Need dual brakes?

skyflyer8

skyflyer8

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
967
Display Name
Display name:
skyflyr
If student pilot wishes to receive instruction in an airplane that has dual flight controls but not dual brakes, is that legal? Is it smart?

How about for an already-certificated pilot?

This would be an airplane that has toe brakes above the pilot's rudder pedals but none above the copilot's, and no parking brake.

Has nothing to do with anything I'm up to... just thought of the question in my infinite boredom today. Also I'm assuming 91.109 refers only to flight controls, and I can't find anything about brakes.

§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons when—
(etc. etc. etc.)
Click to expand...
 
"...aircraft has fully functioning dual controls."

It doesn't say "flight controls", and I would consider brakes to be "controls". That seems pretty clear to me.

That being said, I have heard of Archers w/o toe brakes on the copilot side being used for primary training, so I guess I really don't know. I'll just shut up now and let the people who have some clue about what they're talking about respond...
 
skyflyer8 said:
If student pilot wishes to receive instruction in an airplane that has dual flight controls but not dual brakes, is that legal?
Click to expand...
Yes -- see http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regdual.html for more on the FAA's legal position on the subject. Specifically, the 91.109(a) "dual controls" rule is interpreted by FAA Legal as referring only to "flight controls (e.g. pitch, yaw, and roll controls)," and this covers both training and practical tests.
Is it smart?
Click to expand...
"Smart?" Mind if I pass on that, and answer "safe"? If it's a nosewheel-steered tricycle gear plane with the central brake handle that the instructor or examiner can reach from the right seat (like many Pipers have), yes -- I think it can be done safely. If there is no way for the pilot in command/instructor to stop the plane, or it's a tailwheel plane without dual individual wheel brake controls, I think it would be very hard to do safely.
How about for an already-certificated pilot?
Click to expand...
It's certainly legal, but is it safe? I think it depends on the specifics. If it's a pilot already qualified and current in make/model getting instrument training, it's probably OK. If it's a pilot receiving tailwheel endorsement training, or flying something significantly new/different (like a Cessna-only pilot checking out in a Grumman or Cirrus with no nosewheel steering and relying solely on differential braking for directional control on the ground, or pilot TW-trained in the docile Champ checking out in the notoriously ground-squirrely Pitts Special), probably not.

To summarize, it's all situations, and there is no single canned answer. I think it's more about the instructor's comfort level than anything else, so there may well be instructors who'd say "no" on general principles no matter what, and others who'd accept significantly more risk.
 
If it can't be done I'm in deep trouble.

My Cherokee only has toe brakes on the left side.

From my first flight, CFIs used the hand brake if/when necessary.
 
Ron,

Thank you for that AOPA article link. That is very helpful.

I didn't know there were so many planes without brakes on the copilot's side.
 
None on mine.
None on my dads
None on the P28-140 I had my first ride in
Pretty sure there was none on the two Warriors I trained in.

You just need to quit flying trainers. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
"Smart?" Mind if I pass on that, and answer "safe"? If it's a nosewheel-steered tricycle gear plane with the central brake handle that the instructor or examiner can reach from the right seat (like many Pipers have), yes -- I think it can be done safely. If there is no way for the pilot in command/instructor to stop the plane, or it's a tailwheel plane without dual individual wheel brake controls, I think it would be very hard to do safely.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think it's more unsafe to have brakes on the trainee side than to not have brakes on the instructor side in a taildragger...I've had numerous instances where I would really have preferred to get them OFF the brakes quicker, but have never wished for brakes on my side.

Been thinking about developing an STC to put a running chainsaw just behind the trainee's achillles tendons...:eek:

Fly safe!

David

Edit: On further reflection, I lied...never say never ;) I did refuse to train primaries in a Pietenpol once due to a lack of brakes in the front 'pit...In that airplane, i felt that there could be occasions where brakes would be needed. Didn't care about the lack of instruments, though ;)
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Pretty sure there was none on the two Warriors I trained in.

