Gross Weight

Hilton

Have you ever drained 5 gallons of fuel out of an airplane to get it
under the maximum gross weight?

Have you ever cancelled the Lesson due to the missing compass
correction card while instructing/flying was your only source of income
and you haven't flown (or been paid) for 3 weeks due to bad weather?

What do you do on your Dual Cross countries when any of the following
occur 100 miles from your home airport and 30 miles from the nearest
Mechanic? And you have 3 more students waiting for you when you get
back since they haven't been able to fly for past 3 weeks due to bad
weather.

1. The Starter Fails
2. The Alternator Fails
3. The Trim Tab Indicator Breaks off
4. The Flap Position indicator Fails
5. The Compass Correction Card Blows out the Window.
6,. You discover the Fluid has all drained out of the Compass
7. Screw falls out of the Cowling
8. Transponder Fails
9. Brake Fails
10. Vacuum Pump fails
11. Stall Warning become inoperative
12, Flap motor Fails


True flying with some of these failures is not even illegal. on the the
other hand I have almost all of them occur to me at some time or
another if not mulitple times.

The Vacuum pump failed about 1 hour into my 1st solo Cross country. Not
a big deal.

Anyway the point is I doubt the statement "I will not delibrately break
an FAR" would hold up many in these situations. Perhaps I am wrong in
your case if so I suspect you are in a unique situation and more power
to you.

Also remember that many aircraft are crashed or damages without ever
breaking a FAR.

Brian

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

"once you go over the max weight,
you are essentially a test pilot".

That's putting it a bit strongly.

No, it's putting it quite accurately.

As long as the CG issues are OK, the
effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms
of stall speed, take-off requirements etc.

The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of stall
speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during certification, the
airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety of configurations by a
*test pilot* to demonstrate the actual performance.

Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the fact
that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they know)
configuration is a "test pilot".

The structural issues won't
come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other
things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to
go-around at max gross with full flaps)

Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum allowed
value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value" isn't really so
much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer is required to meet in
order to avoid other things). It's true that max gross weight may be
affected by things other than structural issues, but there is no way to know
whether this is true without consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the
theoretical over-gross pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least
one common airplane for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing
weight (which is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane).

and in any case, there's a
large safety margin in there.

The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight operations.
It's not so you can operate over the legal limits. Operate over the legal
weight, and you've just abandoned your "large safety margin".

The fact is that assuming you're not on
the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It
isn't legal, but it will be safe.

It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the legal
weight, which is the comment to which you replied.

As to the arguement that breaking one
rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
like saying speeding leads to murder...

That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we had
better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many people
disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way when it comes
to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people disregard for rules. Each
person winds up setting their own limits, rather than respecting the limits
society claims to have made. And yes, in some cases, those limits go way
beyond just speeding.

Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but general
disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative behavior.

Pete

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
[...]
At some airlines, I have seen references to "Maximum Gross
Weight" and "Actual Gross Weight", but never just Gross Weight
meaning a certificate limit.

And yet, somehow, we all knew what he meant. We must all be psychic.

As a CFI, I have canceled lessons because the
compass card was missing or not legible - perhaps
the cancelation proves to be a better lesson for the
student in the long run than the instructional flight.

Yeah, right. And I'm sure the guy who took time off work, drove to the
airport, and then had you cancel on him 'cos the bloody compass card
was ilegible was really pleased with the lesson you taught him. It's up
to you how you teach, but I'm glad my CFI had a more realistic
attitude.........

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:18:12 -0400, Stubby
wrote:

I'm met a few USAF test pilots. None of them ever talked about flying
over max weight.

During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.

Were the test pilots flying those missions? If not, I fail to see the
relevance to the post you quoted.

In any case, if I were loading up an airplane in order to intentionally fly
it somewhere that had a good chance of getting me killed anyway, I probably
wouldn't worry so much about aircraft weight either. That doesn't mean it's
a reasonable philosophy for the rest of us.

Pete

Matt Whiting wrote:
As a former part 135 charter and cargo pilot, I can also tell you that you
wouldn't hold on to your job for long if you hold on to your principles so
tightly. Some leeway is expected, as nobody operates in the perfect world
except the FAA... and apparently, you.

Is that why you are a former charter and cargo pilot? :-)



Not even close. Nursing pays much better and the jobs are waiting for me in any
town I chose to visit. My last flying position ended in a pilot's meeting on a
Thursday telling us that the bank had taken our aircraft and it's been nice
knowing us. On Saturday I picked up a newspaper telling me that a new nursing
school had just been approved by the State Board and that they were taking
applications. I was on the phone to them on Monday. The rest is history.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...
I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by the
marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
specification rather than some engineering requirement.

Cite

The same issue comes up with regard to landings. Long
smooth runway in daylight and light winds, in a plane I've
flown before many times? No problem. Unfamiliar airplane
and short strip with gusty crosswinds? I think I want all
the protection I can have.

Agreed 100%. As I said before, it's about JUDGEMENT.

See the NTSB references in my reply to cwk.

I looked at these, both of which were for Cessna 402Cs, which I think
immediately says something about whether we're dealing with a general
or model-specific issue. The first, for N819BW, happened when the spar
broke where it had been subject to mechanical damage AND deep machining
marks. Hardly sounds like being over-weight was the cause here. The
second, N405MN, can't really be put down to anything, since very little
of the airplane was recovered. Again, hardly a clear case of
over-weight operation causing structural failure.

Morgans wrote:
"Corky Scott" wrote


During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.


The Hiroshima bomber took off 8 tons overweight. Wow.
OK but that was a very special mission, not the typical test pilot task.

Test pilots are not supposed to see how much over gross they can fly.
They do things like fly in a 60-deg bank at 420 kts with a power setting
of X to see what altitude change results.

Brian wrote:
Have you ever drained 5 gallons of fuel out of an airplane to get it
under the maximum gross weight?


Good God... no. Nor will I. I'd never be welcome there again.


Have you ever cancelled the Lesson due to the missing compass
correction card while instructing/flying was your only source of income
and you haven't flown (or been paid) for 3 weeks due to bad weather?


I can tell you at least have operated with the constraints placed on someone who
flies for a living. These simplistic rules of thumb I've been reading from the
self righteous here are making me want to spew. Simple rules are for simple
people.


What do you do on your Dual Cross countries when any of the following
occur 100 miles from your home airport and 30 miles from the nearest
Mechanic? And you have 3 more students waiting for you when you get
back since they haven't been able to fly for past 3 weeks due to bad
weather.


You tie down the airplane, set the brake, set the throttle (gently) and hand
prop it. Then you fly it home IFR (I follow roads). I've had most of that crap
happen to me one time or another too. My last 135 cargo company expected us to
continue to the destination on one engine if the other failed; they didn't get
paid otherwise. That's the reality of flying for pay. You don't get the
privileges of flying for fun.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE