737 Blown Across Ramp

[Phil]

I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-8915-86c169181d87&


Phil

[gatt[_2_]]

"Phil" > wrote in message
...
>I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-8915-86c169181d87&


I asked about damage to the Tillamook Air Museum's Guppy
(http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM13RR) a few years ago and a volunteer
told me that the coast wind had pushed it into the blimp hangar.
Difficult to imagine aircraft that big getting blown around.




-c

[Matt Whiting]

Phil wrote:
> I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-8915-86c169181d87&
>
>
> Phil

What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 27, 1:14*pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-....
>
> > Phil
>
> What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?

That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
Makes it a bit tough to tow.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:14?pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > Phil wrote:
> > > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
> >
> > >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-...
> >
> > > Phil
> >
> > What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?

> That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
> Makes it a bit tough to tow.

So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on board?

Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where were
the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own
until they got around to towing it?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 1:14 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-...
>
> > Phil
>
> What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?

That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
Makes it a bit tough to tow.

-Robert
I hear chalks fix the problem.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 27, 1:55*pm, wrote:

> So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on board?
>
> Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where were
> the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own
> until they got around to towing it?

While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.

-Robert

[Bob Gardner]

Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 1:55 pm, wrote:

> So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on board?
>
> Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where were
> the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own
> until they got around to towing it?

While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 27, 3:18*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.

How do you know I don't use chalks?

-Robert

[Andy Hawkins]

In article >,
Robert M. > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:18*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.
>
> How do you know I don't use chalks?

I doubt they'd do much to stop a plane moving....

Andy

[Jim Macklin]

Brakes should not be used to secure an airplane that is not attended, always
use chocks. An airline class airplane might be secured in strong winds with
chocks and a heavy tug with the tow bar.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Phil wrote:
| > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
| >
| >
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-8915-86c169181d87&
| >
| >
| > Phil
|
| What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?
|
| Matt

[Mike Noel]

Another reason to rely on chocks instead of brakes is the unreliability of a
hydraulic parking brake. The pressure can bleed off and release the brake
after a bit. So the mistake might have been setting the parking brake
instead of using chocks.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Phil wrote:
>> I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>>
>> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-8915-86c169181d87&
>>
>>
>> Phil
>
> What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:14 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Phil wrote:
>>> I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>>> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-...
>>> Phil
>> What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?
>
> That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
> Makes it a bit tough to tow.

Uh, to keep the wind from blowing it around? :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:55 pm, wrote:
>
>> So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on board?
>>
>> Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where were
>> the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own
>> until they got around to towing it?
>
> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.

Are chalks anything like chocks?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:18 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.
>
> How do you know I don't use chalks?

Given your demonstrated knowledge about parking aircraft ... I suspect
that you do use chalks.

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:

> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.

Since the biggest change in outside pressure that is likely to happen
is on the order of a pound and the working pressure in brakes is at
least an order of magnitude greater than that, I find it highly unlikely.

Perhaps if one were to land after extended flight at 10,000 feet at
Tucson in the middle of summer, the drastic temperature change might
have an effect, but I doubt it.

I've heard this many times and yet can imagine no situation other than
maybe leaving the brakes on for months at a time where it would do anything.

Any wrenches out there with real experiance feel free to contridict.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 27, 4:18*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.
>
> -Robert

Robert, out of everyone so far you are the closest. The brakes are
released as soon as the chalks in signal is recieved. This is mainly
done to facilitate brake cooling because airlines typicaly work with
45 minute turn times and leaving them set would greatly increase QTA
The brake temp actually peaks about 10 minutes after landing .the fuse
plugs can melt if the brake are left set . The 737 has a brake
acumulator which will sufice for several parking brake applications,
but chalks are still used for safety reasons . Just before push the
process is reversed, The parting brake is set before the tug is hooked
up and the chalks removed. Someone ask about brake pressures; the A&B
hydraulics run at 3000 LBS which is reduced to 300 at the gear (In the
event of a leak this prevents a total loss of fluid) I was not able to
open the link but I hope this helps.
FB

[RST Engineering]

Anyone who watched the Bears game on Sunday and saw Brent Fabre say that it
was the coldest game he'd ever played it knows that it was an absolute ice
rink at Midway. You could have set those brakes at a thousand psi and that
sucker would have fancydanced across the ice in that wind.

No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Dec 27, 1:14 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Phil wrote:
>> > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>>
>> >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-...
>>
>> > Phil
>>
>> What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?
>
> That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on board?
> Makes it a bit tough to tow.
>
> -Robert
> I hear chalks fix the problem.
>
>

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
wrote:

> I've heard this many times and yet can imagine no situation other than
> maybe leaving the brakes on for months at a time where it would do anything.

I was told during primary training that if you left the parking brake
on the pads could rust to the disks or drum and make it hard to get
moving. Don't know if that's realistic or not, but chocks and tiedowns
work a lot better for a small plane anyway.

Mike Beede

[[email protected]]

Mike Beede > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:

> > I've heard this many times and yet can imagine no situation other than
> > maybe leaving the brakes on for months at a time where it would do anything.

> I was told during primary training that if you left the parking brake
> on the pads could rust to the disks or drum and make it hard to get
> moving. Don't know if that's realistic or not, but chocks and tiedowns
> work a lot better for a small plane anyway.

It is realistic and happens to cars in wet weather, but it takes several
days in wet weather for that to happen.

Depending on the parking brake on an airplane for more than a short
time is foolish in that the system wasn't really designed to hold the
airplane in place for days and weeks at a time; that's what chocks are
for.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-89
> 15-86c169181d87&
>

Happens all the time. The fins are huge and some airplanes weathervane
easily.
It happened to one of our airplanes (727) years ago unbeknowst to the crew.
The FE did the walkaround and noticed that the Radome had two nostrils.
Further investigations revealed that the airplane had turned around in high
winds and had ridden up on top of the GPU. The handling agent needed their
GPU for another airplane, but found a 727 inconvieniently parked on top of
it, so they lifted the nose of the airplane with a forklift in order to get
it out. They went right through the radome and into the forward pressure
bulkhead.
I've had two airplanes weathervane on me, though, both undamaged.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 1:14?pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> > Phil wrote:
>> > > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>> >
>> > >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411
>> > >d-...
>> >
>> > > Phil
>> >
>> > What do you want to bet that the brakes weren't set?
>
>> That would be odd. Why would the brakes be set if no one was on
>> board? Makes it a bit tough to tow.
>
> So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on
> board?
>
> Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where
> were the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on
> it's own until they got around to towing it?
>
>

They'll jump all but the best chocks if the wind is strong enough. Mostly
it's airplanes with the engines out back that do this most easily, but
they'll all do it in enough wind.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:e1b315c4-b509-45f3-8f45-
:

> On Dec 27, 4:18*pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>>
>> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
>> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
>> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
>> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
>> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Robert, out of everyone so far you are the closest. The brakes are
> released as soon as the chalks in signal is recieved. This is mainly
> done to facilitate brake cooling because airlines typicaly work with
> 45 minute turn times and leaving them set would greatly increase QTA
> The brake temp actually peaks about 10 minutes after landing .the fuse
> plugs can melt if the brake are left set . The 737 has a brake
> acumulator which will sufice for several parking brake applications,
> but chalks are still used for safety reasons . Just before push the
> process is reversed, The parting brake is set before the tug is hooked
> up and the chalks removed. Someone ask about brake pressures; the A&B
> hydraulics run at 3000 LBS which is reduced to 300 at the gear (In the
> event of a leak this prevents a total loss of fluid) I was not able to
> open the link but I hope this helps.

Depends on the operator and the type of airplane. We leave our brakes on
almost all the time unless the temps have gond through the roof. Not that
it does much good if you leave the thing parked. The 75 is the worst I've
ever seen for holding parking brake pressure. On some of our airpanes, it's
gine in a couple of hours. None of them will hold it 12




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 27, 1:55*pm, wrote:
>
>> So it doesn't roll away in the wind all on it's own with no one on
>> board?
>>
>> Or, if they were expecting to tow it in the immediate future, where
>> were the chocks to make sure it doesn't roll away in the wind all on
>> it's own until they got around to towing it?
>
> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied.


We do. Our's are pretty lightly stressed, though.


Usually chalks
> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.

Mmm, doubt that.

The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake in a
wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a better
arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if the
wing is being lifted....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> Anyone who watched the Bears game on Sunday and saw Brent Fabre say
> that it was the coldest game he'd ever played it knows that it was an
> absolute ice rink at Midway. You could have set those brakes at a
> thousand psi and that sucker would have fancydanced across the ice in
> that wind.


