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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
"tman" inv@lid wrote in message
news Wow thanks for all the help guys. I showed this post and thread to the two potential pax. Why would you do that? Anyways, I think my weight problem is solved. Did you consider offloading fuel? I routinely do that on long XC's in my 182. For practical purposes, flight legs should be less than 3 hours for biological considerations, so having 5 or 6 hours' worth of fuel on board is doing nothing but adding worthless weight to the plane. Another good investment (if you own or rent very similar models) is a fuel measuring stick calibrated for the model you fly. This gives you a much better reading than the Mk1 EB. -- John T http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer http://sage1solutions.com/products NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook) ____________________ |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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. Frank |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
Tman,
Wow thanks for all the help guys. I showed this post and thread to the two potential pax. I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here, but wtf did you expect? If you just wanted to hear "Sure, do it, you're the greatest", why not talk to the mirror? You got a ton of good information - and now it is up to you to incorporate that in your decision making process. All part of being PIC. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
On Apr 19, 12:50*am, clint wrote:
Fat pepsarent into fat facts! gliderguynj was thinking very hard : Gliderguynj tries to think hard most of the time.....care to share what you meant? Doug |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:28 am, Frank Olson wrote: WingFlaps wrote: I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight. I comend you on your perspicacity. You're dealing with two different things here. If you read your insurance contract it has strict provisions when it comes to the way you operate your aircraft. Operating it with no C of A, or in such a manner that could violate the C of A, leaves the provider recourse to a whole host of legal actions (up to and including cancellation of your contract). And then there's "subrogation". The C of A on my aircraft is non terminating. What does that mean? There are several things about your C of A that you should know about, not the least of which are the conditions upon which it is issued. Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're pushed back from the gate. There we disagree. They may know cargo and baggage and fuel but not meat. Then you obviously don't fly "heavy metal". :-) And neither do you! Cheers No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various airliners. My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150 hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing 747-200 many years ago. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
On Apr 21, 8:45*am, Frank Olson
wrote: WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 20, 4:28 am, Frank Olson wrote: WingFlaps wrote: I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight. I comend you on your perspicacity. You're dealing with two different things here. *If you read your insurance contract it has strict provisions when it comes to the way you operate your aircraft. Operating it with no C of A, or in such a manner that could violate the C of A, leaves the provider recourse to a whole host of legal actions (up to and including cancellation of your contract). *And then there's "subrogation". The C of A on my aircraft is non terminating. What does that mean? There are several things about your C of A that you should know about, not the least of which are the conditions upon which it is issued. Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're pushed back from the gate. There we disagree. They may know cargo and baggage and fuel but not meat. Then you obviously don't fly "heavy metal". *:-) And neither do you! Cheers No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various airliners. *My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150 hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing 747-200 many years ago.- Hide quoted text - Did you weigh the passengers and their carry on? Cheers |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:45 am, Frank Olson wrote: WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 20, 4:28 am, Frank Olson wrote: WingFlaps wrote: I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight. I comend you on your perspicacity. You're dealing with two different things here. If you read your insurance contract it has strict provisions when it comes to the way you operate your aircraft. Operating it with no C of A, or in such a manner that could violate the C of A, leaves the provider recourse to a whole host of legal actions (up to and including cancellation of your contract). And then there's "subrogation". The C of A on my aircraft is non terminating. What does that mean? There are several things about your C of A that you should know about, not the least of which are the conditions upon which it is issued. Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're pushed back from the gate. There we disagree. They may know cargo and baggage and fuel but not meat. Then you obviously don't fly "heavy metal". :-) And neither do you! Cheers No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various airliners. My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150 hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing 747-200 many years ago.- Hide quoted text - Did you weigh the passengers and their carry on? Cheers No passengers. No carry-on. I did recall there was a nifty set of readouts which showed the weight on each gear leg (on the 747). When you tallied them up you got the TOW. It made calculating the the weight and balance a snap. On some of the -400's (and the new Dreamliner), that can be called up on one of the multi-function displays as well. It's an expensive "option" and I understand a lot of the airlines don't go for it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |