Maximum weight for trial lesson [Archive]

SidT

23rd Feb 2014, 22:41

I'm 14.5 Stone and my instructor is 16 stone ... we did a W&B check and found that we were actually 90lb over in a c152 with full tanks....

A c172 or some of the other aircraft mentioned here will be fine, or even a c152 as long as you don't have full tanks and obviously a c172 or similar will probably cost more per hour than a c152.

A few places I know of probably won't even check and do a w/b unless the person looks especially heavy... not so sure I like that.

mad_jock

23rd Feb 2014, 23:08

To be honest everyday in the UK there must be tens of school aircraft if not hundreds taking off over weight.

Yes I know its not a good thing but its a fact of life.

Big Pistons Forever

23rd Feb 2014, 23:20

To be honest everyday in the UK there must be tens of school aircraft if not hundreds taking off over weight.

Yes I know its not a good thing but its a fact of life.

So why are so many pilots in the UK so obsessed with making sure every syllable of every radio call is absolutely in conformance with the CAP but don't care about flying aircraft over loaded and therefore by definition with an invalid C of A and potentially no insurance.:confused:

The 2 local flying schools I occasional help out at, require a full W & B be done before every flight, no exceptions. If an instructor flew an airplane over gross they would be immediately fired. :ok:

funfly

23rd Feb 2014, 23:35

However….

Don't be too blasé about weight. I flew a PA 28 (or 32, can't remember) out of an airfield in France on a hot day with 4 people on board, full tanks etc. very much on the limit and it was very bad news.

Did get off in the length of the runway, luckily it was a commercial airport but rate of climb was horrible. Never did it again :=

It's very easy, especially when travelling, to just fill up at an airfield and go without doing all the sums. I learnt the hard way.

cockney steve

24th Feb 2014, 10:48

the fact that the W&B figures are regularly broken, without aeroplanes falling out of the sky, tends to suggest the figures are very conservative.....I'm also minded of the 152? from Saigon? who landed on an USA aircraft carrier, with a full family aboard....reckon that would have been way off limits but he still had control!...not suggesting that flouting the rules is a good thing......

Genghis the Engineer

24th Feb 2014, 11:19

Whilst there's a maximum weight used for airworthiness purposes, it's not a hard operational limit for most aircraft. It is a limit for microlights, as defined by various regulations, and will be placarded.

In light aeroplanes (which actually use a lower structural value than most microlights) it's not a legal limit - so long as the overall aircraft weight and balance are not exceeded.

Legally of course - any exceedence invalidates the CofA/Permit, insurance, etc. etc.

In reality, going overweight a bit, in the vast majority of smaller aeroplanes, the vast majority of the time, is not a problem.

Going outside of CG limits however, can get nasty very quickly.

Back to the OP's question - the answers given are good, but do phone to book, and ask about weight when you do. I agree, the Cessna 172 and Piper PA28 (variously called "Cherokee", "Warrior", "Archer".... depending upon exact model) should be absolutely fine. The C152 is a perfectly good aeroplane, but with somebody of 18 stone will be a bit limited and not many schools have ultra-lightweight instructors; the other common and popular 2-seat training aeroplane is the PA38 Tomahawk, about which I'd say the same.

G

mad_jock

24th Feb 2014, 11:27

BPF

More than likely because if the FAA get wind of it they just suspend the pilots license and ask questions later.

UK unless something happens nothing will be said or even looked into. And even if it does the CAA can only take you to court you will still have your license afterwards.

And the fact is nothing really ever happens. In fact if they collected the data there would be a strong case for increasing MTOW of most old training types by 100kg.

The British climate is usually sub ISA and the runways that schools use are substantially longer than required and below 500ft altitude. If you got to a short runway school such as Neitherthope I would imagine they don't take the piss.

Realistically funfly was more than likely over 100kg over weight when they departed and they didn't like it but they survived

Must admit I have got into a tommy not as PIC with a mate both of us over 105kg with full tanks and only really thought about it as we were climbing through 3000ft. 15 deg C sea level no real addition to the runway used. Climb rate 450ft/min.

Its not just the performance you need to worry about though. You put substantially more load on the wings which will then screw with the fatigue life.

But again some of these machines have been getting the same treatment for getting on for 20 years now without wings falling off. Showing how over engineered they were in the first place.

I be worried in modern training types which have much leaner design tolerances.

Conversely a pilot will get lots of abuse for poor RT both from peer pressure and ATC.

with a full family aboard

I suspect that would be still significantly less that two UK rugby playing blokes.

But may be a lot worse safety risk due to as G says the fact that the CoG will be way out towards the dangerous rear end if they have stored the kids in the back.

Big Pistons Forever

24th Feb 2014, 14:48

Mad -Jock

I hear what you say, but what a terrible message ignoring the published MTOW sends to the students.....

In North America the plane is not legal to fly unless it has a serial number specific POH on board. In the UK the POH of the aircraft you are renting is probably sitting on a shelf in a mop closet still in the original wrapper.

Perhaps this tendency to ignore the POH, which seems pretty widespread in the UK partially accounts for the casual approach to aircraft loading, and the prevalence of weird UK flight training specific practices like going to carb air cold on final :confused:.

Genghis the Engineer

24th Feb 2014, 16:31

Perhaps this tendency to ignore the POH, which seems pretty widespread in the UK partially accounts for the casual approach to aircraft loading, and the prevalence of weird UK flight training specific practices like going to carb air cold on final

I don't know, ignoring the POH seems pretty common everywhere to a greater or lesser extent.

I've had US instructors maintain that I should be flying final in a PA28 at 75knots with the carb heat on. I've also threatened to beat said US instructors over the head with said POH to illustrate the point :8

G

mad_jock

24th Feb 2014, 18:49

BPF when I was in the US I never looked at a POH in 150 hours flying.

It was only when I started training in the UK for CPL I was introduced to the concept of reading it.

Howard Long

24th Feb 2014, 22:43

FWIW, I should have been specific to state that at the weight stated, Synergy will almost certainly point you towards one of their PA28s rather than a C152.

I learnt on a C152, and at 15st, it was an interesting conversation with the examiner before the skills test when doing the w&b. That was actually my biggest worry before the test. A mild shrugging of shoulders and the comment "as long as you are aware" was all that happened.

I know exactly where the POHs are for the planes at Synergy, as do l the instructors and students once they've done the first few hours. You are taken through all the paperwork, and specifically how to do w&b checks, and performance based on pressure/density altitude, takeoff and landing distances etc. I am sure that's the same everywhere in the UK, or at least it should be.

What's always concerned me is the insurance aspect, and that in the event of a bad day, one of the first things the AAIB will look at is the w&b.

Big Pistons Forever

24th Feb 2014, 23:40

I don't know, ignoring the POH seems pretty common everywhere to a greater or lesser extent.

I've had US instructors maintain that I should be flying final in a PA28 at 75knots with the carb heat on. I've also threatened to beat said US instructors over the head with said POH to illustrate the point :8

G

re Carb heat: True for a Pa 28 but every SEP Cessna POH I have has the following item in the before landing checklist.

Quote Caburetor Heat.....On (apply full heat before closing throttle) Unquote

The practice of turning off the carb heat on final seems to be an almost universal at UK flying schools and no one seems to carry the original of the POH in the aircraft, therefore this has led me to conclude that following the POH procedures does not appear to be a priority.

Big Pistons Forever

24th Feb 2014, 23:43

I learnt on a C152, and at 15st, it was an interesting conversation with the examiner before the skills test when doing the w&b. A mild shrugging of shoulders and the comment "as long as you are aware" was all that happened.

An unbelievable lack of professionalism on the part of the examiner :ugh:

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Feb 2014, 00:19

I learnt on a C152, and at 15st, it was an interesting conversation with the examiner before the skills test when doing the w&b. That was actually my biggest worry before the test. A mild shrugging of shoulders and the comment "as long as you are aware" was all that happened.

Are you saying the airplane was over the certified take off weight and the examiner flew in it with you?

Howard Long

25th Feb 2014, 01:11

I don't have the figures to hand now, but....

