Flaps or no Flaps, that is the question.
 

I work at a flight school teaching 141 instrument students in 172's. I recently raised concerns about configuration settings from the FAF inbound. I have been teaching approach flaps FAF inbound and holding about 80KIAS. I am getting told, "shoot all approaches clean. Add flaps at breakout or land clean. That's whats in the SOP" . I either forgot that, or don't recall reading that.

This blows my mind that this an accepted method and there is an AC that contradicts this exact practice. I am raising it as a safety concern.

Thoughts? Am i being to knit-picky? Should I just ****?

Is there something regulatory I can fall back on to facilitate a change?

Are you sure the AC was written for the 172?

Either way works in a 172. A lot of the early models have a Vfe of 100mph (87kt) which makes it very easy to overspeed your flaps in turbulent air at 80kt (which is kind of slow). Also, being clean gives you one less thing to worry about when going missed and flying single pilot.

Review the FAA website which defines criteria for a stabilized approach.

I hear both sides on this subject. The biggest talking point with 10 flaps is when you go missed you *could* und up in a power on/ elevator trim stall situation. The added somatogravic illusions in IMC could lead to that occurring. Adding flaps at an MDA will also lead to ballooning and getting high, then having to re-trim the airplane, all being potentially unstable..then maybe leading to being high.

On the other side, is it really considered stabilized to dump 30 flaps at 400/200 feet? Probably not! But in a 172 it is entirely manageable if you have the experience..

Boils down to pilot experience in my opinion as a CFII. If I myself am flying I'll wait til I break out to throw in the flaps. Just my preference.

172. Meh, whatever.

I get it haha, but its about laying a safe foundation in primary training. When/if they get to the 121 SOP level it won't matter.

When I’m landing an aircraft that only needs 600 feet on a 5000 foot runway use of flaps AT ALL seems pretty optional.

:D

It all depends on the aircraft and the pilot. Personally, in a low performance piston, I would fly the approach clean and add flaps when I breakout, but there are some caveats.

The FAF is pretty far out to be at full flaps in a trainer. It makes the approach take way longer which holds up the entire airport, wastes fuel, and increases your chances of over-speeding the flaps.

The argument against adding flaps when you break out are 1. The pilot could lose pitch control and 2. The approach is not stable. If you are concerned about losing control of the aircraft by adding flaps at 200 feet, than land clean. The better solution is to become more comfortable with the aircraft. And as far as stabilized approaches, don't try to fly a 172 like a 747. Pistons airplanes do not need to fly the final 3 miles at a constant pitch, speed, and glideslope.

Look back at old training manuals from the 30s-70s. They knew how to teach people how to fly pistons. You should always be in a position to make the runway when your engine fails. A light single engine piston pilot should be able to fly a tight pattern (1 mile or less) at 800 feet AGL. If your engine fails right before you turn base, do you have enough energy to complete the turn and make the runway? Abeam the numbers you should be able to pull the power and get to the runway without touching the power or modifying your pattern. In order to do that, you need to be tight and high. Once you are on short final and have the field made, then you can start adding drag. Learning how to do this not only makes your commercial power off 180 landings a non-event, but also makes adding flaps short final during a ILS no problem.

The problem is flight schools started teaching people to be airline pilots instead of pilots. Instead of teaching students to fly their plane at their airport, they started teaching techniques that will simplify the transition to larger aircraft at big airports. As a result, there are 172 pilots at uncontrolled fields doing 2 mile patterns and adding flaps based on their location in the pattern rather than their energy state. And then every 2 years during their flight review, they have no idea how to judge their glide distance during a simulated engine out.

And since that is de facto stan now, that’s how you have to fly the airplane on your checkrides. I’m working on getting my CFI now (finally) and you HAVE to do the incremental flap/airspeed reduction on each leg BS—in the Navy, I learned to dirty up on downwind and fly the rest of the pattern configured and on-speed.

So. Much. Easier.

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.

Good thoughts
 

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?

^^^ 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.

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.

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.

Thats very interesting. I gotta give that a shot

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...

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

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.

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.

Fly it like you're going to court.

This is golden and should be on a neon sign above the door to the ramp in every flightschool.

Uh...in my 172 I have. Many times.

Teach them to land clean. The H-bracket on the 172 firewall will thank you, especially if you have two pilots, no ballast and an impatient student. The airplane handles better with the additonal speed. Everything they're going to fly after the 172 is going to land faster anyway.

Your reluctance to add flaps is completely reasonable. All those flaps coming out at the bottom suggests unstable approach to a porpoise to a nose wheel landing to me. If the book calls for clean or full, you can't be wrong landing clean.

You would lose in court if the school is in fact using an approved syllabus as others have stated and you deviated from the SOP no matter what you think might be safer. If you want to teach your own way - become a freelance instructor, until then - fly the school’s planes, teach the school’s students the way that they are paying you to fly and teach. Along those paths, if you think you have a better way of doing business, present it, let it go through the process, get yourself into a position where you have more influence or decision making power and enact changes.

A syllabus is AFM/POH agnostic. Of course I teach the syllabus. However, after further conversing the SOP is conflict with the approved checklist.

So, which do you ignore? The SOP, which says approach and landing clean, or the checklist which says Flaps-Set, and Airspeed 65-70 knots?

The way I see it, one either changes the SOP, or changes the checklist. If I am Joe-pilot, I go with configuring the aircraft based on what's on the checklist.

Since things in the checklist can be changed - and the syllabus at a P141 school is signed off on by the POI (which should include your checklists) - I'd be more inclined to go with the syllabus as the controlling document.

I’m sea lawyering here, but ‘flaps-set’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘flaps-extended.’ Set could be retracted...so it could be interpreted as ‘flaps-as required.’

Very true.

Every Cessna 172 I've flown can land with flaps in any setting desired. Just keep it clean. A legal pilot will have reviewed their performance manual and determined the safe margin for landing in that configuration. Additionally, if a safe landing cannot be assured perform a missed approach.

Anyone who has ever had a Cessna 172 flap motor go out in full flap configuration (or even just pop a circuit breaker while you are otherwise busy) will tell you they would MUCH rather fly IFR approaches clean until landing is assured than have any possibility whatsoever of having to go missed approach with flaps out.

Ask me how I know...

There are good arguments on both sides

Clean, closer to approach speeds you'll fly in bigger aircraft, especially if you try to fly it fast.

Dirty, have to manage configuration changes, speeds, workload, etc. You'll be doing this in big aircraft too.

Popping out partial or full flaps at MDA/DH, unstabilized approach, can probably work just fine in a slow airplane, but a bad habit for bigger and more complex aircraft, but could be helpful for shorter fields.

I don't really see a "right" answer with what you should do in a lighter aircraft. As said before, they land clean or at partial flaps just fine. If I took students to a class B airport, I'd tell them to fly it clean and keep it fast, that way we'd get the least amount of complaints from ATC, but slowing up and putting in configuration changes, especially in the more complex light aircraft, was good for workload management, especially when flying NP approaches and relating altitude to lose to distance to go. The one thing I didn't like doing was changing configuration upon breaking out, I was always of the mind that you should already be configured and at speed, but chopping to idle at DH because you're at 115kts in a 172 isn't stabilized either...

Especially one of the old 145-150hp broads with 40° of barn door. Hot/high/heavy and it can get a little interesting.

I do find it interesting how the FAA preaches the ‘stabilized below 1000 feet’ bit, but also has ‘forward slip to
landing’ as a testable private pilot maneuver. It’s almost as if they understand that different situations call for different techniques ;)

Anyway, that’s my justification for slipping the nuts off a 172 over the approach lights after flying a 110kt ILS, but I digress. Probably not the best technique for a 141 syllabus :)

The flap motor argument is mute as you would use approach flap and not landing flap until break out.
Also when you break out and continue VFR...well the ‘stabilized approach’ drops down to a recommended 500’
Flap motor? What if you have a vacuum pump failure the moment you go missed? Alternator failure? Or any other single system?
Simple single engine single system aircraft are not suited for hard IFR.
Been there done that, flown approaches down to the ground in 40 year old junk when I was a CFI. Never again thank you.
Approach flap at FAF, if you break out above 500’ AGL you can consider adding flap as required.

Where’s your sense of adventure?!? 😂

Bro.... I could tell you stories about events that have had me waking up screaming at night.
I’m obviously not the smartest as it took me a handful of events to learn from it.
Had an Instrument student lose it and go unusually funky attitudes on me in real IMC in a C172.
To this day don’t know if we rolled It or not.
I lost 1000’ in the recovery.
Stone cold Steve Austin true story.

Lol I believe it.

My opinion for flying a trainer is as followers. First of all, the requirement to fly a stabilized approach does not apply to part 91 (I know you're at part 141) unless of course it is company SOP. So, while it is a solid concept, let us remember that. Now if I were flying a 172 in Class B or C or, heck, even D airspace, it is probably safe to assume that there is more than enough runway to land flaps up and keep your speed up on the approach so as not to interfere with heavier traffic too much. If you are flying into a smaller airport where flaps are required to make the landing distance, I would configure prior to the FAF or perhaps a couple miles out from the DH or MAP. Chances are you won't be holding up big traffic in this case or at least not dozens of aircraft. Now I do see some training value in changing flap configuration after breaking out (perhaps teach in VMC if you're nervous). The student should be able to react to the change in attitude and adjust power and pitch settings as necessary. We should be teaching pilots their stick and rudder skills in the little prop jobs so as to set a solid foundation for the rest of their careers. Honestly, in a 172, I don't think that it is too unsafe to change the flap setting at breakout. Your flight school is probably trying to save money on fuel too. It burns a lot more gas to have the drag makers out with 5 or 6 miles to go.