Gross Weight

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.

Mike Granby wrote:

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact there are demonstrative
loss of performance characteristics when operating over a specific
aircraft's gross weight limitation and probably a much higher risk of
accident versus than that of operating an automobile at a speed higher than
what was arbitrarily chosen by the government without regard to the
specific vehicle type.

--
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 =----

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact there are
demonstrative loss of performance characteristics when
operating over a specific aircraft's gross weight limitation
and probably a much higher risk of accident versus than
that of operating an automobile at a speed higher than
what was arbitrarily chosen by the government without
regard to the specific vehicle type.

Well, quite, but that's a conclusion that *you* are coming to, and in
doing so, you are ignoring the rules. And yet if someone comes to a
different decision and decides that, for example, being 5% over-gross
is safer than being 15% over the speed limit, that somehow makes them a
slippery-sloper who will suddently start to break other rules, while
the speeder's judgement as to what rules to follow is considered
without such dangers. Doesn't make sense........

Mike,
I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at the
performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it better
than the older one?

Fred

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

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.

A brand new 172 would have the advantage of not having endured the
overstresses brought on by 30 years of operation over gross...


"Fred Choate" wrote in message
...
Mike,
I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at
the
performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it better
than the older one?

Fred

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

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.

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
...
A brand new 172 would have the advantage of not having endured the
overstresses brought on by 30 years of operation over gross...


"Fred Choate" wrote in message
...
Mike,
I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at
the
performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it
better
than the older one?

Fred

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

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.

"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