Tomo with no brakes? No, Pud with no brakes

[winsor68]

Safety culture? What about a bullying culture? This is starting to sound like a bit of an old pprune...thumb_down

 

 

[facthunter]

safety Culture

 

Is there anything to do with flying, that is more important than thrashing out safety matters? Remember that a lot of people look to this forum for guidance, on these issues, so there is a real need to make sure that the wrong impression is not given. (inadvertantly or not). Nev

 

 

[Spin]

Where do you draw the line Donald? I've expressed my misgivings over what I see as a concerning trend, as have some others to one degree or another. Do you merely shut up and then sadly shake your head when what you fear eventuates, or do you stick your neck out and offer what is clearly unwelcome advice? :confused:

 

The irony of the situation is that I'm not an experienced pilot and probably don't have many more hours than the obvious subject of the "bullying"; I have however been knocking around aircraft for 30 odd years and my day time job involves unravelling the results of situations where the last words were something along the lines of, "she'll be right". The Swiss cheese model of accident causation has a lot to recommend it imo.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Many early aircraft wern't equipped with brakes, both UL and GA. The UL biplane I built and flew for many years had no brakes either, (Yes I had to be a WW1 purist).

 

When operating without brakes of course you have to make operational adjustments, but otherwise it is no big deal, and I never encountered any problems because of it, even when operating on uphill strips which often required a downhill take off.

 

You do a lot of landings on the grass besides runways, you must have your engine idle correct, and you must land at the correct speed, and not a knot higher. You must also be prepared to do a little swerving to knock off speed, ground-loop in extreme cases, or even go-around and try again. It does teach you good rudder usage.

 

yes pavement can be a pain, and generally you try and avoid it if possible.

 

Yes runup checks can be a problem, as Pud mentioned, but they must be done, and you can generally find a suitable grassed area to do them on.

 

There are still many aircraft throughout the world that operate safetly without brakes, both flying antiques, and regular aircraft from the classic period, and yes some early UL design.

 

The best example of solving a simple problem was at an airshow in Calif where a guy taxied in in a Pientenpol air camper (high-wing monoplane, open cockpit, no wheel brakes) he had a broom handle mounted and pivoted outside the cockpit, which he grabbed as required and force down onto the pavement to slow him down. Worked a treat. Amoung many fancier machines there that day, he would have got the Kodak award for number of photos taken hands down !!

 

It is a pity that many of our current young pilots will probabily never get to enjoy the challanges that older style avaitors just regarded as additional skills to be mastered and enjoyed..........................................................................maj...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[winsor68]

Ok... Here is something a little controversial... perhaps the brakes should not be relied upon as a safety tool. Handy to have but obviously not essential to the successful operation of an aircraft... if it was a Boeing 737... sure it would be totally unacceptable from a safety perspective to fly the aircraft without brakes. But we don't fly 737s recreationally... If you were to hire an aircraft with the brakes damaged or U/S then it would be unacceptable from an insurance perspective... if Tomo had arrived at the airshow having taken off from home base with the brakes U/S then it would have been unacceptable from an airmanship perspective...

 

But... I was there and I watched Tomo pre-flight and take off and in my opinion the whole procedure was carried out professionally and safely and within the spirit and safety culture of Ra-Aus flying. And I would feel safer flying with Tomo or hiring him an aircraft in the knowledge that he knows enough about the aircraft and the procedures required to operate it that he could make this call and fly the aircraft home safely.

 

 

[dazza 38]

My 2 cents worth, Pud, if you can fit them (brakes) fit them mate.They might save you damagine your A/c,.If you fit them and they become u/s, even though the same a/c is out their flying without them and it is approved, i cant answer that, ask steve Bell. Flying a A/c with any part of, A- Flight control system,B-fuel system, C- power plant, or C- undercarrage system, including brakes. Is IMO a foolish thing to do, and illegal. Aircraft, especialy miltary a/c can and do fly with unservicabilities in their maintenance release.It depends on what is U/s.Sorry for XXXXing anyone off, this comes down to safety.Take it or leave it.What i have said.This is not directed at anyone in particular. Thankyou

 

 

[facthunter]

Quandary.

 

W 68 .. Firstly I'm not bashing Tomo. per se. It wouldn't matter WHO it was my reaction would be the same.

 

I'm really curious here

 

.Proposition#1 It would NOT be OK to fly the plane to the show with crook brakes, but would be ok to fly it home.?

 

Proposition #2 Tomo is very skilled and careful so it is OK for him to do but perhaps not other people. What about the example set, and it is now public?

 

I've never flown a drifter/thruster that had working brakes. I have never flown a tiger moth with brakes either but they had a tailSKID which acted as a brake, and you sure had to be careful when you were manoeuvering them amongst other aircraft. All a very different kettle of fish to a jabiru, anyhow .Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

Facthunter... I didn't intend to suggest that it was ok for Tomo to do but not others... I was suggesting that the skills required to access the situation and take the appropriate action as Tomo did (correctly and safely in my opinion) is something we should all aspire to.

 

The reason I suggest that flying to Monto with the problem would be different to flying the aircraft home after is because the trip to Monto involves flying to an unfamiliar airfield... I am sure if the home airfield of the aircraft was unsuitable for a no brake landing Tomo would not have done it.

 

In my opinion he was well withing the envelope of safe flying...

 

 

[dazza 38]

Winsor, it is not Tomo,s call, or any other pilot for that matter, i love tomo he is a top guy realy is, the aircraft is u/s, end of story.The a/c mentioned is certified, WITH functioning brakes. This weekend has been hard for alot of us, especialy for Tomo, he feels at the moment upset, and picked on.I wish we all learn from this. As i have said earlier, their are procedures in place for bigger A/c. They have what is called a MEL,Minimum equipment list.They can fly with unservicabilities as long as that part is not on that list. Normaly things like radio,s, if they have a backup radio. I have sat back not rocking the boat, friends of mine have said their peices and have been ridiculed themselves. At the end of the day, we will move on from this.It will be forgotten about. Safety is something, we cant be laxed on.Cheers Guys

 

 

[horsefeathers]

whew....

 

ummm, I dont know Tomo from a bar of soap, and dont know enough about flying planes with or without brakes, but really, when its all said and done, it seems to me this tread comes down to "do you walk up to someone you consider may be doing something unsafe, or do you keep your mouth shut." There were a LOT of comments made on a thread about an Drifter??? that crashed killing two just recently, and a lot of people said "should I say something, or keep my mouth shut??"

 

This thread is really just a discussion/example of this very subject.

 

It seems from Tomo's comments and others who watched him, that he did a professional job assessing the situation. Others have thought that it should be brought to his attention. Others disagree with his actions.

 

All sides are correct - I dont believe anyone is either encouraging or slagging off Tomo. They are different sides of the argument. They come down to how you perceive other's actions, and what you think should be done. But this is what a discussion is all about.

 

 

[dazza 38]

whew....ummm, I dont know Tomo from a bar of soap, and dont know enough about flying planes with or without brakes, but really, when its all said and done, it seems to me this tread comes down to "do you walk up to someone you consider may be doing something unsafe, or do you keep your mouth shut." There were a LOT of comments made on a thread about an Drifter??? that crashed killing two just recently, and a lot of people said "should I say something, or keep my mouth shut??"

 

This thread is really just a discussion/example of this very subject.

 

It seems from Tomo's comments and others who watched him, that he did a professional job assessing the situation. Others have thought that it should be brought to his attention. Others disagree with his actions.

 

All sides are correct - I dont believe anyone is either encouraging or slagging off Tomo. They are different sides of the argument. They come down to how you perceive other's actions, and what you think should be done. But this is what a discussion is all about.

