flying over gross
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
My question is, is this common?
Richard
S. Ramirez
I've never done it and I peronsally don't know of anyone who has.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
Oviedo, FL USA
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Bob Gardner
Bob Gardner
Richard Ross <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Trevor Fenn
<tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>:
There is no such thing as flying over gross with proper CofG.
If your take off weight is above the maximum allowable you are outside the
envelope, period! You cannot extrapolate outside the envelope and assume
the CogG is correct, it isn't.
--
Trevor Fenn
To Email me add an extra green to the address above.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
Ryan Ferguson
envelope.
Many people apparently feel it's okay to exceed the maximum weight allowance
by a little bit. Is it common? Unfortunately -- probably, yes.
It's not a recommended practice and has many pitfalls, some of which are not
immediately obvious.
Zach Rogers
gross, thats getting way up there, I start to worry when I'm nearing gross.
I hope they have a good reason if they ever get ramp checked (weight and
balence is required) if they make it that long. Now I have heard of people
flying C152's slightly overgross (like 10-20 pounds, not hundreds), I
wouldnt do that either but I know it happens daily.
--
Thanks,
Zach Rogers
ASEL Private Pilot (Instrument student)
160.5 hours
http://thenewfsworld.hypermart.net
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
wrote:
>>
>>
>
>There is no such thing as flying over gross with proper CofG.
>If your take off weight is above the maximum allowable you are outside the
>envelope, period!
>--
>Trevor Fenn
>To Email me add an extra green to the address above.
>
>"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
> The Star Spangled Banner
> Francis Scott Key
Could you elaborate on this, please?
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
response like, yes I've done it many times. I guess these guys don't get on
line.
I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to see
how prevelant this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
Thanks,
Richard
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
S. Ramirez
> >There is no such thing as flying over gross with proper CofG.
> >If your take off weight is above the maximum allowable you are outside
the
> >envelope, period!
> >--
> >Trevor Fenn
>
What is there to elaborate?
Simon Ramirez
Dudley Henriques
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
This is one of the most "pushed" questions in general aviation. The blunt
answer unfortunately is not that it's done commonly, but rather that it is
done by some misguided pilots. Technically, you're out of the envelope cg
wise if you are 1 lb over gross. The cg line might be right there under the
upper limit line, but you're still outside!!!
Only a complete idiot flies an airplane over gross, even by just a little.
It's inevitable that someone will do a weight and balance problem in say a
172, with an upper limit line at 2300 lbs, and a cg limit on that line from
87 pound inches to 108 pound inches and come up with say 2313 lbs at 99.3
pound inches.
Well, what do you do here? There you are out on the ramp, all fueled up and
ready to go. The two 200 Lb. characters you have in the back seat who work
with you and just can't wait to get back to the office and tell everybody
what a great pilot you are; computed out at 400Lbs. at 28.0 pound inches.
You stare at the figures. Hell, it's only 13 pounds over. Should I??? Should
I not?????
The problem with this little drama here is that those two clowns in the back
tagged out at the extreme limit for the back seat. With the 340 lbs you have
in the two front seats, you have a heavy airplane without draining some of
those full tanks you have.. If you have checked for a 337 form, you did it
right. If not, you may actually be using the wrong empty weight for THIS
PARTICULAR AIRPLANE!!! (This little gem has killed a lot of people!!!) Well,
what do you do? Do you go? HELL NO, you don't go!!! You're OUTSIDE the GW
limits by 13 lbs. This means, you are GUESSING at the cg...and that isn't
good!
The bottom line on the question is this. Any idiot can accept an airplane
weight and balance over grossed and go fly. It's the mark of a professional
to put the airplane within proper limits before accepting it as ready to
fly.
Never, I repeat NEVER, fly an airplane over gross. BOTH GW and cg parameters
MUST be met before take off.....PERIOD!!!!! Anything else is Russian
Roulette!!
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired
Dudley Henriques
> This is a really interesting response. I have been talking to high hour
> pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
> response like, yes I've done it many times. I guess these guys don't get
on
> line.
I don't know what air show pilots you are talking to who say they fly their
airplanes over gross, but I flew air shows for many years and I've NEVER
flown an airplane over gross.
Dudley Henriques
> I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to see
> how prevelant this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
> public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
NO, it's NOT prevalent, and pilots who fly over gross are stupid beyond
belief!
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
wrote:
The assertion that you cannot be within CG when over gross.
Simply because a manufacturer has chosen not to show his envelope
beyond gross does not necessarily mean you are outside of CG because
you are outside the envelope.
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
don't fly a plane outside thses parameters. I got the impression after
talking to pilots with varing degrees of experience that is done frequently
and it shocked me. Therefore, I thought I would post the question here and
see if I got a similar response.
