Heres a curly one for ya!
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres a curly one for ya!
I am sure if I research the regs I will find the answer, but as a known Sh!t stirrer I feel obligated to throw this one out there for public discussion. 
can an aircraft that is certified for single pilot ops, but is above the magic 5700kg and thus requiring all sorts of other things by the regs, be limited to 5700KG in the operators operations manual, and therefore not require all the extras. I would imagine that although it is capable of lifting a little more( only about 400kg) it would be a pain to add to ones Ops manual due to the heavier MTOW. Is there a precedent of this being done by limiting its MTOW in the ops manual and W&B info?
can an aircraft that is certified for single pilot ops, but is above the magic 5700kg and thus requiring all sorts of other things by the regs, be limited to 5700KG in the operators operations manual, and therefore not require all the extras. I would imagine that although it is capable of lifting a little more( only about 400kg) it would be a pain to add to ones Ops manual due to the heavier MTOW. Is there a precedent of this being done by limiting its MTOW in the ops manual and W&B info?
Moderator
There are precedents for similar sorts of things .. eg I did something along those lines for a Chippy owner decades ago. Ops Manual won't do the trick .. would require a revised certification. Probably more trouble than it might be worth.
Highlights the problems of aircraft like the Dornier DO228 in Australia. Certified around 6,000 kg MTOW, it was an air transport category aircraft with all that implies, whilst carrying a similar load to a Twin Otter, but a few knots faster.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would a Ops manual or reweigh cert limiting the MTOW not be enough?
I would imagine a reweigh certificate limiting the MTOW for no other reason other than I wanted to limit it wouldn't be all that hard. it is a purely paperwork exercise and could be done in minutes.
Torres, your onto me
I would imagine a reweigh certificate limiting the MTOW for no other reason other than I wanted to limit it wouldn't be all that hard. it is a purely paperwork exercise and could be done in minutes.
Torres, your onto me
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, that is the only model below the threshold. There is one I have an eye on that makes the grade, but the rest are heavier. Range from the rare 5670Kg through to 6400Kg......bringing with the small increase in MTOW a raft of dramas.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did...... PM returned.
I thought all the 350 supers were over 5700...... not sure though. I know they just tip the scales enough to require a balanced field ...... Hence the reason RFDS dont use them I reckon.
I thought all the 350 supers were over 5700...... not sure though. I know they just tip the scales enough to require a balanced field ...... Hence the reason RFDS dont use them I reckon.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if it helps too much with the case of smaller aircraft (but I see no reason why it can't) but the precedent has already been set by many airlines around the world. Basically, because en-route (read nav) charges are based on the MTOW, airlines can 'flex' the weight of their aircraft according to the route/time of day/expected load etc and pay the appropriate rate, rather than the 'real' MTOW charges.
As an example, in a former life we'd fly 757s from the UK to Cyprus. On the way down we'd use a MTOW of (I'm struggling a bit with the memory of actual numbers) 107000 kgs and the Company would pay the nav charges based on that number. When we got to Cyprus we'd have a shed load of veggies etc to bring back (in addition to the full load of punters) and we'd then 'up' the MTOW by calling the Company and they'd fax us the new, declared, MTOW of, for example, 113000kgs. Obviously, on the way back the nav charges would be based on the higher number. Clearly you can never go over the max structural TO weight (which I THINK was 117000kgs) but, as I said above, the precedent has been set for 'adjusting' MTOWs on a daily basis.
As an aside, this same practice still continues and is certainly legal in the company for whom I now fly. We flex MTOWs according to the destinations 'cos that normally determines how much we'll be lifting but the theory is the same i.e. MTOWs can be changed on a flight-by-flight basis. Now, all this smacks of common sense, flexibility and efficiency. You'll notice that nowhere did I mention CASA........good luck
As an example, in a former life we'd fly 757s from the UK to Cyprus. On the way down we'd use a MTOW of (I'm struggling a bit with the memory of actual numbers) 107000 kgs and the Company would pay the nav charges based on that number. When we got to Cyprus we'd have a shed load of veggies etc to bring back (in addition to the full load of punters) and we'd then 'up' the MTOW by calling the Company and they'd fax us the new, declared, MTOW of, for example, 113000kgs. Obviously, on the way back the nav charges would be based on the higher number. Clearly you can never go over the max structural TO weight (which I THINK was 117000kgs) but, as I said above, the precedent has been set for 'adjusting' MTOWs on a daily basis.