HI mate, your thread has a calming influence, at the end of the day, the a/c is u/s period.It is not a pilots, (any pilot) call to make that descision, to fly it or not.That is why we have regulations. If something did happen, forget insurance etc. i glad it worked out OK.

 

 

[sleemanj]

The a/c mentioned is certified

I thought we were talking about RA-Aus?

 

 

[Tomo]

Thanks guys, If you go back to my post #24 I've given a description of the whys and how come. I've written this not to try and make it sound ok, I did it so you can see the complete picture. I have no intentions of being a shonky despised pilot. I want to be known as a safe and wise one, and I intend to listen. Just sometimes it takes a while to decipher genuine concern and arm chair abuses.

 

I've edited all my posts on this thread to ensure I don't portray bad airmanship to the general public. For those that know me, that is one of my extreme displeasures to see, and it definitely isn't what I intended to promote.

 

For those that feel they need to defend me, it's ok. I completely understand what is being said. And coming from experienced pilots that is what I intend to listen too.

 

Please don't stop doing that any other time if you think I have done something unwise - just because It might cause annoyance.

 

Though I do think this point has been covered enough, and if you still totally think I've lost the plot, PM me instead.

 

Regards

 

Tomo:big_grin:

 

:thumb_up:

 

 

[dazza 38]

I thought we were talking about RA-Aus?

It is certified, under RAA, with 24 rego is it not.For training ,hire etc:wave:

Weather a A/c is certified or not, GA or RAA, that doesnt IMO opinion make any difference.

 

 

[Yenn]

I can't see the problem with flying a plane with defective brakes. If the pilot is skilled enough to assess the likelihood of an accident or incident and works out that he can do it safely, then i say go fly it. We have far too many people taking the decision making out of peoples hands, and it doesn't make us safer. A prudent pilot would know that there is a grass strip at Monto and therefore brakes would not be essential for a Jab. Personally I fly a plane with brakes but seldom use them, maybe I do roll out a bit further, but it is still safe flying. I really don't see much sense in doing all the training, including Human Factors and then having someone else deciding if what I do is safe, especially if there is no problem.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Unbelievable.:hittinghead:. Does the word cowboys ring any bells??.. We get hammered in the RAA, reading some replies in this thread, its no wonder. WAKE UP TO YOURSELV'S. UNSERVICABLE MEANS UNSERVICABLE. Its not open for interpretation. Its not dependant on pilots skill or experiance, and if it were, we are talking about a guy with what?? 100 hours??

 

My head is well and truely buried in my hands right now.

 

 

[sleemanj]

It is certified, under RAA, with 24 rego is it not.For training ,hire etc:wave:

Must be a difference between AU and NZ, I see in a quick skim that the AU framework is considerably more convoluted and you do tend to use the word "certificate" within the RAA domain even outside of LSA. Australians, always complicating things ;)

 

Here in NZ if you say "certified aircraft" one will assume that means an aircraft with an actual certificate of airworthiness, which does not include ultralight/microlight aircraft.

 

These have neither standard nor special certification, they have a permit to fly for 2 seaters, or nothing at all other for singles (other than an annual condition inspection).

 

A permit to fly is a vastly different beast to a certificate of airworthiness.

 

 

[Tomo]

Folks, Motz is correct - whether your aircraft has brakes or not. The Jab is certified to have brakes, and it is classified as unworthy if they aren't working. Be it worn out, which means they need changing, and or, if they work well or not.

 

The fact of the matter is, the Jab is unserviceable with totally ineffective brakes, Like it or not.

 

 

[sleemanj]

The fact of the matter is, the Jab is unserviceable with totally ineffective brakes, Like it or not.

If it is certified with brakes, who has the authority to issue a ferry permit to said aircraft which is otherwise safe to fly but in breach of it's "certification"?

 

 

[Tomo]

If it is certified with brakes, who has the authority to issue a ferry permit to said aircraft which is otherwise safe to fly but in breach of it's "certification"?

In the end It comes down to the PIC mate.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I must disagree Tomo, and I do disagree with Mervs black and white assessment also.

 

As licensed pilots we are required, and expected, to exercise good judgement. Holding a pilots certificate also indicates that we have demonstrated the ability to assess and handle unusual situations, and emergengy situations.

 

For example: Aircraft brake systems have, and do render themselves U/S in the air. Although the aircraft is then technically U/S, you still have no choice but to land it with the U/S brakes.

 

Aircraft tires do and have become U/S in the air by deflating, you still have to land the aircraft even though it is technically U/S.

 

Ailerons (particulary on Gazelles) have been know to detach from wings in the air. Even though the aircraft is technically U/S, it still has to be landed.

 

In each scenero the PIC is expected to, and required to assess the situation and make a COMMAND decision on the appropiate action.

 

In Tomos' case he assessed the situation facing him (1 x U/S brake), and made a command decision that he as PIC still had the ability to safetly land the aircraft back at his very long strip. Any pilot worth his salt should be capable of landing any aircraft without brakes, especially when he know they are U/S. If you don't have that ability how the hell are you going to do things when a bloody aileron falls off !! ?.

 

He obviosly DID land the aircraft saftely back at home base, so IMOP he DID exercise good judgement in conducting the flight home.

 

I have flown twice with Tomo and I have landed several times at his airstrip. Even with only around 100 hours or so (insurance companies are quite happy with 150hrs TT PIC by the way)

 

Tomos flying and decision making skills are very well developed, and this may be attributed to the quality of training he has recieved, and the fact that in those 100 hrs he has flown PIC many different types of aircraft, which further developes ones' overall skills.

 

I take my hat off to him for making the decision he did, and wish him well in his future flying career. :thumb_up:..........................................................................Maj..

 

 

[flightygirl]

frankly i am horrified at some of the irresponsible comments being made on here about flying an unservicable aircraft. as a new person to the sport i would hope that those with far more experience and skills than me would be making comments that reflect common sense and responsibility. I have sat back reading the comments and have decided enough is enough. As a newbie i ask those of you who are saying it was an ok decision to ask yourselves would you be saying the same thing to a student, or to the family of the deceased pilot who didnt land safely, or to the witnesses of the incident.

 

As far as i am concerned an unservicable aircraft is an unservicable aircraft. its that simple. lets set the standard high rather than low for the students on this forum who look to the more experienced pilots for responsible comment on here.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Sometimes an unservicable aircraft has to be flown back to base for the work to be preformed. i have lost count on how many times i accompanied a Nomad back after ensuring it was safe to be flown. gear locked down and oleos jammed up after gear up landings, temp repairs to that bloody tailplane. Islanders have turned up at the hanger door with one engine running on one mag and one cyl showing diddley squat.

 

Flying home in an otter one night selcted flap down and nothing hydralics decided to go US. what do ya do? check the performance charts and what runway length you have and deal with it or go somewhere it is a bit longer. we decided to deal with it. used the whole length but only because it was safer than to try and pull it up in as short as distance as the brakes whould allow.

 

Good call Tomo. you made a command decision, your decision no one elses.

 

 

[Mazda]

Maj, I disagree.

 

Landing with failed brakes is one thing, and we must deal with situations like that. Starting up, doing run ups, using busy taxiways at a fly in with spectators, other aircraft etc with no brakes is unnecessary and poor airmanship.

 

 

[pudestcon]

Whoa up People,

 

Are we going to self destruct over this issue? I thought long and hard about starting this thread, and placing it in the 'General Discussion' section, but I figured there could be some useful debate and I could gain some knowledge here. It's getting to the stage where I wish I had not started this at all, or maybe give it a nondescript title and bury it in the 'Thruster' section. I sincerely apologise to you Tomo for using your name as part of the thread title.

 

Can we back off here please and have some toned down debate without the personal stuff. Don't know if I can do this but as the originator of this thread I'm contemplating asking for it to be remove.

 

Pud