Am I way off base here....

[Palmpilot]

I would certainly consider myself obligated to pay for the tire if I had damaged one to that extent. The only exception would be if the insurance contract was worded in such a way as to cover it. (I realize that insurance wouldn't normally cover that, but one of my flying clubs sells optional "deductible waiver insurance," and it's possible that might cover something like this, but I haven't looked into it.)

I guess that's why my instructor was always telling me "Heels on floor! Heels on Floor!" when I was landing.

 

[rpadula]

So here are the pics of the tire I killed
Pic one shows the undamaged side
Pic two shows what I did to it

Lesson definately learned

Glad to see you're getting back out there Jeremy! Keep working on those lessons!!!

I would certainly consider myself obligated to pay for the tire if I had damaged one to that extent. The only exception would be if the insurance contract was worded in such a way as to cover it. (I realize that insurance wouldn't normally cover that, but one of my flying clubs sells optional "deductible waiver insurance," and it's possible that might cover something like this, but I haven't looked into it.)

Well, that was the big question. Jeremy's a solo-level student and came in wondering if his flight school's $2.50/hr "insurance plan" should cover this item. Instead, he got a whole rash of ****.

 

[jesse]

So here are the pics of the tire I killed
Pic one shows the undamaged side
Pic two shows what I did to it

Lesson definately learned

That's a hell of a flat spot. That is the result of quite a bit of sliding with the tire locked. Not just a short "**** moment".

Paying for that damage is/was the right thing to do.

 

[Henning]

Well, you fried a nearly new tire, I'm not sure why you're upset about being charged for it. You pay an extra 2 bucks an hour so you don't have to buy a rental policy that wouldn't cover that mistake anyway. I wouldn't be too upset with them, you do admit you did it, it wasn't like the brake locked up, you screwed up the landing. If you needed that much brake in a good airplane, you should have gone around. As you say, lesson learned. Some lessons are more expensive than others, a $100 lesson in aviation is damned cheap really, some cost thousands and even lives.

 

[Henning]

Well, that was the big question. Jeremy's a solo-level student and came in wondering if his flight school's $2.50/hr "insurance plan" should cover this item. Instead, he got a whole rash of ****.

I have never seen this type of tire damage covered by insurance, in fact, it's typically specifically excluded. When I started renting again a few years ago, I found that some places allow you to pay a $2-$5 premium in lieu of having a renters policy (typical requirement I was seeing was $10,000) of my own. Seems like a good value to me considering how little I rent. Not all places offered that option and renters insurance isn't exactly cheap, nor would it cover a tire I destroyed.

 

[EdFred]

Well, at least it wasn't a wheel pant.

 

[Trapper John]

That's a hell of a flat spot. That is the result of quite a bit of sliding with the tire locked. Not just a short "**** moment".

Paying for that damage is/was the right thing to do.

Seeing that tire makes me wonder exactly what happened. It obviously was locked for a long time, but what about the other main tire?

Seems a little hard to imagine a person could grind that much rubber off one main tire, not damage the other main tire and keep the a/c going anywhere near straight down the runway.

 

[SkyHog]

The tire is pretty bad. That's a big mistake, not just landing and hitting the brakes a little hard.

But my opinion remains. The Flight School covers the tire, not you.

 

[AcroBoy]

Wear and tear on trainers is the cost of doing business in a flight school. You did not intentionally wear a flat spot in the tire. They should not charge you. Unless it was intentional, the responsibility partially lies with your instructor, who should have educated you about hard stops, etc. Would not pay, and tell them that if they force the issue they will lose a customer.

 

[rpadula]

I have never seen this type of tire damage covered by insurance, in fact, it's typically specifically excluded. When I started renting again a few years ago, I found that some places allow you to pay a $2-$5 premium in lieu of having a renters policy (typical requirement I was seeing was $10,000) of my own. Seems like a good value to me considering how little I rent. Not all places offered that option and renters insurance isn't exactly cheap, nor would it cover a tire I destroyed.

Oh yeah, I agree. We've both been around aviation long enough (you longer than me) to know this wouldn't be covered. It just seems that some respondents here forgot what it was like to be a total n00b student before piling on Jeremy.

 

[ScottM]

Oh yeah, I agree. We've both been around aviation long enough (you longer than me) to know this wouldn't be covered. It just seems that some respondents here forgot what it was like to be a total n00b student before piling on Jeremy.

Exactly.

One would think from reading some of the responses that the everyone was perfect when they were learning and never made a mistake.

 

[jtheune]

I don't think anyone claimed to be perfect, just that they owned up to mistakes that they made. If you make a mistake and cause damage to someone property then you should fix/pay for it. Flat spotting a tire to the extent that he did is not normal wear and tear

 

[jtheune]

Wear and tear on trainers is the cost of doing business in a flight school. You did not intentionally wear a flat spot in the tire. They should not charge you. Unless it was intentional, the responsibility partially lies with your instructor, who should have educated you about hard stops, etc. Would not pay, and tell them that if they force the issue they will lose a customer.