BTW, completely off topic, I travel to Campbell River once or twice each year to see family, can you by chance recommend a flying school nearby to get some hours in and some local and mountain familiarisation? All within w&b of course. Google seems to come up a bit of a blank.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Feb 2014, 02:02

There used to be flying schools in Campbell River, Courtenay, Qualicum Beach and Nanaimo....

...I know for sure the one here in Nanaimo is still open.

Beethoven

25th Feb 2014, 19:01

I too have fallen foul of flying unwittingly overweight in a PA38, with only 15 or so gallons in the tank. A friend of mine is approx 16 stone and I 12 but I made the mistake of assuming (that word again..) that 2 blokes and only half fuel would be fine and only idly did a calculation to see how much extra fuel I could put in. The result was that my last 3 flights had been 5% over MTOW. At this weight it did not SEEM to make any difference with a healthy (for a PA38) 500ft per minute climb and a seemingly normal take off run. I am in NO WAY advocating flying above MTOW and that was the last flight I made with my friend in a 2 seater. In my case although over MTOW the aeroplane was within C of G limits but that does not make me feel much better to be honest.

One thing that is often said, without much evidence to back it up it seems, is the matter of it automatically invalidating insurance? I can see how it may be an issue if the exceeding of the MTOW was proved to be a causative factor in the accident but I have my reservations (though I am frequently wrong) as to whether it would AUTOMATICALLY invalidate insurance. I would not want to test it though and end up losing all my future earning through being too tight to hire a 4 seater!

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Feb 2014, 19:51

Flying an airplane over its certified weight means you are flying it outside its legal limits......if you have an accident and the investigation proves you were flying it outside its certification limits...do you really think your insurance company will pay the claim?

Pace

25th Feb 2014, 20:01

Chuck

Most flying schools instructing on the Cessna 150 where I have seen them fill the tanks and then seen two 200 ib plus guys jump in are overweight and it happens all the time.
The ironic thing is that the same instructor runs through WandB calculations and then turns a blind eye.
Having flown a limited amount of ferries I also know with ferry tanks fitted they can be way over grosse weight at weights which would shock the average PPL.
Other than the insurance factor and runway length I would be more concerned with C of G which is an absolute NO NO! Oh of course if its a twin overweight you are more likely to be going down so better treat it as a single.

Pace

Clothandstring

25th Feb 2014, 20:09

Thank you all for your suggestions. I'll follow some of them up and let you know what happens, in case you're interested. My nephew is keen to study aeronautical engineering at university and would love to learn to fly something with an engine (I stick to my paraglider).

Beethoven

25th Feb 2014, 20:12

Chuck, I don't know, that's why I am asking. Certainly in the UK drink drivers get paid out after accidents as do people breaking the speed limit, even when they are contributory causes to the accident. I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.

Pace

25th Feb 2014, 20:22

I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.

Everything is fine until its not fine! Flying an aircraft outside its certificated limits makes the insurance void.
So if there is a large insurance claim the insurance company will have a way out of paying.
As far as I know and i am happy to be corrected on this if the flight starts illegal it remains illegal.
Ie you start overweight burn off fuel so you are now within limits then have an accident it is still classified as an illegal flight and hence uninsured if the insurers can prove that when you started the flight the aircraft was overweight?

My comments in the posting above was not on insurance but whether an aircraft can safely fly over grosse weight the answer is yes if you have plenty of runway and the C of G is good.

But you are playing Russian roulette with the insurance and russian roulette in a twin if you loose an engine

Pace

Mach Jump

25th Feb 2014, 22:05

I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.

The short answer is yes.

After an accident, the insurance company will ask you for evidence that the flight was legal, including the aircraft docs, mass & balance, piot licence/currency, etc. and if there is anything illegal they can refuse to pay. :uhoh:

MJ:ok:

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Feb 2014, 22:49

Chuck

Most flying schools instructing on the Cessna 150 where I have seen them fill the tanks and then seen two 200 ib plus guys jump in are overweight and it happens all the time.

It seems it is the same here in Canada.

However when I owned a school I made sure my instructors paid attention to the rules and regulations by having them sign an agreement that if I employed them and found they had intentionally or stupidly ignored the rules and regulations I would terminate them.

