Apparent brake failure!! Do you take off??

[Ultra long hauler]

Hi flying folks,

before people hammer me, this thread has nothing to do with STOL runways, where you need to touch down and slam the brakes in order to avoid making the local newspaper.

I´m referring to the following situation:

My 1st solo…….my instructor thought I was good to go for it.
Pre-flight checks, flashing up the donk, an all-system check etc etc.
Moving towards the threshold when---> I noticed the brake didn´t work anymore!

I shut down, no way I was gonna solo without brakes although that runway gave me plenty of leeway! (1 of the reasons why I soloed there first).
It turned out to be an easy fix and after some "arcing and sparking", well; off I went, and the rest is history!

But what I´m trying to ask is: how essential are the brakes for where you people fly?
I met a few people who claim to fly without………..no sweat!

Is it a "no T/O" item?

Your thoughts? If you´re far away from your destination, trying to get home before dusk……….for instance--> would you cheekily ignore a brake failure?

Cheers,

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Tarq57]

Nope. Brakes are a vital item.
The situation could easily arise where you find yourself compelled to land at an aerodrome where you might need 'em.
Or just prior to rotate on your initial departure, something goes wrong requiring an abort.

Depends somewhat on the type, though. You can get away without the brakes working on a Tiger Moth.

[SNS3Guppy]

Where I fly, brakes are very important, and absolutely necessary. However, no matter what you fly, the brakes are installed for a reason. If you operate the airplane properly, you should seldom need to use the brakes, especially during ground operations. Judicious use of power and planning means that you don't roar up to anything and rely upon brakes; you slow down, and use power to move, not brakes to slow or stop.

There may be times when you need brakes (certainly often the case when making a turn in a conventional gear airplane), and it's hard to do a run-up while holding short or holding in position on the runway, without brakes. You may find that you need brakes; simply because a normal taxi may not require them doesn't mean you won't need them.

A couple of years ago a wheel failed while I was landing in a light twin. The airplane very much wanted to turn left as the wheel attempted to leave the airplane. Full right rudder didn't help much; it required nearly full right brake to hold the airplane on the runway. Again, you never know when you'll need it. You made the correct decision to return to the hangar and get help.

[172_driver]

If I landed in the beginning of the runway I wouldn't roll to the end of it... that's where I started flying. We had 2500 metres of pavement. Despite that, I would never go flying without proper brakes. In fact, where I work as an instructor now I regularly squawk our planes for poor/worn brakes. Just doesn't feel right without instant hard grip. They are quite vital, whether the runway is long or short. So much things can go wrong, especially during taxy at busy fields. In my humble opinion........

[ei-flyer]

Obviously none of you are familiar with flying the Tiger Moth :p

Brakes are a luxury, not a necessity, in general aviation. Enough forward planning removes the immediate need for the them.

[SNS3Guppy]

Brakes are a luxury, not a necessity, in general aviation. Enough forward planning removes the immediate need for the them.

This is not necessarily the case in abnormal operations, and not the case in normal operations, either. One should try to avoid brake use when it's not necessary. However, brakes may become necessary in a crosswind, to hold short of a taxiway or runway, during a runup, during a rejected takeoff (think of something entering the runway in front of you), steering in many light airplanes, and so forth. Brakes are often a necessity; hence their use in aircraft certification.

[BackPacker]

Enough forward planning removes the immediate need for the them.

Even taxiing downwind, at the lowest idle that the engine is capable of, will sometimes give you a taxi speed that's too high to make the turn at the end of the taxiway.

No brakes, no way I'd fly. Or even attempt to taxi.

[Rod1]

Interesting thread. Would any of the people who are on the “have to have working brakes” side of this consider flying one of the many types with no brakes fitted at all? How about a type, which normally has no brakes, but the particular example you are about to fly has optional brakes fitted but inoperative? Brakes are not a requirement for safe flight, but the lack of them is something to consider before committing to aviation.

Rod1

[J.A.F.O.]

I agree with Rod that: Brakes are not a requirement for safe flight, but the lack of them is something to consider before committing to aviation. but I'd ask whether there's really a need to get airborne with a known unservicability when it might be a quick fix.

You never know what might happen and while take-offs are optional landings are mandatory.

