Dublinpilot wrote:
I read that differently. I understood that they reckon it wa 20kg overweight leaving Strathaven, and lighter leaving Bute (due to fuel burned off). So it might or might not have been overweight leaving Bute, but certainly was lighter than it was leaving Strathaven.
At least that's how I read it, but admit it could be read differently.
DP, the AAIB report is very clear:
Weight and Balance
Aircraft empty weight and balance
The last documented weight and balance of the aircraft was dated 18 January 2010. While
the documentation did not record which propeller was fitted, the initial flight test report,
dated 30 June 2010, stated that it was a Woodcomp Klassic. LAA inspectors who undertook
the inspection for the issue and renewal of the Permit to Fly between 2011 and 2014 all
recorded that the Klassic propeller was fitted. However, there is photographic evidence that
shows that G-EWZZ was fitted with the Woodcomp SR/3000/3 variable pitch propeller on a
number of occasions between 2011 and the date of the accident. The pilot also stated that
when he purchased the aircraft in September 2013 it was fitted with the Woodcomp variable
pitch propeller and that he had at no time removed or replaced this propeller. The fitment
of the heavier variable pitch propeller would have an effect on the weight and balance of
the aircraft.
The Maximum Takeoff Weight of the SportCruiser is 600 kg and the operating Centre of Gravity (CG) range is 405 to 507 mm aft of the aircraft datum. The aircraft weight and balance report, dated 18 January 2010, made no reference to an autopilot having been fitted to the aircraft and recorded the empty weight and position as:
Empty weight 373.70 kg
Empty CG 441.64 mm aft of datum’
Following the accident the empty weight and balance was calculated by the LAA, with the
Woodcomp SR 3000/3 variable pitch propeller and autopilot fitted, as:
‘Empty weight 393.7 kg
Empty CG 368.3 mm aft of datum’
Aircraft weight and balance at the start of the accident flight
As a result of the fire damage, and injuries sustained by the occupants, it was not possible
to make an accurate calculation of the weight and balance of the aircraft at the start of the
accident flight. Both the pilot and passenger’s weights would have increased as a result of
their medical treatment and therefore the weights were estimated by reducing their postaccident
weights to give a predicted pre-flight weight of 100 kg and 110 kg.
The amount of fuel on the aircraft was unknown, but to allow for the planned flight, with a
small reserve, it was unlikely to be less than 20 ltr of fuel weighing 14.8 kg.
The minimum aircraft weight, and position of the CG, was estimated at the start of the
accident flight to have been:
‘Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp Klassic propeller
Take-off weight 598.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 539 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)
24 © Crown copyright 2015
AAIB Bulletin: 5/2015 G-EWZZ EW/C2014/08/01
Aircraft equipped with Woodcomp SR 3000/3 propeller and autopilot
Take-off weight 618.5 kg (limit 600 kg)
Take-off CG 536 mm aft of datum (limit 405 to 570 mm)’
So..... even if it had been fitted with the "correct" propeller, the aircraft would have had capacity for just 1.5 Litres of fuel.
Best case, from the Pilot's position, would be that the AAIB have over estimated the weight of both on board, they took on fuel at Bute, and planned to stop at Prestwick for more on the way home.
This of course depends on the Pilot not knowing that the "wrong" prop was fitted, not being aware that the autopilot weight was not included in the W&B figures and oh yeah, how did they plan on getting to Bute with so little fuel when they departed Strathaven.
But..... if the Pilot hasn't been swapping Props for the LAA inspections, and I'm not suggesting that he did, how exactly did the paperwork, photographs and reality all get so confused?