I had three Cessna 150's one Tomahawk, two Cessna 172's, one Grumman Cheetah, one Piper Geronimo and one Robinson R22 Mariner so there was no excuse for flying a Cessna 150 overweight.

The way I look at it is if they were willing to break the rules over something so easy to avoid as flying overloaded they were not employable.

dobbin1

27th Feb 2014, 11:01

I'd like to give my nephew a trial flying lesson, but he's a big lad -- about 18 stone. Does anyone know of a flying school near London (preferably to the south, but anywhere will do) where this will not be a problem? I believe some schools use four-seater aircraft. Thanks for your help.

I just did a quick w&b and we can certainly offer flying lessons to your nephew in our PA 28 warrior. He would also be fine in our SuperCub or DA 40 even with me (100 kg) as instructor. All we need to do is manage the fuel. If he flies with our lady instructor there would be no issue.

I can even offer aerobatics in our Slingsby T67, although we would need to go with minimum fuel and forgo the parachutes.

I recently taught student who is 6'8" tall and weighs in at 125 kg. he mainly flew in a 172, but he did fit in the warrior too. Unfortunately, he could not get his knees under the instrument panel in the DA 40.

I instruct at Redhill. Pm me if you want any more details.

Genghis the Engineer

27th Feb 2014, 14:35

I can even offer aerobatics in our Slingsby T67, although we would need to go with minimum fuel and forgo the parachutes.

So you can do aerobatics, but not safely.

Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?

Mind you, from that list, I'd go for the SuperCub anyhow, by far the most fun aeroplane on the list.

G

dobbin1

27th Feb 2014, 17:29

Quote:
So you can do aerobatics, but not safely
Wearing a parachute does not make aerobatics safe. It is inherently more risky that conventional flight and significantly more risky that sitting at home. We all have to take risk into account whenever we undertake an activity. The manoeuvres I do on a trial lesson are very unlikely to result in any sort of departure and I would be be even more cautious when not wearing a parachute. For example, I do not spin without parachutes.
Quote:
Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?
G

No. 20 percent would imply more than 50 aircraft destroyed in spin accidents out if the 274 made. Not sure of the actual number of spin accidents but it is much less than that. The spin accident rate for the T67 is similar to other aerobatic/military trainers, and better than some. The Tiger Moth probably has the worse record and the Chippie and Bulldog all had spin issues in their time.

Minimum fuel includes adequate reserves.

Mach Jump

27th Feb 2014, 18:43

So you can do aerobatics, but not safely.

Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?

:ooh: A bit harsh I feel Genghis, both on Dobbin, and one of the UK's nicest aeroplanes.

I have to agree with Dobbin on both the parachutes and the fuel reserves.

For the record, the Slingsby T67 was produced in 5 models. (Not in chronological order.) :8

A. Licence built UK version of the Fornier RF6B. Built mainly from wood and fabric with a Lycoming O-235 instead of the Continental O-200 engine.

B. Based on the above, and almost identical looking, with the same engine, but completely redesigned airframe constructed entirely from composite material.

C. B model with 160hp engine.

D. C model with constant speed VP prop.

M. D model with full inverted fuel, and oil systems.
The M model also came with 200hp, and 260hp engines.

None of the above had unusual spin recoveries, or a spin accident record worse than any other aerobatic aircraft.

In the 90s, 114 M260s were sold to the USAF as T3As, and following two highly publicised accidents, the fleet was grounded. After conducting an exhaustive flight test program, The USAF could find no unusual handing characteristics, or reluctance to recover from spins.

MJ:ok:

mary meagher

27th Feb 2014, 21:49

Heavy pax need to step on the scales, they all tell lies, anyway.

I did have a fine big Scotsman as a student, about 20 years ago, at Booker; aside from being too heavy, he was also too tall. So both of us flew without parachutes, and he flew with his shoes off, in his socks, and went solo in 23 airtow flights.

Flying without parachutes was quite legal. I couldn't really ask him to fly without a chute if I continued to wear one....imagine the conversation if we both tried to bail out with only one chute between us!