Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

"F. Baum" wrote in news:df63bc2f-bc09-43c7-8183-
:

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,

??
You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that
way?


Bertie

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

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

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.

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

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! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

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

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

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

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?