As an aside, this same practice still continues and is certainly legal in the company for whom I now fly. We flex MTOWs according to the destinations 'cos that normally determines how much we'll be lifting but the theory is the same i.e. MTOWs can be changed on a flight-by-flight basis. Now, all this smacks of common sense, flexibility and efficiency. You'll notice that nowhere did I mention CASA........good luck
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I see your point, but my point is to actually change some of the regulatory requirements of the aircraft and systems by limiting the MTOW with a stroke of the pen.
By my way of thinking, with the weight you lose in the limitation can be made up for by the lower operating weight after loosing a second crew member, some fuel requirements and the requirement of stuff like TAWS, Radar alt, CVR, Etc.
I understand that there has to be a line in the sand somewhere as a starting point, but the difference in requirements for a simple couple of hundred kilos and no real performance differences is quite a jump. even license requirements change.
I would be quite willing to sacrifice the three hundred KGs for the lessor requirements. If anything, you would be increasing your safety factors by ensuring a better performance envelope.
By my way of thinking, with the weight you lose in the limitation can be made up for by the lower operating weight after loosing a second crew member, some fuel requirements and the requirement of stuff like TAWS, Radar alt, CVR, Etc.
I understand that there has to be a line in the sand somewhere as a starting point, but the difference in requirements for a simple couple of hundred kilos and no real performance differences is quite a jump. even license requirements change.
I would be quite willing to sacrifice the three hundred KGs for the lessor requirements. If anything, you would be increasing your safety factors by ensuring a better performance envelope.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Kingair 350. A Kingair 300.
A 200 size airframe with 350 size donks. Beech made some of them light weight versions, limited to 12 500lbs, to avoid the issues discussed here.
300's and 300LW's were all the same, just a paperwork difference.
A 200 size airframe with 350 size donks. Beech made some of them light weight versions, limited to 12 500lbs, to avoid the issues discussed here.
300's and 300LW's were all the same, just a paperwork difference.
you would require an afm supplement or amendment
If the manufacturer supported you then you would have a much easier time - try and get a NTO (No technical objection) from them stating that they dont have a problem with the reduction in both the weight and the equipment standards that you are trying to get as a result of the weight change.
You may well find that the manufacturer took all of these requirements into consideration when certifying the aeroplane at the weights it has, and wants you to have all the gizmo's etc.
they may never have even thought of them either - it depends on how old the machine is.
once you have that data from the manufacturer then write an afm supplement submit it to casa and try and get it approved.
in some instances requirements are based on the maximum certified weight of the aeroplane, not what it is actually at, so this may be a problem.
as you are looking to lower the equipment standard of the aeroplane and in the eyes of casa, looking to reduce the safety, then I reckon you pushing nthe proverbial up the hill with a toothpick
an operators operations manual wont cut it as it is an operational manual particular to the operator, not an airworthiness manual particular to the aeroplane. you want to reduce, not install, not fix, whatever - equipment on a particular airframe. If they allowed you to do that by ops manual amendment, then potentially the next buyer will get an aeroplane he cannot use because the more onerous requirements would apply to him.....
If the manufacturer supported you then you would have a much easier time - try and get a NTO (No technical objection) from them stating that they dont have a problem with the reduction in both the weight and the equipment standards that you are trying to get as a result of the weight change.
You may well find that the manufacturer took all of these requirements into consideration when certifying the aeroplane at the weights it has, and wants you to have all the gizmo's etc.
they may never have even thought of them either - it depends on how old the machine is.
once you have that data from the manufacturer then write an afm supplement submit it to casa and try and get it approved.
in some instances requirements are based on the maximum certified weight of the aeroplane, not what it is actually at, so this may be a problem.
as you are looking to lower the equipment standard of the aeroplane and in the eyes of casa, looking to reduce the safety, then I reckon you pushing nthe proverbial up the hill with a toothpick
an operators operations manual wont cut it as it is an operational manual particular to the operator, not an airworthiness manual particular to the aeroplane. you want to reduce, not install, not fix, whatever - equipment on a particular airframe. If they allowed you to do that by ops manual amendment, then potentially the next buyer will get an aeroplane he cannot use because the more onerous requirements would apply to him.....