[ZS-FOY]

Guess it all has to do with what aircraft you're piloting. I would not try to land a PC on rwy 35 at FAGC as the slope is northwards. If I knew I did not have brakes and had to land there, I would use a precautionary approach with full flaps and as slow as safely possible.
ZS-FOY was my late father's PA-28R.

[Tmbstory]

Tiger Moths without brakes were taxied at a usual "walking speed" so that, if necessary the ground crew could assist with the parking in confined spaces.

Tmb

[RTN11]

If it's an informed choice, with preparation, no brakes is not a problem. You can do power checks on chocks, and after landing and taxi just point somewhere safe and cut the power to stop.

If you're just about to line up and find the brakes inop, i think you definitely made the right decision not to fly. It would be playing on your mind on landing, and really not what you want on first solo.

[Crash one]

No doubt numerous of us are aware of Tiger Moths.
However the OP was about to go early/first solo in an a/c that he expected to be fully serviceable, brakes included, which is a different can of worms. Had he been learning on a Tiger Moth then he would have been taught to fly/land apropriately.

Your thoughts? If you´re far away from your destination, trying to get home before dusk……….for instance--> would you cheekily ignore a brake failure?


Home being grass, my brakes are not very good anyway, Yes.

[S-Works]

And clearly none of you have much Auster time where they are renowned for failing without notice! I always plan to land an Auster without brakes as there worst habit is failing on just one side usually after a long taxi. You get airborne not realizing that they have cooked on he taxi out and you have nothing left for the landing!

Like everything in aviation, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Some situation and aircraft may require brakes. Others there is no need at all. Assess each situation individually and make a decision at the time.

[ZS-FOY]

No, I don't think it's a "no take off" item at all. Providing you can taxi safely to holding point and stop unless immediately cleared for T/O, you should be fine. I did a solo in a C150 where the ASI was dysfunctional on T/O. I aborted, checked the venturi, a bit of dust, cleared, took off. No problems thereafter. It's the landing that one has to worry about no brakes.

[Torque Tonight]

ULH,

At your stage, especially on your first solo, choosing NOT to fly was absolutely correct. With a bit more time and experience behind you you will be better able to exercise judgement on matters like this, but even then, if you are at your home base airfield there wouldn't be many compelling reasons to take to the air with a known defect like this.

As others have said, a lot comes down to the aircraft type. My own aeroplane is a (permit to fly) light tailwheeler with heel brakes which are generally only used during the engine run up, but are sometimes need to turn when taxying in strong winds. I was once away from base about to fly back to home when one of the brakes failed on taxy out. I taxied back, shut down and investigated. Suffice to stay that after a lot of consideration and detailed planning, I flew back with one brake inop, to base where I could get the snag rectified. It was not a decision taken lightly and this was one of the few occasions when I would carry a defect like this. At the other end of the scale, in my work aeroplane, you probably wouldn't even remove the chocks with a single brake failure!

On this note, on GA types which do not have a Minimum Equipment List, is there any guidance as to what snags you can legally accept and which ones will ground you - or does it simply come down to individual judgement, airmanship and common sense?

[IO540]

The thing to think about is what else is gone.

If you are presented a plane with duff brakes, and they know about it and expect you to fly it, do you think it's had gold plated maintenance on everything (or anything) else?

The chances are it is owned by a total cowboy outfit which gets maintenance done "on the nod" i.e. just enough to function but obviously with all the boxes ticked and all the papers stamped as always.

Unfortunately, you don't need to read many accident reports, literally or between the lines, to realise that in aviation crap attitudes to risk go hand in hand with a whole lot of other dodgy stuff. So e.g. the plane might not be insured...

If youa re not happy, take a walk somewhere else. There are schools out there with decent planes and decent attitudes. Not many but there are some. I walked out of a school over dodgy maintenance practices during my PPL training, too.

Maintenance is no rocket science. You don't need to even read or write to be able to fix brakes on a common type of aircraft.

[Hodja]

Flying with a known brake failure is just taking another unneccesary risk - I wouldn't do it. Besides, break check is on the checklist of the airplanes I'm flying.

Finally a lot of modern planes such as Cirri & Diamonds don't have nose wheel steering, and during slow taxi / RPMs the rudder is sometimes ineffective for steering.

