PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Flying Instructors & Examiners (https://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners-17/)
-   -   Dilema over loadsheet (https://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/596540-dilema-over-loadsheet.html)

Homsap 30th Jun 2017 13:11

Dilema over loadsheet
 
A number of years ago, a friend of mine turned up an initial iR test on a MEP with a CAA staff examiner, having diligently asked the examiner for her weight, she refused. I think he let it go, but she could have equally failed him the moment he started the engines. Some of you will know who I am taking about.

So what would you do:

(a) Cancel the test and complain to the CAA.
(b) Use a assumed weight (say 2 x 75kgs)
(c) Not to make a fuss

I persnally have always given my weight to students upon booking a flight tests, that way I expect a loadsheet upon turning up to examine someone.

eckhard 30th Jun 2017 13:36


Some of you will know who I am taking about.
If it was the one I am thinking of, the aircraft may have been WAT limited!

More seriously, your friend could have used an estimated weight and expressed concern if the resulting figures were near limits.

Genghis the Engineer 30th Jun 2017 16:27

Use a figure around 110kg and ask for confirmation.

G

Homsap 30th Jun 2017 16:51

gheghis...... she might have been offended at an estimated 110KG, and failed the candidate, I suppose the diplomatic approarch would be to put her down as 65 kg, as a the commander (examiner) ask her to sign the load sheet, she might be flattered?

Whopity 30th Jun 2017 20:19

Chop Suey no noubt!

Ex Oggie 30th Jun 2017 22:57


Chop Suey no noubt!
That sounds about right. There was obviously no tick box for the pax weight!

4Screwaircrew 1st Jul 2017 10:28

I had the same with a staff examiner for the GFT, I asked she said we don't need to bother with that, we jumped in the 152 and off we went. Not the above mentioned examiner, and no longer in the employ of the authority.

Homsap 1st Jul 2017 13:12

Personallly, I feel any examiner should be fired for failing to comply with the loadsheet, and from memory, the C152, the maximun load is 2 x 12 1/2 stone, so beyond that you need to go less than full tanks!

I seem to remember the examiner I was refering to was a FOI for a UK airline, until a fatal accident in the M1 in the late eighties, and became a CAAFU examiner (gardening leave) later returned to being a FOI and CRM examiner????

212man 1st Jul 2017 15:33


gheghis...... she might have been offended at an estimated 110KG, and failed the candidate,
Sounds like a perfect time to file a 'regulation 6' complaint if that happened!

Ex Oggie 2nd Jul 2017 17:32


Now let's be clear... I don't condone going out of limits but it happens so if it is going to happen at least make it as safe as possible. Do a loadsheet with assuemed weights of the examiner to ensure in trim etc and satisfy yourself that the aircraft is going to get airbourne safely and not out of balance.
I was once told by the chief pilot 'Weight won't kill you but the trim certainly will'.

........lost for words! :eek:

Parson 4th Jul 2017 08:41

From my experience, I have always had examiners comment along the lines of 'Allow 85kg for me + 5kg cockpit baggage...' or something similar. All examiners should really adopt that approach.

The test (IR anyway) is supposed to replicate a public transport flight with the applicant as commander. A commander can reasonably expect pax load to be readily available.

simmple 4th Jul 2017 08:58

When I turned up for gft in c152 examiner was different chap to one booked due illness, large guy asked what we were going flying in and said bugger I am usually too heavy for those.
Look on my face obviously told full story of not wanting to wait many months for new test date.
He then said, you don't look very heavy and by the time we taxi out and burnt a drop of fuel I have calculated we will be spot on max take off weight, perfect, let's get on with it...
Top bloke....even passed me

what next 4th Jul 2017 09:23


Originally Posted by Parson (Post 9820383)
A commander can reasonably expect pax load to be readily available.

Flying as a passenger on a commercial flight, have you ever been asked for your weight? Or put on scales? Me neither, so how is the "commander" supposed to know the exact passenger weight?

And flying in the executive sector as I do, it would be the commander's own task to approach Mr. CEO or Mrs. Celebrity and ask: "Excuse me Madam/Sir, but you certainly don't look as if you fit our standard passenger mass, so would you please be so kind and tell me, what your exact weight would be?" Sorry, but the job market is not good enough (yet) to ask this kind of question ;)

And regarding the original question: Flying IFR commercially since 25 years I have had to do two to five checkrides a year, depending on the number of classes/types in my license. Not once have I been asked by an examiner to show a loadsheet. (The only time ever must have been on my initial PPL checkride). However, if an examiner would explicitely ask for a loadsheet this would be the ideal opportunity to ask him/her about his/her weight, wouldn't it?

Homsap 4th Jul 2017 11:23

The ONS said the average man in England was 5ft 9in (175.3cm) tall and weighed 13.16 stone (83.6kg). The average woman in England weighed 11 stone (70.2kg) and was 5ft 3in tall (161.6cm). (Source BBC, 2010)

So on that basis most airliners are flying above the declared loadsheet weight.

Uplinker 4th Jul 2017 11:49


........ However, if an examiner would explicitly ask for a loadsheet this would be the ideal opportunity to ask him/her about his/her weight, wouldn't it?
Perfect solution :ok:

As an aside, I have never really understood why it is taboo to discuss personal bodyweight. One's weight can be reduced - by eating fewer calories, and exercising more - so why is it such a tricky subject?

Parson 5th Jul 2017 07:02

what next - I mentioned nothing of the 'exact' weight of individual passengers. Just pointing out that that information is available to commanders on commercial flights - calculated by whatever means is used by the operator.

Point I was making was that an IRR test candidate should not have the additional hassle of how to approach the (possibly delicate) issue of the examiners weight - a reasonable examiner should (in my opinion anyway) state what assumptions should be made.

Genghis the Engineer 5th Jul 2017 14:00


Originally Posted by Ex Oggie (Post 9819054)
........lost for words! :eek:

Why? - it's basically true.

There are significant safety margins on take-off and landing performance, and on structural reserves. However, there are rarely any significant safety margins on CG.

Whilst you should of course do your damndest never to fly overweight (or at an unknown weight), the basic statement is correct - weight is far less likely to kill you than trim.

G

what next 6th Jul 2017 10:07


Originally Posted by Parson (Post 9821196)
what next - I mentioned nothing of the 'exact' weight of individual passengers. Just pointing out that that information is available to commanders on commercial flights - calculated by whatever means is used by the operator.

Sure. Anyway, on a checkride the examiner is the "commander" and therefore it is up to him/her if he accepts the method by which the loadsheet was produced. If he/she is not happy with the candidate using either standard or estimated masses then he/she is free to disclose the truth about his/her latest weighing...

Parson 6th Jul 2017 10:45

what next - agreed, except that the IRR test is intended to simulate the applicant being the commander of a public transport flight. That is why they give the 'Captains Brief'. Of course legally the Examiner is still the commander for that flight.

Ex Oggie 6th Jul 2017 11:48


There are significant safety margins on take-off and landing performance, and on structural reserves. However, there are rarely any significant safety margins on CG.

Whilst you should of course do your damndest never to fly overweight (or at an unknown weight), the basic statement is correct - weight is far less likely to kill you than trim.
I do not dispute that basic statement as a fact.

A generalisation here, but the possibilities go on and on:

Over weight + ramp check = no licence and court case
Over weight + incident = no insurance
Over weight + know it all pilot = accident
Over weight + serious accident = your estate being sued

I know of about half a dozen fatal accidents in the last 30 years or so that I have had some involvement with, that had over weight as a significant factor.

If you are in training and testing, then there can be no compromise.

You fly outside the envelope, you are a test pilot!


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.