Teaching airworthiness

Nothing wrong with flying a plane without brakes if that's the way it is
described on the type certificate. If it was certified with brakes and they
aren't working, it isn't in compliance with the certificate and isn't
airworthy.

--
Roger Long

I can't imagine how they would have managed to taxi with a locked brake, and
at any rate, since it was the left brake they reported having trouble with,
a left turn shouldn't have required a 270 degree pivot to the right.


--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
30 hours

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...

One: A Cessna 152 should NOT require brakes to make normal turns on the
taxiway. Why did it matter?

Because the l brake was actually locked, and not releasing?

Two: Coast to a stop? Do you use brakes on every landing?

I don't, but one of my 'nightmare oops' would be to land with
1 locked brake. Since brakes are also my only steering and
since I don't have two engines to provide differential thrust
if necessary, I think such a situation would result in a
quick exit from the runway, depending a bit on which brake
it was.

Good to see you back,
Sydney

--
Roger Long
Chris Hoffmann wrote in message
...
I can't imagine how they would have managed to taxi with a locked brake,
and
at any rate, since it was the left brake they reported having trouble
with,
a left turn shouldn't have required a 270 degree pivot to the right.


--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
30 hours

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...

One: A Cessna 152 should NOT require brakes to make normal turns on
the
taxiway. Why did it matter?

Because the l brake was actually locked, and not releasing?

Two: Coast to a stop? Do you use brakes on every landing?

I don't, but one of my 'nightmare oops' would be to land with
1 locked brake. Since brakes are also my only steering and
since I don't have two engines to provide differential thrust
if necessary, I think such a situation would result in a
quick exit from the runway, depending a bit on which brake
it was.

Good to see you back,
Sydney

It looked to me as though the left brake was not holding.

--
Roger Long
Chris Hoffmann wrote in message
...
I can't imagine how they would have managed to taxi with a locked brake,
and
at any rate, since it was the left brake they reported having trouble
with,
a left turn shouldn't have required a 270 degree pivot to the right.


--

"Dan Moos" wrote in message ...

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.

I've had brakes on the 152 stick after screwing with the parking break
knob (which you are best advised not to monkey with). Perhaps the
instructor was just trying to clear the active taxiway and unjammed it
in the run-up block where he'd be out of the way.

Another failure (and I have this on the Navion because my toe brake
conversion uses Cessna rudder pedals), is that the hole in the tab where the brake
cylinder attaches wallows out and may eventually snap. At that point
the brake on that side gets to be intermittant as the thing engages and
disengages the end of the cylinder). Fortuantely, brakes in the Navion
are largely redundant and I woiuld have never put the toe brake conversion
in (it was already there). I've flown them fine with just the hand brake.

Absent understanding what he meant by "trouble with the left brake" you
can't really tell.

If it was certified with brakes and they aren't working, it isn't in
compliance with the certificate and isn't airworthy.

The question is whether the airworthiness regulations *require*
brakes. If not, then you could placard the brakes inop.

Still, there's a slipperly slope between brakes not working, and
having degraded braking performance.

Rick Durden wrote:

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

I'm not Roger, but it was in mine last year. I'm not sure it's in my current
policy, but I wouldn't be surprised.

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

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.

I've seen that clause. It's a far cry from Roger's original
statement :

"there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in
accordance
with regulations"

That said, while the language could be interpreted that way, when
I've posed the question to my brokers, they've interpreted it to mean
that you have to have a valid airworthiness cert. The reference to
appropriate airworthiness inspections refers to the annual or 100 hr.
inspections required by the FAA to keep the airworthiness certificate
valid.

Anyone ever heard of coverage being denied because someone didn't
perform a proper preflight inspection? I know of at least two cases
where the opposite is true.

Generally speaking, you have to be pretty clearly outside the bounds
of your policy in order for the underwriter to deny coverage. They
know that arbitrarily denying coverage reduces the value of a policy
in the eyes of the aircraft owner.

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

John Galban wrote:

I've seen that clause. It's a far cry from Roger's original
statement :

"there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in
accordance
with regulations"

Anyone ever heard of coverage being denied because someone didn't
perform a proper preflight inspection?

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

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.

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