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)
____________________

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

"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 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

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.