[Katamarino]

If an aircraft has been designed to have brakes, they're there for a reason. I'd get them checked out, because there is no point going flying with a known unserviceability that might be easily fixed.

An interesting thing happened to me last year; I was setting out on a night flight, and as we taxied out I checked the brakes. One was not working, so we returned, and took the other C172 instead. As we flew back at night along the coast, we suffered a partial engine failure; not enough power to keep height, but enough to vary the glide. Only one airport was in range; it had no lights and it was a cloudy night! We used the GPS on full zoom, and the altimeter, to land blind; and hit the centreline! However, we required maximum braking to stop or we'd have been in the swamp with the alligators.

You could argue that if we had taken the aircraft with a failed brake, we'd not have ended up in the one with the dodgy engine, of course; but in this entirely unexpected situation, the brakes rather came in handy.

[mad_jock]

Its not a daft question to be honest. There are people who should know a whole heap more than you think you can.

I had a flights ops director telling me once to take a CAT aircraft with brake failure on one side and also the emergency brake system not working on that side as well (shuttle valve was jammed). And it was deemed ok because the runway we were going to was miles long.

I didn't go either :ok:

[Ultra long hauler]

Again, you never know when you'll need it. You made the correct decision to return to the hangar and get help.
Thanks Guppy, and by the way there wasn´t even a maintenance hangar then!
We were just on a massive grass strip in the middle of nowhere………so luckily the brake-fix was easy to do.
("arcing & sparking" as a figure of speech)
If not, I would not have soloed my 1st time, and my instructor would have helped me upon arrival at our aeroclub without brakes……..for our own strip is a bit of a tight squeeze!! 8 meters wide, and not too long either.
Now with my 40 hours solo, I´m a bit more confident and would be able to do it without brakes………or so I´d like to think.


If you're just about to line up and find the brakes inop, i think you definitely made the right decision not to fly. It would be playing on your mind on landing, and really not what you want on first solo.
Roger on that!!!!!!

It's the landing that one has to worry about no brakes.
Yep, I think that´s a bit of a given though!!
I mean, landing is part of most flights………..if everything goes well, that is.
I tend to keep landing in mind as part of my flight planning, in other words "before T /O".

ULH,

At your stage, especially on your first solo, choosing NOT to fly was absolutely correct. With a bit more time and experience behind you you will be better able to exercise judgement on matters like this, but even then, if you are at your home base airfield there wouldn't be many compelling reasons to take to the air with a known defect like this.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Flying with a known brake failure is just taking another unneccesary risk

Exactly!!

break check
Pun intended?



I didn't go either :ok:
I agree……...

You could argue that if we had taken the aircraft with a failed brake, we'd not have ended up in the one with the dodgy engine, of course; but in this entirely unexpected situation, the brakes rather came in handy.
Interesting story……….it all comes down to KNOWING there´s something wrong with the aircraft even before taking off.
You knew about the 1 C172 suffering from a brake problem………however the 2nd C172 surprised you with a (more serious) break down in flight……
Add the 2 items together, and it may spell disaster!! An accident is always a chain of events as they say, and well done on taking away the 1st link of that particular chain by swapping planes that night!!

Hats off by the way………landing on GPS at night, without any lights!!

It turned out to be an interesting thread.
Keep the stories coming!

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[SNS3Guppy]

Maintenance is no rocket science. You don't need to even read or write to be able to fix brakes on a common type of aircraft.

Actually, maintenance is rocket science; what applies to fixing a Cessna 172 applies for the most part to fixing a rocket.

One doesn't need to be able to read or right to fly an airplane, either, but it surely helps. Whereas one is required to reference to applicable maintenance publications while performing a repair, being able to read is a big plus.

[jxk]

And of course some aircraft like the AA5's need their brakes to be able to steer on the ground - which would automatically make it a NO go item.

[SNS3Guppy]

Quite a few aircraft need brakes for steering. Brakes are also necessary in the event of a flat or low tire, strong crosswind, holding short of a runway, during a runup, and other occasions.

The fact that an aircraft is certified with brakes should be telling enough.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

As i'm moving from my 'Slot' i roll forward an inch or two then dab the breaks, one doesn't want to go careering off down the taxi way without the means to stop!... especiaily if it involved chewing the tail off the first A/C in line, or clipping the bowser...... :sad:

[hatzflyer]

"arcing and sparking "
WTF is that ? this has got to be a wind up !

