Gross Weight

As a contrary data point, my (Canadian Marsh/Lloyds)
insurance includes an explicit requirement to stay within
W&B limits to retain coverage.

Which may or may not be enforcable, depending on state laws. It is
true, thought, that some carrier demand in-envelope operation, and that
others required the airworthiness cert to be in full force and effect,
and then argue that over-weight operation voids said cert. Again,
whether this latter approach would work would depend on the state.
Avemco, though, specifically say that you can be over-weight and
they'll still pay. And no-one has yet produce an example of *any*
company failing to pay as a result of an aircraft being over-weight....

Has anyone identified an accident that was caused by being overweight.
Are they common? Certainly not as common as running out of fuel.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
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.

Yes, I pretty much figured this was the case ... hence the smiley!

Matt

On 8 Jul 2005 17:55:19 -0700, "Doug" wrote:

Has anyone identified an accident that was caused by being overweight.
Are they common? Certainly not as common as running out of fuel.

Plenty of accidents caused by being outside of the CG envelope.

I recall a Bonanza that crashed on takeoff leaving KASH with a load of NH
tax-free liquor.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I don't have a cite. I have been sued by a few insurance companies. You
learn a lot that way. Mostly you learn they like stringing it out
forfreakinever.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Fred,

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


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit
in
your system...

KB

Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of
California.
There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.

Cite.

Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe
either.

If you have ever flown slightly gross weight, then you have already
flown as a test pilot. First, the official weight and balance is
probably decades old, and your aircraft most likely weighs several
pounds more now. Second, people under-estimate their weight. Unless you
have a weighing scale as people board, you can never be sure of the
actual weight. Finally, the aircraft is far different from when it was
tested during manufacture. A dirty airframe will reduce performance,
and an old prop will not work as well as a brand new one. Most
importantly, your engine definitely will not perform like a brand new
engine. So, whether you like it or not, you have already been a test
pilot. For this reason, I never fly an aircraft near its max gross. I
have seen pilots diligently trying to unload weight until it is exactly
equal to the max gross weight.







"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"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

If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?

If you take off 45 lbs. over in a 172 in how many minutes will you be at
gross?

Sixty or so, assuming you stay in the air. Which has nothing to do with
my question.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

And just what do you do with that 7 1/2 gallons of gas? Especially if
you are not at you home field.

I suppose it depends how it got there.

And have you ever tried draining several gallons of fuel out of an
airplane?

Yes. For precisely those reasons.

And after draining 7 1/2 gallons our of a Champ I only have 4 1/2
gallons left.

Then it would be a short flight.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...

Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe
either.

I can certainly agree with that. There's safe, and there's legal. Safe is
not always legal, and legal is not always safe.

As a pilot, it is our duty (in my opinion) to take the more conservative of
either limitation, except under duress (in which case it could still be
argued the chosen action is still the most conservative action available at
the moment).

Pete

I did my initial training in C-150's and 152's.
We were over gross on many, if not most of those flights, and I'll bet I'm not
the only one here.

When Cessna restarted production of piston singles, many asked why they did
not bring back the venerable 152. The official reply was that it would cost as
much to build an up to date 152 as the new Skyhawks - but I'll bet they also
looked at the utility, and decided once the modern seats and avionics were in
it, it would be dangerously over gross with two adults and full fuel. Since it
has two seats, this would be a liability concern for them.

G Faris