Wel, they would have been set at 3,000 PSI in fact,
>
> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.

True.

Bertie

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Mike Beede > writes:
> I was told during primary training that if you left the parking brake
> on the pads could rust to the disks or drum and make it hard to get
> moving.

I ride my bike to work, so often I don't drive my car for a week or
more. This happens to me fairly often in my car -- I don't see why it
wouldn't happen in a plane even more often.

Chris

[Phil]

On Dec 28, 12:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote :
>
> > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>
> >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-411d-89
> > 15-86c169181d87&
>
> Happens all the time. The fins are huge and some airplanes weathervane
> easily.
> It happened to one of our airplanes (727) years ago unbeknowst to the crew..
> The FE did the walkaround and noticed that the Radome had two nostrils.
> Further investigations revealed that the airplane had turned around in high
> winds and had ridden up on top of the GPU. The handling agent needed their
> GPU for another airplane, but found a 727 inconvieniently parked on top of
> it, so they lifted the nose of the airplane with a forklift in order to get
> it out. They went right through the radome and into the forward pressure
> bulkhead.
> I've had two airplanes weathervane on me, though, both undamaged.
>
> Bertie

Interesting. I've never heard of this before. When it weathervanes,
how does that work? Does it pivot around the mains and drag the
nosewheel?

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
:

> On Dec 28, 12:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote
>> innews:549d11fb-44f9-414a-ac63-af2923f7
> :
>>
>> > I know they call it the Windy City, but this is ridiculous...
>>
>> >http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=161c7642-d205-
411d-
>> >89
>
>> > 15-86c169181d87&
>>
>> Happens all the time. The fins are huge and some airplanes
>> weathervane easily.
>> It happened to one of our airplanes (727) years ago unbeknowst to the
>> crew
> .
>> The FE did the walkaround and noticed that the Radome had two
>> nostrils. Further investigations revealed that the airplane had
>> turned around in hig
> h
>> winds and had ridden up on top of the GPU. The handling agent needed
>> their
>
>> GPU for another airplane, but found a 727 inconvieniently parked on
>> top of
>
>> it, so they lifted the nose of the airplane with a forklift in order
>> to ge
> t
>> it out. They went right through the radome and into the forward
>> pressure bulkhead.
>> I've had two airplanes weathervane on me, though, both undamaged.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Interesting. I've never heard of this before. When it weathervanes,
> how does that work? Does it pivot around the mains and drag the
> nosewheel?

Exactly. Chocks will ordinarily keep the airplane in place. Some outfits
don't chock properly and/or use crap chocks. A friend of mine ran up to
the flight deck of another 737 when he saw it crush the only chock it
had, a nosewheel chock on one wheel and roll towad the terminal. It
damaged it's airstairs, but that's all. They were lucky.

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 27, 10:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake in a
> wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a better
> arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if the
> wing is being lifted....

I've never had occasion to stand on an airplane's brake but when I use
the same amount of foot pressure on my Mooney as in my Saturn the
Saturn will stop in 1/2 the distance.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 27, 6:16*pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 3:18 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> >> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.
>
> > How do you know I don't use chalks?
>
> Given your demonstrated knowledge about parking aircraft ... I suspect
> that you do use chalks.

Hey, they're multi use and no one takes them.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:5d5a8261-1459-465f-9e7e-
:

> On Dec 27, 10:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake in a
>> wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a better
>> arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
>> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if the
>> wing is being lifted....
>
> I've never had occasion to stand on an airplane's brake but when I use
> the same amount of foot pressure on my Mooney as in my Saturn the
> Saturn will stop in 1/2 the distance.
>

Well, you have twice the wheels, dontcha?

Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

RST Engineering wrote:
>
>No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>

Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 28, 12:05*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:5d5a8261-1459-465f-9e7e-
> :
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake in a
> >> wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a better
> >> arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
> >> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if the
> >> wing is being lifted....
>
> > I've never had occasion to stand on an airplane's brake but when I use
> > the same amount of foot pressure on my Mooney as in my Saturn the
> > Saturn will stop in 1/2 the distance.
>
> Well, you have twice the wheels, dontcha?

But about 1/2 the weight. The Saturn weights 4300 lbs.
-Robert

[F. Baum]

On Dec 28, 1:28*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> >No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>
> * Chocks aren't perfect. *

They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
set in windy conditions.



> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200712/1

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake in a
> wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a better
> arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if the
> wing is being lifted....

Not to mention we're talking winter here. I've been at the controls of a
172, engine idling, foot brakes fully applied, and been pushed sideways
across an icy ramp by the wind. Found out later a Citation (I think -
some small bizjet) had slid off a taxiway. In Iowa, no less. Proving it
not only sucks there, it also blows...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 28, 12:05*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:5d5a8261-1459-465f-9e7e-
>
>> :
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 10:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking
>> >> brake in
> a
>> >> wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a
>> >> better arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
>> >> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all,
>> >> if the
>
>> >> wing is being lifted....
>>
>> > I've never had occasion to stand on an airplane's brake but when I
>> > use the same amount of foot pressure on my Mooney as in my Saturn
>> > the Saturn will stop in 1/2 the distance.
>>
>> Well, you have twice the wheels, dontcha?
>
> But about 1/2 the weight. The Saturn weights 4300 lbs.
> -Robert
>

He heh. I was only kidding. it's an apples oranges thing anyway.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
ouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> The best reason I can think of for not relying on the parking brake
>> in a wind is that they are not very reliable. Schwinn could make a
>> better arrangement than you see on most Cessnas, for instance.
>> Brakes are next to useless in very high winds anyway. After all, if
>> the wing is being lifted....
>
> Not to mention we're talking winter here. I've been at the controls of
> a 172, engine idling, foot brakes fully applied, and been pushed
> sideways across an icy ramp by the wind.


Wow, you're almost like a seaplane in those conditions.


Found out later a Citation (I
> think - some small bizjet) had slid off a taxiway. In Iowa, no less.
> Proving it not only sucks there, it also blows...

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwh!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in
:

> On Dec 28, 1:28*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>> >No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>>
>> * Chocks aren't perfect. *
>
> They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
> airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
> down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
> set in windy conditions.
>

hmm, I think you may be mistaken about the tie down provisions. I've never
seen anthing except the tug/towbar thng you mentioned, but I think some may
have a spot where a ring can be screwed in , maybe where the hardpoints for
the jacks go. I'll ask the guys next chance I get.

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:18 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> While its possible that someone does it, I'm not aware of any operator
>> that sets the brake on aircraft when its not occupied. Usually chalks
>> work just fine and are easier to move when you need to tow. In smaller
>> aircraft there are other reasons to avoid setting the brake, like
>> changes in outside pressure could burst the brake seals.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Robert, out of everyone so far you are the closest. The brakes are
> released as soon as the chalks in signal is recieved. This is mainly
> done to facilitate brake cooling because airlines typicaly work with
> 45 minute turn times and leaving them set would greatly increase QTA
> The brake temp actually peaks about 10 minutes after landing .the fuse
> plugs can melt if the brake are left set . The 737 has a brake
> acumulator which will sufice for several parking brake applications,
> but chalks are still used for safety reasons . Just before push the
> process is reversed, The parting brake is set before the tug is hooked
> up and the chalks removed. Someone ask about brake pressures; the A&B
> hydraulics run at 3000 LBS which is reduced to 300 at the gear (In the
> event of a leak this prevents a total loss of fluid) I was not able to
> open the link but I hope this helps.
> FB

Chalks. Ha, ha, ha... That is hilarious.

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Beede wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> I've heard this many times and yet can imagine no situation other than
>> maybe leaving the brakes on for months at a time where it would do anything.
>
> I was told during primary training that if you left the parking brake
> on the pads could rust to the disks or drum and make it hard to get
> moving. Don't know if that's realistic or not, but chocks and tiedowns
> work a lot better for a small plane anyway.

That is much more plausible than the "temperature change will blow the
seals excuse." I agree that tiedowns are best and chocks are fine for
most conditions, but aren't as good as the brakes being set. If a gust
of wind causes a chock jump, then the plane will keep on moving with
nothing to restrain it. If the brakes are set, then even a gust that
slides the tires won't keep the airplane moving once the gust subsides.

