A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Teaching airworthiness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 03, 09:48 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Teaching airworthiness

I was holding at a taxiway intersection for a flight school plane today.
The 152 hesitated and then started to turn right towards me. The tower
called up and said "# # X, that's a LEFT turn."

"We're having some trouble with our left brake so we're going to do a 360
around to the right."

Right, I thought, a 180 back to the FBO you mean. Nope they went all the
way around (270 actually) , down to the run up area, and went flying. I
know they can coast to a stop on our long class C runways and I'm sure the
instructor didn't want to cancel the lesson but.

They might not be able to stop on a short runway if they had to divert in an
emergency. The plane wasn't legal. The insurance probably was invalid
because the plane wasn't airworthy.

Is this what they are teaching students these days?

--
Roger Long


  #2  
Old September 17th 03, 11:23 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah, it isn't automatically invalid but there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in accordance
with regulations, which includes being airworthy (something 99.9% of
airplanes aren't in the strictest sense). These clauses are seldom used
but, is it a good idea to give the insurance company an out in today's
increasingly tight and un-competitive market?
--
Roger Long


  #3  
Old September 18th 03, 02:11 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The plane wasn't legal.

Seems open to debate. Of course, you know how the NTSB report would
look....

They might not be able to stop on a short runway if they had to
divert in an emergency.

You can always come up with a scenario in a certain decision could
lead to catastrophe.

Is this what they are teaching students these days?

Not a big deal, IMO. Lots of instructors out there flying from the
right seat in Pipers without any brakes on their side, though they do
have the hand brake available.

If you land slow, as you ought to, then you shouldn't need a long
Class C runway to come to a stop.

  #4  
Old September 18th 03, 02:53 AM
John Harlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I was holding at a taxiway intersection for a flight school plane today.
The 152 hesitated and then started to turn right towards me. The tower
called up and said "# # X, that's a LEFT turn."

"We're having some trouble with our left brake so we're going to do a 360
around to the right."



Perhaps the instructor is fabricating a reason for his student's erroneous
maneuver? I know it would be a first and everything, but maybe?


  #5  
Old September 18th 03, 04:24 AM
Wayne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yesterday, I went to AOO Altoona, Pa and ran into my friend, in the
plane that he loaned to me for my training. He was just getting there as was
I and he told me that he had no left brake. we check it out and found a
leak, naturally where we couldn't get to it easily. I left for Lost Acres
(8PN0) before him, and got there in time to see a new pilot in the area do a
go-round. He was way too fast and was going to touch down way to far down
the 1800' runway. Two of us landed, and then he came back, he slid off the
end of the runway, just barely, shopped a corn stock or two. We ran out and
pushed the plane back, and then I saw my friend with the plane with no left
brake entering the pattern. We told the "corn farmer" we would push his
plane aside and watch the landing since he wasn't able to use much braking
at all. He used just slightly more than half the runway, and taxied off to
park.

The poor guy is taking all kinds of comments after that one. The owner
told him he needed to get a 4 blade prop, so it could do a better job on the
corn. The other guy wasn't too bothered, he flew the plane a few hundred
miles today and got the parts he needed while he was out. The corn plane was
a 152, the brakeless one was a 150. Had to share....
Wayne


They might not be able to stop on a short runway if they had to divert in

an
emergency. The plane wasn't legal. The insurance probably was invalid
because the plane wasn't airworthy.



  #6  
Old September 18th 03, 04:26 AM
Dan Moos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

I was holding at a taxiway intersection for a flight school plane today.
The 152 hesitated and then started to turn right towards me. The tower
called up and said "# # X, that's a LEFT turn."

"We're having some trouble with our left brake so we're going to do a

360
around to the right."



Perhaps the instructor is fabricating a reason for his student's erroneous
maneuver? I know it would be a first and everything, but maybe?



That was exactly my thought. Either the student or the CFI goofed ( maybe it
was a very new student, and the CFI covered for him.)

Or not, but the only reason I can think that a brake problem would cause
that is if it (the brake)was stuck, since needing differential braking to
taxi a 152 is odd. A stuck brake pedal would make any sane CFI not risk a
take off. Stranger things have happened I suppose though.


  #7  
Old September 18th 03, 04:45 AM
Snowbird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
I was holding at a taxiway intersection for a flight school plane today.
The 152 hesitated and then started to turn right towards me. The tower
called up and said "# # X, that's a LEFT turn."

"We're having some trouble with our left brake so we're going to do a 360
around to the right."


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

If they meant, the left brake was stuck and not releasing, heh,
well, I've seen a plane lose a tire on roll-out because the
brake wouldn't release. The pilot was on-the-ball and the
plane stayed on the runway, but it sounds a bit much to
expect of a student pilot.

Cheers,
Sydney
  #8  
Old September 18th 03, 06:16 AM
Rick Durden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roger,

I haven't seen a "no pay if not airworthy" clause in an aircraft
policy in years. Is it in a policy you have?

All the best,
Rick

"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
Yeah, it isn't automatically invalid but there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in accordance
with regulations, which includes being airworthy (something 99.9% of
airplanes aren't in the strictest sense). These clauses are seldom used
but, is it a good idea to give the insurance company an out in today's
increasingly tight and un-competitive market?

  #9  
Old September 18th 03, 07:15 AM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
Yeah, it isn't automatically invalid but there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in accordance
with regulations, which includes being airworthy (something 99.9% of
airplanes aren't in the strictest sense). These clauses are seldom used
but, is it a good idea to give the insurance company an out in today's
increasingly tight and un-competitive market?


Not this one again! Please, somebody document this mysterious
clause. I've been asking about it on Usenet for years. It can't be
an old wives tale because so many people know about it :-) Most
policies have certain exclusions for flying while intoxicated, or
while committing a crime. I've yet to see one that has a blanket
exclusion for not flying by the regs.

Having bought insurance from most of the underwriters over the last
13 years, I expect that I might have seen it before. I have a
feeling I haven't because such a clause would render the insurance
policy worthless. If you think about it, most airplane accidents
happen because the plane isn't flown in accordance with the
regulations. That's why people buy insurance. To cover them when
they do stupid things.

Would you buy auto insurance that only covered you only if you broke
no traffic laws?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)
  #10  
Old September 18th 03, 12:22 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate Luo Zheng Home Built 0 June 27th 04 03:50 AM
Restricted Airworthiness Brad Mallard Aviation Marketplace 1 May 20th 04 05:18 PM
airworthiness, dimmers, and other stuff JohnN3TWN Owning 4 March 23rd 04 07:41 PM
Airworthiness Cert Still Valid? Carl Orton Owning 12 February 13th 04 11:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.