[ShyTorque]

Brakes are likely to be needed on any flight so I wouldn't go without them.

My first landing in a taildragger (a Husky) was to the shortest licensed airfield runway in UK (grass) and was from the right hand seat. I had flown in there a few times before in other aircraft so I made sure I landed the aircraft on the numbers, at the placarded airspeed. I had been briefed about it having heel operated brakes, rather than the more common toe brakes but I was surprised that despite my best efforts I didn't notice any real retardation from them (I nearly pushed my heels through the floor as the end of the runway came closer). I could tell that my instructor was began to get a bit agitated but he left me to it. The aircraft slowed enough for me to turn off onto the rougher grass which slowed us better. As we taxied in he began debriefing me about more positive use of the brakes next time. Suddenly he stopped and apologised. He realised there were no brake pedals on my side of the cockpit. I had been trying to stop using the heel rests.

[SNS3Guppy]

My first landing in a taildragger (a Husky) was to the shortest licensed airfield runway in UK (grass) and was from the right hand seat.

You flew a Husky from the right seat?

[FlyingKiwi_73]

You flew a Husky from the right seat?


hah, sitting on the strut, braking flintstone style?

[ShyTorque]

hah, sitting on the strut, braking flintstone style?

No, sitting in the right hand seat. Is that where they normally make you sit? :)

[madlandrover]

One assumes that it was something other than the standard tandem seating Husky ;)?

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/445792-apparent-brake-failure-do-you-take-off-post6309311.html#post6309311)
Again, you never know when you'll need it. You made the correct decision to return to the hangar and get help.



Bit like this then LOL


YouTube - DeHaviland Vampire airshow hydraulic system failure

[maxred]

Just as well he was gentle on the initial throttle up. Could have been back of the hanger with lots of dents, or worse.

Liked the other guy immediately checking his brakes.:ok:

Yes, I am slightly surprised that anyone would consider taking off with a known defect, particularly brakes. I had the opposite the other day where I lined up and the take off roll was very sluggish, not normal. Aborted, and I actually thought pads had jammed, they had, required loosening.

The opposite effect of never reaching Vr - hedge here we come

[SNS3Guppy]

No, sitting in the right hand seat. Is that where they normally make you sit?

Just curious about the "right hand seat" in an airplane that has tandem seats: one in front of the other. Whereas there's no right hand seat, just a front and back seat, to go "right" you'd need to be outside the door and hanging on the strut.

[ShyTorque]

One assumes that it was something other than the standard tandem seating Husky ?

Well assumed! :)

But for the further education of those who wrongly think the aviation world stops at the end of their personal knowledge :rolleyes: , it was a Beagle Husky, built as a utility aircraft. Basically a Lycoming engined Auster. The one I flew had a hook and was primarily used for banner towing. Unfortunately it was later written off in a banner pick up accident, definitely not by me though. It had two side by side seats and one in the back. Some had four seats.

Beagle Husky - multi-purpose (http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/beagle_husky.php)

JetPhotos.Net Photo » G-ATCD (CN: 3683) Private Beagle D5/180 Husky by Oliver Holmes (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6867356&nseq=1)

Beagle Husky G-ATCD: Picture No. 2905 from Pixstel (http://pixstel.com/beagle-husky-g-atcd_urlt2905.php?id=1)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Just curious about the "right hand seat" in an airplane that has tandem seats: one in front of the other. Whereas there's no right hand seat, just a front and back seat, to go "right" you'd need to be outside the door and hanging on the strut.

Nice one ShyT. I know Guppy can't see my post but I'm looking forward to Mr Experienced's response to you.

I've copied his post for posterity.

[SNS3Guppy]

It had two side by side seats and one in the back. Some had four seats.

Interesting.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Nice one ST that showed us!

Now i'm going to photoshop an 6 seater tomahawk see if anybody goes for it?

[FlyingKiwi_73]

no fooling this is why i check the brakes before going anywhere.

http://images.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/27919/Pn37830.jpg

there are to many nice expensive aircraft at Omaka! Although a tommie prop may not reach a nanchang!

[NutLoose]

Buccaneer had front and rear seats offset too.....

[ShyTorque]

(Warning - thread drift alert)

Re the "Husky" again, here is a link to a photo of the actual aircraft:

Photograph of Aircraft G-AVOD (http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-AVOD&imgname=G-AVOD001&imgtype=jpg)

Here's what happened to it:

Air Accidents Investigation: Beagle Auster D5 Series 180 Husky, G-AVOD (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/october_1992/beagle_auster_d5_series_180_husky__g_avod.cfm?view=screen&)

Buccaneer had front and rear seats offset too.

Not sure what you're inferring there, Nutloose... maybe you also think the four seater version of the Husky had a stretched fuselage with four seats front to back, all in one row? :p

[Ultra long hauler]

I had been trying to stop using the heel rests.

Oops!! I bet you didn´t slow down too much!!
I guess you never used them before T/O etc, that day.
Quite a story and by the way, that instructor owed you more than an apology--> this story´s got "cold beer" all over it.

I know Guppy can't see my post
??????
Why would that be?
Would that be something to do with Guppy´s browser settings or are you implying something else?

But brakes are important, aren´t they?
What if you flare a bit too long?
Plane]Not Found • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control (http://videosift.com/video/Plane-overruns-runway-at-St-Barths-airport) overshoots runway at St. Barts airport • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control[/url]


###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No. I'm on his ignore list, apparently. :rolleyes:

[Maoraigh1]

Nobody's mentioned the problem if one wheel has a rubbing point, which would be hardly noticeable with brakes O.K., but makes a brake steered taildragger uncontrollable following brake failure. And the fire possibility with the friction + leaked brake fluid. On a Jodel DR1050 a seized slave brake cylinder can lead to rudder restriction on that side.

[SNS3Guppy]

I think the point was raised earlier in the discussion. As you've touched on it again, however, given that much of the time when taxiing a conventional gear ("tail dragger") airplane, one doesn't use the brakes, including aircraft which have no steering beyond the brakes, a little brake rub doesn't mean one will wind up in the ditch.

Most airplanes with brakes-only for steering have lockable tailwheels, and may of these airplanes are taxied straight with the tailwheels locked (unlocking for turns). There's nothing to preclude being able to taxi, necesssarily, but there's also no reason why one wouldn't discover it with brakes not working when it would remain hidden with brakes fully operative. After all, brakes don't hide such a problem, and it may be the repeated need for braking on one side that reveals it.

It generally takes a lot more braking action than a little rub to cause a fire. I don't know if you've ever had a brake fire; I have, but it took a LOT of braking to make it happen, and in the brake installations in most light airplanes, it's a hard thing to do unless the brake puck packings are fully eroded and already leaking, and the pads are so thin as to allow extreme excessive travel on the puck.

[tmmorris]

I once did an IMCR renewal in a C152 when I and the examiner both knew the right brake was inop. With hindsight, we succumbed to pressonitis - it would have been a pain to reschedule the test, the weather was perfect and we'd prebooked the necessary approaches at Lyneham.

It was a non-event, as it turns out (apart from the embarrassing attempt to make a right turn off the runway on arrival, which became a 270deg left turn instead). Far more worrying was that on the way back from Lyneham I accidentally squawked 7700 instead of 7000 for about 20 seconds before ATC asked if we were all right..! (I passed, though I wonder if I should have...)

Tim

[Ultra long hauler]

It was a non-event, as it turns out (apart from the embarrassing attempt to make a right turn off the runway on arrival, which became a 270deg left turn instead). Far more worrying was that on the way back from Lyneham I accidentally squawked 7700 instead of 7000 for about 20 seconds before ATC asked if we were all right..! (I passed, though I wonder if I should have...)

Tim

Haha…….good one!
But like you said, a bit of "Getthere-itis"………I think we all know it at times.
But combine this with Katamarino´s story about having to land on a short runway………and you´d seriously kick yourself.

Actually 2 days ago I flew with a brake that was "iffy"…..working, but not perfect.
I didn´t realize until after the landing………so I left the runway a bit faster than I normally would have!

All fixed again now!!

###Ultra long Hauler###

[Ultra long hauler]

Actually 2 days ago I flew with a brake that was "iffy"…..working, but not perfect.
I didn´t realize until after the landing………so I left the runway a bit faster than I normally would have!

