C-172 Nosewheel Steering

aloft

aloft

New Member
The 172 I fly had the nosewheel steering go out yesterday, a failure of the bungee I believe, though the local shop can't seem to verify this or find another cause, nor do anything about it. The owner is reluctant to fix it (whatever "it" turns out to be) since a) it's costly, and b) directional control while taxiing can be accomplished via differential braking. Without differential braking, there is zero directional control, less a tiny bit of propwash deflection from the rudder.

My question is: is the aircraft legally airworthy in this condition? Directional control while taxi is no problem, but the early phase of the takeoff roll prior to attaining sufficient airflow for rudder effectiveness is.

What say ye?
 
I might be wrong, but I think without an MEL, everything has to legally be functioning on the aircraft.

Ehh, scratch that, it's nothing more than a guess.
 
aloft said:
The 172 I fly had the nosewheel steering go out yesterday, a failure of the bungee I believe, though the local shop can't seem to verify this or find another cause, nor do anything about it. The owner is reluctant to fix it (whatever "it" turns out to be) since a) it's costly, and b) directional control while taxiing can be accomplished via differential braking. Without differential braking, there is zero directional control, less a tiny bit of propwash deflection from the rudder.

My question is: is the aircraft legally airworthy in this condition? Directional control while taxi is no problem, but the early phase of the takeoff roll prior to attaining sufficient airflow for rudder effectiveness is.

What say ye?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. What happens if a wind gust suddenly comes up and knocks you way off centerline before rudder effectiveness. It has happened to me and I would not feel comfortable flying and airplane unless it has nosewheel. It would be a safety issue even if the aircraft was legal.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I might be wrong, but I think without an MEL, everything has to legally be functioning on the aircraft.

Ehh, scratch that, it's nothing more than a guess.
Click to expand...
you would be correct though

Not that operating it would necessarily be patently "unsafe". Hell the Diamonds do it all day every day. But if you did happen to have an incident and it comes out that you knew about a mechanical problem before flight........no better way to say this than you're screwed.
 
aloft said:
The 172 I fly had the nosewheel steering go out yesterday, a failure of the bungee I believe, though the local shop can't seem to verify this or find another cause, nor do anything about it. The owner is reluctant to fix it (whatever "it" turns out to be) since a) it's costly, and b) directional control while taxiing can be accomplished via differential braking. Without differential braking, there is zero directional control, less a tiny bit of propwash deflection from the rudder.

My question is: is the aircraft legally airworthy in this condition? Directional control while taxi is no problem, but the early phase of the takeoff roll prior to attaining sufficient airflow for rudder effectiveness is.

What say ye?
Click to expand...
IMHOP as and airframe mech I say no. No bungee no go! I guess if you really want to take it then you'd probably have to do soft field t/o and landings to minimize steering. Bungees don't cost that much....well as of 2005 they didn't, and they're not really hard to fix. What does the mech say as far as airworthiness? I'm sure he mirrors my sentiments. It's a mishap waiting to happen.
 
I was under the impression that, for operations without an MEL under Part 91, broken instruments and equipment could be removed and placarded "inoperative." See 14 CFR 91.213(d). I don't know how you remove the nosewheel steering system from a 172 though.

It does say a pilot or mechanic must determine that the inop item does not "constitute a hazard to the aircraft." If the owner doesn't want to fix it, so be it. That doesn't mean you need to fly it that way!
 
Clarification: inop items can also be "deactivated" and placarded. I guess that involves maintenance anyway, so you might as well fix it while you're in there.
 
Yep - be careful with that thing. It is an incident waiting to happen. And if you make the choice to fly it knowing that there is something wrong....PIC baby.

I'm going to guess from the sound of the situation that there is not an MEL associated with the plane, so as long as the mech says its okay then it is okay.

Don't forget that if you fill out a squawk sheet for a plane which is used for hire, then it should be automatically grounded until a mechanic gives it the okay.....might be a good way to get a mech to look at it.:bandit:
 
It's most likely going to be required on the aircraft's equipment list. So it's a "no go" item.
 
JimmyDean said:
I was under the impression that, for operations without an MEL under Part 91, broken instruments and equipment could be removed and placarded "inoperative." See 14 CFR 91.213(d). I don't know how you remove the nosewheel steering system from a 172 though.

It does say a pilot or mechanic must determine that the inop item does not "constitute a hazard to the aircraft." If the owner doesn't want to fix it, so be it. That doesn't mean you need to fly it that way!
Click to expand...

This is true, but this also assumes the aircraft meets all the airworthiness requirements set forth under Part 23 (the part 172's are certified under I believe).

From what I've read, Part 23 doesn't say much about nosewheel steering other than if it is installed it has to basically not require a lot of skill to operate. I would guess that taking off a 172 without nosewheel steering might require a bit of skill.
 
