Weight & balance (again??)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The self righteous certainty of so many posts regarding insurance claims never ceases to amaze (amuse).
As previously pointed out, 90% of C150 training sorties are overweight at take off. As this type of flight is also a regular user of insurance claim forms, there will no doubt be a great number of disgruntled aviators who have had their claims rejected.
No!.
I didn't think so.
AIUI a 10% increase in MAUW is automatically allowed upon application. Any assertion that overweight operation is intrinsically unsafe would therefore seem to contradict the view of the authorities.
Operating overweight does affect the performance numbers, and would seem to reduce the margins regarding structure, but it's not a hanging offence.
You might get collared by the CAA, and pay the price, but there are more dangerous, legal, practices that go unvillified.
As previously pointed out, 90% of C150 training sorties are overweight at take off. As this type of flight is also a regular user of insurance claim forms, there will no doubt be a great number of disgruntled aviators who have had their claims rejected.
No!.
I didn't think so.
AIUI a 10% increase in MAUW is automatically allowed upon application. Any assertion that overweight operation is intrinsically unsafe would therefore seem to contradict the view of the authorities.
Operating overweight does affect the performance numbers, and would seem to reduce the margins regarding structure, but it's not a hanging offence.
You might get collared by the CAA, and pay the price, but there are more dangerous, legal, practices that go unvillified.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Personally I find both discussions rather healthy. I'd rather see pilots who ask searching questions about why the rules are what they are, and the consequences of breaking them, rather than unthinking obedience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
HWD
It is also (a) the law in this instance and (b) the way that the PPL syllabus is taught.
I interpret Ghengis' comments as meaning that basic learning is okay, but advanced learning, motivated by a desire to understand more systemically/holistically is better.
Basic learning is not the same as ignorance, in this instance.
the "beyond there be dragons" approach maybe risk averse, but I guess it is also another manifestation of ignorance.
I interpret Ghengis' comments as meaning that basic learning is okay, but advanced learning, motivated by a desire to understand more systemically/holistically is better.
Basic learning is not the same as ignorance, in this instance.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also fly a PA28 Archer III
After gaining my PPL, I desperately wanted to take both of my parents up for a trip. I'm fairly heavy (114kg) and my parents are not exactly on the small side. After a weight and balance calculation I found that even with fuel up to the tabs, we would be 190lbs over weight. Unfortunately mum had to stay behind, but even with just the two of us we were only 10lbs underload. I must say that I definately would not have wanted to take the aircraft any heavier. At nearly MTOW, performance was lowsy. It was a warm, windless day and I think I can say in all Honesty that an extra 190lbs would have caused us to spend the next hour, red faced, in the adjacent field.
After gaining my PPL, I desperately wanted to take both of my parents up for a trip. I'm fairly heavy (114kg) and my parents are not exactly on the small side. After a weight and balance calculation I found that even with fuel up to the tabs, we would be 190lbs over weight. Unfortunately mum had to stay behind, but even with just the two of us we were only 10lbs underload. I must say that I definately would not have wanted to take the aircraft any heavier. At nearly MTOW, performance was lowsy. It was a warm, windless day and I think I can say in all Honesty that an extra 190lbs would have caused us to spend the next hour, red faced, in the adjacent field.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w & b
Two contrasting stories and some advice for TotalBeginner.
In the briefing for my ST I did my W & B calculations (PA38) which showed we were in excess of 115%. Soon as the CAA examiner (NOT CFI) saw that I knew how to do it, he sent me off to fill the tanks.
Visiting Oz earlier this year I had a check flight, part of the prep' being I had to calculate W & B which was OK. On landing had to recalculate since I was now taking 3 hairy ars%d convict cousins up for a spin - showed we were 105%. They insisted I took oil drum on wheels over to aircraft and pump out exact fuel to bring within limits - which meant re-calculating route.....
And TotalBeginner - not even on an anonymous forum do you give out your mum's exact weight, unless of course you are 17, your mum was the same age when she had you and said weight is the right side of 120 lbs
In the briefing for my ST I did my W & B calculations (PA38) which showed we were in excess of 115%. Soon as the CAA examiner (NOT CFI) saw that I knew how to do it, he sent me off to fill the tanks.
