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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:41 PM |
Airworthiness Cert Still Valid? | Carl Orton | Owning | 12 | February 13th 04 10:21 PM |