The main reason I know of that most people park airplanes with the
brakes released is to facilitate movement of the airplane when the owner
isn't around.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Mike Beede > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>
>>> I've heard this many times and yet can imagine no situation other than
>>> maybe leaving the brakes on for months at a time where it would do anything.
>
>> I was told during primary training that if you left the parking brake
>> on the pads could rust to the disks or drum and make it hard to get
>> moving. Don't know if that's realistic or not, but chocks and tiedowns
>> work a lot better for a small plane anyway.
>
> It is realistic and happens to cars in wet weather, but it takes several
> days in wet weather for that to happen.
>
> Depending on the parking brake on an airplane for more than a short
> time is foolish in that the system wasn't really designed to hold the
> airplane in place for days and weeks at a time; that's what chocks are
> for.

No, that is what tie downs are for. Chocks are for temporary restraint
only and should not be used alone for long-term restraint.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>>
>
> Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
> from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
> use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
> storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
> slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.

Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
tires and brakes. Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
restraint (other than a hangar!).

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:28 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
>>> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>> Chocks aren't perfect.
>
> They may not be perfect but close. The chocks typicaly used on
> airlines could have prevented this. There are no provisions for tying
> down a jet. The 737 manual does recommend leaving the parking brake
> set in windy conditions.

Parking brake? Who woulda thunk it? :-)

Matt

[F. Baum]

On Dec 29, 9:53*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> The main reason I know of that most people park airplanes with the
> brakes released is to facilitate movement of the airplane when the owner
> isn't around.
>
Matt,
As it relates to the OP, the parking brake is never relied upon and
the plane is always chocked with or without the brake on. An airline
does not tow an airplane without a qualified person (Either a pilot or
mechanic who has been checked out for towing) in the front seat.
FB

[Mxsmanic]

F. Baum writes:

> As it relates to the OP, the parking brake is never relied upon and
> the plane is always chocked with or without the brake on. An airline
> does not tow an airplane without a qualified person (Either a pilot or
> mechanic who has been checked out for towing) in the front seat.

I don't understand how a small pair of chocks can hold an aircraft in place.
It seems like a trivial obstacle to overcome when the wind is hitting all
those aerodynamic surfaces.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> F. Baum writes:
>
>> As it relates to the OP, the parking brake is never relied upon and
>> the plane is always chocked with or without the brake on. An airline
>> does not tow an airplane without a qualified person (Either a pilot
>> or mechanic who has been checked out for towing) in the front seat.
>
> I don't understand how a small pair of chocks can hold an aircraft in
> place.

That's because you don;t fly, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[nobody[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> I don't understand how a small pair of chocks can hold an aircraft in
> place.

Gee, There's a surprise. I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from that
surprise.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> > RST Engineering wrote:
> >> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>
> > * Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent downbursts
> > from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. *I
> > use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
> > storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
> > slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>
> Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
> tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
> restraint (other than a hangar!).
>
> Matt

Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
seen one that I could set the brakes.

Wil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> > RST Engineering wrote:
>> >> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from
>> >> moving.
>>
>> > * Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent
>> > dow
> nbursts
>> > from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't
>> > unus
> ual. *I
>> > use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a
>> > particularly b
> ad
>> > storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane
>> > was si
> tting
>> > slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>>
>> Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are
>> the tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
>> restraint (other than a hangar!).
>>
>> Matt
>
> Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
> seen one that I could set the brakes.

Most modern ones do. Lots of old ones too.


Bertie

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

William Hung wrote:
>
> Do small planes have parking brakes?

Look closer. <G>

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

William Hung wrote:
>
>Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
>seen one that I could set the brakes.
>

Most do. The parking brake designs on early model 172s and 150/152s were
known for sticking in the "on" position. As such, many instructors would
either tell students not to use it, or not bother even telling the student
there was one (it was an inconspicuous knob on the lower panel). The
procedure for unsticking the brake involved several people pushing and
pulling on the plane until it freed up.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Matt Whiting]

William Hung wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:57 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>>> Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
>>> from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
>>> use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
>>> storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
>>> slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>> Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
>> tires and brakes. Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
>> restraint (other than a hangar!).
>>
>> Matt
>
> Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
> seen one that I could set the brakes.

