Worked with several ex-Rhodesian Air Force Alouette/Huey pilots in the early 1980s. They had 'occasionally' operated the Aloe's above MAUM until the manufacturer's test pilot told them that - of all the limits they could exceed - going over max mass was the one thing that would prematurely b*gg*r the aircraft. They went to great lengths after that to keep below the limit, as resources weren't exactly easy to come by.

Overweight
 

Tourist

Apart from the very rare case of taking a calculated risk to save life and accepting the possibility of some sort of failure while doing so and accepting the fact that the aircraft should be grounded for stringent checks if you succeed, I can't think of any other circumstances warranting it.

With few possible exceptions, there are NO circumstances that warrant intentionally exceeding published limitations. There maybe emergency situations where an exceedance is required to save the machine. i.e. OEI situation or an unusual attitude recovery in close proximity to the ground. These would be categorized as emergency situations and as such limitations may be legally ignored to save the machine and its occupants. In any case all exceedances have to be documented.

I think you need more imagination and to step outside your own parochial world for a bit.

What a great statement:-

"with a few possible exceptions there are no circumstances..."

That could be paraphrased as " yes there are circumstances"

Tourist.

I think it's a bit harsh to describe someone who advocates operating an aircraft inside it's limits in all but an emergency situation as having a "parochial" outlook.

This was a question soliciting opinions for a civilian magazine article - not asking for an analysis of risk-balance for military operations.

OH

Yes, probably a little harsh, but people who declare that others are a liability just because their section of aviation shouldn't and doesn't tolerate certain actions irritate me. There are many different sections of aviation, and for some the priorities change.

The object of this thread was not the discussion of ones sensibilities with respect to when it may be OK to intentionally overload an aircraft but rather to the discuss the potential dangers of over loading an aircraft. The thread addresses by title "The Dangers of Overloading" and goes on to specifically ask if this is a problem in commercial work. There are two basic elements to the question, physical damage to the machine and potential liability. Physical damage may be categorized as either immediate obvious physical damage (wrinkled skin) or a more insidious reduction in aircraft and or component life. In either case both can be addressed if the overload situation is documented. Additional concerns surround potential legal or regulatory issues. I know of one instance where an EMS base was threatened with shut down for a 1KG error in the weight and balance computations due to an error when transferring empty weight information from the RFM to the weight and balance computer. There was no actual record of the aircraft ever being flown in an overloaded condition but to quote the FAA Operations Inspector the PIC could not actually ascertains the actual weight of his aircraft. In addition to shutting the operation down the PIC was informed that his certificate privileges may be revoked.

Gosh...I qualified for flying overweight from about the age of 50 onwards.....too many of the foaming ales and good curries I guess!

Going back to the OP, can I suggest that the title be extended to include operating outside the C of G envelope too. As a post also mentioned, operating underweight should also be considered. It can be a real issue especially for light pilots. Operating within the mass and balance limits is the complete issue.

The recent posts have gone into a parallel universe, as far as a magazine article is concerned, surely. Presumably, the audience for this article would be normal pilots or student pilots, mainly PPLs.

Helinut, I agree and can easily extend it to cover those issues. As for the audience, I'm not certain. The magazine is published in South Africa and aimed at the aviation industry as a whole, but is actually fairly lightweight; and I just do the helicopter bits, with a feature each month if we can come up with a topic. So I try to aim it at pilots and any other interested parties...I think!

As for where the thread is going, I never realised I'd touched a nerve with this topic; I wondered if I had enough to write 1500 words, and actually there's tons; thank you all. I'm happy for the thread to go anywhere; from my point of view I can take the relevant stuff and read the rest as background, adding to my woefully incomplete knowledge of this topic. So please, keep 'em coming!

The comment about "weighing" an aircraft by measuring Tq in the hover reminds me about a thread on here.

There was a thread about a guy who wanted to learn to fly but thought he was too overweight. I was amazed at how many people did not have a clue about performance. One poster even mentioned how he did a check ride in an overweight aircraft "but it was fine"

Performance, thrust margin.....or the ability to do work. What ever you call it, if you are paying lip service to AUM, you are also probably clueless of blasé about how much "work" you can get out of an aircraft.

It is down to instructors to instill the correct thought process about performance and planning, a gash attitude at the beginning leads to gash unthinking pilots.