If you want to demonstrate how to do a weight and balance and describe why
it is a bad thing, please go ahead, but in my case you are preaching to the
choir. I was simply testing the response I had been given from talking to
pilots directly.
Thanks,
Richard
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GVzO7.23851$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ronn Walker
airplane above it's published gross weight. This is done primarily for trans
ocean type of flying. Also, in the state of Alaska it's permissible to
operate at least 115% of gross weight (see FAR below).
FAR 91.323 : Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes
operated in Alaska.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations,
the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in
the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under
Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated
January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the
former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is
operated in the State of Alaska by -
(1) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of
this chapter; or
(2) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law
enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire
suppression activities concerning public lands.
(b) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not
exceed -
(1) 12,500 pounds;
(2) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft
specifications;
(3) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load
factor requirement for the normal category specified in 23.337 of this
chapter; or
(4) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance
requirements under which it was type certificated.
(c) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator
considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be
traversed.
(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added
to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum
weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
the manufacture has already calculated?
Thanks,
Richard
"Ronn Walker" <ro...@tropicalhelicopter.com> wrote in message
news:AiAO7.167744$Yb.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Robert B. Borucki, MD
they almost always make out just fine... then it becomes even more tempting
to push the envelope as a test pilot, whether it is weight, fuel, weather,
etc. I don't understand why people assume that they know better than the
manufacturers, etc.
Dudley Henriques
> We have all been trained on weight and balance and we understand that you
> don't fly a plane outside thses parameters. I got the impression after
> talking to pilots with varing degrees of experience that is done
frequently
> and it shocked me. Therefore, I thought I would post the question here and
> see if I got a similar response.
>
> If you want to demonstrate how to do a weight and balance and describe why
> it is a bad thing, please go ahead, but in my case you are preaching to
the
> choir. I was simply testing the response I had been given from talking to
> pilots directly.
It's these statements I find interesting.
"I have been talking to high hour
> pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
> response like, yes I've done it many times.
Air show flying is my business and has been for fifty years. I don't know
anyone who would tell you they fly airplanes over gross.
And this statement as well;
"I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to see
> how prevalent this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
> public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
This would appear to indicate that some of us out here are unwilling to tell
you we fly airplanes over gross. That's an interesting observation from you,
and in an off hand way, insulting....and if I'm preaching to the choir, I
would think you would already know the answer to your question. :-)
Dudley Henriques
"common practice".
DH
"Ronn Walker" <ro...@tropicalhelicopter.com> wrote in message
news:AiAO7.167744$Yb.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Dan Thompson
zone, 50 in a 40, etc. almost all the time. 90 in a 70, you'll get a ticket
for sure. 100 in a 70 you probably won't live long enough to get a lot of
experience with it.
Something like 20% overgross is routine for ferry flights with special
tanks. Care is taken to not fit the tanks too far from the center of mass.
Even then severe turbulence at higher speeds will break the wings off
(that's a bad thing), and if it is hot you might not get out of ground
effect unless you have a really long runway.
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Kyle Boatright
>This is a really interesting response. I have been talking to high hour
>pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
>response like, yes I've done it many times. I guess these guys don't get on
>line.
>
>I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to see
>how prevelant this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
>public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Richard
It does happen, particularly on cross country trips with baggage. Also, if you
fly in at one of the big airshows (Oshkosh or Sun 'N Fun) it is amazing how
much stuff people put in their aircraft. I'd say over 10% of the GA aircraft
going to one of those shows are over gross.
Note that in Alaska, over gross operations are FAA APPROVED. I believe the
allowance is 10%.
KB
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
is not true, I talked to pilots attending Sun N Fun and Stuart Airshow I
find your comments insulting, offensive and pompous. I don't care what type
of background you have, calling someone you don't know a liar is totally out
of line.Why would you attack me for simply repeating what I heard and then
calling me liar?
Richard
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pUAO7.14983$Ao6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dudley Henriques
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vcBO7.181829$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Robert Moore
>NO, it's NOT prevalent, and pilots who fly over gross are
>stupid beyond belief!
Well Dudley,.....without dealing on the legalities of the issue,
I must dissagree with you on this issue. As I pointed out in
the "Cessna asymetrical flap" thread, there are many factors
that may limit the TOGW of an airplane. In the case of a Boeing
jetliner, it may well be the length of the runway at the destination
airport.
In the case of a Cessna 172, it is the ability to execute a go-around
with maximum landing flap. Now...one model year, the TOGW is
limited to 2300 lbs, and with no other change other than removing
the 40 flap setting, the TOGW is set at 2400 lbs for the next model
year. Is the pilot of the earlier airplane "stupid beyond belief" if
he flies his 172 at the higher GW and never uses 40 flaps? BTW, I
taught my students never to use 40 flap except in the case of off
field or VERY short field landings.
How many times has the average pilot used even 2.5 g's of the 3.8
g's permitted at the maximum GW? I've never seen it, particularly
with four souls on board.
As to the 115% permitted in Alaska.....it seems obvious that it is
permitted due to the fact that the operators will never encounter a
temperture condition that will not permit sufficient go-around power
to meet the certification requirement. This whole thing is similiar
to the "second segment climb" TOGW limit for Part 25 jet transports.
It seems as if almost everyone responding to this thread has very
little knowledge of the certification requirements for part 23
airplanes. Yes...it is illegal, yes.... I have done it many times,
no..... I don't use 40 or even 30 flaps for landing or go-arounds.
And, as you know, :-) I'm not "stupid beyond belief". :-)
Bob Moore
ATP ASMEL B-707, B-727, L-188
USN Trackers, Neptunes, and Orions
Flight Instructor ASE-IA
PanAm (retired)
ArtP
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net wrote:
>The assertion that you cannot be within CG when over gross.
>
>Simply because a manufacturer has chosen not to show his envelope
>beyond gross does not necessarily mean you are outside of CG because
>you are outside the envelope.
>
The CG chart shows all of the valid combinations of gross
weight and CG location that are acceptable to make the airplane
airworthy. By definition and CG/weight combination not in the shaded
area is unacceptable therefore there is not acceptable CG when the
weight is outside the range of the envelope. Your only option is to
make you own airplane, conduct your own flight tests, and get the
results accepted by the FAA.
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
It is something that should not be done. I don't know how often it is
done.
However, for years I frequently flew my airplane at max gross weight.
Then, one day, I had it reweighed. Somehow, over the years, it had gained
eighty (80) pounds. So all those years I was occasionally flying it 80
pounds over gross and never had a clue.
Some manufacturers will allow over gross operations with special
restrictions for special circumstances. It may require additional testing
by the manufacturer. Apparently Mooney has done so for the Ovation, and a
few folk going on long flights with ferry tanks have received legally
sanctioned 10%-15% over gross allowances -- but there were some
restrictions involved (don't know what they were).
Also, in Alaska, certain 121 and 135 operators can receive FAA sanction to
operate 15% over max gross weight, provided a bunch of requirements are
also met.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
mike regish
Richard Ross wrote:
>
> In conversations I have had with other pilots, there seems to be alot of
> pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
> adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
>
> My question is, is this common?
>
> Richard
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
Tramm Hudson
> Note that in Alaska, over gross operations are FAA APPROVED. I believe the
> allowance is 10%.
FAR 91.323 covers it. There are significant restrictions, however.
It's worth a read:
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-323-FAR.shtml
As for other legal operation "over gross", ferry permits can allow
flight outside of the envelope for the extra fuel. In some cases
20% over MGTOW is considered safe, as long as the fuel burn is
controlled so that the weight never ventures outside the fore and
aft CG limits.
Trammell
--
-----|----- hud...@swcp.com H 240-476-1373
*>=====[]L\ Trammel...@celera.com W 240-453-3317
' -'-`- http://www.swcp.com/~hudson/ KC5RNF
mike regish
aft limits. Not that I recommend it, but a plane will fly over gross.
There are even permits you can get to do it. I think they would be for
long overwater ferry flights with auxiliary tanks.
--
Dudley Henriques
There is only one point I'm attempting to make in my comments, and that
point deals with only a single issue . You don't fly an airplane outside
it's weight and balance envelope....period! Perhaps the semantics has gotten
a bit convoluted in the explanations by everyone, which is usually the case
with these things. :-) The original question was phrased in such a way that
I took it to be a request for an answer explaining one way or the other that
flying over gross was either a common practice or it wasn't. At least that's
how I understood the question. The poster I believe said he had talked to
some high time and air show pilots who had told him it WAS common practice;
and he wanted to verify. This was a normal question, but since the poster
referenced my particular area of expertise, and that finding out air show
pilots are advocating flying an airplane over gross would be a huge surprise
to me, and since I know about 100 air show pilots who would state in a
second that flying over gross is NOT a common practice, my answer was meant
to convey that only an idiot would fly an airplane outside it's weight and
balance envelope.
What you are saying here doesn't put the aircraft outside it's envelope at
all. You are simply describing the various circumstances that affect and/or
change that envelope. I believe we are in complete agreement.....as usual.
:-)
I think we both agree that flying an airplane. whether it's a 172 or a 747,
within it's performance parameters and weight and balance envelope is common
practice. Therefore the answer to the original poster's question would be
NO, it's not common practice at all. There are extenuating circumstances in
specific instances of course, but the answer as to a common practice is
still no. I added the idiot example only because there are indeed pilots out
there who not only fly airplanes over gross, but advocate flying airplanes
over gross. I might add that I don't know one air show pilot who would say
this.
Your examples in no way put the airplane at Vr outside it's performance
parameters or weight and balance. You are simply factoring in the various
circumstances that affect these parameters....and you are completely
correct!
Dudley
Dudley
"Robert Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:msBO7.168193$Yb.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
CDR Pain
mike regish <mregis...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3C0AE75D...@mediaone.net...
Dudley Henriques
The question, in case you missed it, asked whether or not flying over gross
was a common practice. Are you telling us that trying to be the first pilot
to fly the Atlantic in a single engine plane is common practice?
DH
"CDR Pain" <CDR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_jCO7.258$lW6.60...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
George R Patterson
Richard Ross wrote:
>
> My question is, is this common?
I made one takeoff in a Cessna 150 that was about 30 pounds over gross.
That was the result of a miscalculation. The plane wallowed off the
ground and climbed lethargically (for lack of a better word). I've been
a little more careful with my weight calculations since then. Never
overloaded the Maule.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Michael Horwith
set gross weight is stall speed, which is required to be (once agin, from
memory - could be off a little) 61 knots or less for some level of
certification. Is it possible that the same plane could be loaded with more
weight if one were to accept a higher stall speed?
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> In conversations I have had with other pilots, there seems to be alot of
> pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
> adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
>
> My question is, is this common?
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
RT
"George R Patterson" <grpp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C0ADCFE...@home.com...
>
>
> Richard Ross wrote:
> >
> > My question is, is this common?
>
> I made one takeoff in a Cessna 150 that was about 30 pounds over gross.
> That was the result of a miscalculation. The plane wallowed off the
> ground and climbed lethargically (for lack of a better word).
You means the 30 pounds made no difference at all!? :-)
Capt. Doug
question >deals with flying over gross as a
> "common practice".
This exemption is not a one time event. It becomes a part of the operator's
approved specifications. If you operate under this exemption, it would
indeed be a very 'common practice'.
D.
Capt. Doug
liar.
No, but you DID say that 'anyone' who flies overgross is an idiot. That says
a lot right there, about you.
D.
Dudley Henriques
"Capt. Doug" <capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fOCO7.141228$WW.89...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Same people.......all the the time......predictable but unavoidable.
Yes, I hope it does say a lot about me! :-)
Flying over gross these days Cap? Figures!! :-)
D
Dudley Henriques
Nobody said it was!!
And we can take this "exemption" and put it in a context that states that
flying an airplane over gross is a common practice...right?? From now on
I'll be sure to tell all the pilots I teach to fly that it's "common
practice" to fly their airplanes over gross. Thanks there Cap!! :-))))
Ditch
routinely flew their airplane 2000 pounds or more over gross.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
s b e c k e r @nexbridge.com Randall S. Becker
news:KMzO7.167506$Yb.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > >There is no such thing as flying over gross with proper CofG.
> > >If your take off weight is above the maximum allowable you are outside
> the
> > >envelope, period!
> > >--
> > >Trevor Fenn
> >
> > Could you elaborate on this, please?
>
> What is there to elaborate?
There is no proper CofG if you are over gross. The CofG envelope is only
defined (certified) for a specific set of weights and moment-arms. If you're
outside of it, you're outside of it. There's no magical overweight extention
to the CofG envelope. It's like interpolation and extrapolation. You can
usually have a pretty reliable interpolation within the CofG envelope.
There's no valid extrapolation, because there's no way of knowing what the
plane will do. The center of gravity in physics may be where you want, but
the plane's wings may break off on takeoff (extreme example). That doesn't
help, nor is it predicted by the CofG envelope.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
You are speaking administratively.
My question was a question of aerodynamics.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
What does a center of gravity have to do with stress factors?
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
On 03 Dec 2001 02:00:53 GMT, kboat...@aol.comnobs (Kyle Boatright)
wrote:
mike regish
easily see where , by any reasonable definition of common, the answer
would be "yes."
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>You have jumped to the conclusion that I talked to Air Show Performers. That
>is not true, I talked to pilots attending Sun N Fun and Stuart Airshow I
>find your comments insulting, offensive and pompous. I don't care what type
>of background you have, calling someone you don't know a liar is totally out
>of line.Why would you attack me for simply repeating what I heard and then
>calling me liar?
>
>Richard
After you've been around here a while, you learn not to take what
Dudley has to say too seriously.
He tends to hyperbole. Pulled a few too many G's in his P-51.
ArtP
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net wrote:
>You are speaking administratively.
>
>My question was a question of aerodynamics.
>
Actually I am speaking mathematically. Whenever you are given
a function which is only defined within certain limits (as the CG
table is), you cannot use the function to determine the values outside
of those limits.
Dudley Henriques
"ArtP" <ArtNo...@his.com> wrote in message
news:tp3m0uk2uervtod91...@4ax.com...
This is an absolutely correct answer, and the reason why aircraft should not
be flown outside these parameters.
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b0c68...@netnews.att.net...
> After you've been around here a while, you learn not to take what
> Dudley has to say too seriously.
>
> He tends to hyperbole. Pulled a few too many G's in his P-51.
Can't you regular Dudley haters at least come up with some new material?
:-))
The question is whether or not flying over gross should be considered a
normal procedure. I have said no. Are you now saying here that taking into
consideration the specific cases where flying over gross is allowed, that
these cases are enough to affect the context of this answer to reflect that
flying over gross should be considered a common procedure?
--
Dudley Henriques (Flying the hyperbole P51D)
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Which takes me back to my original statement- i.e., becasue an
aircraft is overweight it does not mean that it is *necessarily* out
of CG.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Correct answer to what question?
The assertion was made that an aircraft cannot be within CG if it is
over gross.
Aerodynamically, this is not a correct statement.
>
>
Dudley Henriques
> Now, we have to define what "common" means in this question.
You're beginning to sound like Clinton Mike!! :-)
I can
> easily see where , by any reasonable definition of common, the answer
> would be "yes."
"Common", in the context of this question should be read as whether or not
it is accepted as "common" practice to fly an airplane, teach pilots to fly
airplanes, or encourage pilots to fly airplanes, outside their published
weight and balance envelope as prescribed in the Airplane Flight Manual
and/or weight and balance papers for the aircraft being flown. This
considers all factors affecting performance. This should take into account
all "special" directives authorizing flight over gross by a specific
aircraft for a specific purpose by a competent governing authority.
It is my belief that simply because it can be shown that there are specific
directives available allowing flight over gross under specific conditions in
specific aircraft, this departure should in no way constitute a reason for
deviation from the statement that
aircraft under normal conditions should never be flown outside their weight
and balance envelopes.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Are you referrring to Dudley haters with predictable bowel movements,
or are you simply giving yourself too much credit once again?
I will respectfully submit that you stated that "pilots who fly over
gross are stupid beyond belief!".
If this is not hyperbole, I don't know what is.
And of course, speaking of regularity, you are wrong once again,
although, as usual, never in doubt.
Peter Duniho
> a function which is only defined within certain limits (as the CG
> table is), you cannot use the function to determine the values outside
> of those limits.
The "function" you are talking about (a weight-and-balance chart), is a
boolean function (answers the question "are you legal or not?") that takes
TWO parameters: weight, and center-of-gravity.
Center-of-gravity by itself *cannot* be out of bounds according to this
function, since you have to include a weight just to get a result.
Pete
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b1443...@netnews.att.net...
Actually, this is technically correct. It's very easy to become bogged down
in semantics when discussing this issue. The airplane can be within cg
limits aerodynamically if GW is exceeded up to a point. The problem is that
the published envelope defines the cg limit, not the physics! This
situation, although physically provable, violates the INTENT of the weight
and balance envelope. The plain simple truth of it is that the weight and
balance envelope is presented for the express purpose of INSURING safety
within specific parameters without aerodynamics having to be applied by the
pilot. There is a reason for this. To postulate the acceptance of an
aircraft for take off based on the fact that the airplane can be shown
through physics to be within cg limits when the envelope has been violated
either by GW or cg + - is contrary to the intent of the envelope, and as
such, not a normal or common condition.
There is usually a range of safety where an aircraft can be over grossed and
remain aerodynamically stable cg wise. This is not the issue here. The
central issue is safety, and safety dictates the weight and balance
envelope. Therefore, for the purpose of normal flight, the envelope, and not
some pilot or mathematician applying their own physics to the problem will
dictate the parameters under which safe aerodynamic flight will proceed.
Stating the exception, and "refining" the meanings doesn't contribute to
safe flight practices. Following the published weight and balance procedures
and adhering to the envelope limits insures safe flight. If you're over
gross, you're over gross.
If the cg is out...it's out! Proving the airplane will fly aerodynamically
isn't hard to do....but there could be problems associated with this
approach, and someone could get hurt.
The bottom line is that if you fly the envelope, you KNOW it's right. It's
legal.....and it's aerodynamically sound. If you exceed the published limits
of the airplane's weight and balance envelope, you are not only illegal, you
are asking for unnecessary trouble. Lastly, if you insist on using the
exception to establish the normal...that just isn't smart flying, no matter
how you cut it.
Ben Jackson
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Well, what do you do here? There you are out on the ramp, all fueled up and
>ready to go. The two 200 Lb. characters you have in the back seat who work
>with you and just can't wait to get back to the office and tell everybody
>what a great pilot you are; computed out at 400Lbs. at 28.0 pound inches.
>You stare at the figures. Hell, it's only 13 pounds over. Should I??? Should
>I not?????
>The problem with this little drama here is that those two clowns in the back
...do not know their combined weight to within 13lbs! Not flying in this
situation is just as stupid as flying when the figures add up to 2300
exactly. You wanna bet neither passenger weighs 1lb more than the
figures you used? The difference between the REAL weight of aviation
gas and the "FAA accepted" weight of aviation gas is more than the
difference of ONE HALF of ONE PERCENT you're talking about here.
As long as your input figures only have 2 significant digits of precision
on the way in, you are only going to get 2 significant digits from the
result.
--
Ben Jackson
b...@ben.com
http://www.ben.com/
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b15c3...@netnews.att.net...
> Regular Dudley haters?
>
> Are you referrring to Dudley haters with predictable bowel movements,
> or are you simply giving yourself too much credit once again?
>
> I will respectfully submit that you stated that "pilots who fly over
> gross are stupid beyond belief!".
>
> If this is not hyperbole, I don't know what is.
>
> And of course, speaking of regularity, you are wrong once again,
> although, as usual, never in doubt.
Then I'll repeat this "wrong statement" again for you. "Pilots should NOT
fly airplanes outside their weight and balance envelopes"
DH
Dudley Henriques
"Ben Jackson" <b...@ben.com> wrote in message
news:n7FO7.3503$TZ1.1158@rwcrnsc51...
We're talking generalities here Ben.....not specifics. This wasn't meant to
be a W&B lesson. The figures are irrellivant to the example. They're just
there to show a general point. The point was about being over grossed, not
in the figures getting there.
:-)
DH
C J Campbell
152 with enough fuel to do anything constructive and remain under max gross
weight unless the people are very small. Yet this plane is commonly used for
flight instruction. I will go further: I would say that the vast majority of
missions flown in Cessna 152s are flown over gross. I have even seen
designated examiners turn a blind eye to the fact that the plane that the
examination is being conducted in is well over max gross.
Frankly, if the Cessna 152 cannot be flown over gross, it should have its
certificate pulled, because that is practically the only way anyone ever
flies it. Of course, most intelligent instructors hate this plane for this
very reason. First of all, as you say, smart pilots don't like to fly over
gross. Secondly, a good instructor doesn't like to teach his students that
the POH doesn't mean what it says about weight and balance. I really have to
wonder how Cessna did come up with the numbers for this aircraft. They seem
to have no relationship with reality whatsoever.
The sooner this #$%# plane is dropped from the training fleet the happier
I'm gonna be.
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:x2AO7.23873$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
|
| "Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
| news:GDzO7.181675$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
|
| > I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to
see
| > how prevelant this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
| > public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
|
| NO, it's NOT prevalent, and pilots who fly over gross are stupid beyond
| belief!
|
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b15c3...@netnews.att.net...
> Regular Dudley haters?
>
> Are you referrring to Dudley haters with predictable bowel movements,
> or are you simply giving yourself too much credit once again?
Why don't you try one serious and sincere post instead of this nonsense.
I'll give you a level playing field. Perhaps we can find out why we seem to
dislike each other so much. Feel free to e-mail me personally if you like.
If not, I guess it just can't be helped, but I won't respond to this kind of
thing. :-)
I can't be more neutral than this! :-)
Dudley
Dudley Henriques
"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UWFO7.8816$726.4...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> One problem is that it is virtually impossible to put two people in a
Cessna
> 152 with enough fuel to do anything constructive and remain under max
gross
> weight unless the people are very small. Yet this plane is commonly used
for
> flight instruction. I will go further: I would say that the vast majority
of
> missions flown in Cessna 152s are flown over gross. I have even seen
> designated examiners turn a blind eye to the fact that the plane that the
> examination is being conducted in is well over max gross.
>
> Frankly, if the Cessna 152 cannot be flown over gross, it should have its
> certificate pulled, because that is practically the only way anyone ever
> flies it. Of course, most intelligent instructors hate this plane for this
> very reason. First of all, as you say, smart pilots don't like to fly over
> gross. Secondly, a good instructor doesn't like to teach his students that
> the POH doesn't mean what it says about weight and balance. I really have
to
> wonder how Cessna did come up with the numbers for this aircraft. They
seem
> to have no relationship with reality whatsoever.
>
> The sooner this #$%# plane is dropped from the training fleet the happier
> I'm gonna be.
