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

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

<<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.

> 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? ;)

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.
>

"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.

"Roger Long" m> 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

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" m> 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?

"Roger Long" m> 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)

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
>
>

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! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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" m> 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" m> 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" m> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>