Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Maximum weight for trial lesson

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Maximum weight for trial lesson

Old 25th Feb 2014, 00:19
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
I learnt on a C152, and at 15st, it was an interesting conversation with the examiner before the skills test when doing the w&b. That was actually my biggest worry before the test. A mild shrugging of shoulders and the comment "as long as you are aware" was all that happened.

Are you saying the airplane was over the certified take off weight and the examiner flew in it with you?
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 01:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 47
I don't have the figures to hand now, but....

BTW, completely off topic, I travel to Campbell River once or twice each year to see family, can you by chance recommend a flying school nearby to get some hours in and some local and mountain familiarisation? All within w&b of course. Google seems to come up a bit of a blank.
Howard Long is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 02:02
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
There used to be flying schools in Campbell River, Courtenay, Qualicum Beach and Nanaimo....

...I know for sure the one here in Nanaimo is still open.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 19:01
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 119
I too have fallen foul of flying unwittingly overweight in a PA38, with only 15 or so gallons in the tank. A friend of mine is approx 16 stone and I 12 but I made the mistake of assuming (that word again..) that 2 blokes and only half fuel would be fine and only idly did a calculation to see how much extra fuel I could put in. The result was that my last 3 flights had been 5% over MTOW. At this weight it did not SEEM to make any difference with a healthy (for a PA38) 500ft per minute climb and a seemingly normal take off run. I am in NO WAY advocating flying above MTOW and that was the last flight I made with my friend in a 2 seater. In my case although over MTOW the aeroplane was within C of G limits but that does not make me feel much better to be honest.

One thing that is often said, without much evidence to back it up it seems, is the matter of it automatically invalidating insurance? I can see how it may be an issue if the exceeding of the MTOW was proved to be a causative factor in the accident but I have my reservations (though I am frequently wrong) as to whether it would AUTOMATICALLY invalidate insurance. I would not want to test it though and end up losing all my future earning through being too tight to hire a 4 seater!
Beethoven is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 19:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Flying an airplane over its certified weight means you are flying it outside its legal limits......if you have an accident and the investigation proves you were flying it outside its certification limits...do you really think your insurance company will pay the claim?
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 20:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
Chuck

Most flying schools instructing on the Cessna 150 where I have seen them fill the tanks and then seen two 200 ib plus guys jump in are overweight and it happens all the time.
The ironic thing is that the same instructor runs through WandB calculations and then turns a blind eye.
Having flown a limited amount of ferries I also know with ferry tanks fitted they can be way over grosse weight at weights which would shock the average PPL.
Other than the insurance factor and runway length I would be more concerned with C of G which is an absolute NO NO! Oh of course if its a twin overweight you are more likely to be going down so better treat it as a single.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 20:09
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Wimbledon
Posts: 2
Thank you all for your suggestions. I'll follow some of them up and let you know what happens, in case you're interested. My nephew is keen to study aeronautical engineering at university and would love to learn to fly something with an engine (I stick to my paraglider).
Clothandstring is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 20:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 119
Chuck, I don't know, that's why I am asking. Certainly in the UK drink drivers get paid out after accidents as do people breaking the speed limit, even when they are contributory causes to the accident. I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.
Beethoven is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 20:22
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,999
I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.
Everything is fine until its not fine! Flying an aircraft outside its certificated limits makes the insurance void.
So if there is a large insurance claim the insurance company will have a way out of paying.
As far as I know and i am happy to be corrected on this if the flight starts illegal it remains illegal.
Ie you start overweight burn off fuel so you are now within limits then have an accident it is still classified as an illegal flight and hence uninsured if the insurers can prove that when you started the flight the aircraft was overweight?

My comments in the posting above was not on insurance but whether an aircraft can safely fly over grosse weight the answer is yes if you have plenty of runway and the C of G is good.

But you are playing Russian roulette with the insurance and russian roulette in a twin if you loose an engine

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 22:05
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,085
I am asking if aviation insurance companies are able to refuse to pay out even if the cause of an accident is nothing to do with the weight.
The short answer is yes.

After an accident, the insurance company will ask you for evidence that the flight was legal, including the aircraft docs, mass & balance, piot licence/currency, etc. and if there is anything illegal they can refuse to pay.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2014, 22:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Chuck

Most flying schools instructing on the Cessna 150 where I have seen them fill the tanks and then seen two 200 ib plus guys jump in are overweight and it happens all the time.
It seems it is the same here in Canada.

