CHC AW 189s
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Likes: 1
From: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Good grief!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
Hence why if it did get off the ground some sort of inspection would be due...as for an 8 ton helicopter, I wouldn't have thought 200 kg over would cause much of a whimper from the airworthiness maintenance aspect.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Likes: 1
From: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
How long might it have been routinely operated overweight? How much much stress might have all the different components been subjected to after an unknown number of cycles of perf class 1 & 2 takeoffs, helideck landings etc? If it was overweight, was it also way outside C of G?
Of course these questions have to be considered before you can release an aircraft back to service after it has exceeded its design limitations. What if it crashed tomorrow? Do you think the management staff would be justified in saying, "Well, we were only a bit illegal, as its a big aircraft, so we thought we would just ignore it and keep our fingers crossed".
Have you ever heard of a safety culture?
Of course these questions have to be considered before you can release an aircraft back to service after it has exceeded its design limitations. What if it crashed tomorrow? Do you think the management staff would be justified in saying, "Well, we were only a bit illegal, as its a big aircraft, so we thought we would just ignore it and keep our fingers crossed".
Have you ever heard of a safety culture?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Overweight is overweight! What would you expect? That'll be fine, mate ... crack on? Or an inspection to make sure you havent damaged something which is going to show it in 50 hours time?
Good grief!
Good grief!
Just what might such an inspection begin to look for that would manifest itself visually?
This brochure shows an approved 300 KG upgrade in Max Gross Weight if I read it correctly.
https://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...89Offshore.pdf
I would be less worried about the "over weight" than" how and why" it happened!
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
But that 300kg upgrade will require additional equipment/modifications and/or adjustments to the performance graphs - that is what happened with the 139.
If the standard aircraft was fit for the additional weight increase then it would have been certified as such in the first place.
As Non- PC plod says - overweight is overweight and at the very least you need to assess how much and for how long and then carry out inspections and perhaps calculate time penalties for critical components.
What would happen if you crashed during a PC1 departure because you were outside the WAT graphs? What would your insurance company say and how long would your licence last - remember ass, tin, ticket SAS?
If the standard aircraft was fit for the additional weight increase then it would have been certified as such in the first place.
As Non- PC plod says - overweight is overweight and at the very least you need to assess how much and for how long and then carry out inspections and perhaps calculate time penalties for critical components.
What would happen if you crashed during a PC1 departure because you were outside the WAT graphs? What would your insurance company say and how long would your licence last - remember ass, tin, ticket SAS?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Bit quick to jump into the Weeds are you Crab?
You assume of course the Pilots knowingly operated the aircraft 2.5% over the 8300 kg weight limit.
Perhaps they did not know....thus why would their "Ticket" be in jeopardy?
Now if like in the "Iron 41" S-61 Crash.....had the Operator provided the Pilot's bogus Weight and Balance and WAT Data....it would be the Operator and not the Pilots that were in violation.
As the weight was upped by 300 kgs....perhaps not as much damage was done as might be assumed.
Again....I am more concerned how such a thing happened and let the chips lay where they fall following the inquiry.
The Carson culprits wound up in the Gray Bar Hotel over their falsifying FAA and USFS documentation.
By the way....I lost a friend in that crash so I do fully grasp the significance of such issues.
You assume of course the Pilots knowingly operated the aircraft 2.5% over the 8300 kg weight limit.
Perhaps they did not know....thus why would their "Ticket" be in jeopardy?
Now if like in the "Iron 41" S-61 Crash.....had the Operator provided the Pilot's bogus Weight and Balance and WAT Data....it would be the Operator and not the Pilots that were in violation.
As the weight was upped by 300 kgs....perhaps not as much damage was done as might be assumed.
Again....I am more concerned how such a thing happened and let the chips lay where they fall following the inquiry.
The Carson culprits wound up in the Gray Bar Hotel over their falsifying FAA and USFS documentation.
By the way....I lost a friend in that crash so I do fully grasp the significance of such issues.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Likes: 1
From: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
As Crab says, they dont normally just "up" the weight without, for example, beefing up the landing gear. I have no idea what a post- overweight ops inspection might include, but it may not be purely visual. Maybe they would re-examine HUMS data, do some NDT on particular components etc.
SAS - I agree completely that there is something even more worrying in the SOPs if the aircraft are dispatched overweight, but for the airframe, you cant just treat it as if nothing has happened.
SAS - I agree completely that there is something even more worrying in the SOPs if the aircraft are dispatched overweight, but for the airframe, you cant just treat it as if nothing has happened.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 768
Likes: 45
From: Montreal
Not the first time CHC Australia has operated above gross inadvertently due to some operational control weakness. Last time was the 139, again by some small nominal amount. Don’t they operate to the same worldwide OFPS?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: UK
Any components or structure that are lifed on landing cycles may incur a penalty factor on that life for every overweight cycle e.g PF of 2 would mean a cycle would be recorded as two cycles. It maybe a case that aircraft are being temporarily grounded while Tech Records are calculating how many overweight cycles have occurred, what penalty factors apply and amending component usage lives accordingly. It might not just be landing cycles. It could apply to flying hours also.The PF will be stipulated in manufacturer airworthiness requirements.
Last edited by nodrama; 8th December 2018 at 20:46.
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: beneath the stars
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 642
Likes: 2
From: daworld
Operational Control weakness is what Malabo is referring too. The 139 overweight issue was directly due to the fact that they screwed up their W&B and never caught it. He isn't saying the 139 has weak controls.
They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.
They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: beneath the stars
Operational Control weakness is what Malabo is referring too. The 139 overweight issue was directly due to the fact that they screwed up their W&B and never caught it. He isn't saying the 139 has weak controls.
They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.
They flew the 139's overweight for a number of weeks before the "anomaly" with the weight and balance was found and the aircraft were grounded pending Leonardo prescribing inspections for returning the aircraft to service.