All fixed again now!!

Famous last words!!
What do you Brits call this again; "Sod´s law"??

Today, on short final into the club; I felt something weird on my throttle…….I checked, and there it was--> the brake handle hanging loose off of my throttle.

Yes, mine is "hand braked"……..1 handle, for both sides.

Hmm, not a big tragedy I suppose, but as explained before, our runway doesn´t spring to mind when it comes to the longest / widest runway in the world, and I am very much a novice as a pilot.
I considered my options, with the sun setting rather fast; and in the end I felt confident that I´d be able to stop in time. (or otherwise do a go around).

I came in very short, probably touched the plants at the threshold of the runway with my main gear……..but landed horribly rough; yet it looked good distance wise, I aimed for the rough grass on the sides of the runway and switched off the engine.

I still had 150 meters to spare when we came to a halt!! No sweat!!

Question: why was my landing so bad today?
Concentrating on the wrong things?
My instructor / mechanic wasn´t there but he congratulated me over the phone for the experience as a pilot that I got today!

Time for a cold one now!

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[SNS3Guppy]

What are you flying that has a brake attached to a throttle?

[Ultra long hauler]

What are you flying that has a brake attached to a throttle?

Good question, Guppy!
Hope you can see it on the following pic……….the centre stick is the throttle, and yes………the "pushbike brake" kind of handle are in facts my brakes!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/Throttle.jpg

For your reference:
Slipstream Genesis, Slipstream Industries Genesis, Genesis light sport aircraft and two place ultralight. (http://www.ultralightnews.com/ulbg2/slipstream-genesis.html)

I am in the middle of an upgrade……but in the meantime I´m building up some hours--> nothing wrong with starting at square 1, right?


###Ultra Long Hauler###

[SNS3Guppy]

Ah, okay. So again, what are you flying that's got a brake handle on the throttle?

[Ultra long hauler]

Ah, okay. So again, what are you flying that's got a brake handle on the throttle?
Sorry, I´m afraid I don´t follow………..I´m rather new on this site, so I may not catch the local slang just yet……
I thought I explained the details in my former post.

Am I not supposed to fly this particular aircraft, according to you??

Please motivate your point, if you don´t mind; Guppy--> I think we´re misunderstanding each other here.


###Ultra Long Hauler###

[SNS3Guppy]

Local slang? When someone says "what kind of aircraft is it?," you find this to be slang? English translation: specifically what kind of aircraft is it that you're flying? Not really that hard to grasp, you see. You could have said Cessna 152, Weedhopper, Quicksilver MX, F18 Hornet. What kind means just as it sounds. What kind of aircraft. Very complicated, that.

I said nothing about what you should or should not be doing. I asked you what aircraft you're flying. You didn't say. I asked you again.

If stating what aircraft you're flying is some kind of secret, fine. It's a simple question; one your'e apparently unwilling or unable to answer, for whatever reason.

You did post a web site for a seller of ultralights, which advertises a number of different kinds of ultralights.

If it's a deep, dark, secret-squirrel classified ultralight project, then so be it. It's a simple question. Forget I asked. I really wasn't that interested.

[Cough]

Coming back to the original... Why has the brakes failed? Is it a fluid leak? Where is that fluid leaking to? Electrics? Ignition? Has the mount for the calliper failed leading to tyre damage? Has some part of the brake actuating system failed/loose leading to that part falling down and obstructing say the rudder control? Do you want me to go on?

IMHO, it's one thing operating where the cause of the failure is known and analysed, but it's another pressing on in a state of ignorance.

The OP did the right thing.

[Ultra long hauler]

Local slang? When someone says "what kind of aircraft is it?," you find this to be slang? English translation: specifically what kind of aircraft is it that you're flying? Not really that hard to grasp, you see. You could have said Cessna 152, Weedhopper, Quicksilver MX, F18 Hornet. What kind means just as it sounds. What kind of aircraft. Very complicated, that.

I said nothing about what you should or should not be doing. I asked you what aircraft you're flying. You didn't say. I asked you again.

If stating what aircraft you're flying is some kind of secret, fine. It's a simple question; one your'e apparently unwilling or unable to answer, for whatever reason.

You did post a web site for a seller of ultralights, which advertises a number of different kinds of ultralights.