You just need to quit flying trainers. :D
Click to expand...
Well Ed ever Warrior i've been in and thats been 2, had toebrakes on the right side ,but then ther might be one's out there that don't.
Dave G:blueplane:
 
MauleSkinner said:
To be honest, I think it's more unsafe to have brakes on the trainee side than to not have brakes on the instructor side in a taildragger...I've had numerous instances where I would really have preferred to get them OFF the brakes quicker, but have never wished for brakes on my side.

Been thinking about developing an STC to put a running chainsaw just behind the trainee's achillles tendons...:eek:
Click to expand...

Funny thing for me was that in the Champ, I was having a helluva time just finding the brakes... must be a training-safety feature. :D
 
MauleSkinner said:
To be honest, I think it's more unsafe to have brakes on the trainee side than to not have brakes on the instructor side in a taildragger...;)
Click to expand...

A-freakin-men. Most tail draggers, the only time I use the brakes is if I need to hold the line on throttle up, and to spin it into its parking spot, or if I have to land really short. Outside of that, brakes are just a freakin hazard, especially heel brakes. Did I ever say I hated heel brakes?
 
Last edited:
Shipoke said:
Well Ed ever Warrior i've been in and thats been 2, had toebrakes on the right side ,but then ther might be one's out there that don't.
Dave G:blueplane:
Click to expand...

Most of the earlier Cherokees only had toe brakes on the left side, Dave. And the hand brake. Come to think of it, it seems like a lot of them didn't have toe brakes on the LEFT side. Just the hand brake.
 
Shipoke said:
Well Ed ever Warrior i've been in and thats been 2, had toebrakes on the right side ,but then ther might be one's out there that don't.
Click to expand...
Back in the 70's nearly everything not listed in 91.205(b) (or its equivalent back then) was an option, including right side toe brakes on Pipers, so there are quite a few out there (even into the Warrior days) with toe brakes only on the left side -- some flight schools/FBO's are cheap, and some individual buyers saw no need for the extra expense.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Most of the earlier Cherokees only had toe brakes on the left side, Dave. And the hand brake. Come to think of it, it seems like a lot of them didn't have toe brakes on the LEFT side. Just the hand brake.
Click to expand...
I think they started making pilot-side toe brakes standard equipment in about '66.

Fly safe!

David
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Most of the earlier Cherokees only had toe brakes on the left side, Dave. And the hand brake. Come to think of it, it seems like a lot of them didn't have toe brakes on the LEFT side. Just the hand brake.
Click to expand...

That's all that my friend's '67 Cherokee 235 has... the hand brake off the bottom center of the panel. No toe brakes on either side. Do differential braking, either.

It's all or nothing!!
 
TangoWhiskey said:
It's all or nothing!!
Click to expand...
...and that can be a problem. I had right side brake failure in a PA-28 with toe brakes. The right toe brake pedal went to the floor. :hairraise:

Nursed it back to the tiedown using the left brake which was functioning. Then tried the handbrake, all it did is squirt the remaining brake fluid out through the broken hydraulic brake line... the left brake was not working. After the handbrake attempt, there was no fluid left and the left brake would no longer work.

Lesson learned: The brakes are independent of each other, but not when the handbrake is used.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
...and that can be a problem. I had right side brake failure in a PA-28 with toe brakes. The right toe brake pedal went to the floor. :hairraise:

Nursed it back to the tiedown using the left brake which was functioning. Then tried the handbrake, all it did is squirt the remaining brake fluid out through the broken hydraulic brake line... the left brake was not working. After the handbrake attempt, there was no fluid left and the left brake would no longer work.

Lesson learned: The brakes are independent of each other, but not when the handbrake is used.
Click to expand...

