Weight & balance (again??)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North West UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight & balance (again??)
I've no doubt that this has been raised in the past, so if anyone wishes to refer me back to a previous thread, please do so. I have calculated the W&B for a PA28 Archer and established that with 4 up we will be about 200lbs over weight. The balance is ok. What are the legal implications of operating the aircraft like this? I am aware of the safety aspects and prepared to fly over weight in good conditions, but not if there are any doubts, i.e., cross winds, short fields, etc....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, it's illegal, the penalty would be up to the court. Plus you wouldn't be insured, of course, so in the event of an incident you'd probably lose your house and anything else you owned.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legal implications depend on what goes wrong. If anything at all goes wrong, with the flight, even something which wasn't directly related to the aircraft being overweight, you can expect to have some part of the book thrown at you during the subsequent investigation. What part of the book I'll leave to the lawyers. On a more practical note you would do well to consider the consequences of operating without insurance cover, because that's what you would in effect be doing.
How much fuel have you assumed? Or baggage? 28 Imperial gallons less would knock about 200lb off the AUW - but you'd need to recheck the balance.
I don't know whether it's your own aeroplane, but any hirer getting a hint that you were planning to fly when nearly 10% overweight would probably slam the door in your face.
I don't know whether it's your own aeroplane, but any hirer getting a hint that you were planning to fly when nearly 10% overweight would probably slam the door in your face.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North West UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for confirming what I thought was the case. I've seen a few PA28s with 4 up and suspected that they were too heavy. When challenged, they gave the impression that it was ok when you'd burned off some fuel! Just hoping to get through the first potentially most dangerous part of the flight without any problems, I suppose...
With 4 people of 13 stones each, there would be only enough spare capacity for 12 gallons of fuel. Or with 2 13 stone front passengers and full fuel, one rear passenger of 10 stone or less.
With 4 people of 13 stones each, there would be only enough spare capacity for 12 gallons of fuel. Or with 2 13 stone front passengers and full fuel, one rear passenger of 10 stone or less.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance does cover negligence so I think it would not be void just because the aircraft departs over MTOW. Also, passengers can and DO lie about their weight.
Any views from LAWYERS?
But to be practical I am sure the majority of PA28s flying with four people are in fact over MTOW. I used to fly an Archer and 4-up one would have so little fuel one could not go anywhere useful, with a real weather diversion reserve. With a longer runway, and an appropriately higher Vr, it works, up to a point.
Most 4-seaters cannot carry 4 average men (or, these days, four average women
) plus useful fuel. A decent tourer like a TB20 can but a PA28 can't.
Any views from LAWYERS?
But to be practical I am sure the majority of PA28s flying with four people are in fact over MTOW. I used to fly an Archer and 4-up one would have so little fuel one could not go anywhere useful, with a real weather diversion reserve. With a longer runway, and an appropriately higher Vr, it works, up to a point.
Most 4-seaters cannot carry 4 average men (or, these days, four average women
) plus useful fuel. A decent tourer like a TB20 can but a PA28 can't.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Frankly, I'm getting a bit bewildered by all of this. On another thread, we've got a discussion about flight planning whilst drunk. Now we've got (I can only assume) a serious enquiry about operating beyond MTOW (BTW the PA 28's I'm familiar with have a balance envelope limited by mass, so how it can be stated that balance is ok but mass isn't is beyond me). What on Earth is going on out there in PPL land?
DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.
DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.
The Maximum AUW is part of the aircraft certification. If you operate above the certified weight then the Certificate of Airworthines is invalid - Offence No1. If the C of A is invalid then the insurer would almost certainly say trhat you were outside the terms of the policy which of course is now mandatory - Offence no 2. Now depending upon the circumstances it could be considerd that you were endangering the aircraft, the passengers and people on the ground; that could ammount to two further offences.
I refuse to fly outside limits which, being a heathily built chap, can be interesting however show me a flying school operating 150s or 152s that isn't overweight on 90% of dual sorties and I'll show you a liar.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know one school which was quite keen on staying within weight on 100% of their 152 dual sorties. This is clearly something of a challenge, and essentially meant refuelling after every flight, which is a bit of a pain. So they got rid of them and bought 172s instead.
(Of course the 152s were perfectly safe overweight on a 2km tarmac runway, just not legal. The problem is, we were told, that they were certified for their original primary market, American farmers with 400 yards of grass strip, and it would have been impractical to recertify them for operation from proper airports.)
(Of course the 152s were perfectly safe overweight on a 2km tarmac runway, just not legal. The problem is, we were told, that they were certified for their original primary market, American farmers with 400 yards of grass strip, and it would have been impractical to recertify them for operation from proper airports.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
My club is (honestly) rigorous about max weight. Two PA38's - one empties at 1234lbs, the other at 1170lbs. The latter is operated like the former - 16 imp.gals max. Given 11.5st instructors (2 short-ar$!s, one beanpole and a female), means that the former goes out at close to MTOW normally, the latter with a significant margin. The latter is the machine of choice for Skills Tests. We simply don't muck about with this - the owners of the aircraft, the instructors, the Club. We're as one on this topic.
Operating beyond MTOW is not just about performance and handling. The designer will base airframe life on a usage spectrum; MTOW will be part of this spectrum. Going outside of MTOW may therefore have implications for airframe life.
Operating beyond MTOW is not just about performance and handling. The designer will base airframe life on a usage spectrum; MTOW will be part of this spectrum. Going outside of MTOW may therefore have implications for airframe life.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely they must be operated over MTOW when ferried from the states? A special dispensation prehaps or are they crated over in a ship?
IM
It's been many years and a couple of stone since I flew the, in my opinion, delightful Tomahawk. Could you remind me what is the max possible fuel and what is the MAUW.
Cheers
I'm glad to see that a lot of clubs and schools really are all above board on this, it really is good to see.
It's been many years and a couple of stone since I flew the, in my opinion, delightful Tomahawk. Could you remind me what is the max possible fuel and what is the MAUW.
Cheers
I'm glad to see that a lot of clubs and schools really are all above board on this, it really is good to see.
Frankly, I'm getting a bit bewildered by all of this. On another thread, we've got a discussion about flight planning whilst drunk. Now we've got (I can only assume) a serious enquiry about operating beyond MTOW (BTW the PA 28's I'm familiar with have a balance envelope limited by mass, so how it can be stated that balance is ok but mass isn't is beyond me). What on Earth is going on out there in PPL land?
DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.
DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.
OK, obedience is good, but knowledgeable and intelligent obedience of the rules is far better.
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance does cover negligence so I think it would not be void just because the aircraft departs over MTOW. Also, passengers can and DO lie about their weight.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that's exactly how I reason this one, too.
If I'm taking passengers I always do a meticulous W&B schedule. Because I do that I cannot claim that I am ignorant of the situation.
If it's marginal, calculate reduced fuel, and therefore reduced flight endurances, extra landings, alternates, etc.. If in this situation, I take a set of scales to my rendezvous point with my passengers, insist that they let me weight them, and separately, their baggage, and then recalculate.
I realise its time-consuming, and I am by no means immune from impatience. However, I am very cautious about this, and have to sacrifice time for fore-knowledge and the consequent ability to make an informed decision. (I have before now, made passengers leave items of baggage behind in the car, etc..) Perhaps I'm too cautious, and lacking in a spirit of adventure - but I'd rather keep within the stated operational limits, within the law, and in a safe mode when flying friends and relations about.
If I'm taking passengers I always do a meticulous W&B schedule. Because I do that I cannot claim that I am ignorant of the situation.
If it's marginal, calculate reduced fuel, and therefore reduced flight endurances, extra landings, alternates, etc.. If in this situation, I take a set of scales to my rendezvous point with my passengers, insist that they let me weight them, and separately, their baggage, and then recalculate.
I realise its time-consuming, and I am by no means immune from impatience. However, I am very cautious about this, and have to sacrifice time for fore-knowledge and the consequent ability to make an informed decision. (I have before now, made passengers leave items of baggage behind in the car, etc..) Perhaps I'm too cautious, and lacking in a spirit of adventure - but I'd rather keep within the stated operational limits, within the law, and in a safe mode when flying friends and relations about.