If it's a deep, dark, secret-squirrel classified ultralight project, then so be it. It's a simple question. Forget I asked. I really wasn't that interested.

Take it easy, mate!
I was just asking.

The shortcut of the link I provided did mention "Slipstream Genesis" but if you didn't get that info, don't take it out on me.
It may be a browser thing, certain details may not appear on your screen like I expected it to......for me it seemed perfectly clear.
You seem to get overly angry over nothing, while I approached you in a friendly way. .
I'm not here to fight or fall out, if that's your goal on this site, please advise and I will stay well clear......

Please, this was a misunderstanding, no need for an overdose of sarcasm just because we miscommunicated.

"Cough", thank you for your comnent.
It was a loose cable actually.

Regards,

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[stevelup]

You did post a web site for a seller of ultralights, which advertises a number of different kinds of ultralights.

Unless he's edited the post since you looked, the link provided is specifically for the Slipstream Genesis.

It is, however, a horrid website though and you have to scroll past a whole screen worth of adverts before you get to the content which is half way down the page. It may be this that caught you out.

[SNS3Guppy]

Take it easy, mate!
I was just asking.

Actually your words:

Please motivate your point, if you don´t mind; Guppy

Too motivated, for you?

The shortcut of the link I provided did mention "Slipstream Genesis" but if you didn't get that info, don't take it out on me.

Nobody took anything out on you. You refused to state what aircraft you flew (you still haven't), and that's okay. You provided a link which listed the Slipstream Genesis, Slipstream Industries Genesis, Genisis Light Sport Aircraft and the two place ultralight, L'il Buzzard, L'il Hustler, L'il Hustler SS, and which sells ultralight parts and links to other ultralight sites. No mention was made of a specific aircraft. Perhaps it was your intention to have us guess.

As I said, it's not that big a deal. I was curious, that's all. If you'd prefer not to divulge this state secret, that's your privilege.

I'm not here to fight or fall out, if that's your goal on this site, please advise and I will stay well clear......

Not at all. Nobody is picking a fight. Somebody asked you a simple question. After three tries now, still no answer. That's fine. Have a nice day.

[stevelup]

SNS3Guppy, click his link and scroll down past the adverts. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The page is for the Slipstream Genesis, and that aircraft alone.

Slipstream Genesis, Slipstream Industries Genesis, Genisis Light Sport Aircraft and the two place ultralight

That's just a misguided attempt at search engine optimisation... As I said, horrible website but the information is there.

[Tarq57]

A simple "The aircraft is a Slipstream Genesis" and a link to a site or photo probably would have prevented any misunderstanding.

That appears to be all this is.

(Assuming it is that a/c, of course. It's not 100% clear to me, either.)

[kevmusic]

Bl**dy Hell!! How things get messed up on the internet! :(

[Ultra long hauler]

Unless he's edited the post since you looked, the link provided is specifically for the Slipstream Genesis.


No, not edited at all………..it is what it is. It is that simple!

SNS3Guppy, click his link and scroll down past the adverts. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The page is for the Slipstream Genesis, and that aircraft alone.

Why, thank you! Apparently for some this is too hard to grasp!!

A simple "The aircraft is a Slipstream Genesis" and a link to a site or photo probably would have prevented any misunderstanding.


How is "The aircraft is a Slipstream Genesis" so much different from:



For your reference:
Slipstream Genesis, Slipstream Industries Genesis, Genesis light sport aircraft and two place ultralight. (http://www.ultralightnews.com/ulbg2/slipstream-genesis.html)


Honestly, the fuss some people make……….


Bl**dy Hell!! How things get messed up on the internet! :(

Roger that, shame how a nice thread becomes such a hostile mess over some simple misunderstanding.

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[ShyTorque]

I thought the answer was plain enough to see - the aircraft name and a photo of the type were on the link, exactly as posted.

Perhaps a Braille link or instructions on how to use a mouse are needed? :confused:

[Ultra long hauler]

I thought the answer was plain enough to see - the aircraft name and a photo of the type were on the link, exactly as posted.

Perhaps a Braille link or instructions on how to use a mouse are needed? :confused:

Hahaha, that made my day!!
It´s good to know that I´m not the one going crazy over nothing here!

###Ultra Long Hauler###