Flying overweight
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am always within W&B....I do sometimes lose about 15 Kg though 
Actually, joking aside, what determines max weight? I ask because I know I have flown over weight - or rather been flown in my aeroplane over weight. When I bought the share I did a test flight, all 4 of us went on the flight. Not knowing the aeroplane at the time, the owner said it'd be ok, and it was, we were off the ground in about 200m, 4 up (Rallye 160 HP). After buying my share and calculating W&B I found that 2 large adults and full fuel would put us at about MAUW, so we must have been over weight by 100 Kg or so. Despite being overweight the CofG was withing spec (which I'd say is more important).
However there was no noticable performance loss and I was amazed at how we had performed.......so who and what determines max weight? The Seneca in the USA has a higher MAUW than a Seneca in Europe so is it always dangerous I wonder, to fly over weight?
Actually, joking aside, what determines max weight? I ask because I know I have flown over weight - or rather been flown in my aeroplane over weight. When I bought the share I did a test flight, all 4 of us went on the flight. Not knowing the aeroplane at the time, the owner said it'd be ok, and it was, we were off the ground in about 200m, 4 up (Rallye 160 HP). After buying my share and calculating W&B I found that 2 large adults and full fuel would put us at about MAUW, so we must have been over weight by 100 Kg or so. Despite being overweight the CofG was withing spec (which I'd say is more important).
However there was no noticable performance loss and I was amazed at how we had performed.......so who and what determines max weight? The Seneca in the USA has a higher MAUW than a Seneca in Europe so is it always dangerous I wonder, to fly over weight?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite being overweight the CofG was withing spec (which I'd say is more important).
It was one of those "I learned about flying" experiences that you'd read about in Flying magazine. I knew, roughly that at MGTOW 2500 ft was OK for the Cherokee, but I hadn't thought that only 2000 ft above sea level there would be such a performance drop. When I got home I plugged the numbers into the charts (I know: should have done that first. I now know better). Well, I was surprised to learn... the available field length/obstacle clearance distance was right on the limits for density altitude, and the soft field correction.
And that wasn't even above the maximum.
I now own a Beech Sundowner 180, and it has considerably more payload. but also, a greater fuel capacity (with two markings on the tabs for partial fuel load computation) so it requires more careful planning. At sea level, standard conditions, max all-up weight, the distance to clear a 50' obstacle is 1860 ft. I frequently fly to a 1600 ft paved strip in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Beautiful spot. Fortunately no immediate obstacles, and usually a good stiff headwind, but it is short enough to concentrate the mind, and to make me ensure that I know I am within the performance envelope.
I also once owned a C150. Great little aircraft but with one big flaw: the ability to land in a distance way too short for takeoff! With two chaps on board, climb rate was nothing to brag about.
So, yes, to an extent CofG can be more dangerous, especially exceeding the rear limit. Assuming you can safely get it into the air, as you will have considerably less performance on take-off if you're overweight.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no excuse for flying overweight. What the aircraft might be certificated for in another land is really quite irrelevant. Is your airplane certificated for that weight? No? Then you're not legal, and have no business exceeding the weight.
Do you know of a surety that another certifying agency has done so with or without structural reinforcements?
Weight isn't just about performance. It's very important, and often more restrictive than the max gross weight restrictions, but there are other concerns. Weight in the fuselage only contributes to a greater wing bending moment, putting more stress on the spars and skins in monocoque or semimonocoque wing. In a turn this stress is fruther compounded, and in turbulence even more so. The load is even more magnified at the upper reaches of the speed limits for the airframe. What may seem minor sitting on the ramp or a straightforward takeoff may be another matter at the design dive limit. An airplane out of the CG envelope may fly fine, but an inadvertant spin may go flat or become unrecoverable.
Regardless of the implications, if the aircraft isn't certificated to fly at that weight, and you're not legal to do so, then you should not, may not, and must not.
Do you know of a surety that another certifying agency has done so with or without structural reinforcements?