I can't speak for all small airplanes, but the Cessnas from the 150
through the 182 all have parking brakes as does the Piper Cherokee
family from the 160 through the Arrow.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Dec 27 2007, 6:03 pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> In article >,
> Robert M. > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 3:18 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> >> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.
>
> > How do you know I don't use chalks?
>
> I doubt they'd do much to stop a plane moving....
>
> Andy

Chalks are for outlining the airplane during the investigation.

[Marty Shapiro]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 27 2007, 6:03 pm, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Robert M. > wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 3:18 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> >> Chocks, Robert, chocks. Use your dictionary.
>>
>> > How do you know I don't use chalks?
>>
>> I doubt they'd do much to stop a plane moving....
>>
>> Andy
>
> Chalks are for outlining the airplane during the investigation.
>

I thought chalks were used on the end of the cue so you could get
money to pay for flying. :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
William > wrote:
> Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
> seen one that I could set the brakes.

The Warriors I've flew (and the Cherokee I haven't) all have parking brakes.

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 2, 4:14 am, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:

> I thought chalks were used on the end of the cue so you could get
> money to pay for flying. :-)
>

That'll work for you, if you're playing against me ;<(

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Dec 31 2007, 1:20*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> > > RST Engineering wrote:
> > >> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>
> > > * Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent downbursts
> > > from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. *I
> > > use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
> > > storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
> > > slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>
> > Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
> > tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
> > restraint (other than a hangar!).
>
> > Matt
>
> Do small planes have parking brakes? *I don't remember having ever
> seen one that I could set the brakes.
>
> Wil

Thank you Bertie, Barry, John Matt and Andy for your replies. I've
only flown in C150/2s and yes, my CFI hasn't pointed them out to me
yet.

Wil

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

William Hung wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 1:20 pm, William Hung > wrote:
>> Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
>> seen one that I could set the brakes.
>>
>> Wil
>
> Thank you Bertie, Barry, John Matt and Andy for your replies. I've
> only flown in C150/2s and yes, my CFI hasn't pointed them out to me
> yet.

Hasn't s/he introduced you to checklists yet? I'd expect them to be on a
decent checklist. (I've flown a 150 or 152 - too tall - so I don't know
for a fact they'd be there, but it's hard to believe not.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Dec 31 2007, 1:20*pm, William Hung > wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 11:57*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>> > JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> > > RST Engineering wrote:
>> > >> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from
>> > >> moving.
>>
>> > > * Chocks aren't perfect. * At my home field we often get violent
>> > > d
> ownbursts
>> > > from thunderstorms in the summer. *Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't
>> > > un
> usual. *I
>> > > use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a
>> > > particularly
> bad
>> > > storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane
>> > > was
> sitting
>> > > slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>>
>> > Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are
>> > the tires and brakes. *Tie downs are the only way to go for
>> > permanent restraint (other than a hangar!).
>>
>> > Matt
>>
>> Do small planes have parking brakes? *I don't remember having ever
>> seen one that I could set the brakes.
>>
>> Wil
>
> Thank you Bertie, Barry, John Matt and Andy for your replies. I've
> only flown in C150/2s and yes, my CFI hasn't pointed them out to me
> yet.

Little handle down below somewhere. You push the toe brakes then pull
the handle and a small chatter strip grabs the the piston rod and holds
them on. They're not the easiest things to set or the most reliable.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

William Hung wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 1:20 pm, William Hung > wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 11:57 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>>> No chocks, only tiedowns could have kept that aircraft from moving.
>>>> Chocks aren't perfect. At my home field we often get violent downbursts
>>>> from thunderstorms in the summer. Peak gusts of 60-70 kts aren't unusual. I
>>>> use both chocks and tiedowns, and I've found that after a particularly bad
>>>> storm, the chocks were often blown away from wheels and the plane was sitting
>>>> slightly sideways with the tiedowns pulled tight.
>>> Yes, chocks are temporary restraints and no better on ice than are the
>>> tires and brakes. Tie downs are the only way to go for permanent
>>> restraint (other than a hangar!).
>>> Matt
>> Do small planes have parking brakes? I don't remember having ever
>> seen one that I could set the brakes.
>>
>> Wil
>
> Thank you Bertie, Barry, John Matt and Andy for your replies. I've
> only flown in C150/2s and yes, my CFI hasn't pointed them out to me
> yet.
>
> Wil

He probably isn't aware of the parking brake either! :-)

Matt