That's an astute observation CJ and very true. We always had a W&B problem
with large students in our 150's and 152's. We actually got to the point
where we would "plan" around one particularly large fellow. If he was
scheduled to fly, we would make a point of flying the airplane he was
scheduled in with another student so that we had an hour off the tanks when
he got there. Just one of those things you do to keep from hurting people I
guess. We never actually got to the point where we had to drain fuel with
him. I'm sure it would have embarrassed him if we had. I broke him in to
weight and balance so that by the time he had to worry about it, it was
natural for him to realize he was big enough to be a problem under certain
circumstances.
I'm sure other instructors have had the same problems with 150's and 152's
and large people!!
Mike O'Malley
aircraft when spraying, which can be thousands of pounds over the maximum
weight published by the manufacturers.
Then there's this guy, who, even in my crazy opinion was out of his mind if
even half of these stories are true:
http://www.bushwings.com/stories.html
"Ditch" <gove...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20011202232140...@mb-dd.aol.com...
ArtP
<NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
>The "function" you are talking about (a weight-and-balance chart), is a
>boolean function (answers the question "are you legal or not?") that takes
>TWO parameters: weight, and center-of-gravity.
>
>Center-of-gravity by itself *cannot* be out of bounds according to this
>function, since you have to include a weight just to get a result.
>
I would word it differently. According to this function, if
the weight is not within the limits specified then CG limits cannot be
determined.
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
Please read the question. I said, "My question is, is this common?
Richard
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FrEO7.15567$Ao6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Don't pull a McNicoll on me.
The statement that was wrong was the "stupid beyond belief" staement.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
I don't dislike you, Dudley. I don't even know you.
I do think that you might be wearing shorts about two sizes too
small.
Lighten up. Life's too short.
mike regish
"Randall S. Becker" wrote:
>
> "S. Ramirez" <sram...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:KMzO7.167506$Yb.41...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > > >There is no such thing as flying over gross with proper CofG.
> > > >If your take off weight is above the maximum allowable you are outside
> > the
> > > >envelope, period!
> > > >--
> > > >Trevor Fenn
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on this, please?
> >
> > What is there to elaborate?
>
> There is no proper CofG if you are over gross. The CofG envelope is only
> defined (certified) for a specific set of weights and moment-arms. If you're
> outside of it, you're outside of it. There's no magical overweight extention
> to the CofG envelope. It's like interpolation and extrapolation. You can
> usually have a pretty reliable interpolation within the CofG envelope.
> There's no valid extrapolation, because there's no way of knowing what the
> plane will do. The center of gravity in physics may be where you want, but
> the plane's wings may break off on takeoff (extreme example). That doesn't
> help, nor is it predicted by the CofG envelope.
--
Dudley Henriques
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_pKO7.183967$zK1.49...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I did not ask if flying over gross should be considered "Normal Procedure"
> Please read the question. I said, "My question is, is this common?
Flying airplanes over gross is not normal procedure.
Flying airplanes over gross is not common procedure.
How's that!
DH
Ryan Ferguson
only a few C-152s left (all others replaced by 172s.) A common problem is the
discovery flight scenario: the happy prospective pilot comes in to plunk down
his $49 for a 1/2 hour discovery flight in the 152, only to learn that even his
svelte frame is considered 'overweight' insofar as this particular aircraft is
concerned.
The policy is firm: the aircraft are not flown over gross. If it's 1 lb. over,
it doesn't fly. Period.
Personally, I think it's a little deceptive to advertise discovery flights at
$49 and then pull a bait-and-switch when the customer arrives. (In the 172, the
customer must simply pay the hourly rental rate for his 'discovery' flight.)
But, that's the way it's done.
There are some lightweight instructors on staff, and it takes a combination of
lightweight instructor and lightweight student for the 152s to fly. I wouldn't
really want to fool around with such an underpowered aircraft in an overloaded
weight scenario.
clyde
My c150 with a stc coversion to 150 HP powerplant has a increase in
gross weight to 1780 lbs. I also have 12 gallon tip tanks in each
wing. It is easy to overload this aircraft, and I have a book which I
keep track of each flight which has blank weight & balance sheets
inserted. I calculate the weight & balance for each flight in this
book, and keep records of fuel consumption & calulated weight &
balance. Myself I don't exceed this limit, if something happens then it
gives the insurance company a reason not to pay up. The problem I see
is some people will take off over gross and get away with it. Then they
seem to think that it is ok to do so all the time and it becomes a
normal operation for them. The problem with this is pretty soon a
situation will arise when this margine of safety is tested and the
aircraft is beyond it's margine, and now the operator has no safety
factor. I know it is common in Alaska and cold weather operations to
fly over gross, cold weather gives better performance generally
speaking, but where is the limit?? When is too much too much??
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Clyde
Richard Ross wrote:
>
> In conversations I have had with other pilots, there seems to be alot of
> pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
> adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
>
> My question is, is this common?