How do you explain the level of tire wear if not by intentional deployment of the brakes far in excess if what was need to stop the plane?

 

[Trapper John]

How do you explain the level of tire wear if not by intentional deployment of the brakes far in excess if what was need to stop the plane?

How does a solo student know what "far in excess" is if s/he has never been taught that by the CFI?

I think there's a real instruction failure tied to this situation, but everyone seems too preoccupied with bagging on Jeremy to recognize this.

 

[kgruber]

I'd make your instructor pay. He's the one who soloed you before you were competent. Why should YOU pay for HIS mistakes?

And....I'd try to find out who signed off your instructor to be an instructor. Clearly, HE TOO, is at fault here for your botched touch and go. He should be required to pay up as well.

Also, who manufactured the tire.............they certainly have some liability here. How about the runway. Is it paved? Probably. You'd just slide on grass or dirt. Who decided to pave that runway and cause you to flat spot the tire. It's their fault at LEAST as much as yours.

Was it a Cessna? THEY have lots of money, especially now that they make jets for a bunch of arrogant snobs. I'd give them a call.

In the end, who cares! It's probably just a leaseback. The owner of the plane should pay. He pays for everything else, doesn't he? And, it's just a big tax dodge for him to own that POS. You'd be doing him a favor to allow HIM to pay.

Whatever, don't pay up. It is clearly sombody elses fault!

 

[azure]

Seems a little hard to imagine a person could grind that much rubber off one main tire, not damage the other main tire and keep the a/c going anywhere near straight down the runway.

I've been following this thread without commenting, but that was my thought. It looks like the brake must have been locked on touchdown (high speed forward motion). If the other side wasn't, the plane should have veered violently. If it was, it should have a flat spot too.

The FBO/flight school I used to rent from apparently had a problem with damage like this and started a policy a couple of years ago where if they found a flat-spotted tire after you flew, you were responsible. They "encouraged" all renters to document flat spots before takeoff. If you missed one that a previous pilot caused, you were still on the hook.

I'm not sure they apply it to student pilots though. I feel that's way over-the-top unduly harsh, especially for a newly soloed student. The instructor should bear most of the responsibility... and cost.

 

[jtheune]

How does a solo student know what "far in excess" is if s/he has never been taught that by the CFI?

I think there's a real instruction failure tied to this situation, but everyone seems too preoccupied with bagging on Jeremy to recognize this.

Did you look at the tire picture? If you have had any kind of training or experience in driving a car or flying a plane at some point during the brake lockup /skid that would have been required to produce that output you should have figured out that you stepped on the break too hard.

 

[Trapper John]

I've been following this thread without commenting, but that was my thought. It looks like the brake must have been locked on touchdown (high speed forward motion). If the other side wasn't, the plane should have veered violently. If it was, it should have a flat spot too.

Maybe if the operation is so desperate for $100, they can't afford to properly maintain the braking system...

The FBO/flight school I used to rent from apparently had a problem with damage like this and started a policy a couple of years ago where if they found a flat-spotted tire after you flew, you were responsible. They "encouraged" all renters to document flat spots before takeoff. If you missed one that a previous pilot caused, you were still on the hook.

And I think that's entirely reasonable for renter pilots.

I'm not sure they apply it to student pilots though. I feel that's way over-the-top unduly harsh, especially for a newly soloed student. The instructor should bear most of the responsibility... and cost.

Well, the FBO/flight school in question got their sorely needed C-note. But Jeremy has wisely decided to change schools, so they won the battle but lost the war.

 

[AcroBoy]

Students are going to make mistakes, hopefully less than experienced pilots. What if he had porpoised, landed on the nose gear, bent the firewall and dinged the prop? Would this have been his fault or that of the instructor for not teaching him? Yes, he did intentionally apply the brakes, but he did not realize the potential damage to the tire, and he did not intentionally apply the brakes to damage the tire. The school is responsible for the maintenance of the plane, unless they can clearly demonstrate that he intentionally tried to damage the tire.

 

[kgruber]

Did you look at the tire picture? If you have had any kind of training or experience in driving a car or flying a plane at some point during the brake lockup /skid that would have been required to produce that output you should have figured out that you stepped on the break too hard.

What broke?

 

[Trapper John]

Did you look at the tire picture?

Yep, and you could have answered your own question had you read the thread...

If you have had any kind of training or experience in driving a car or flying a plane...

Well, duh, Jeremy doesn't exactly have a lot of experience flying since he's a solo student. But thanks for reinforcing my point about the instructional failure!

 

[JamesB]

The expenses for the airplane WILL be paid for by the renters of the airplane, plus some amount of profit for the flight school. The flight school needs some profit or it can't meet it's payments (the principle part) and will fold.

The only question here is "Is it fair to pass this particular expense onto all of the renters in the form of higher per-hour rent or is this expense unique and should be paid for by the person who caused the expense?"

Turn the situation around, would you want to pay for this expense if it was caused by one of the other renters of this aircraft? Is this expense normal for all renters, or is it an isolated expense caused by one renter.

Jim

 

[jtheune]

Yep, and you could have answered your own question had you read the thread...



Well, duh, Jeremy doesn't exactly have a lot of experience flying since he's a solo student. But thanks for reinforcing my point about the instructional failure!

Nice quote out of context. I did not agree with your point and don't think it was a failure of instruction, it was a operator failure.

 

[jtheune]

I've been following this thread without commenting, but that was my thought. It looks like the brake must have been locked on touchdown (high speed forward motion). If the other side wasn't, the plane should have veered violently. If it was, it should have a flat spot too.

The FBO/flight school I used to rent from apparently had a problem with damage like this and started a policy a couple of years ago where if they found a flat-spotted tire after you flew, you were responsible. They "encouraged" all renters to document flat spots before takeoff. If you missed one that a previous pilot caused, you were still on the hook.

I'm not sure they apply it to student pilots though. I feel that's way over-the-top unduly harsh, especially for a newly soloed student. The instructor should bear most of the responsibility... and cost.

While we can't know for sure what his ground path was, we can guess that since the brakes are independently controlled it's likely that he stepped harder on the left brake ( as you might in a car ) then the right ( or gas pedal using the same analogy ). When this thread first started I thought that perhaps he should be cut some slack because he was just post solo but after seeing the picture of the tire I'm not so sure. That amount of skidding should have alerted him to let off the brakes before it got down to the steel. It's also a good reinforcement of the 100.00 bill for him to realize that when the tires make that much noise release the brakes before really bad things happen.

 

[azure]

Did you look at the tire picture? If you have had any kind of training or experience in driving a car or flying a plane at some point during the brake lockup /skid that would have been required to produce that output you should have figured out that you stepped on the break too hard.

And considering that he didn't veer off the runway, the only thing I can think is that he did figure it out, in time to get the plane under control but not in time to prevent damage to the tire.

I reread the OP and this was his first solo. Anyone remember what that was like? Adrenaline surging, all nerve cells firing in sequence, but oh what pressure! He probably caught the mistake and corrected IMMEDIATELY.

It just wasn't soon enough.

And yes, good for him for switching schools. They got their $100 but lost his business. What goes around.

 

[Trapper John]

Nice quote out of context. I did not agree with your point and don't think it was a failure of instruction, it was a operator failure.

Not out of context at all. Here's what you wrote:

If you have had any kind of training or experience in driving a car or flying a plane at some point during the brake lockup /skid that would have been required to produce that output you should have figured out that you stepped on the break too hard.

When't the last time you drove a car without ABS? That's not remotely a valid comparison any more.

And it's the CFI's job to make sure the student has sufficient training and experience before signing s/he off for solo.

 

[EppyGA]

How does a solo student know what "far in excess" is if s/he has never been taught that by the CFI?

I think there's a real instruction failure tied to this situation, but everyone seems too preoccupied with bagging on Jeremy to recognize this.

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer your previous question about how someone could flatspot one tire that much and not have run the thing off the runway.

 

[rpadula]

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer your previous question about how someone could flatspot one tire that much and not have run the thing off the runway.

See if you can do it on your next time out!

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer your previous question about how someone could flatspot one tire that much and not have run the thing off the runway.

I admit that I'm not clear on that myself, unless the damage happened almost instantaneously and he was able to correct. I'd also be interested in how it felt/sounded taxiing with the flat spot. I would expect it to be noticeable. Because of that, I am presuming that he did actually cause the flat spot, because had it just been hidden during pre-flight he would have noticed it during taxi.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer your previous question about how someone could flatspot one tire that much and not have run the thing off the runway.

It's possible to flat spot a tire and not even know you did it until you get out of the airplane.

 

[Trapper John]

I'm still waiting for anyone to answer your previous question about how someone could flatspot one tire that much and not have run the thing off the runway.

Now that I've thought about it some more...

If we were to make a graph of brake pedal pressure v. deceleration, we'd see increasing deceleration with increasing pedal pressure up to the point of wheel lockup, then decreasing deceleration due to the locked wheel. So, I guess you could theoretically, by applying unequal pressure to the pedals, be beyond the peak of the curve (locked up) with one wheel and below the peak of the curve, but with equal deceleration with the other. In this case you wouldn't have to steer much at all to stay straight.

Not something I'd want to do field tests to prove, however...

 

[COFlyBoy]

Touching down with the brakes on can flatspot pretty quick, too.

