The reason I mentioned the lack of a weight analysis in an earlier post is this taken from another 1124A accident.
Because of the Westwind II design, a small change to the aircraft's load can result in a relatively large shift to the aircraft's centre-of-gravity (C of G) position. The aircraft's C of G envelope is published in Section VIII-21 of the Westwind II Airplane Flight Manual . The lower portion of that envelope identifies two separate zones. The manual indicates that, if the aircraft's zero fuel weight falls within zone 1, then fuel may be loaded up to the maximum ramp weight without exceeding the C of G limits. However, in order to maximize the aircraft's payload, the aircraft's C of G at its zero fuel weight is normally adjusted to the aft-most limit of zone 1. As passengers, baggage, and fuel are then added, the C of G will move progressively ahead, toward the forward limit of the operating C of G range. This adjustment to the zero fuel weight C of G position is accomplished through the use of removable ballast.
Prior to departing from the Edmonton Municipal Airport, the flight crew had positioned 100 pounds of removable ballast (four 25-pound bags of lead shot) into the aft baggage compartment in order to configure the aircraft's C of G to allow for the loading of eight passengers at Meadow Lake.
The aircraft's weight and balance for the re-positioning flight to Meadow Lake were within prescribed limits. Its weight for the time of the accident was estimated to be 18,138 pounds, and the distribution of that load would have placed the aircraft's C of G at the aft limit of the aircraft's C of G operating range.
So did the CoG have any implication for not filling the tips?