Weight isn't just about performance. It's very important, and often more restrictive than the max gross weight restrictions, but there are other concerns. Weight in the fuselage only contributes to a greater wing bending moment, putting more stress on the spars and skins in monocoque or semimonocoque wing. In a turn this stress is fruther compounded, and in turbulence even more so. The load is even more magnified at the upper reaches of the speed limits for the airframe. What may seem minor sitting on the ramp or a straightforward takeoff may be another matter at the design dive limit. An airplane out of the CG envelope may fly fine, but an inadvertant spin may go flat or become unrecoverable.
Regardless of the implications, if the aircraft isn't certificated to fly at that weight, and you're not legal to do so, then you should not, may not, and must not.
It also left me wondering just how forgiving the limits are - I had a couple of female passengers who were quite uncomfortable about giving their weight & a chap who didn't know his, so short of installing scales in the club the accuracy of self report W&B info must be subject to scepticism.
I find a good rule of thumb to be, accept whatever weight the person declares (provided you believe that to be reasonable - ie, a fattyboombah declaring she's 60kg is not reasonable), but add ten kilograms to their declared weight.
If your totals taking into account this buffer zone go outside, or close to your W&B limits, then get out the scales and insist on actual weights.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mariner9,
Which insurance company do you work for?
The small print on my policy states that if I fly outside the limitations of the permit (exceeding MTOW) then the cover is withdrawn!
Which insurance company do you work for?
The small print on my policy states that if I fly outside the limitations of the permit (exceeding MTOW) then the cover is withdrawn!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance does cover negligence.
The insurer cannot (generally) prove the pilot did it intentionally, which leaves just negligence and this is covered.
The stuff where insurance will take a walk is where the paperwork is duff e.g.
- duff/expired CofA
- invalid pilot license/rating (though they will pay out if a plain PPL departs VFR into OVC002 and kills himself immediately, because flying at 199ft is legal if you meet the 500ft distance rule)
- N-reg not owned by a US citizen and thus CofA is void (etc)
I don't condone over-MTOW flight of course. But technically it does work - you need to understand what happens. For small excesses, say a few % over, nothing happens, but you need more runway. Each 1% on weight means at least 2% more runway.
The insurer cannot (generally) prove the pilot did it intentionally, which leaves just negligence and this is covered.
The stuff where insurance will take a walk is where the paperwork is duff e.g.
- duff/expired CofA
- invalid pilot license/rating (though they will pay out if a plain PPL departs VFR into OVC002 and kills himself immediately, because flying at 199ft is legal if you meet the 500ft distance rule)
- N-reg not owned by a US citizen and thus CofA is void (etc)
I don't condone over-MTOW flight of course. But technically it does work - you need to understand what happens. For small excesses, say a few % over, nothing happens, but you need more runway. Each 1% on weight means at least 2% more runway.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C of G and W & B is an interesting topic which I suspect is much overlooked, post PPL; when I initially approached my flying club to do a ppl, I did the 1st 2 lessons in a Trauma-hawk before someone pointed out that, with fuel to tabs, the CFI and I wouldn't get out of the airfield on an ISA day....so how was I ever going to sit my GFT?
I then bought a PA28 140 - which I loved to bits but, with full fuel and myself and another rugby player type in the front, it was noticeably forward of the C of G. I only did that once. How the Sandowne incident pilot thought he was going to leave the field on a hot day with 4 adults and full fuel, I'll never understand.
I now own an Arrow III and with 36 USG of fuel, you can load 4 normal adults, which removes a bit of the guesswork.
A PA28 235, by contrast, requires almost no thought to loading; With fuel to tabs, if you can physically fit it in the aircraft, it'll get off the ground.
The a/c which I think is hugely disappointing in this respect is the PA46 (in almost any guise) as you struggle to get 4 adults, bags and a decent fuel load, legally. What were piper thinking of?
I then bought a PA28 140 - which I loved to bits but, with full fuel and myself and another rugby player type in the front, it was noticeably forward of the C of G. I only did that once. How the Sandowne incident pilot thought he was going to leave the field on a hot day with 4 adults and full fuel, I'll never understand.
I now own an Arrow III and with 36 USG of fuel, you can load 4 normal adults, which removes a bit of the guesswork.
A PA28 235, by contrast, requires almost no thought to loading; With fuel to tabs, if you can physically fit it in the aircraft, it'll get off the ground.
The a/c which I think is hugely disappointing in this respect is the PA46 (in almost any guise) as you struggle to get 4 adults, bags and a decent fuel load, legally. What were piper thinking of?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the PA46 was designed for the American "a 20,000m hard runway in every town" 
market, I don't suppose Piper thought the liability was significant. Another 10 seconds with 350-500HP and you will be airborne.
The USA gets significantly more utility out of a plane which cannot do more than a few hundred nm with 4 people, than Europe with its relative scarcity of runways.
Anyway, this is one of many good things about the TB20. In 6 years, I have had to watch W&B only once, which was quite a long trip with 4 adults (me and three real fatties) when I had to depart with just 4hrs' fuel for a 2hr trip. I was not happy because the destination was likely to be fogged in (widespread) and in the end I cancelled and the subsequent mayhem (not everybody cancelled) borne out my decision. 1 W&B issue and zero crosswind-limit issues in 6 years is not bad going!!
market, I don't suppose Piper thought the liability was significant. Another 10 seconds with 350-500HP and you will be airborne.The USA gets significantly more utility out of a plane which cannot do more than a few hundred nm with 4 people, than Europe with its relative scarcity of runways.
Anyway, this is one of many good things about the TB20. In 6 years, I have had to watch W&B only once, which was quite a long trip with 4 adults (me and three real fatties) when I had to depart with just 4hrs' fuel for a 2hr trip. I was not happy because the destination was likely to be fogged in (widespread) and in the end I cancelled and the subsequent mayhem (not everybody cancelled) borne out my decision. 1 W&B issue and zero crosswind-limit issues in 6 years is not bad going!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Seneca in the USA has a higher MAUW than a Seneca in Europe
The usual MAUW for a Seneca is 4570 lbs (2072 Kg). I assume that the operators have done their sums regarding the "loss" of 73 Kgs useful load verses Euronav charges and decided in favour of the former!
You could operate a european Seneca at the factory MAUW - There is nothing stopping you other than the paperwork - but you would then be liable for the charges
Which insurance company do you work for?
IO's comments above re insurance were (to use the modern vernacular which I usually deplore
) spot on 
I had a couple of female passengers who were quite uncomfortable about giving their weight & a chap who didn't know his,
Sometimes the answer is obvious, (I know, don't ass....u...me.)
Fat nacker brothers can cause concern.
In't there a video on youtube of an overweight cessna plunging earthwards?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yaimogfse9c
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the PA46 was designed for the American "a 20,000m hard runway in every town" market, I don't suppose Piper thought the liability was significant. Another 10 seconds with 350-500HP and you will be airborne.
The USA gets significantly more utility out of a plane which cannot do more than a few hundred nm with 4 people, than Europe with its relative scarcity of runways.
The USA gets significantly more utility out of a plane which cannot do more than a few hundred nm with 4 people, than Europe with its relative scarcity of runways.
I'm confused. Mariner9 said:
But IO540 said:
and Mariner9 says:
Are you saying that if someone flies with an expired C of A, that fact would have to be causative in the loss in order for the insurers to avoid payment? Is that different from flying in violation of the limitations of the C of A?
Finally, is there a difference between the cases where the insured is dealing as a consumer and the case where the insured is a business? (My impression was that in the latter case at least, a breach of the terms would be regarded as a breach of contract and would void the indemnity. Or does that breach have to be material?)
The insurers would have to prove that the overweight condition was causative to the incident to avoid payment. Of course, there may be many incidents where it could be argued W&B was contributory, but equally, there will be many incidents where it has no relevance)
The stuff where insurance will take a walk is where the paperwork is duff e.g.
