2StgTurbine

The ACS (previously the PTS) is what dictates how the checkride is graded. I am not aware of any FAA material that dictates when you must use flaps. Every examiner I have flown with has been very flexible on how the examinee operates the aircraft. If you have one that insists on enforcing their personal and un-documented techniques, you are better off finding someone else to take the checkride with.

ChinookDriver47

Quoting everyone seems like making too much eyewash, so I would like to address them in turn.
"look up the definition of a stabilized approach."
Of course I did. I even called the FSDO on it. They will explain what a stabilized approach is, just not how to get there. Therein lies the argument for both sides: you can be stable, constant airspeed, descent rate, etc. no matter the configuration. I'll absolutely stipulate to that.

However, coming down in a high kinetic energy state and then making a major configuration change at breakout close to the ground defies the requirement of establishing a stabilized approach and, again in my opinion is an ACS bust. The argument to "land clean" is, in my opinion, valid, but begging for overrun and is generally unsafe.

I am not in anyway advocating for a full flap setting. I go back to my turboprop days where we shot the approach with gear down and Flaps - APP, and didn't go full flap until the landing was assured. In gusts, sometimes we opted to keep the flaps at approach.

The comments referring to "its a 172...", i understand. However, if there is a safer way to fly, shouldn't that be advocated?

That's what it really boils down to: Do you want to make a configuration change at breakout thus negating the stabilized approach requirement? Or, do you want to land fast and hope one doesn't do something stupid to break an airplane? Or, do you mitigate both by being half flap configured, landing checklist complete prior to FAF so that you don't have to make any changes and land a slower speed?

PerfInit

^^^ So many decisions to make. My personal opinion is that there is Not an easy “one size fits all” answer. “It depends” on the situation. Try all of your suggestions (in vmc conditions of course) and see what works/doesn’t work and note the reasons. I Have a few thousand hours in the Cessna 172 and I am not aware of any adverse handling characteristics. It is expected that the PIC would follow the POH and apply proper pitch, power, configuration and trim techniques as necessary to keep the airplane on the desired flight path. Go-Arounds are not a problem and there should be no concern over a elevator trim stall f the POH is followed. There is a balked landing /go-around checklist if I recall. The speed at which the flap motor operates is also taken into consideration during certification flight testing. Configuration changes within the normal flight envelope should be Very manageable for pilots with average skill and proficiency. If you are unfortunate to be carrying some airframe ice during said approach, would that impact your decision to use flaps (or not) and what speed you might fly the approach at? How about an approach with a gusty crosswind? The docile 172 is a great machine. Don’t overthink it.

Excargodog

Uhhh, stall speed for a 172 IIRC is about 50 knots clean. And I've never flown an instrument approach where - had I touched down to anywhere remotely close to the touchdown zone - “screaming onto the deck” at 80 knots would place me at any sort of a risk for an overrun. And this is instrument practice, not getting some student ready to solo.

TiredSoul

1. There are no ILS approaches to a short runway.
2. Not every approach has the same weather conditions. Last configuration change just prior to glideslope intercept for a trimmed stabilized approach. In a no wind calm air situation this is almost a hands off operation.
3. Break out at DA then land with approach flaps.
4. Break out above 500’ then feel free to make configuration changes.
5. What the examiner says is irrelevant to an extent. What the ACS/PTS says is the expected action.

Teaching students to fly the approach zero flap is a short cut and can be dangerous in certain airplanes.
By the way, you shouldn’t learn a go around during your IR, you should learn it during your Private.

stevecv

Thats very interesting. I gotta give that a shot

sf340b

Sure are a lot of opinions but this should be your first go to reg...

"shoot all approaches clean. Add flaps at breakout or land clean. That's whats in the SOP"

If this "SOP" is regulatory I would stick with that. Should you train for contingencies, sure. Everyone has agreed its a no brainer for a skilled airman.

If you are unable to maintain trim during the configuration changed that is a skill deficiency.

If you are unable to maintain trim during the configured/changing configuration GA that is a skill deficiency

The future for the student will most likely be in a higher performance aircraft that is going to need the appropriate flap setting at/prior to FAF. Train the way you are going to fly, when you fly, you will fly the way you trained.

Can you find regulatory flight profiles to support your position and get the SOP changed?

Hope this helps...

firefighterplt

“I can give you 125 knots to the numbers” has opened many a door for me at busier airports.

TiredSoul

Not in a a Cessna 172 you haven’t.
Under Part 141 you have to use an FAA approved syllabus.
What does the syllabus state?
Im assuming this is a pilot mill with lots of foreign students? Crank ‘em out and send them home?
These skills are learned during Private then adapted during IR.

ChinookDriver47

I found an Advisory Circular that supports my position. It has specific sections on jets, but is not scoped just toward larger aircraft.

I go back to my Army flying days: fly like you're going to court. I'm looking at it from a liability standpoint as well.

Assume someone gets in an accident with one of the school planes and hurts themselves. They sue said school. All of the communications about this activity will probably be reviewed. When this issue arises can you imagine the opinion when it's presented that there was a safer way to do something that was ignored? If i was that lawyer I would have a field day with that.

"Sir, why, when presented with empirical evidence from an FAA Advisory Circular did you choose to ignore that information and not update your SOP's with a safer procedure and what is more in line with industry standards?"

Answer: Because it's a 172, and that's the way we've always done it.

"Nothing further."

At that moment, that school would cease to exist.