Cessna certified the 550 Citation II in two versions, the Citation II SP (single pilot) limited to 5,700 MTOW and the heavier Citation II. Identical aircraft, different paper work.
I recall many years ago asking DCA to grant an exemption for the operation of our Citation II, single pilot at a max weight of 5,700 kg. The exemption was sought for ferry, freight flights etc.
The exemption was denied outright, although we were given an exemption against the requirement for an SCPL (ATPL), which we had not asked for. The reason became clear a few weeks later when two Examiners sought an endorsement, neither holding an SCPL.
I think you will be struggling to get CASA approval to "downgrade" an aircraft MTOW from above to below the mythical 5,700 kg, especially if it involves a reduction in Class A maintenance requirements.
Did the early Metro go the other way when re-engined? I seem to recall they increased above 5,700 kg when -10 engines were installed? I'm guessing this was a manufacturer re-certification?
I recall many years ago asking DCA to grant an exemption for the operation of our Citation II, single pilot at a max weight of 5,700 kg. The exemption was sought for ferry, freight flights etc.
The exemption was denied outright, although we were given an exemption against the requirement for an SCPL (ATPL), which we had not asked for. The reason became clear a few weeks later when two Examiners sought an endorsement, neither holding an SCPL.
I think you will be struggling to get CASA approval to "downgrade" an aircraft MTOW from above to below the mythical 5,700 kg, especially if it involves a reduction in Class A maintenance requirements.
Did the early Metro go the other way when re-engined? I seem to recall they increased above 5,700 kg when -10 engines were installed? I'm guessing this was a manufacturer re-certification?
Last edited by Torres; 6th Dec 2008 at 21:39.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Tulla Correct
I think JT hit it on the head. I don't know which paticular airframe you are talking about but it is more than likely that if your aircraft weighs over 5700KG then it will have been certified in the Commuter or Transport category. This brings with it a whole different set of rules as far as construction, (airframe redundency), and most importantly runway performance requirements. As someone else alluded to it would mean a complete re write of the POH /AFM. Something I am sure you do not want to consider.
Now asking CASA to look at that situation in this legally rampant society ain't gunna happen.
Torres, I beg to differ with you in that an aircraft over 5700 KG can be maintained to "class B" standard under a number of circumstances but obviously you are correct if you refer to RPT.
Now asking CASA to look at that situation in this legally rampant society ain't gunna happen.
Torres, I beg to differ with you in that an aircraft over 5700 KG can be maintained to "class B" standard under a number of circumstances but obviously you are correct if you refer to RPT.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can retain class 'A' maintenance regardless of the weight of the aircraft, especially if the aircraft already is maintained in class 'A' and you already have the maintenance control manuals and approved schedule. I am not wanting to downgrade the equipment in the aircraft, especially if it already has it fitted. More so looking to negate the requirement for the ATPL and second pilot.
I will have a dawdle through the regs and see what they say.
It may be possible to get an exemption if limiting the MTOW through the ops manual and AFM. I would think the ops manual would have to be addressed to make it an operational requirement that the aircraft isn't operated at higher than the approved weight.
I am not looking at using the aircraft as an RPT ship, limiting it to charter only.
I will have a dawdle through the regs and see what they say.
It may be possible to get an exemption if limiting the MTOW through the ops manual and AFM. I would think the ops manual would have to be addressed to make it an operational requirement that the aircraft isn't operated at higher than the approved weight.
I am not looking at using the aircraft as an RPT ship, limiting it to charter only.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizard,
The requirement for ATPL & 2nd pilot has little to do with the regs as such. Have a look at the Limitations section of the POH. If it states that Minimum crew is one pilot you are good to go. If it states you need two pilots you are in trouble as you have to hold an ATPL to command a "Multi Crew" aircraft. Again this only applies for charter or private Ops. RPT will require two crew. I hope this helps.
The requirement for ATPL & 2nd pilot has little to do with the regs as such. Have a look at the Limitations section of the POH. If it states that Minimum crew is one pilot you are good to go. If it states you need two pilots you are in trouble as you have to hold an ATPL to command a "Multi Crew" aircraft. Again this only applies for charter or private Ops. RPT will require two crew. I hope this helps.
