Narrative:

On jan/sun/95 I was scheduled to operate 3 flts in the new england area for airlines. First flight originated in lga. Scheduled to fly a round trip to pvd, then fly from lga to leb, nh. The aircraft arrived late and also the flaps were inoperative, however, the aircraft was operable in accordance with the MEL. Far 135 requires operators to comply with a 60 percent rule for preflight planning (far 135.385). There is no clear explanation of how to apply the 60 percent rule when the flaps are in the up position. In our company operating manual for the beech 1900. Therefore, I called my company at XA10 and informed them that I did not want to take this aircraft to leb at XB25. After returning from pvd to lga at approximately XB15 I called my dispatcher who told me I was legal to take the aircraft to leb. The MEL refers the PIC to the flaps up takeoff and landing chart which there are not any in existence in any of our aircraft. I, based on the current WX and normal and flaps-up landing charts found in the manufacturer's pilots operating handbook, determined I could safely land in leb, which I did. The next day I consulted a training captain and realized that I had unknowingly made an illegal takeoff in violation of far 135.385 paragraph B1. He also said the procedure to follow for flaps up preflight planning is not mentioned in the manual. But it is something one must know by memory. In order to avoid similar instances, I think the company should make an addition to the company operating manual for the beech-1900 explaining flaps up performance calculations, train all the dispatchers and pilots on these procedures or remove the MEL entry that allows flap up use of the aircraft. Also, the company places too much pressure on its pilots to depart the gate on time. Chief pilot calls pilots for explanations on delays. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that his company at first gave him trouble (suspension from duty for 2 weeks) over this matter because he did not use the aircraft flight manual in computing the necessary runway length. However, since then, the company has established more clearly defined charts to use for no flaps and started providing more training and incorporating this subject in 6 month proficiency checks. He further stated that he was directed to use the section 135.385(B-2) wherein it allows for the most favorable runway with a wind. Since he did have, and it was forecasted, moderate wind at his destination airport, he was legal to go with no flaps and full landing weight. However, he did not use this data during preflight and in questioning dispatcher, it all happened to make him look incompetent as a new captain in the beech 1900.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PROPOSED NO FLAP LNDG WT AT PLANNED DEST DOES NOT MEET COMPANY ACFT OPERATING PROCS.

Narrative: ON JAN/SUN/95 I WAS SCHEDULED TO OPERATE 3 FLTS IN THE NEW ENGLAND AREA FOR AIRLINES. FIRST FLT ORIGINATED IN LGA. SCHEDULED TO FLY A ROUND TRIP TO PVD, THEN FLY FROM LGA TO LEB, NH. THE ACFT ARRIVED LATE AND ALSO THE FLAPS WERE INOP, HOWEVER, THE ACFT WAS OPERABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEL. FAR 135 REQUIRES OPERATORS TO COMPLY WITH A 60 PERCENT RULE FOR PREFLT PLANNING (FAR 135.385). THERE IS NO CLR EXPLANATION OF HOW TO APPLY THE 60 PERCENT RULE WHEN THE FLAPS ARE IN THE UP POS. IN OUR COMPANY OPERATING MANUAL FOR THE BEECH 1900. THEREFORE, I CALLED MY COMPANY AT XA10 AND INFORMED THEM THAT I DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS ACFT TO LEB AT XB25. AFTER RETURNING FROM PVD TO LGA AT APPROX XB15 I CALLED MY DISPATCHER WHO TOLD ME I WAS LEGAL TO TAKE THE ACFT TO LEB. THE MEL REFERS THE PIC TO THE FLAPS UP TKOF AND LNDG CHART WHICH THERE ARE NOT ANY IN EXISTENCE IN ANY OF OUR ACFT. I, BASED ON THE CURRENT WX AND NORMAL AND FLAPS-UP LNDG CHARTS FOUND IN THE MANUFACTURER'S PLTS OPERATING HANDBOOK, DETERMINED I COULD SAFELY LAND IN LEB, WHICH I DID. THE NEXT DAY I CONSULTED A TRAINING CAPT AND REALIZED THAT I HAD UNKNOWINGLY MADE AN ILLEGAL TKOF IN VIOLATION OF FAR 135.385 PARAGRAPH B1. HE ALSO SAID THE PROC TO FOLLOW FOR FLAPS UP PREFLT PLANNING IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE MANUAL. BUT IT IS SOMETHING ONE MUST KNOW BY MEMORY. IN ORDER TO AVOID SIMILAR INSTANCES, I THINK THE COMPANY SHOULD MAKE AN ADDITION TO THE COMPANY OPERATING MANUAL FOR THE BEECH-1900 EXPLAINING FLAPS UP PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS, TRAIN ALL THE DISPATCHERS AND PLTS ON THESE PROCS OR REMOVE THE MEL ENTRY THAT ALLOWS FLAP UP USE OF THE ACFT. ALSO, THE COMPANY PLACES TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON ITS PLTS TO DEPART THE GATE ON TIME. CHIEF PLT CALLS PLTS FOR EXPLANATIONS ON DELAYS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HIS COMPANY AT FIRST GAVE HIM TROUBLE (SUSPENSION FROM DUTY FOR 2 WKS) OVER THIS MATTER BECAUSE HE DID NOT USE THE ACFT FLT MANUAL IN COMPUTING THE NECESSARY RWY LENGTH. HOWEVER, SINCE THEN, THE COMPANY HAS ESTABLISHED MORE CLRLY DEFINED CHARTS TO USE FOR NO FLAPS AND STARTED PROVIDING MORE TRAINING AND INCORPORATING THIS SUBJECT IN 6 MONTH PROFICIENCY CHKS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE SECTION 135.385(B-2) WHEREIN IT ALLOWS FOR THE MOST FAVORABLE RWY WITH A WIND. SINCE HE DID HAVE, AND IT WAS FORECASTED, MODERATE WIND AT HIS DEST ARPT, HE WAS LEGAL TO GO WITH NO FLAPS AND FULL LNDG WT. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT USE THIS DATA DURING PREFLT AND IN QUESTIONING DISPATCHER, IT ALL HAPPENED TO MAKE HIM LOOK INCOMPETENT AS A NEW CAPT IN THE BEECH 1900.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.