However when I owned a school I made sure my instructors paid attention to the rules and regulations by having them sign an agreement that if I employed them and found they had intentionally or stupidly ignored the rules and regulations I would terminate them.

I had three Cessna 150's one Tomahawk, two Cessna 172's, one Grumman Cheetah, one Piper Geronimo and one Robinson R22 Mariner so there was no excuse for flying a Cessna 150 overweight.

The way I look at it is if they were willing to break the rules over something so easy to avoid as flying overloaded they were not employable.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 11:01
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
I'd like to give my nephew a trial flying lesson, but he's a big lad -- about 18 stone. Does anyone know of a flying school near London (preferably to the south, but anywhere will do) where this will not be a problem? I believe some schools use four-seater aircraft. Thanks for your help.
I just did a quick w&b and we can certainly offer flying lessons to your nephew in our PA 28 warrior. He would also be fine in our SuperCub or DA 40 even with me (100 kg) as instructor. All we need to do is manage the fuel. If he flies with our lady instructor there would be no issue.

I can even offer aerobatics in our Slingsby T67, although we would need to go with minimum fuel and forgo the parachutes.


I recently taught student who is 6'8" tall and weighs in at 125 kg. he mainly flew in a 172, but he did fit in the warrior too. Unfortunately, he could not get his knees under the instrument panel in the DA 40.

I instruct at Redhill. Pm me if you want any more details.
dobbin1 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 14:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 13,772
Originally Posted by dobbin1 View Post
I can even offer aerobatics in our Slingsby T67, although we would need to go with minimum fuel and forgo the parachutes.
So you can do aerobatics, but not safely.

Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?

Mind you, from that list, I'd go for the SuperCub anyhow, by far the most fun aeroplane on the list.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 17:29
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Quote:
So you can do aerobatics, but not safely
Wearing a parachute does not make aerobatics safe. It is inherently more risky that conventional flight and significantly more risky that sitting at home. We all have to take risk into account whenever we undertake an activity. The manoeuvres I do on a trial lesson are very unlikely to result in any sort of departure and I would be be even more cautious when not wearing a parachute. For example, I do not spin without parachutes.
Quote:
Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?
G
No. 20 percent would imply more than 50 aircraft destroyed in spin accidents out if the 274 made. Not sure of the actual number of spin accidents but it is much less than that. The spin accident rate for the T67 is similar to other aerobatic/military trainers, and better than some. The Tiger Moth probably has the worse record and the Chippie and Bulldog all had spin issues in their time.

Minimum fuel includes adequate reserves.
dobbin1 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 18:43
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,085
So you can do aerobatics, but not safely.

Is it 20% of T67s that have spun into the ground so far? Okay, yours is an M, and those were I think all As and Bs, but why on earth would you fly aeros without a chute, and fly without good fuel reserves?
A bit harsh I feel Genghis, both on Dobbin, and one of the UK's nicest aeroplanes.

I have to agree with Dobbin on both the parachutes and the fuel reserves.

For the record, the Slingsby T67 was produced in 5 models. (Not in chronological order.)

A. Licence built UK version of the Fornier RF6B. Built mainly from wood and fabric with a Lycoming O-235 instead of the Continental O-200 engine.

B. Based on the above, and almost identical looking, with the same engine, but completely redesigned airframe constructed entirely from composite material.

C. B model with 160hp engine.

D. C model with constant speed VP prop.

M. D model with full inverted fuel, and oil systems.
The M model also came with 200hp, and 260hp engines.

None of the above had unusual spin recoveries, or a spin accident record worse than any other aerobatic aircraft.

In the 90s, 114 M260s were sold to the USAF as T3As, and following two highly publicised accidents, the fleet was grounded. After conducting an exhaustive flight test program, The USAF could find no unusual handing characteristics, or reluctance to recover from spins.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 21:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Heavy pax need to step on the scales, they all tell lies, anyway.

I did have a fine big Scotsman as a student, about 20 years ago, at Booker; aside from being too heavy, he was also too tall. So both of us flew without parachutes, and he flew with his shoes off, in his socks, and went solo in 23 airtow flights.

Flying without parachutes was quite legal. I couldn't really ask him to fly without a chute if I continued to wear one....imagine the conversation if we both tried to bail out with only one chute between us!
mary meagher is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2014, 21:57
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Go for a Pa28-181 Archer to be on the safe side. No point risking disappointment by going for a 152 and finding that its not possible.


Blackbushe Aviation at Blackbushe Airport near Cmberley will sort you out nicely.
chrisbl is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.