Gross Weight

Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:

How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
too much over, even if you are going to be burning enough fuel before your
first scheduled stop to be under weight for landing?

What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
decision to "carry a little extra"?

I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring 2
male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with full
fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my instructor
had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and made me really
work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It was a good
training day.

Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I thought
it might make a good topic here.

Fred

You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is legitimate (unless
you are in Alaska). If you have an accident/incident, your insurer will not
be impressed either. Your instructor was a dork to let you break the rules
during an instructional flight (duh!). Not the best way to train safe
pilots.

Bob Gardner

"Fred Choate" wrote in message
...
Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:

How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
landing?

What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
decision to "carry a little extra"?

I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring
2 male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with
full fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were
over weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my
instructor had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and
made me really work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It
was a good training day.

Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I thought
it might make a good topic here.

Fred

You are right Bob.....I agree. But I was hoping for discussion on the
topic, not whether my old instructor did a good or a bad thing..... (But
I do agree with you about my old instructor. That lesson should not have
been flown, but on the upside, I did learn from it)

I chatted with an instructor down at my FBO after my discussion at work, and
his spin was "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot". I hadn't heard that one before, and will remember it.

Fred


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is legitimate
(unless you are in Alaska). If you have an accident/incident, your insurer
will not be impressed either. Your instructor was a dork to let you break
the rules during an instructional flight (duh!). Not the best way to train
safe pilots.

Bob Gardner

"Fred Choate" wrote in message
...
Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:

How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
landing?

What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
decision to "carry a little extra"?

I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me
bring 2 male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172
with full fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we
were over weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and
my instructor had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy,
and made me really work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all!
It was a good training day.

Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I
thought it might make a good topic here.

Fred

Fred,

"once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot".


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Fred,

"once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot".


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit in
your system...

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Fred,

"once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot".


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit in
your system...

KB

Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of California.
There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:57:36 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured.

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance. Rather,
it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing (warranting?)
that everything is in order. And if the insurance company can prove
that something was NOT in order, then ba-bing! it will disclaim any
responsibility.

I'm not even sure it's the case with automobile insurance, though to
be sure I've always gotten a fair shake from mine. People who insure
with the cut-rate companies (Giego, Allstate, Progressive) sometimes
have a different experience.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Fred,

"once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot".


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.

If the insurance part is true you need to get a real insurance policy.

Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"once you go over the max weight,
you are essentially a test pilot".

That's putting it a bit strongly. As long as the CG issues are OK, the
effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms
of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The structural issues won't
come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other
things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to
go-around at max gross with full flaps) and in any case, there's a
large safety margin in there. The fact is that assuming you're not on
the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It
isn't legal, but it will be safe. As to the arguement that breaking one
rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
like saying speeding leads to murder...

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

"once you go over the max weight,
you are essentially a test pilot".

That's putting it a bit strongly.

No, it's putting it quite accurately.

As long as the CG issues are OK, the
effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms
of stall speed, take-off requirements etc.

The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of stall
speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during certification, the
airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety of configurations by a
*test pilot* to demonstrate the actual performance.

Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the fact
that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they know)
configuration is a "test pilot".

The structural issues won't
come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other
things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to
go-around at max gross with full flaps)

Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum allowed
value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value" isn't really so
much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer is required to meet in
order to avoid other things). It's true that max gross weight may be
affected by things other than structural issues, but there is no way to know
whether this is true without consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the
theoretical over-gross pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least
one common airplane for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing
weight (which is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane).

and in any case, there's a
large safety margin in there.

The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight operations.
It's not so you can operate over the legal limits. Operate over the legal
weight, and you've just abandoned your "large safety margin".

The fact is that assuming you're not on
the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It
isn't legal, but it will be safe.

It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the legal
weight, which is the comment to which you replied.

As to the arguement that breaking one
rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
like saying speeding leads to murder...

That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we had
better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many people
disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way when it comes
to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people disregard for rules. Each
person winds up setting their own limits, rather than respecting the limits
society claims to have made. And yes, in some cases, those limits go way
beyond just speeding.

Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but general
disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative behavior.

Pete