registered.
EASA Part-NCO requires an LVO approval for take-offs below RVR 400 m. But the AMC below means that reported visibility can be replaced by a pilot assessment (while measured RVR is binding).
AMC1 NCO.OP.110 Aerodrome operating minima — aeroplanes and helicopters
TAKE-OFF OPERATIONS
(a) General:
(1) Take-off minima should be expressed as visibility (VIS) or runway visual range (RVR) limits, taking into account all relevant factors for each aerodrome planned to be used and aircraft characteristics. Where there is a specific need to see and avoid obstacles on departure and/or for a forced landing, additional conditions, e.g. ceiling, it should be specified.
(2) When the reported meteorological visibility is below that required for take-off and RVR is not reported, a take-off should only be commenced if the pilot-in- command can determine that the visibility along the take-off runway/area is equal to or better than the required minimum.
(3) When no reported meteorological visibility or RVR is available, a take-off should only be commenced if the pilot-in-command can determine that the RVR/VIS along the take-off runway/area is equal to or better than the required minimum.
To me this reads that at an airport where no formal RVR is offered, the pilot is able to self-access the takeoff visibility down to the higher of
I wonder if the UK has a similar thing for landing visibility?
The ‘approach ban’ for private flights in the UK only applies if an RVR is reported.