Visiting Oz earlier this year I had a check flight, part of the prep' being I had to calculate W & B which was OK. On landing had to recalculate since I was now taking 3 hairy ars%d convict cousins up for a spin - showed we were 105%. They insisted I took oil drum on wheels over to aircraft and pump out exact fuel to bring within limits - which meant re-calculating route.....
And TotalBeginner - not even on an anonymous forum do you give out your mum's exact weight, unless of course you are 17, your mum was the same age when she had you and said weight is the right side of 120 lbs
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OVC002
Am I interpreting your statement correctly? I understand you to be suggesting that anyone can legally operate their aeroplane in the UK at MAUW + 10% simply by putting in a request, which will automatically be granted? Can you advise us of the procedure for that?
I am only aware of the waivers which may be applied for on over-water ferry operations on a specific one-flight-only basis, and granted on the requirement for fuel overloads, in the knowledge tha the flight will be over water if it goes down (and therefore not endangering the citizenry at large) and carrying the minimum of crew, no passengers.
Am I interpreting your statement correctly? I understand you to be suggesting that anyone can legally operate their aeroplane in the UK at MAUW + 10% simply by putting in a request, which will automatically be granted? Can you advise us of the procedure for that?
I am only aware of the waivers which may be applied for on over-water ferry operations on a specific one-flight-only basis, and granted on the requirement for fuel overloads, in the knowledge tha the flight will be over water if it goes down (and therefore not endangering the citizenry at large) and carrying the minimum of crew, no passengers.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having never operated an aircraft overweight in the UK, I am unfamiliar with the procedures.
I can't find the FAA guidance note, but if you go to :
http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c09.pdf
They quote the FAA as the authority.
As you can see, no application required just a notification, and even that doesn't need to be posted until after the flight has taken place.
As a point of interest, reasons other than ferrying are approved overgross. If you look at what is ops normal in the Ag sector you can see how ridiculous assertions of hell and damnation for going a little over really are. Day in, day out, at 60% overweight are approved with the bare minimum of formality, and 60% is a suggestion not a requirement.
I can't find the FAA guidance note, but if you go to :
http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c09.pdf
They quote the FAA as the authority.
As you can see, no application required just a notification, and even that doesn't need to be posted until after the flight has taken place.
As a point of interest, reasons other than ferrying are approved overgross. If you look at what is ops normal in the Ag sector you can see how ridiculous assertions of hell and damnation for going a little over really are. Day in, day out, at 60% overweight are approved with the bare minimum of formality, and 60% is a suggestion not a requirement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically there should be no problem flying a plane that's 60% overweight - provided that one allows for the much greater Vr, much longer takeoff run, much greater Vref, much longer landing distance, and is a lot more careful throwing it around at cruise speed.
The bonus is that Va is a lot lower
I'd suggest the pilot would need to be an expert.
If exceeding MTOW by 10% or so was fatal, EVERY flying school aircraft would by now be at the bottom of the Channel, complete with nearly all instructors. (And the crew would be lost because most flying over water don't carry a raft, but that's another debate).
Much better to get a decent tourer e.g. a TB20 and then one can carry four men (or four UK sized women) with enough fuel to get somewhere usable. A PA28 doesn't really work for 4-up, if one is going to stick to the rules.
The bonus is that Va is a lot lower
I'd suggest the pilot would need to be an expert.
If exceeding MTOW by 10% or so was fatal, EVERY flying school aircraft would by now be at the bottom of the Channel, complete with nearly all instructors. (And the crew would be lost because most flying over water don't carry a raft, but that's another debate).
Much better to get a decent tourer e.g. a TB20 and then one can carry four men (or four UK sized women) with enough fuel to get somewhere usable. A PA28 doesn't really work for 4-up, if one is going to stick to the rules.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't find the FAA guidance note, but if you go to :
"This may be for operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight for flight beyond its normal range over water, or over land areas where adequate landing facilities or the appropriate fuel is not available. The excess weight that may be authorised is limited to the additional fuel, fuel-carrying facilities, and navigation equipment necessary for the flight. Carriage of
passengers will not normally be permitted."