As Ben said, there are plenty of aircraft with castering nosewheels, and that's essentially what this airplane has become. The only question in my mind is whether the bungee system is required equipment; unfortunately, the equipment list in the POH isn't that detailed, it simply lists the nosewheel assembly as including wheel, tire, tube, strut.

After reviewing 91.213, I'm tending toward the opinion that the airplane may simply need to be placarded "NOSEWHEEL STEERING INOPERATIVE" but really need some help determining whether it is considered required equipment by Cessna--which would render it non-placardable per 91.213(d)(2)(ii). Think they'd field a call on an '81 C-172P or tell me to buzz off?
 
aloft said:
As Ben said, there are plenty of aircraft with castering nosewheels, and that's essentially what this airplane has become. The only question in my mind is whether the bungee system is required equipment; unfortunately, the equipment list in the POH isn't that detailed, it simply lists the nosewheel assembly as including wheel, tire, tube, strut.

After reviewing 91.213, I'm tending toward the opinion that the airplane may simply need to be placarded "NOSEWHEEL STEERING INOPERATIVE" but really need some help determining whether it is considered required equipment by Cessna--which would render it non-placardable per 91.213(d)(2)(ii). Think they'd field a call on an '81 C-172P or tell me to buzz off?
Click to expand...

Here's how I see it. Again, I'm no expert on small planes, nor even a semblance of highly proficient knowledge.

That being said, there are some universal rules to apply.

1) Is it safe? No. These types of situations now, are what give you seasoning to be a Captain later. You quesitoned the situation, and you seem uncomfortable with it. Trust your gut. The company says it's good to go, you say no. The guy at the desk isn't strapped in to the beast.

2) Installed equipment versus airplane parts. A Nav revceiver is installed equipment. Parts designed to steer an airplane = certified airplane. On other aircraft you have what's called an MEL and a CDL. A MEL is for inoperative equipment (ie Inoperative GPS). A CDL is configuration Deviation List and that's for missing parts. Typically panels and lens covers. The way I read the FAR, the steering system is not in the "spirit" of the law. Further, how can you ensure the system is deactivated as to no adverse affects when using the other system (rudder) via the same controls.

3) The bungee system (Is a bungee a system?) is broken. How do you know the broken bungee parts won't affect the nosewheel steering or the rudder if they're bouncing around?

4) Airplanes like the Diamond and grumman were designed with a free-castoring nosewheel. The C172 isn't. It was designed with a bungee-type steering system (appearantly)


Fly safe.
 
Excellent questions.

In discussing the matter with my boss (and leveraging the excellent advice received here). I explained that the problem is three-fold: 1) is the airplane safe to fly, 2) is the airplane legal to fly, and 3) the liability question. Fortunately, as he usually does after a cooling off period, my boss has come around on the issue and decided to trust my judgment so tomorrow we're going to dig further into the problem and get it fixed properly rather than find a loophole via which to ignore it.
 
Nosewheel steering is not required by the manufacturer per the equipment list, or by 91.205, so that would seem to suggest that, per 91.213, it can be deactivated and placarded inoperative. How would you do that? *shrug*

The steering is operated by struts that go from the inboard rudder pedals to the steering collar, inside the strut is a spring that allows full rudder travel without forcing full nosewheel travel, it's this spring that breaks and renders the strut useless.

To remove it requires a fair bit of work and if you have it out why not replace it? Besides, even if you do deactivate it and placard it inoperative you still must address it at the next inspection. What are you saving? Is it unsafe? No, not really. I've never known one to jam, they just slide harmlessly and if you know ahead of time it's not hard to adapt.

The sad truth is that what goes on in books and what goes on in the real world are often much different. I've seen airplanes (none under my care) where the steering links were broken for a long time and nothing was done.

The good news is that you can speak with your wallet. When enough people notice that maintenance is not done as it should be and stop flying the airplane, the owner will learn that good maintenance, while sometimes costly, ends up putting more money in his or her pocket.
 
Polar742 said:
2) Installed equipment versus airplane parts. A Nav revceiver is installed equipment. Parts designed to steer an airplane = certified airplane.
Click to expand...
I agree.

One of the requirements for airworthiness is that the airplane must conform to its type design, or be in a properly altered condition. An aircraft is considered properly altered when inoperative equipment is deactivated and placarded according to 91.213. However, the nosewheel steering mechanism is part of the aircraft, not equipment. In my opinion, it's not eligible to be deactivated and placarded any more than an oleo strut or something similar would be.
 
Berkut said:
the nosewheel steering mechanism is part of the aircraft, not equipment. In my opinion, it's not eligible to be deactivated and placarded any more than an oleo strut or something similar would be.
Click to expand...

I guess I based my perception of the nosewheel steering as "equipment" on the fact that it's on so many Minimum Equipment Lists as deferrable.

Of course, it's important to remember that the purpose of an MEL is to allow an aircraft to be flown in a safe condition for a limited time until appropriate repairs can be made. Not so an owner can indefinitely put off doing (expensive) repairs on a broken aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top