Rolling a Non Aerobat 150

Skywise wrote:
George Patterson wrote in
news:QJFre.5835$fa3.83@trndny01:

Skywise wrote:

Knowing the weight of your passengers
and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?

Not necessarily. Knowing that the aircraft is at or below MGW and within
the envelope is part of your duty as PIC. If you have enough passengers
and luggage to be close to MGW, then, yes, you need to know the weights.
If not, you don't.

For example, my Maule would carry 560 pounds with full tanks. Going up
with a single passenger, I never had to ask that person what they
weighed. I simply don't know people who weigh well over 350 pounds. I
know that putting more than 210 pounds in the back seat will put me out
of the envelope. If the EAA brings me two typical 10 year olds, I know I
can put them in the back seat with no problems for a Young Eagles
flight, and I can tell that by looking at them.

The only time I needed to know exact weights were when I took my family
on vacations.

George Patterson

I agree with you completely. There are obviously times when knowing
an exact weight is not necessary, but you are still giving the
weight consideration.

Then there are times when knowing exact weights are important.

You are obviously smart enough to know the difference. I was
getting the impression from some posters that they aren't.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?


Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.

Sport Pilot wrote:
Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.


It's been my experience most aircraft are more sensitive to balance than weight.
Some aircraft are famous for their carrying ability... the Cherokee Six, Cessna
C-182, and Cessna C-210 come to mind. Supposedly they'll fly if you can get the
doors shut. I know for a fact that the Cherokee Six and the C-210 will carry
six people, full fuel , dive gear (less tanks) and baggage for a four day stay.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Sport Pilot" wrote in news:1118839018.676955.266780
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Snipola
Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.

Yes, but as others have pointed out in the 30 minute reserve threads,
the FAA rules are _minimum guidelines_. It is still up to the pilot
to make sure. There may be scenarios where following the FAA rules
to the letter isn't enough.

Perhaps this isn't the best analogy, but there are times driving
around here in the LA area, especially when on my motorcycle, that
I willingly and consciously choose to break traffic laws because
doing otherwise will increase the risk to my life.

When it comes to deciding between rules and safety, I'll choose
safety every time.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Yeah, everyone should decide what is safest for them regardless of stupid
rules, be they driving laws or FARs. To really increase safety on your
bike while on the "10" I'd pack a loaded 12-gauge on your rice rocket,
just like they do here in NH. Live free or die!

"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

Yeah, everyone should decide what is safest for them regardless of stupid
rules, be they driving laws or FARs. To really increase safety on your
bike while on the "10" I'd pack a loaded 12-gauge on your rice rocket,
just like they do here in NH. Live free or die!

Shirley, you jest!!!

I guess you didn't see a recent post by me that stated I have a
Harley. I've been riding for 18 years, before it became fashionable
to own a Harley.

A weapon also is not needed. Since I adopted my current driving style
I've not had any problems in years. This is part of my 'rule bending'.
I don't allow myself to be near other cars if at all possible, or if
I must, I take control of the interaction so as to reduce to a minimum
the possibility of any negative side effects of said interaction.

But this is getting too OT for this group. My only reason for mentioning
it all was as an analogy in support an argument.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Sport Pilot wrote:

Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
estimating the weight.

Just where does the FAA say this?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.