Weight & balance (again??)
Not true. MAUW, g-limits, Va, Vs etc. are all interconnected, but related to the aircraft's design spec. Modify one, and it has a knock-on effect on all of them. This is true of any aeroplane, but a peculiarity of civil light aeroplanes is that there are max/min values which must be met (Vs and g-limits in particular).
I've come across a few aeroplanes where LDR/TODR are considerations also, but very few and none of them were common light aircraft.
As for insurance - try asking your insurance company how they'd feel about it!
G
I've come across a few aeroplanes where LDR/TODR are considerations also, but very few and none of them were common light aircraft.
As for insurance - try asking your insurance company how they'd feel about it!
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure your policy does not also require you to operate in accordance with the aeroplane's C or A or Permit to Fly, and within the law in other respects?
Guest
Posts: n/a
May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous.
Also, do you understand the concept of full disclosure in the context of insurance policies?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 greens, it is of course very possible that I have missed some subtle nuance here, I often do, but surely both posts refer to safety, not legality.
My statement was:
"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. "
The analogy drawn was :
"Is it therefore safe to drive 10% over the drink drive limit?"
The statement that you were attempting to rebut concerned safety, but now you refer to, and rely upon, permissibility. Hmmmmm. Yet again you are introducing an inappropriate reference to substantiate your, still controversial, position.
I would therefore repeat "May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous", and if you wish to up the insult quotient then please take your own advice.
Also, I take it you have not yet managed to read your own insurance policy. Assuming you have one that is. I'm reasonably clued up with regard to "full disclosure". It has no relevance in this context.
Lowtimer, I've read my policy and it does not refer to CofA or PtF at any point. As I said previously it says that I have to fly in a safe manner with regard to the ANO. In the same way as your cars policy states you have to drive in a safe manner in accordance with the road traffic act.
Ghengis, I'm told MAUW of the Piper mirage was reduced because of the poor takeoff/landing numbers, and some heavy singles eg - Saratoga/TBM/PC12 are limited by Vso, not by structure. Do you feel that 10% overweight in those aircraft is intrinsically unsafe? I am actually interested in hearing the pros and cons.
I also surmise that you are unaware of any refused claims as a result of overweight ops.
My statement was:
"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. "
The analogy drawn was :
"Is it therefore safe to drive 10% over the drink drive limit?"
The statement that you were attempting to rebut concerned safety, but now you refer to, and rely upon, permissibility. Hmmmmm. Yet again you are introducing an inappropriate reference to substantiate your, still controversial, position.
I would therefore repeat "May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous", and if you wish to up the insult quotient then please take your own advice.
Also, I take it you have not yet managed to read your own insurance policy. Assuming you have one that is. I'm reasonably clued up with regard to "full disclosure". It has no relevance in this context.
Lowtimer, I've read my policy and it does not refer to CofA or PtF at any point. As I said previously it says that I have to fly in a safe manner with regard to the ANO. In the same way as your cars policy states you have to drive in a safe manner in accordance with the road traffic act.
Ghengis, I'm told MAUW of the Piper mirage was reduced because of the poor takeoff/landing numbers, and some heavy singles eg - Saratoga/TBM/PC12 are limited by Vso, not by structure. Do you feel that 10% overweight in those aircraft is intrinsically unsafe? I am actually interested in hearing the pros and cons.
I also surmise that you are unaware of any refused claims as a result of overweight ops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OVC002
You challenged "quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" and in this context I said that it was, perhaps, safe to drive 10% over the limit, but that it poses a serious legal risk. I also said that arbitrary limits set boundaries, so my point was about this, not about safety.
I also said "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."
Thus my point is about the legality of flying overweight and the impact on insurance of operating outside the normal certification of the aircraft.
I fear that you do not understand the concept of full disclosure, even though you think that you do. I'll give you a clue, if you upgrade the engine chip in your car to provide 10% more power, do you tell your insurers? If you modify it to be heavier than it's certified gross weight, do you keep quiet?
So by extension, if you plan to operate an aircraft 10% in excess of the MAUW in the POH, why do you think that you should not inform your insurers, to allow them to re-examine their risk exposure? This is what full disclosure means in this context.
As an illustration of this point, during the trial of Coronation Insurance & Eagle Star versus Taku Air Transport Ltd, the judge made the following comment "The load capacity of a particular airplane and the number of passengers to be carried is highly relevant information that is of critical importance to the insurer."
No doubt its a bit dark in OVC002 land, but maybe when you grow up to be SCT020, you'll see the light
You challenged "quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" and in this context I said that it was, perhaps, safe to drive 10% over the limit, but that it poses a serious legal risk. I also said that arbitrary limits set boundaries, so my point was about this, not about safety.
I also said "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."
Thus my point is about the legality of flying overweight and the impact on insurance of operating outside the normal certification of the aircraft.
I fear that you do not understand the concept of full disclosure, even though you think that you do. I'll give you a clue, if you upgrade the engine chip in your car to provide 10% more power, do you tell your insurers? If you modify it to be heavier than it's certified gross weight, do you keep quiet?
So by extension, if you plan to operate an aircraft 10% in excess of the MAUW in the POH, why do you think that you should not inform your insurers, to allow them to re-examine their risk exposure? This is what full disclosure means in this context.
As an illustration of this point, during the trial of Coronation Insurance & Eagle Star versus Taku Air Transport Ltd, the judge made the following comment "The load capacity of a particular airplane and the number of passengers to be carried is highly relevant information that is of critical importance to the insurer."
No doubt its a bit dark in OVC002 land, but maybe when you grow up to be SCT020, you'll see the light
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 2nd Oct 2005 at 21:26.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my insurance policy (in Canada) clearly states that the aircraft is to be operated within published limitations, laws, blablabla...and specifically mentions MGTOW and CofG envelope.
Best not to assume anything with insurance. Possibly, quite possibly, if you did a W&B calculation before flight that showed you were within limits and that you guesstimated weights because no scales were available and your female passengers lied about their weight, they MIGHT let you off the hook if the actual number turned out 10% on the high side. Or they might not. On the other hand if you leave no record behind to show you even *considered* W&B (like a filled-in, dated W&B form) and you were overweight, they have every legal right to refuse payment.
And if you were dumb enough to say "hell I always fly overweight because I know that I/the aircraft can manage it", and you WERE overweight at the time of the crash...well, my bird is insured for $52,000 hull and $1 million liability. I'd hate to have to shell out that kind of money, or have my inheritors shell out that kind of money.
Your insurance policy is a legally binding contract. If it says it won't pay if you're overweight, it's safe to assume, it won't pay if you're overweight.
Mike
Best not to assume anything with insurance. Possibly, quite possibly, if you did a W&B calculation before flight that showed you were within limits and that you guesstimated weights because no scales were available and your female passengers lied about their weight, they MIGHT let you off the hook if the actual number turned out 10% on the high side. Or they might not. On the other hand if you leave no record behind to show you even *considered* W&B (like a filled-in, dated W&B form) and you were overweight, they have every legal right to refuse payment.
And if you were dumb enough to say "hell I always fly overweight because I know that I/the aircraft can manage it", and you WERE overweight at the time of the crash...well, my bird is insured for $52,000 hull and $1 million liability. I'd hate to have to shell out that kind of money, or have my inheritors shell out that kind of money.
Your insurance policy is a legally binding contract. If it says it won't pay if you're overweight, it's safe to assume, it won't pay if you're overweight.
Mike
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G
I can of course see your point about disclosure, but motoring law isn't anything like aviation law.
Your car 3rd party cover is NOT voided by you modifying the engine, or by driving 10x over the alcohol limit, or by having no MOT, or by towing an illegal trailer attached via an illegal towbar. The RTA prevents the insurers walking away from those. Only the fully comp cover gets voided by those things.
Aviation insurance differs from "normal" insurance in other ways; for example you can under insure the value and they will pay out the insured value. Whereas in normal insurance they will scale the payout down by the ratio of the two values. I am not a broker but this is my recollection.
There are many differences between aviation practices and the sort of insurance familiar to Joe Public, and anyone interested is best to phone a real live broker and not ask here.
I can of course see your point about disclosure, but motoring law isn't anything like aviation law.
Your car 3rd party cover is NOT voided by you modifying the engine, or by driving 10x over the alcohol limit, or by having no MOT, or by towing an illegal trailer attached via an illegal towbar. The RTA prevents the insurers walking away from those. Only the fully comp cover gets voided by those things.
Aviation insurance differs from "normal" insurance in other ways; for example you can under insure the value and they will pay out the insured value. Whereas in normal insurance they will scale the payout down by the ratio of the two values. I am not a broker but this is my recollection.
There are many differences between aviation practices and the sort of insurance familiar to Joe Public, and anyone interested is best to phone a real live broker and not ask here.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to carry this thread on beyond its natural life but......
Full disclosure, is normally considered as stuff like, vehicle performance, previous claims history, pre-existing conditions etc.
Does anybody tell their insurer that they from time to time drive at 77mph on motorways? Are we seriously to believe that claims are rejected because the insured failed to disclose his habit of occasionally driving through traffic lights showing amber?
It's interesting you should refer to a case where the insurer had to go to the supreme court to get a result.
For those unfamiliar : A Taku DHC beaver crashed killing 5 Passengers. Taku had applied for insurance stating that the capacity of the aircraft was only 4. Not only that but they only owned up to one accident in the previous 12months, when actually having had 3( see full disclosure above). The contract of insurance specifically stated that any misrepresentation voided the contract. An additional exclusion clause specifically stated that if there were more passengers than stated seats any claim would be invalid.
The lower court still held the insurance co to be liable to pay!!!
The higher court, in the majority, found for the insurer. Not because Taku intentionally lied in its application, i.e. deliberate non-disclosure, indeed the majority held that this was irrelevant , because, in this case, Colonial should have known Taku's claims record, but because there was a specific exclusion with regard to the number of passengers being limited to 4.
IMHO if there is a specific clause forbidding overweight ops it would be wrong, both legally and morally, to expect the insurer to pay any claim where the aircraft was so operated.
If the agreement calls for the aircraft to be operated in a safe manner then it would seem to be a stretch to insist that any claim would be repudiated in the event of an incident.
F3G
Any more un-analogous analogies, or case histories that seem to go a long way to rebutting your own points, and I shall begin to think that you are one green short of a full undercarriage
Full disclosure, is normally considered as stuff like, vehicle performance, previous claims history, pre-existing conditions etc.
Does anybody tell their insurer that they from time to time drive at 77mph on motorways? Are we seriously to believe that claims are rejected because the insured failed to disclose his habit of occasionally driving through traffic lights showing amber?
It's interesting you should refer to a case where the insurer had to go to the supreme court to get a result.
For those unfamiliar : A Taku DHC beaver crashed killing 5 Passengers. Taku had applied for insurance stating that the capacity of the aircraft was only 4. Not only that but they only owned up to one accident in the previous 12months, when actually having had 3( see full disclosure above). The contract of insurance specifically stated that any misrepresentation voided the contract. An additional exclusion clause specifically stated that if there were more passengers than stated seats any claim would be invalid.
The lower court still held the insurance co to be liable to pay!!!
The higher court, in the majority, found for the insurer. Not because Taku intentionally lied in its application, i.e. deliberate non-disclosure, indeed the majority held that this was irrelevant , because, in this case, Colonial should have known Taku's claims record, but because there was a specific exclusion with regard to the number of passengers being limited to 4.
IMHO if there is a specific clause forbidding overweight ops it would be wrong, both legally and morally, to expect the insurer to pay any claim where the aircraft was so operated.
If the agreement calls for the aircraft to be operated in a safe manner then it would seem to be a stretch to insist that any claim would be repudiated in the event of an incident.
F3G
Any more un-analogous analogies, or case histories that seem to go a long way to rebutting your own points, and I shall begin to think that you are one green short of a full undercarriage
Guest
Posts: n/a
The lower court still held the insurance co to be liable to pay!!!
The higher Court overturned the judgement (that it was by majority is irrelevant) and I refer you again to the comment that "The load capacity of a particular airplane and the number of passengers to be carried is highly relevant information that is of critical importance to the insurer."
Therefore the lower Court decision is legally irrelevant, I wonder why you find the need to quote it?
Please note LOAD CAPACITY. You will note, if you check your Oxford Dictionary, that capacity is defined as the maximum amount that something can carry. Amount is defined as the number, value, size or extent, so whether it is the number of seats or the weight would seem to be irrelevant.
If you are intending to operate outside the parameters set in the POH, which is you may remember is part of the C of A, then you should disclose this to your insurers.
Of course, you can choose not to.
IO540
I can of course see your point about disclosure, but motoring law isn't anything like aviation law.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, the corpse still twitches.
I will try again in more simple terms.
An appeal court judge decided the insurance company should pay.
The majority of the supreme court justices, whilst overturning that decision, made it clear that they did so because of a specific exclusion clause regarding the number of passengers to be carried ( this was the capacity being referred to, NOT the mauw). It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that in the absence of a specific exclusion, the appeal court would not have been overturned.
That it was a majority decision is of course relevant. It demonstrates that whilst an expert such as yourself can categorically state that if you don't tell the insurance company the slightest detail of both your history and operational intent, they can repudiate your claim, a number of supreme court justices disagree with you. IMHO they will be largely unconcerned by your dissent.
An appeal court judge went so far as to support liability after an operator lied on the proposal form, and operated in direct contravention of a specific exclusion, but you still maintain, with certainty, that any claim made whilst operating 10% overweight will be rejected.
I am still amazed that anyone can be so certain about these matters. The details of the case referred to by F3G, not me, would seem to reinforce that view.
