I already posted the FAA reg, and it says "No person operating ... may take off ..."

Not "no person may plan to take off" and, oopsie daisy!, things didn't go according to plan..

Band a Lot,

Honestly I do not really understand how a regulator can allow to deliberately exceed an aircraft limitation or performance, it seems really odd.
Can You give us some examples of operational situation where Your employer/regulator will allow You that and under what regulations You are operating (EASA, FAA, etc..) ?
Thanks !

we are living in a world where people trying to save energy and fuel,, but here fuel has been burnt to reduce the TOW...

Post #1 details the circumstances under which it was necessary to do so.

EASA. There you go.:eek:

How do you know? Did you put the aircraft on a scale at the holding point?

It isn't in mine!

You work to your Ops Manual. I'll work to mine. What's an OFDM? And I DO read my manuals thanks, and think what I'm doing, or else I wouldn't be posting this stuff on here, would I? :ugh:

Let's try again. I give you a load sheet, you have a current ramp weight of 302t and a take off weight of 300t all based on a taxi fuel of 2t. 300t is also your structural MTOW. You start taxi, and uh uh ! Happy days you get to go first in sequence having burned 500kg of fuel. Now 302t-0.5 = 301.5t. You are 1.5t above Your MTOW. You don't need a scale here, You need a 6 years old maths skills.

I will:E

Onboard flight data monitoring.

the driving point here is: it does not matter if the airplane is actually above MTOW.

you can't accurately calculate your current weight so you calculate a weight governed by certain rules ... which is the weight you compare to your MTOW.

if all the weights would be vs actual weights you could always say:
but i didn't have a scale so i didn't know for sure i was overweight so i packed two elephants more.

I get it, no need to patronise. OFDM, as you put it, can only monitor based on inputted ZFW. As we both know, this is highly likely to be inaccurate anyway. My ops manual says minor exceedance is OK. Your example is flawed, it's unlikely for 2T taxi fuel, more likely to be burning contingency. I see no point in discussing this further as you don't work for the same company as me and I don't have to answer to you! :hmm:

no problem:)

Apparently, Overstress is just making stuff up. He won't name the country or quote the manual where he says this is allowed. It is more like, he is just taking off a bit overweight. Probably not a worry as it is not monitored.

i would think that any skipper who sat on a taxiway or moved slowly with high thrust set would quickly attract the ire of airfield operations. Most taxiways are do not have re enforced shoulders. I have seen quad jets rip up long stretches of grass just at idle thrust.

He might be, he might not...

But FWIW and as I mentioned earlier our EASA compliant Ops manual allows it, and it is monitored.

I think you will find it is the regulator that sets the "standard weights" of pax not the aircraft manufacturer.

So it wont even take a smart pilot walking past his passengers to notice if many/most or all pax are over weight.

Lets say 90% appear to be a bit fat as the pilot walked down the isle - no problem here it is perfectly legal. Because it has been approved by the regulator and data had been given to average weights on certain things - this case passengers.

Now I know many companies that run extensions, on engines ( I know it not a weight thing) that are approved because a company has developed a method that has been deemed acceptable (this can be trend testing and overhaul limit checks), The regulator also has approved methods to test colour blind pilots - but that's a different story.

Now it is certainly possible to have a approved system in place to handle small overweight conditions (so may just need to be recorded) - the over weight landing checks for instance depend on by how much over weight was the landing, a very small amount requires a very small inspection, a large amount is a different story.

FYI I have worked FAA, EASA, CASA and a few of the CAA's

But you won't write down the wording for us. I think then that it is a made-up story. Or not discovered during the audit.

Easy way around this, just input the zfw as 500kg lower into the FMC/FMS etc :E

Not that I'm an advocate of course :}

Haha!! I never had a overweight take off situation but I have been a couple of time close to MLW due to tankering and I was thinking about what you just said. lol

Do not remember if this is the one but RAM had an increased gross weight approved by FAA and a STC issued simply by re mark of the ASI + a flight manual suplement.

Serviceable ( non-TAS ) airspeed indicators - remarked
[ If TAS indicator is currently installed, consult with your RAM representative. ]
<li class="Body-Copy">Gross Weight Increase STC and Flight Manual Supplement
T310 P [ + 270 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,400 up to 5,670 lbs. ]
T310 Q [ +170 lbs. Useful load ] [ GW from 5,500 up to 5,670 lbs. ]

The problem is...the documents are kept for a year and the CAA auditors where I fly are good at finding minute details.

JammedStab, thanks for questioning my integrity. My employer has a social media policy which I'm not about to break here just so you can know where I work. And I have never taken off overweight, I simply quote a company ops manual which is not available online except if you have a company login! To be clear, I'm not cutting and pasting, I paraphrase. Why would I make stuff up, life's too short.

If you don't like alternative views, why spend time on an aviation forum? Why not just accept that different operators in different countries have different policies and interpretations?