- duff/expired CofA
- duff/expired CofA
IO's comments above re insurance were spot on
Finally, is there a difference between the cases where the insured is dealing as a consumer and the case where the insured is a business? (My impression was that in the latter case at least, a breach of the terms would be regarded as a breach of contract and would void the indemnity. Or does that breach have to be material?)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never seen an example presented of an insurer denying coverage in an accident (particularly for third party liability vs. hull insurance or injury to the pilot vs passengers) for a breach of regulation (expired CofA, flying to France on an NPPL, flying overweight, etc.). This issue of 'if you .... your insurance will be invalid and not payout' comes up regularly, but to date I have seen no referenceable example. One would expect people to sue in these circumstances and there to be some public domain information on the allegations and at least the general terms of settlement.
On the otherhand, there are probably a good number of examples of insurers not paying if the insurance has expired, the bill has not been paid, they have been materially lied to on the application, the pilot is engaged in a clear criminal activity, etc.
On the otherhand, there are probably a good number of examples of insurers not paying if the insurance has expired, the bill has not been paid, they have been materially lied to on the application, the pilot is engaged in a clear criminal activity, etc.
Moderator
In past times, I used to trust what the experienced pilots told me about weight and balance, and particularly so, if it was their plane I was flying! I've learned my lesson, though it took a few! One C182 owner told me: "take it real careful, she's heavy today" after he had loaded it. I flew it out of a 1600 foot gravel runway. When I unloaded it, the weight had been 800 pounds overgross! I wish I could say that was the last time I did that... I stopped flying jumpers in a C185, because the jump club insisted on "one more jumper", which was more than one more jumper over gross. During a genuine flight test to investigate the weight and balance of another 185, I was told after the flight that an error had been made, and I had been 4" behind the aft limit, at gross weight. No wonder it was so hard to recover from the spins I was required to do!
So then I started to learn! For another flight test in a 185 float plane, I had it loaded with bagged gravel, all tied down in the back, to ballast me up to gross at the aft limit (spun much better within limits!). I land, and at the dock, who meets me? The authorities! Ramp check! Ha, I had the W&B form, and it was perfect!
I have approved special purpose overweight operations, but you sure have to be careful. That means the testing has been done, and the operating limitations spelled out and followed. If you have to aboart a takeoff, do the brakes have enough capacity to stop you? If you have to land right back, can the gear take to added load? Can the twin till make it out on one engine? What do you have to do if you hit a gust? Etc. There are many things to think about...
We learn that accidents rarely happen from just one cause, its the combination that gets you. W&B is a big one in the combination. It may not get you all on its own right away, but add in the engine failure, flight control failure, icing, gusty cross wind, severe turbulance, and you've really set yourself up for trouble. Then, if you're lucky, you're alive enough to try to explain why you tried that in the first place! Sometimes overgross has to happen (ferry fuel, for example). Such operations can be specifically tested and approved, there will be other limitations to keep things safe.
Otherwise, if you're going to fly overweight, you're taking about the same chances as exceeding Vne, or the manuevering limits. Sounds like you're not using the right plane of the job in the first place - there's always a bigger one somewhere!
We've all done stupid things, let's help each other learn and don't do it anymore...
So then I started to learn! For another flight test in a 185 float plane, I had it loaded with bagged gravel, all tied down in the back, to ballast me up to gross at the aft limit (spun much better within limits!). I land, and at the dock, who meets me? The authorities! Ramp check! Ha, I had the W&B form, and it was perfect!
I have approved special purpose overweight operations, but you sure have to be careful. That means the testing has been done, and the operating limitations spelled out and followed. If you have to aboart a takeoff, do the brakes have enough capacity to stop you? If you have to land right back, can the gear take to added load? Can the twin till make it out on one engine? What do you have to do if you hit a gust? Etc. There are many things to think about...
We learn that accidents rarely happen from just one cause, its the combination that gets you. W&B is a big one in the combination. It may not get you all on its own right away, but add in the engine failure, flight control failure, icing, gusty cross wind, severe turbulance, and you've really set yourself up for trouble. Then, if you're lucky, you're alive enough to try to explain why you tried that in the first place! Sometimes overgross has to happen (ferry fuel, for example). Such operations can be specifically tested and approved, there will be other limitations to keep things safe.
Otherwise, if you're going to fly overweight, you're taking about the same chances as exceeding Vne, or the manuevering limits. Sounds like you're not using the right plane of the job in the first place - there's always a bigger one somewhere!
We've all done stupid things, let's help each other learn and don't do it anymore...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem arrises in training aircraft because most of the aircraft in question were designed in the 50's and 60's when the mass of the average American was about 120-140lb's, now the mass of the average American (and Brit) is heading towards the 180-200lbs mark, meaning that we cannot take an aircraft full of fuel and passengers like they did when these aircraft were first designed.
My CPL instructor said for commercial reasons you mat have to fly slightly overweight but as long as you are forward rather than backward of the datum. He did say however it was entirely up to the commander what decision ws made.
My CPL instructor said for commercial reasons you mat have to fly slightly overweight but as long as you are forward rather than backward of the datum. He did say however it was entirely up to the commander what decision ws made.
Moderator
If the commander makes the decision to fly slightly overweight, he or she has descied to either misrepresent the true configuation of the aircraft on a weight and balalnce document, or to produce a true representation of the configuation, which would later be the evindence that the authorities would use to find fault, and the insurance company would use to deny a claim.
Such a decision is the same as deciding to fly with a known defect in the aircraft. You are deciding on behalf of the crew, the passengers, and aircraft owner, and the insurance company. They are all entitled to have their opinions considered. You might be willing to say in advance to each party that you are going to deliberately fly with a nav light U/S on a day only flight, but I bet you would think twice before you told each that you were going to fly the aircraft overweight!
If you need to carry members of our heavier society, either carry fewer of them, or choose a bigger plane. Also consider that nearly all aircraft design is predicated on 170 pounds per seat. That is not only for weight and balance planning, but the seat and floor strucure, and seatbelt attachements. We all know that there is reserve strength built into aircraft, but when I see a really large person in a seat wich I know was designed for a 170 pound person, I have concerns. When I see three or four large people in an airliner row, I get even more concerned.
A Cessna Caravan crash in Canada a few years back had as its root cause, the decision the pilot made to carry a person in each seat, and then embark into icing conditions. It might have worked, other than each of the persons was reported as being heavier than the standard 170 pounds, some apparently, by quite a lot. The plane was quite overweight, and the pilot decided to fly it. He de not make that decision again.
A decision to fly within the limitations is the only decision you are entitled to make, unless you are on a design flight test.
Such a decision is the same as deciding to fly with a known defect in the aircraft. You are deciding on behalf of the crew, the passengers, and aircraft owner, and the insurance company. They are all entitled to have their opinions considered. You might be willing to say in advance to each party that you are going to deliberately fly with a nav light U/S on a day only flight, but I bet you would think twice before you told each that you were going to fly the aircraft overweight!
If you need to carry members of our heavier society, either carry fewer of them, or choose a bigger plane. Also consider that nearly all aircraft design is predicated on 170 pounds per seat. That is not only for weight and balance planning, but the seat and floor strucure, and seatbelt attachements. We all know that there is reserve strength built into aircraft, but when I see a really large person in a seat wich I know was designed for a 170 pound person, I have concerns. When I see three or four large people in an airliner row, I get even more concerned.
A Cessna Caravan crash in Canada a few years back had as its root cause, the decision the pilot made to carry a person in each seat, and then embark into icing conditions. It might have worked, other than each of the persons was reported as being heavier than the standard 170 pounds, some apparently, by quite a lot. The plane was quite overweight, and the pilot decided to fly it. He de not make that decision again.
A decision to fly within the limitations is the only decision you are entitled to make, unless you are on a design flight test.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there are many flights made overweight and as such illegal. Just because people 'do it all the time' does not make it right.
An interesting choice for the Commander to be able to over ride the design authority. I would be questioning what else my CPL Instructor is misleading me on. Also if you ever get a job flying commercially please let us know who with so we can seek alternative carriers!!
An interesting choice for the Commander to be able to over ride the design authority. I would be questioning what else my CPL Instructor is misleading me on. Also if you ever get a job flying commercially please let us know who with so we can seek alternative carriers!!