The lights are on, but the undercarriage, sadly, is not down.
I will try again in more simple terms.
An appeal court judge decided the insurance company should pay.
The majority of the supreme court justices, whilst overturning that decision, made it clear that they did so because of a specific exclusion clause regarding the number of passengers to be carried ( this was the capacity being referred to, NOT the mauw). It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that in the absence of a specific exclusion, the appeal court would not have been overturned.
That it was a majority decision is of course relevant. It demonstrates that whilst an expert such as yourself can categorically state that if you don't tell the insurance company the slightest detail of both your history and operational intent, they can repudiate your claim, a number of supreme court justices disagree with you. IMHO they will be largely unconcerned by your dissent.
An appeal court judge went so far as to support liability after an operator lied on the proposal form, and operated in direct contravention of a specific exclusion, but you still maintain, with certainty, that any claim made whilst operating 10% overweight will be rejected.
I am still amazed that anyone can be so certain about these matters. The details of the case referred to by F3G, not me, would seem to reinforce that view.
The lights are on, but the undercarriage, sadly, is not down.
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_webSSL9.pdf
See section 2
Care to post your licence number, so that SRG can contact you to discuss your views with you?
No, didn't think so.
See section 2
Care to post your licence number, so that SRG can contact you to discuss your views with you?
No, didn't think so.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is well past its sell by date.
I would be delighted to discuss my views with SRG. I don't think it would take long though.
a) The PIC must satisfy himself that the load may be safely carried.
b) Insurers "may" reject any claim after operating outside of the limits defined in the POH.
After we had congratulated ourselves for being in full agreement, we might spend the rest of the time discussing the dangers inherent in pilots who have an unquestioning acceptance of folklore, and an unshakeable belief that what is legal is safe.
I would be delighted to discuss my views with SRG. I don't think it would take long though.
a) The PIC must satisfy himself that the load may be safely carried.
b) Insurers "may" reject any claim after operating outside of the limits defined in the POH.
After we had congratulated ourselves for being in full agreement, we might spend the rest of the time discussing the dangers inherent in pilots who have an unquestioning acceptance of folklore, and an unshakeable belief that what is legal is safe.
Guest
Posts: n/a
being in full agreement????
What about (c) Pilot must operate aircraft in compliance with POH weight and C&G limits or pilot is failing to comply with a legal requirement for the operation of the aircraft?
Of course, you do agree with this, don't you?
What about (c) Pilot must operate aircraft in compliance with POH weight and C&G limits or pilot is failing to comply with a legal requirement for the operation of the aircraft?
Of course, you do agree with this, don't you?
I am frankly appalled at OVC002's seemingly cavalier attitude to limits. That sort of attitude has NO PLACE in aviation. Perhaps I will raise the topic with the CAA's GA safety department and suggest that they remind people about the dangers of exceeding limits in the next GASIL....
The MTOW is precisely that. If you need to apply for some waiver to operate above that weight, go ahead. If not, then observe the limit!.
But to state that "we all agree that operating 10% overweight is safe" is rubbish. I for one certainly don't!
The MTOW is precisely that. If you need to apply for some waiver to operate above that weight, go ahead. If not, then observe the limit!.
But to state that "we all agree that operating 10% overweight is safe" is rubbish. I for one certainly don't!
Nor do I, unless revised limitations are worked out, and adhered to.
However, let's be honest, the vast majority of PPLs (or for that matter, a very large proportion of commercial pilots and aeronautical engineers) have never been trained how to do this. Calculating flying limitations wasn't even on the syllabus when I was at ETPS.
And even then, you have to be a good enough pilot to stay within those new limits - and that doesn't apply to most PPLs either. When an aeroplane was certified, part of what we did was ensure that the flying characteristics were such that inadvertently exceeding the envelope was very hard - but that was only assessed within the cleared envelope, and may not be possible in an unofficially enlarged weight and CG envelope.
In short, it's not big and not clever. If you need to carry more load, get a bigger aeroplane!
In my book, safe trumps legal every time. However, in this instance, it's both unsafe AND illegal - and thus a no-brainer. The fact that you are probably uninsured as well just re-enforces the point really.
G
However, let's be honest, the vast majority of PPLs (or for that matter, a very large proportion of commercial pilots and aeronautical engineers) have never been trained how to do this. Calculating flying limitations wasn't even on the syllabus when I was at ETPS.
And even then, you have to be a good enough pilot to stay within those new limits - and that doesn't apply to most PPLs either. When an aeroplane was certified, part of what we did was ensure that the flying characteristics were such that inadvertently exceeding the envelope was very hard - but that was only assessed within the cleared envelope, and may not be possible in an unofficially enlarged weight and CG envelope.
In short, it's not big and not clever. If you need to carry more load, get a bigger aeroplane!
In my book, safe trumps legal every time. However, in this instance, it's both unsafe AND illegal - and thus a no-brainer. The fact that you are probably uninsured as well just re-enforces the point really.
G
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OVC002 wrote: " ... an unshakeable belief that what is legal is safe."
I do not believe I know anyone who believes that. Flying in compliance with the law is not necessarily to say that it is safe; it is merely legal.
To fly legally, though, is to remove one set of stress factors from oneself, allowing concentration on other issues, like safety. This is to say nothing of civil and societal responsibility.
Operating anywhere near MAUW, and being sure of staying below it, obviously requires a W&B schedule to be completed. I suggest that training regimes are such that the act of completing the W&B schedule inclines the pilot to address the issue of safety. If it also inclines the pilot to consider structural and loading issues, etc., then that is good.
I do not believe I know anyone who believes that. Flying in compliance with the law is not necessarily to say that it is safe; it is merely legal.
To fly legally, though, is to remove one set of stress factors from oneself, allowing concentration on other issues, like safety. This is to say nothing of civil and societal responsibility.
Operating anywhere near MAUW, and being sure of staying below it, obviously requires a W&B schedule to be completed. I suggest that training regimes are such that the act of completing the W&B schedule inclines the pilot to address the issue of safety. If it also inclines the pilot to consider structural and loading issues, etc., then that is good.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aargh,
Timothy was so right. This is so unproductive.
But.
I have never advocated, nor do I have a "cavalier attitude" about, operating outside the law, or the limits of the POH.
If the authorities believe that 10% overweight is safe, why is it not safe? Still waiting for the answer.
We are all gagging for the next installment of GASIL, in fact, any patronising advice telling us to keep a good look out, or avoid relying on GPS is welcome. Why don't you have a quick chat with the CAA's safety department and issue a note reminding everyone that they should really get a licence before they go flying.
I am pretty sure that in GA, w&b regs are observed more in the breach than in the observance. But not by me.
When was the last time :
1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"
Pompous numbnuts should go elsewhwere, don't you think
Timothy was so right. This is so unproductive.
But.
I have never advocated, nor do I have a "cavalier attitude" about, operating outside the law, or the limits of the POH.
If the authorities believe that 10% overweight is safe, why is it not safe? Still waiting for the answer.
We are all gagging for the next installment of GASIL, in fact, any patronising advice telling us to keep a good look out, or avoid relying on GPS is welcome. Why don't you have a quick chat with the CAA's safety department and issue a note reminding everyone that they should really get a licence before they go flying.
I am pretty sure that in GA, w&b regs are observed more in the breach than in the observance. But not by me.
When was the last time :
1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"
Pompous numbnuts should go elsewhwere, don't you think
Guest
Posts: n/a
When was the last time :
1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"
1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"
2) the last time I was PIC
3) Never, my FI taught me W&B before I went solo and expected me to confirm that (a) the ac was in limits and (b) whether it was normal or utility before each sortie
I have always flown aircraft (mainly PA28, but also C15x/172/PA32/B121) which were capable of getting outside limits quite easily.
And I don't think that legal is necessarily safe either - I once rejected a take off in a PA28-140 due to unexpectedly poor acceleration, when I KNEW that we were 50 odd lbs under gross. I still feel good about that decision.
If the authorities believe that 10% overweight is safe, why is it not safe? Still waiting for the answer.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the tardy reply, been on a trip.
As I was flying back, it occurred that the aircraft I was flying had a variant with a gross weight of over 2.3T. In Europe they are usually certificated, without any modification, to a MAUW of 1.999T.
Is it unsafe to fly this type of aircraft 10% overweight?
Somebody who knows how to do these things should set up a poll :
Q. Do you do a written W&B before every flight?
The result would be interesting.
As I was flying back, it occurred that the aircraft I was flying had a variant with a gross weight of over 2.3T. In Europe they are usually certificated, without any modification, to a MAUW of 1.999T.
Is it unsafe to fly this type of aircraft 10% overweight?
Somebody who knows how to do these things should set up a poll :
Q. Do you do a written W&B before every flight?
The result would be interesting.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Q. Do you do a written W&B before every flight?
No, because I know from previous calculations that up to three adults and full tanks, with two of the adults in the front if there are at least two, leaves a reasonable W margin and is within B. I wouldn't put two of the three in the back, however, or put four people in, or put anything at all in the luggage compartment, without doing a W&B.
I'll now be told both:
(a) that this is appalling airmanship, and:
(b) that nobody else does either.