Gross Weight

Bob Gardner wrote:

You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is
legitimate (unless you are in Alaska).

Isn't there some type of "over gross" FAA waiver for which one can apply
when ferrying an aircraft?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Bob Gardner wrote:

You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is
legitimate (unless you are in Alaska).

Isn't there some type of "over gross" FAA waiver for which one can apply
when ferrying an aircraft?

--
Peter

Yes, and not just for ferry flights.

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

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
wrote in
::

How much is too much over gross weight?

Too much for what? Too much to prevent the aircraft from getting off
the ground in the available runway length? Too much to make the
aircraft uncontrollable? Too much to overstress the airframe and do
permanent damage to it? Too much to get by the inspector conducting
the ramp check? Too much to negatively impress those who are aware
that you are willing to betray their trust? ...

If you don't load the aircraft by the book, it won't fly by the book.

But the most serious aspect of your question has to do with attitude.
If one rule can be broken, how many more can be broken? It's a
slippery slope. Don't go there, least you find the answer to your
question.

Airmen have a responsibility to their passengers and those over whom
they aviate. If you yield to social pressure, and permit it to coerce
you into violating regulations, you haven't learned one of the hardest
lessons an airman must. When something goes wrong, those who coerced
you will not defend you; they will condemn you for not adhering to
regulations even if that didn't cause the problem. Rather, show
others that you are a safe, responsible airman who respects the trust
placed in him by those who expect you to be prudent and wise. Be an
asset to the ranks of your fellow airman. Please...

Larry,

It's a
slippery slope.


I really like how you put that aspect.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Exactly.....and well put.

Fred

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
wrote in
::

How much is too much over gross weight?

Too much for what? Too much to prevent the aircraft from getting off
the ground in the available runway length? Too much to make the
aircraft uncontrollable? Too much to overstress the airframe and do
permanent damage to it? Too much to get by the inspector conducting
the ramp check? Too much to negatively impress those who are aware
that you are willing to betray their trust? ...

If you don't load the aircraft by the book, it won't fly by the book.

But the most serious aspect of your question has to do with attitude.
If one rule can be broken, how many more can be broken? It's a
slippery slope. Don't go there, least you find the answer to your
question.

Airmen have a responsibility to their passengers and those over whom
they aviate. If you yield to social pressure, and permit it to coerce
you into violating regulations, you haven't learned one of the hardest
lessons an airman must. When something goes wrong, those who coerced
you will not defend you; they will condemn you for not adhering to
regulations even if that didn't cause the problem. Rather, show
others that you are a safe, responsible airman who respects the trust
placed in him by those who expect you to be prudent and wise. Be an
asset to the ranks of your fellow airman. Please...

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
the way to the airport? If so, do you feel that this makes you more
likely to drink and drive? Or to drive a vehicle without insurance? If
not, why not? Why does the slippery slope argument apply to gross
weight, but not to speed limits?

Mike Granby wrote:

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
the way to the airport?

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

Consider the fact that in the US, the typical highway speed limit was 65
mph, then dropped to 55 mph over the late '70s, 80s, and 90s, then raised
back to 65 or in some states, even higher, in the late 90s.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of
an arbitrary number than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

Like the max gross on the Warrior 161 that can be changed by putting a
sticker in the POH? Or the max gross in that Cessna that can be changed
by limiting the flap travel? Or the max gross on the PA-32-260 which is
the same as that on the PA-32-300, despite having a lot less power for
take-offs in marginal conditions? Once you start deciding for yourself
what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
"experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
max gross. You're thinking for yourself, and ignoring the rules. Thus,
if one is likely to make you an across-the-board rule breaker, so is
the other. There are good arguments against over weight operation, but
this slippery-slope argument isn't one of them.

Also, let's do away with this by-the-book argument. None of us fly
light aircraft by the book. We don't take-off from fields that are
*exactly* what is stated as required by the book and we don't land into
fields that are *exactly* what the book says we need to stop. We add a
safety margin that we are comfortable with, and that is based upon our
own experience of the aircraft that we've built-up over time. The book
figures are, as we always reminded, with a new aircraft with a pilot
who is probably a damn sight better than we are. So, since our aircraft
aren't new, and since we're not that good, we might as well say that on
every take-off, we're a test pilot, since we're operating in conditions
that aren't documented in the POH.

The fact is that over-weight operation is not particularly dangerous
unless you're out of balance or in marginal conditions re the take-off
in the first place. The structural effects aren't going to be a
problem, and the stall speed effects aren't going to be a problem. The
failure mode that matters is failing to get out of ground effect, or
failing to get into the air at all. And that is something that can
happen whether or not you stick to max gross, and that you have to use
your judgement to decide upon based upon your knowledge of the airplane
and what you're comfortable with. So while it isn't legal, it isn't
particularly dangerous, and it is far more common than most people
would admit.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
the way to the airport?

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

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.