Teaching airworthiness

"Steve Dold" wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003, Snowbird wrote:

Since when does a C152 need to be steered with the brakes?

I keep reading this and wonder how many people here actually fly
these things. It's common at small airports to be faced with a turn that
can't be made with nosewheel steering alone, and you need to use
differential braking.

I've used differential braking to pull it into a tight space, but we're talking
making 90 degree turns on taxiways. My plane has LESS nosewheel
turn angle than the 152 and I rarely need to use the brakes (toe brakes are mod
on my plane anyhow, it was certificated without them...one major problem
that people cause is that if you lock up one wheel with the toe brakes, you
can actually drag the nose wheel around the turn).

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Ron Natalie wrote:


I've used differential braking to pull it into a tight space, but we're talking
making 90 degree turns on taxiways. My plane has LESS nosewheel
turn angle than the 152 and I rarely need to use the brakes (toe brakes are mod
on my plane anyhow, it was certificated without them...one major problem
that people cause is that if you lock up one wheel with the toe brakes, you
can actually drag the nose wheel around the turn).

Part of the problem is that the steering on the Cessnas isn't connected
directly, it's through springs, so the wheel doesn't always turn all the
way. Some of them seem sloppier than others. I'm not sure why.

I know what you mean about dragging the nosewheel around the turn though.
I hate seeing that, and the people doing it almost never even have the
yoke back to take weight off the nosewheel. They use so much power
thatthey could probably lift the nosewheel off the ground anyway :-(

And that twisting pattern that the pavement cuts into the tire when you pivot it around.
I bet that's harder on a tire than a landing.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say NO to useless over-quoting! Just quote a few lines to get the
point across, not the whole goddamn thing, OK? Thanks! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------

John Galban wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...

I know of one case in which the company refused to pay out because the pilot
descended below minimums during an IFR approach. Their argument was that, if
he had followed the regs, he wouldn't have crashed. This case is sometimes
mentioned in Wings seminars sponsored by the Allentown FSDO. It was still under
litigation when I heard of it in the late 90s.


George,

Do you know the company's basis for denying the claim?

Yes. I stated it, but I will rephrase it. The pilot was attempting an instrument
approach. He went well below the MAP and impacted terrain. The company refused
to pay out, arguing that the accident would not have happened if the pilot had
performed a missed approach. The accident aircraft was a turbine, so the amount
of the claim was considerable.

Since the subject of the session was the "latest changes to the FARs", I believe
that was in 1997. The case was still in litigation then. Should be settled by
now.

Now you have me curious. I'll give the FSDO a call Monday and see if they know
what happened there.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
John Galban wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...

I know of one case in which the company refused to pay out because the pilot
descended below minimums during an IFR approach. Their argument was that, if
he had followed the regs, he wouldn't have crashed. This case is sometimes
mentioned in Wings seminars sponsored by the Allentown FSDO. It was still under
litigation when I heard of it in the late 90s.


George,

Do you know the company's basis for denying the claim?

Yes. I stated it, but I will rephrase it. The pilot was attempting an instrument
approach. He went well below the MAP and impacted terrain. The company refused
to pay out, arguing that the accident would not have happened if the pilot had
performed a missed approach. The accident aircraft was a turbine, so the amount
of the claim was considerable.

Thanks George. The part that has me curious is the insurance company
saying "If you had followed the rules, the accident wouldn't have
happened". They could say that about 80% of airplane accidents and
never have to pay off. I wonder if policies for expensive turbines are
different from the ones we usually see. Policies I've purchased from
most of the aviation underwriters over the years would not allow the
company to refuse payment on the basis of "you shoulda done this to
avoid the accident". Hell, I can get that kind of advice for free
:-)

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Steve Dold wrote in message ...
On 17 Sep 2003, Snowbird wrote:
Since when does a C152 need to be steered with the brakes?

I keep reading this and wonder how many people here actually fly
these things. It's common at small airports to be faced with a turn that
can't be made with nosewheel steering alone, and you need to use
differential braking. It's not always poor planning, sometimes it just
works out that way.

I fly a plane (Grumman Tiger) which steers exclusively with
differential
braking. It can turn on a dime and give change. I utilize maximum
rudder deflection first, then braking as needed. We need to replace
brake pads
every few hundred hours, in contrast to some Grumman owners who
replace
much more frequently (and either need to clean their brake system
and de-gum the wheel cylinder or start using rudder).

However, prior to 'going rivetless' I had a couple of hundred hours
kicking around the country in various Cessnas and Pipers, and I
certainly never found an airport which required brakes to taxi
if the flight controls were in the right place for wind. OK, I
take that back. There was one flight with a Crosswind from Hell
where I found myself using taps on the brake to taxi straight,
but I bet now that I'm more clueful about rudder I coulda done
w/out brake. I do remember using brake to turn into a tight space
(as when parking -- something that makes me wince now to watch
as so many Cessna pilots seem to stand on the brake and gun the
poor engine).

But normal taxiing ops? Can't says I ever encountered an airport
where brakes were necessary. So I just can't agree that it's
"common at small airports to be faced with a turn that can't
be made with nosewheel steering alone" in a small Cessna.

Got a few examples of such turns at specific airports you'd
like to share?

Curious Sydney

On 20 Sep 2003 18:09:14 -0700, Snowbird wrote:
But normal taxiing ops? Can't says I ever encountered an airport
where brakes were necessary. So I just can't agree that it's
"common at small airports to be faced with a turn that can't
be made with nosewheel steering alone" in a small Cessna.