Being that the hand brake has both hydraulic brake lines connected to it, we could guess that it in your case it allowed the fluid from the left brake circuit to cross feed into the dry right brake circuit. There must be check valve that keeps that cross feed from happening when the hand brake is released.
 
mikea said:
There must be check valve that keeps that cross feed from happening when the hand brake is released.
Click to expand...
The POH has this language in it that is relevant.
The toe brakes and hand brake have their own brake cylinders, but they share a common reservoir.
Click to expand...
No diagram or mention of a check valve. Without a diagram, it is a mystery to me, too. Thankfully when I hit the runway with (surprise!) only one brake working, I had nosewheel steering. With a castering nose wheel I'd have been in the snowbanks alongside the runway.

-Skip
 
I am not a fan of castering nose wheels.

It's one of my biggest complaints about the RV/Zenair/etc aircraft.

~ Christopher
 
jwriteclub said:
I am not a fan of castering nose wheels. It's one of my biggest complaints about the RV/Zenair/etc aircraft.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you haven't had much chance to fly a production aircraft with castering nose-wheel? Clearly 4000 Grumman owners and 2500+ Cirrus owners like it just fine, so it can't be too bad. In fact, it has some real advantages when making crosswind takeoffs/landings and maneuvering in tight spaces on the ramp.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps you haven't had much chance to fly a production aircraft with castering nose-wheel? Clearly 4000 Grumman owners and 2500+ Cirrus owners like it just fine, so it can't be too bad. In fact, it has some real advantages when making crosswind takeoffs/landings and maneuvering in tight spaces on the ramp.
Click to expand...
So do tailwheels ;)

Fly safe!

David
 
jwriteclub said:
I am not a fan of castering nose wheels.

It's one of my biggest complaints about the RV/Zenair/etc aircraft.

~ Christopher
Click to expand...

I think in the end I'm not either. It forces you to rely on the brakes to much on the taxi which makes them wear out faster. On the other end you will see line guys in shock and awe when they see some of the parking jobs you can pull off.
 
taters said:
It forces you to rely on the brakes to much on the taxi which makes them wear out faster.
Click to expand...
OTOH, you save money on nosewheel system maintenance (priced a shimmy damper or oleo strut lately?). In the end, I think the cost factor is a wash.
 
It is not so much a cost issue.

I have a fair bit of Diamond DA-40 time. I hate, hate, hate having to land it in anything but the mildest of crosswinds. I find it difficult to control at high speed on the roll and virtually anything that I can do with it I can do with a steered nose wheel and differential brakes.

It may just be that I have not received the proper training, but I would not hesitate to say that I am uncomfortable landing an aircraft with a castering nose wheel in a crosswind.

~ Christopher
 
Did Cessna ever NOT install dual brakes? (in 120, 140, 150, 152, 170, 172?)
 
skyflyer8 said:
Did Cessna ever NOT install dual brakes? (in 120, 140, 150, 152, 170, 172?)
Click to expand...
Never flown a Cessna taildragger with dual brakes...never flown a Cessna trike without 'em.

Must be unsafe to have a trike without 'em, and a taildragger with 'em ;)

Fly safe!

David
 
jwriteclub said:
It may just be that I have not received the proper training, but I would not hesitate to say that I am uncomfortable landing an aircraft with a castering nose wheel in a crosswind.
Click to expand...
Next time you're on the East Coast, come see me -- I'll fix that problem.:yes:
 
I'll keep that offer in mind.

~ Christopher

(Of course, I have to weigh the thought of going to MD) :)
 
Perhaps it's too early in the morning for my brain to be fully functional [though I hope not, that would be a bad sign all around, huh?], but I fail to see the problem of crosswind landings in a castering nosewheel craft. If a pilot is relying on a steerable nosewheel to control a plane in a crosswind, he or she is going to be in some sort of trouble at some point anyway. Probably sooner rather than later.

I do recall that, a long time ago, when I got checked out in a Grumman by a fellow CFI, and was concerned with the nosewheel thing, he told me I'd be completely comfortable by the time we had reached the runway on our first taxi. I didn't believe him. He was correct. It was a non-issue. [The airplane was a joy to fly; great visibility out the windscreen, smooth-handling.]
 
