![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 20, 9:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual, ?? You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that way? Bertie BTB, All this stuff is figured within two hours of departure, after the fuel load is determined. As far as I know bookings are only restricted where there is a regular pattern of denied boardings. FBaum |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 21, 3:32*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Apr 19, 1:58*pm, WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 20, 5:28*am, "F. Baum" wrote: Airlines use average wieghts for pax and bags . These are conservative . Not any more. The only thing limiting PAX weight is how many lard asses can get stuffed into the same row. Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual, and that there is unused tolerance on most flights . We only use child weights when nessesary. I dont know what your experience has been, but I will say again that the numbers are pretty conservative and give a good margin of safety. Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population clinically obese and 30% overweight? Cheers |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population clinically obese and 30% overweight? Cheers Do you think that that 10% and 30% applies evenly though out the population? I'd bet the higher socio-economic levels of the population, which also just happen to be the people most likely to be flying have a lower obesity rate. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson
wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be aware of? Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. Dan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 7:21*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote: On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. *Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. *Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. *I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. *I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? *Or just roundoff error on the weight? *Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. *50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. *What else should I be aware of? *Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. * I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. *The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. *The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. *A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. *It crashed into the trees. *Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. *We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. *We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. *The company went out of business shortly thereafter. *Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. *Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. *The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. * * *Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. * * * * * * * Dan I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? Cheers |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:21 am, Dudley Henriques wrote: wrote: On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be aware of? Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. Dan I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? Cheers I have no idea. The general picture I get from the legal eagles is that if the accident was caused by a direct violation involving a pre-takeoff decision to fly the aircraft outside it's legal parameters such as a decision to take off over gross involving an accident on the takeoff when the aircraft was in fact over grossed, it's an open ball game for the lawyers because the decision was made to fly while the aircraft was on the ground. I didn't ask about the inflight scenaro, but I'm sure you can see that the situation might be different, as the main error for the stall/spin scenario is pilot error. The impression I get is that a decision made before the takeoff is a different ball game from a bad decision made in flight. -- Dudley Henriques |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 7:46*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 22, 7:21 am, Dudley Henriques wrote: wrote: On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. *Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. *Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. *I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. *I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? *Or just roundoff error on the weight? *Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. *50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. *What else should I be aware of? *Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. * I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. *The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. *The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. *A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. *It crashed into the trees. *Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. *We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. *We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. *The company went out of business shortly thereafter. *Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. *Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. *The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. * * *Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. * * * * * * * Dan I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations.. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? Cheers I have no idea. The general picture I get from the legal eagles is that if the accident was caused by a direct violation involving a pre-takeoff decision to fly the aircraft outside it's legal parameters such as a decision to take off over gross involving an accident on the takeoff when the aircraft was in fact over grossed, it's an open ball game for the lawyers because the decision was made to fly while the aircraft was on the ground. I didn't ask about the inflight scenaro, but I'm sure you can see that the situation might be different, as the main error for the stall/spin scenario is pilot error. The impression I get is that a decision made before the takeoff is a different ball game from a bad decision made in flight. I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... let's be honest, it's what lawyers do for a living -look for advantage through loopholes! Cheers |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act? I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard, stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were killed. I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight, killing 4. Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One, following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally. Where's the slippery slope? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My wife getting scared | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 271 | October 11th 07 08:19 PM |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |