Locking the brakes makes little difference, because as the vertical load increases, so the centre of the contact area moves forward of the axle, exerting a moment which tends to slow or stop wheel rotation.

Another reason not to apply the brakes is that rocking up onto a beach with brakes locked at just 20 knots could be embarrassing.

The last reason, which perhaps only applies to Husky pilots is in an NTSB report: one of the aforementioned shaggy dog drivers set his parking brake for some waterskiing, then flew home and went ass over tit cos he forgot to release it. I know, we all use a landing checklist/mnemonic, but there but for the grace of God...

Incidentally, my Maule has a parking brake just next to the carb heat. I think it's the devil's spawn. Does anyone know the FAA legality of removing it?

I was first taught "wheels locked" by one old timer, then later I flew with an "it don't matter" guy.

It don't matter.

Gump

N-Jacko wrote:...Incidentally, my Maule has a parking brake just next to the carb heat. I think it's the devil's spawn. Does anyone know the FAA legality of removing it?

I think my first airplane (stock C150J) had one, but there was no sign of a parking brake system in any of my three Cessna taildraggers: 1948 170, 1964 150D, and 1953 180-- in spite of each of them being equipped with one from the factory. Dunno about any other makes, but Cessna parking brakes apparently had a habit of self-engaging with a hard deflection of the rudder pedals. As you pointed out, that's not a good theing when touching down on hard surfaces. I don't believe there was any mention of it in any of their logbooks either, but I've never had that come up as an issue during any inspections.

I can think of situations where a parking brake might be pretty handy, like parking on a slope without someone to chock it or hold the brakes while you chock it. But you sure don't want it self-engaging at the wrong time. But if you're intent on doing away with it, maybe just disable it, and placard it as "inoperative"?

hotrod180 wrote:I can think of situations where a parking brake might be pretty handy, like parking on a slope without someone to chock it or hold the brakes while you chock it.

Like on the customs ramp in Saltillo with no chocks to be found and instead having to hold the plane in place while your wife looks for a shoe to throw under the tire?

I mean, hypothetically...

rw2 wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:I can think of situations where a parking brake might be pretty handy, like parking on a slope without someone to chock it or hold the brakes while you chock it.

Like on the customs ramp in Saltillo with no chocks to be found and instead having to hold the plane in place while your wife looks for a shoe to throw under the tire?

I mean, hypothetically...

That's pretty funny!

I need to add a parking brake. I've already had 3 times I wished I had one in the 8 months I've owned the plane.

GumpAir wrote:I was first taught "wheels locked" by one old timer, then later I flew with an "it don't matter" guy.

It don't matter.

Gump

I've always held the brakes and let them go just before touching the beach. I have a mental analogy of a barefoot skier. If they could run at a speed equal to their speed across the water, they would no longer hydroplane and would fall through the surface.

Gump's right (as usual), although on this occasion I'd give him less than 10/10 for his grammar . Pneumatic tyres will hydroplane whether or not the wheel is braked. The 1963 NASA technical note TN D-2056 (see link some way above) explains how and why.

And P.B., if one could run that fast he could still cause downwards and sideways acceleration to a sufficient mass of water to exert enough force to keep him up.

wtxdragger wrote:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-pilot-who-sparked-plane-7555470#xcc5v1wzgI3AG4PI.97

That is great. Nice work N-Jacko!

I am glad to that see common sense can still prevail somewhere in this world.

Over the years I have made a few videos. I am not sure if it made a lot of difference but I did not name the places with real names with the exception of the one video I never got into any trouble, that one video showed and named places (got me into trouble).

I think that it can be a problem if it is a highly sensitive place when it comes to the agencies tasked with making sure all the boxes are checked. They are looking even when you don't think they are.

I also heard of a law officer going above and beyond to find out where the footage was shot so he could nail my ass.

As for the FAA it is easy for them to nail you if they want to Period.

I am a rebel, always have been. I love anything that is outside the norm. I hate fun police!

Mauleguy wrote:Over the years I have made a few videos. I am not sure if it made a lot of difference but I did not name the places with real names with the exception of the one video I never got into any trouble, that one video showed and named places (got me into trouble).

I think that it can be a problem if it is a highly sensitive place when it comes to the agencies tasked with making sure all the boxes are checked. They are looking even when you don't think they are.

I also heard of a law officer going above and beyond to find out where the footage was shot so he could nail my ass.

As for the FAA it is easy for them to nail you if they want to Period.

I am a rebel, always have been. I love anything that is outside the norm. I hate fun police!

I am a rebel, always have been. I hate fun police! Me too.

Cheers...Rob

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... I3AG4PI.97

Frequent references to "gun dealer" and "farmer", just so the concerned public has an accurate picture of the kind of person that would be expected to fly recklessly. And finally the "walks free", exonerated or the UK version of OJ Simpson? Love the UK press.

Good on you, Peter.

Mauleguy wrote:.... that one video showed and named places (got me into trouble). I think that it can be a problem if it is a highly sensitive place when it comes to the agencies tasked with making sure all the boxes are checked. They are looking even when you don't think they are.I also heard of a law officer going above and beyond to find out where the footage was shot so he could nail my ass.....

I just saw a report on the TV news where some guy who posted a video of himself driving around somewhere on facebook or youtube got himself a ticket when the cops noticed him cruising through a stop sign on the video. Really? All the criminal BS going on in the world and these cops are worried about something like that? I think they need to get their priorities straight.

And Rob, I think you need to get yourself some white & black tape to doctor your tail numbers when you're going to take photos in iffy places! At least get some 3-inchers.