Last edited:
Baron 55 said:
Perhaps it's too early in the morning for my brain to be fully functional [though I hope not, that would be a bad sign all around, huh?], but I fail to see the problem of crosswind landings in a castering nosewheel craft. If a pilot is relying on a steerable nosewheel to control a plane in a crosswind, he or she is going to be in some sort of trouble at some point anyway. Probably sooner rather than later.

I do recall that, a long time ago, when I got checked out in a Grumman by a fellow CFI, and was concerned with the nosewheel thing, he told me I'd be completely comfortable by the time we had reached the runway on our first taxi. I didn't believe him. He was correct. It was a non-issue. [The airplane was a joy to fly; great visibility out the windscreen, smooth-handling.]
Click to expand...
I believe it's easier in a castering nose-wheel plane because you don't have to worry about the sudden change in yaw authority when you lift the nosewheel on takeoff, and you don't have to worry about the nose taking a sharp turn when you lower the nosewheel with rudder applied on landing.
 
jwriteclub said:
I have a fair bit of Diamond DA-40 time. I hate, hate, hate having to land it in anything but the mildest of crosswinds. I find it difficult to control at high speed on the roll and virtually anything that I can do with it I can do with a steered nose wheel and differential brakes.

It may just be that I have not received the proper training, but I would not hesitate to say that I am uncomfortable landing an aircraft with a castering nose wheel in a crosswind.
Click to expand...

I had some issues the first time I flew a castering-nosewheel airplane (an SR22) because I was used to steerable nosewheels. Mainly, the fact that once a steerable nosewheel is on the ground it tends to put your feet to sleep.

The trick is that you still have rudder authority after landing... Use it! Just like you slowly add in more aileron as you slow down after landing in any airplane, you have to add more and more rudder as you slow down with a castering nosewheel. When the rudder hits the stop, you should be pretty darn slow and you can add a bit of brake. My problem in the Cirrus was that as soon as I had tires on the ground I was thinking "brake" and didn't use the rudder like I should have, so I ended up weaving back and forth a bit, which was not fun. :hairraise:

I bet tailwheel pilots have no problem with castering nosewheels...
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps you haven't had much chance to fly a production aircraft with castering nose-wheel? Clearly 4000 Grumman owners and 2500+ Cirrus owners like it just fine, so it can't be too bad. In fact, it has some real advantages when making crosswind takeoffs/landings and maneuvering in tight spaces on the ramp.
Click to expand...

A gentleman on the Beech list pointed out that without nosewheel steering, it's far more difficult to generate a damaging side load on the nosegear. Apparently early Bonanzas had free castoring nosewheels, and some knowledgeable folks are claiming that the spar carrythrough cracking issue is the result of such side loads.
 
Ron Levy said:
I believe it's easier in a castering nose-wheel plane because you don't have to worry about the sudden change in yaw authority when you lift the nosewheel on takeoff, and you don't have to worry about the nose taking a sharp turn when you lower the nosewheel with rudder applied on landing.
Click to expand...

Non-issue in the Cherokee. After the mains are down, and just before the nosewheel touches, feet hover 1/1000th of an inch above the rudder pedals, nosewheel touches, feet back on the pedals. No sharp turns. And I've even done it in >G30 without losing the centerline.
 
My Navion has toe brakes on the left side only (and no hand brake). It was on leaseback for a while. I figured that this was no problem because nobody did primary instruction in the plane. However, a student, despite the screams of the flight instructor, managed to taxi the Navion into a Commanche (I guess he decided he didn't want to get too close to the parked lear on the other side). Made a nice tip tank shaped grove in the commanche cowl as my wing tip went up and over it. It wouldn't have damaged my plane at all except that the prop was vertical and made a gouge in the leading edge.

I'm just glad I wasn't the one to tell the owner of the Comanche (who had failed to leave contact info with the FBO) what happened to his plane when he returned to depart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top