Which is pretty restrictive. And also requires that:
"...a flight manual supplement (FMS) for inclusion in the aircraft flight manual
must be provided. The FMS should contain necessary information appropriate to the operation, supplementing or replacing, as appropriate, the corresponding data in the basic manual. "
Neither of which sets of conditions are met by people deciding to fill all their tanks and all their seats and blasting off overweight on the spur of the moment.
IO540: I don't think anyone;s suggested that going 10% overweight needs be instantly fatal. What I've suggested is that you place yourself at serious legal and financial risk by doing so, at least in the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that we are all agreed that flying overweight in the order of 10%, whilst having some operational considerations, is perfectly safe, it would be sensible to quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" that apparently accrues therefrom.
What is the usual size of the fine/length of sentence handed out by the beak?
Does anyone have any actual experience regarding a rejected insurance claim? and if so, what reason was given?
Concrete information, as opposed to conjecture, seems hard to come by.
What is the usual size of the fine/length of sentence handed out by the beak?
Does anyone have any actual experience regarding a rejected insurance claim? and if so, what reason was given?
Concrete information, as opposed to conjecture, seems hard to come by.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concrete information, as opposed to conjecture, seems hard to come by.
The way to check out real cases relating to insurance is to telephone a real insurance broker. Obviously there won't be any on here posting details of payouts, accepted or refused.
If somebody got done by the CAA, they won't be advertising it on here either.
Flying Lawyer might be able to give useful info.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the difference insurance-wise between flying an aeroplane overweight and driving over the speed limit?
Also, which is more risky for the pilot/driver and others who may be involved? The only weight related aeroplane crashes I have read about have really been weight/runway length crashes and excessive speed is a factor in many road deaths.
Also, which is more risky for the pilot/driver and others who may be involved? The only weight related aeroplane crashes I have read about have really been weight/runway length crashes and excessive speed is a factor in many road deaths.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now that we are all agreed that flying overweight in the order of 10%, whilst having some operational considerations, is perfectly safe, it would be sensible to quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" that apparently accrues therefrom.
Perhaps so, but arbitary limits exist to set boundaries. Try being stopped by the police when a car whilst 10% over the limit and see what legal and financial consequences occur.
Because of the smaller amount of people flying than driving, prime facie evidence is not so easy to find, but the only safe option is to plan the flight in the PA28 to comply with the law. If exemptions are applied for and granted, then that is fine, but as an earlier poster said, blasting off on the spur of the moment is another matter.
If you disagree with this line of thinking, perhaps you should look at the Ryanair thread on R&N concering the operation of a 737 outside SOPs and manufacturers limits. Read the views of the professionals on that and they are calling for the pilot to lose his licence per se. Safety is no accident.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's a point, because I accept the assertion that flying 10% overgross is safe, I must also be asserting that drunk driving is safe. By extension, you are asserting that I think 10% over any limit is OK. Hmmmmm.
I would suggest that your analogy is ill considered. There are any number of reasons why it does not pertain, not least because, as far as I know, there are no existing notification/application procedures for getting approval to drive drunk.
May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous.
I am not sure what the procedure would be to get approval for 10% overweight in a 737, but I'll bet it is not popping a notification in the post within 2 days of making the flight.
I would suggest that your analogy is ill considered. There are any number of reasons why it does not pertain, not least because, as far as I know, there are no existing notification/application procedures for getting approval to drive drunk.
May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous.
I am not sure what the procedure would be to get approval for 10% overweight in a 737, but I'll bet it is not popping a notification in the post within 2 days of making the flight.
Safety depends upon margins doesn't it.
Let's say you've got a typical light aircraft, MTOW around 2000lb, TODR around 600m, stall speed of 50kn, g-limit at 3.8g, Va of 97kn, initial climb rate around 500fpm at MTOW.
Add 10% weight (to 2,200lbf) and a back-of-envelope sum tells me that, you now have a TODR of 720m, a g-limit of 3.45, a stall speed which has increased by about 3 knots (and so have the initial climb and approach speeds), and a climb rate now of 450fpm.
All of this has to be accounted for,....
G
Let's say you've got a typical light aircraft, MTOW around 2000lb, TODR around 600m, stall speed of 50kn, g-limit at 3.8g, Va of 97kn, initial climb rate around 500fpm at MTOW.
Add 10% weight (to 2,200lbf) and a back-of-envelope sum tells me that, you now have a TODR of 720m, a g-limit of 3.45, a stall speed which has increased by about 3 knots (and so have the initial climb and approach speeds), and a climb rate now of 450fpm.
All of this has to be accounted for,....
G
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are the operational considerations that I was referring to.
The point regarding margins is the real one IMHO.
If someone was to post with some data describing the long term effects of constant overweight ops, and quantifying how structural safety margins are eroded over time, we could form a reasoned opinion about what is acceptable, or not, to each of us.
Just saying "don't do it", and making uninformed forecasts of how an insurance company will treat any subsequent claim would seem to be unhelpful.
The point regarding margins is the real one IMHO.
If someone was to post with some data describing the long term effects of constant overweight ops, and quantifying how structural safety margins are eroded over time, we could form a reasoned opinion about what is acceptable, or not, to each of us.
Just saying "don't do it", and making uninformed forecasts of how an insurance company will treat any subsequent claim would seem to be unhelpful.
Give me the basic parameters, much as I've shown above, and I'll work them out in rough terms for you.
And then I'll make my standard disclaimer - I only take responsibility for advice I was paid for, and anyhow regardless of the law the big issue is that the moment you deliberately step one ounce beyond the MAUW, or one knot above an airspeed limit - you are uninsured.
Incidentally, it isn't uninformed to say that you will be uninsured, I've seen it happen several times - somebody broke the rules, an insurance company showed that they could have avoided doing so - and consequently refused to pay out. The most recent I recall wasn't admittedly W&CG, it was somebody who bent somebody else's aeroplane when their CofE was a week out of date.
G
And then I'll make my standard disclaimer - I only take responsibility for advice I was paid for, and anyhow regardless of the law the big issue is that the moment you deliberately step one ounce beyond the MAUW, or one knot above an airspeed limit - you are uninsured.
Incidentally, it isn't uninformed to say that you will be uninsured, I've seen it happen several times - somebody broke the rules, an insurance company showed that they could have avoided doing so - and consequently refused to pay out. The most recent I recall wasn't admittedly W&CG, it was somebody who bent somebody else's aeroplane when their CofE was a week out of date.
G
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quantifying Vso, Va, TODR etc. at various weights is all useful stuff, but not what I am after.
The authorities consider 10% overweight safe enough that permission is granted without formality, other than notification. They hedge that permission with enough restriction to make it useful only for ferrying.
At which point does it become unsafe, and how do we quantify it?.
It all seems a bit of an "angels on a pinhead" argument anyway. I say this simply because, as far as I can tell, MAUW in light aircraft is a function more of TO/LDR and Vso needing to be =< 61kts rather than structural considerations.
With regard to insurance, quoting a case where the insurer failed to pick up the tab because of an unqualified PIC, does not translate directly to the overweight case. My policies, at least, specifically require either me, or a qualified pilot, to be IC. In the event that an unqualified pilot was at the controls at the time of an incident, I would not expect them to pay. However, the only clauses which could be interpreted as pertaining to operating within the bounds of the ANO, POH etc. refer specifically to conducting the flight in a "safe" manner, and not in a narrowly drawn "legal" manner.
IMHO some data concerning insurance claims denied as a result of overweight operation would help.
The authorities consider 10% overweight safe enough that permission is granted without formality, other than notification. They hedge that permission with enough restriction to make it useful only for ferrying.
At which point does it become unsafe, and how do we quantify it?.
It all seems a bit of an "angels on a pinhead" argument anyway. I say this simply because, as far as I can tell, MAUW in light aircraft is a function more of TO/LDR and Vso needing to be =< 61kts rather than structural considerations.
With regard to insurance, quoting a case where the insurer failed to pick up the tab because of an unqualified PIC, does not translate directly to the overweight case. My policies, at least, specifically require either me, or a qualified pilot, to be IC. In the event that an unqualified pilot was at the controls at the time of an incident, I would not expect them to pay. However, the only clauses which could be interpreted as pertaining to operating within the bounds of the ANO, POH etc. refer specifically to conducting the flight in a "safe" manner, and not in a narrowly drawn "legal" manner.
IMHO some data concerning insurance claims denied as a result of overweight operation would help.