I know of a guy with an ATP, and a type rating in the Jetstar who flatspotted a tire on a 182. Big feet on little brakes and had the tire locked on touchdown. He paid for the new tire....since it was his airplane. Kinda wierd that if this had been the OP's plane, there would have been no discussion.

I think the OP did the right thing. Pay for the damage (yes, I think prematurely wearing out a wearable part is damage), and move on to a to business that wants to keep its customers.

 

[EppyGA]

Now that I've thought about it some more...

If we were to make a graph of brake pedal pressure v. deceleration, we'd see increasing deceleration with increasing pedal pressure up to the point of wheel lockup, then decreasing deceleration due to the locked wheel. So, I guess you could theoretically, by applying unequal pressure to the pedals, be beyond the peak of the curve (locked up) with one wheel and below the peak of the curve, but with equal deceleration with the other. In this case you wouldn't have to steer much at all to stay straight.

Not something I'd want to do field tests to prove, however...

I understand your theory and don't disagree. It still seems like a lot of tread to scrub off in a short period of time. Is the rubber on these tires that soft? I would have thought they would be much harder considering their use.

 

[Henning]

Oh yeah, I agree. We've both been around aviation long enough (you longer than me) to know this wouldn't be covered. It just seems that some respondents here forgot what it was like to be a total n00b student before piling on Jeremy.

Oh, I don't hold tearing up a tire against him, s-t happens and he was on his first solo, no big deal. If it was a place that charges 150hr for a non G1000 172, I would expect them to buy the tire. If it was a $90 hr 172, I would expect to buy the tire pro rata (which in this case would have been full bill, that tire was just replaced withing the last 25hrs from the looks of it). Between that it could go either way, but in a circumstance where it was solidly my screw up, I would buy the tire. Now, if his instructor sent him to solo against his objections or counter to "prudent" standards general to flight instruction. I'd say about 3 consecutive flights where the landings were consistent with no intervention and no doubt about a "safe" conclusion would be a good standard. If he was in those standards, then you can't really fault the instructor, you have to solo em sometime.... I'm not looking to find fault, just pointing out that he screwed the tire on his own merits, so pay for it and get on with it....

 

[Henning]

I understand your theory and don't disagree. It still seems like a lot of tread to scrub off in a short period of time. Is the rubber on these tires that soft? I would have thought they would be much harder considering their use.

Airplane tires are of a relatively soft compound to provide maximum braking. They don't really see enough high heat/speed/load pavement time that it's of any benefit to make them harder. It is of great value in most applications to make them smaller and lighter with a high coefficient of friction.

 

[Unbeliever]

I've been a maintenance director for a couple of my club's airplanes.

I've seen some rather interesting flat spot and tire wear patterns. It's not hard to wear through the tire and still remain straight, especially on initial touchdown when you're still light.

I've seen a flatspotted sidewall from someone trying to take a taxiway exit a weee bit too fast. I've even seen a flatspotted nosewheel on a 152. No brakes on that wheel and nothing wrong with the wheel bearing.


--Carlos V.

 

[dmccormack]

If he was in those standards, then you can't really fault the instructor, you have to solo em sometime.... I'm not looking to find fault, just pointing out that he screwed the tire on his own merits, so pay for it and get on with it....

'zackly right.

Lots of "CFI is bad!" comments overlook the fact that students sometimes mess up. That's why they're "students." Learning = making mistakes.

 

[silver-eagle]

Cheap tires, cheap rubber. They wear quickly, especially on the rental fleet. Local school had a plane online that charged $5 an hour more than the others to cut down on student pilots. Theory was people wouldn't pay extra. As things turned out, it was the best equipped plane (dual comms/nav with gs, gps, electric trim). Worth the extra and the one I used the most.
The other thing to think about is the owner usually pays for maintenance on a leaseback. Maybe HE did, and the school got an extra $100. Or maybe he bitched about it, and the school went after the pilot responsible.
Fits in the "It depends" catagory.

 

[jesse]

It's possible to flat spot a tire and not even know you did it until you get out of the airplane.

Sure. A spot like the one in that picture though - there is no way in HELL you wouldn't know on a light single. Thud. Thud. Thud. Thud.

 

[aranpura]

After so many days on this thread, I just had to pop in and see what all the commotion was about!

I'm glad that Jeremy sorted out a good solution for himself, that he paid the $100 and that he left the flight school. I mostly agree with the early sentiments -- it's bad business to hit a student with this charge, and Jeremy proved his point by paying up and hitting the door.

I'm also a bit disappointed by the ad hominem comments early in this thread. PoA is a nice place to visit, mostly because those sorts of comments are rare. I've just gotten back from visiting a recumbent cycle forum that was filled to the brim with vitriol! On the other hand, Jeremy also got a lot of good advice from this community, so hopefully he's glad he posted the question in the first place.