I would only overload the aircraft if it was to save a life, and after a measured decision, there was no other way to achieve the aim.

I have refused pax in Afghanistan that would take me over corrected AUM. Any extra weight would:

1. Reduce my performance available - not acceptable
2. Limit my options in an emergency-not acceptable
3. Reduce my ability to fight the aircraft-only a foolhardy, cocky, arrogant pilot would give that ammunition to your enemy.

Take away those emotive factors, and I cannot see any reason why you would choose to play on the bounds of safety. There are old pilots and bold pilots.....but no old bold pilots.

ralph

Have you heard of "Operation Plum Duff"?

That was a circumstance which involved a Seaking that I am led to believe was spectacularly over it's MAUW. It was a calculated risk.

I assume since you mentiuoned Afghan that you are military or ex mil.

Saving a life is not the only reason to do something dangerous. Sometimes operational effect is worth the risk of breaking a few rules.
ie, sometimes it is worth it to take a life not save it.

The art of captaincy is knowing when and by just exactly how much to break rules/limits when the situation warrants it.

Otherwise all you would need to be the best captain ever is an encyclopedic knowledge of the rule book and it does not work that way.

Even the rule books, both civil and military recognise that excursions may be necessary and justified under certain circumstances.

Tourist,
“Operation Plum Duff" and similarly “Operation Blue Light” were covert missions, based on operating the machines well above their normal Maximum Weight limitations from mission inception. The decision to operate these machines at increased maximum weight was a command mission decision not a unilateral decision by the aircraft commanders. Both of these missions resulted in all aircraft being destroyed during the prosecution of the mission. It is my belief that the destruction of the machines was as part of the mission plan.

Jack

Oh well, then thats all right then.

Because of course the laws of physics apply differently to "command decisions" made by people who don't have to fly the helicopter than they do to unilateral pilots.:rolleyes:


The destruction of the aircraft had nothing to do with the decision to fly them overweight.

My point is merely that there are times when it is not stupid to fly outside the normal limits. Dangerous, yes. Wrong, maybe not.

Tourist,

In today's military, even at war, the MAA and the threat of "illegal"activities would put paid to 95% of the times when people would be prepared to do such things. BOI's are rightly very critical, and the repercussions vast. Nobody now travels in helicopters in an unrestrained fashion (even them) even on operations.

We are clearly not talking about "total war" where the machine and crew are less important than the aim. The decision to load an aircraft above AUM for an OP still happens very very occasionally. The only time I am aware of the aircraft was grounded afterwards and shipped home for NDT and examination by the manufacturer.

I take your point about captaincy. Experience levels in the UK MOD for example are dropping rapidly. Ops in the sandy place are one thing (same day,same way tasking) broad and diverse experience is rare. When experience drops, supervision must increase if we cannot accept the repercussions of people "learning lessons"

I think you will find today's MOD terribly heavily regulated for that reason. In the latest CH-47 wire strike for example, the crew were allegedly flying lower than 100' in the transit. When questioned why, they were unaware (maybe) that flight below 50' for transit was only permitted in designated areas!!!

They had signed as read the Flying ORDER Book, but the reality is they all either we're not fully au fair with UK flying or just made a mistake. IMHO that is a first order skill for flying- understand the rules. A third order skill is contemplating them and applying them to a given situation. That third order of knowledge is hard to acquire. That's why people either act in ignorance or in flagrance.....leave the funky stuff to the third order guy/girl who considers carefully....with everyone...why it should happen, not the pilot who thinks "I'm just going to......."

ralph

Fully agree with everything you say, and I think that our operational capability is suffering because of it.

Tourist,

I take your point about exceptional do or die miltary scenarios - the "liability" I refer to is the person who does not pay due regard to the implications of breaking the limits. Having moved from the military environment to international civil and military training, I was amazed at how few people out there have ever looked at a performance graph; how many people think that if you have 12 seats, you can load 12 people in, and how many times have I ever seen anyone do a weight & balance calculation? - Not very Many!
It is these people who are the liabilities.

Then I agree with you as well!

Whirly,

You might like to look at MBJ's thread about heavy, hot and high with his 3D rig, for a good practical example:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/496...amera-rig.html

Thanks for that link, Helinut. Definitely food for thought.....