My experience is you do at least need to dab the brakes to get a
C172 or similar around most 90-degree taxiway bends. The nosewheel
steering with the spring rather than the direct connect just won't
steer enough unless the brake is dabbed. The same is also true
of the Cessna 140 with its steerable tailwheel - once again, the linkage
is a spring and it needs a little help to make a 90 degree turn
on most GA airport taxiways.
We're not talking about nailing a brake and gunning an engine,
merely briefly applying brake to help the nose (or tailwheel)
turn enough to make the bend.

Got a few examples of such turns at specific airports you'd
like to share?

Any airport smaller than an air carrier airport, generally - i.e
with narrow taxiways and 90 degree bends instead of high-speed
turnoffs. Pinckneyville Du Quoin is one that we are both familiar
with which I should imagine will need at least a brake dab
to swing around into the tie-down spot. Certainly needed it in
the C140. Houston Gulf (sadly, now deceased) definitely needed
some brake to make the 90 degree turns in the taxiway - the taxiway
was only about 25 ft wide.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Wouldn't that just make it "ungroundworthy?" After all, you don't need the
brakes in the air. Well, not really anyway. Since I put new rubber on mine,
I noticed a vibration on takeoff. After a few takeoffs like this I thought
of the new rubber so now on takeoff, as soon as the wheels are up I pull the
brake handel. Vibration gone.

mike regish

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
And, what the FAA guys tell me is that the Airworthiness Certificate is
not
in full force and effect if the operator is aware of a condition that
renders the plane unairworthy. Neither the certificate nor the
inspections
are a blank check to fly the plane. Everyone in the chain of
responsibility, shop, owner, PIC, is required to verify that the aircraft
remains in compliance. Not having a brake on one side, since it is
probably
included in the type certificate, seems like a biggie to me.

Of course, here I am shooting my mouth off when we have a lawyer farther
up
the thread. I'd actually love to find out I'm wrong about this one.
--
Roger Long

Here is a quote from my insurance policy:

"This policy does not apply:
...
2) To any Insured while the aircraft is in flight
...
(c) if the Airworthiness Certificate of the aircraft is
not in full force and effect;
(d) If the aircraft has not been subjected to appropriate
airworthiness inspection(s) as required under current
applicable Federal Aviation Regulations for the operations
involved."

As Roger said, it's entirely possible (and maybe even likely) that,
since
the aircraft was not airworthy, the insurance policy would not be in
force.

Pete

Gotta hope that brake doesn't stick next time you land.


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:bGXdb.631317$Ho3.121638@sccrnsc03...
Wouldn't that just make it "ungroundworthy?" After all, you don't need the
brakes in the air. Well, not really anyway. Since I put new rubber on
mine,
I noticed a vibration on takeoff. After a few takeoffs like this I thought
of the new rubber so now on takeoff, as soon as the wheels are up I pull
the
brake handel. Vibration gone.

mike regish

"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
And, what the FAA guys tell me is that the Airworthiness Certificate is
not
in full force and effect if the operator is aware of a condition that
renders the plane unairworthy. Neither the certificate nor the
inspections
are a blank check to fly the plane. Everyone in the chain of
responsibility, shop, owner, PIC, is required to verify that the
aircraft
remains in compliance. Not having a brake on one side, since it is
probably
included in the type certificate, seems like a biggie to me.

Of course, here I am shooting my mouth off when we have a lawyer farther
up
the thread. I'd actually love to find out I'm wrong about this one.
--
Roger Long

Here is a quote from my insurance policy:

"This policy does not apply:
...
2) To any Insured while the aircraft is in flight
...
(c) if the Airworthiness Certificate of the aircraft is
not in full force and effect;
(d) If the aircraft has not been subjected to appropriate
airworthiness inspection(s) as required under current
applicable Federal Aviation Regulations for the operations
involved."

As Roger said, it's entirely possible (and maybe even likely) that,
since
the aircraft was not airworthy, the insurance policy would not be in
force.

Pete

It'd be both of them. Pretty simple braking system. They're pretty weak to
begin with. Might not be fun, but it's unlikely to do any damage. I barely
have to pull the handle to stop the wheels in flight and both brakes always
apply. Don't have differential braking in a TP.

mike regish

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
.com...
Gotta hope that brake doesn't stick next time you land.


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:bGXdb.631317$Ho3.121638@sccrnsc03...
Wouldn't that just make it "ungroundworthy?" After all, you don't need
the
brakes in the air. Well, not really anyway. Since I put new rubber on
mine,
I noticed a vibration on takeoff. After a few takeoffs like this I
thought
of the new rubber so now on takeoff, as soon as the wheels are up I pull
the
brake handel. Vibration gone.

mike regish

"Roger Long" om wrote
in
message ...
And, what the FAA guys tell me is that the Airworthiness Certificate
is
not
in full force and effect if the operator is aware of a condition that
renders the plane unairworthy. Neither the certificate nor the
inspections
are a blank check to fly the plane. Everyone in the chain of
responsibility, shop, owner, PIC, is required to verify that the
aircraft
remains in compliance. Not having a brake on one side, since it is
probably
included in the type certificate, seems like a biggie to me.

Of course, here I am shooting my mouth off when we have a lawyer
farther
up
the thread. I'd actually love to find out I'm wrong about this one.
--
Roger Long

Here is a quote from my insurance policy:

"This policy does not apply:
...
2) To any Insured while the aircraft is in flight
...
(c) if the Airworthiness Certificate of the aircraft is
not in full force and effect;
(d) If the aircraft has not been subjected to appropriate
airworthiness inspection(s) as required under current
applicable Federal Aviation Regulations for the operations
involved."

As Roger said, it's entirely possible (and maybe even likely) that,
since
the aircraft was not airworthy, the insurance policy would not be in
force.

Pete