>
> Richard
George R Patterson
RT wrote:
>
> You means the 30 pounds made no difference at all!? :-)
Yeah, I see the smilie, but let me rephrase. She took about 2,000' of
runway to get off and climbed at about 200 fpm at near sea level. We
weren't really in danger of hitting the trees at the end of Kupper's
3,000'-plus runway, but it was close enough to make a real impression.
That's when I found out the instructor tended to fudge about his weight
a bit.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b7ade...@netnews.att.net...
"Pilots who fly airplanes over gross are stupid beyond belief" is simply a
personal opinion, it's only right or wrong to the person reading it or
hearing it. To you, it's obviously wrong. For me, it's an understatement.
You have my blessing to fly anyway you feel is best for you. As for me, I'll
continue to fly my airplanes within the weight and balance envelope, and
encourage other pilots to do the same. From time to time, I'll even make a
strong point, as I have done with this issue. If you object to my tone, so
be it. You can't please everybody, and people telling you you pull too many
g's, and your shorts are too tight is a way of life on the internet.
Unfortunate, but unavoidable. Just remember there Wilber old boy, I managed
to pull those g's, and I'm still here, so I must have been doing something
right.....or perhaps you have an argument for that? :-)))))
DH
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0b7b8b...@netnews.att.net...
Actually Wilber, life's been quite long for me; and I lasted this long by
not flying airplanes over gross weight. :-)
DH
RT
> easily see where , by any reasonable definition of common, the answer
> would be "yes."
Now that everyone has finished covering their arse by swearing on a stack of
bibles they've never done it and none of their
students/acquaintances/relations/friends/pets/etc ad nauseum has ever done
it...
Yes. IME/observation it is fairly common. Little bits over gross and big
bits over gross.
Little bits are most common, by accident (as one poster said, his a/c empty
weight wasn't what he thought it was), but also both little and big bits
knowingly.
While for high performance military a/c the envelope could well be absolute
and established experimentally, for puddle jumpers it again is an
arse-covering exercise by the manufacturer - which is quite reasonable
considering you can't step out of a puddle jumper if you pull the wings off.
So while 'drivers' and new pilots should definitely hew to the paperwork,
'pilots' as always can use their skill/discretion. A short strip and/or
expected rough conditions, you are very careful. A humungeously long strip
in dead calm conditions you can wear the extra weight until the fuel burns
off.
Again, IME, it's not the gross that gives trouble, but the CG posn.
Irrewardless, something overloaded even with a friendly CG posn. does NOT
handle the same as the same a/c loaded within the envelope. You have to be
*very* careful. So don't do it if you have a choice. And don't whinge if
you go down in a ball of flame if you do.
Most notably, the elevators/stabilator are/is much less effective, which can
really ruin your day....the effect is very marked.
My experience/comments refer to lighties, but from some accident reports it
seems that over grossing occurs up to the largest a/c.
<shrug>
PIC choice.
(And Dudley - your experience has been restricted to military types with
rigid, well-established envelopes if you disagree :-)
(Oh, and in case the rest of you misunderstood - you're outside the
envelope? You're a test pilot - but most test pilots don't take Mum/Mom and
the kids along as well.........)
Mike Granby
> Flying airplanes over gross is not common procedure.
Define common. I would be surprised if, at an airport the size of my home
base, there was not at least one over-gross operation per day. I would in
fact be surprised if there were not more than that.
Dudley Henriques
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:9ug882$ldr$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
> (And Dudley - your experience has been restricted to military types with
> rigid, well-established envelopes if you disagree :-)
Actually, as well as flying high performance military airplanes, I have been
active in general aviation for fifty years. I've given thousands of hours of
dual in general aviation airplanes; specializing in aerobatic instruction as
well as primary instruction. I'm quite familiar with the general aviation
scenario.
I advocate strongly that pilots don't fly airplanes outside the weight and
balance envelope, whether civilian or military. I know it's done, and done
regularly, but I don't recommend it.
DH
RT
George R Patterson <grpp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C0B829F...@home.com...
AT SEA LEVEL! Strewth - you musta needed a bulldozer to get him into his
seat!
He woulda grossed out a C182 by the sound of it :-)
RT
>
> "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:9ug882$ldr$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
>
> > (And Dudley - your experience has been restricted to military types with
> > rigid, well-established envelopes if you disagree :-)
> I advocate strongly that pilots don't fly airplanes outside the weight and
> balance envelope, whether civilian or military. I know it's done, and done
> regularly, but I don't recommend it.
Now THAT I agree with 1,000%.
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
have been given here leads one to believe, that flying over gross happens
frequently as so stated by several posters.
Richard
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PnMO7.25027$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
<dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
>news:3c0b7ade...@netnews.att.net...
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 06:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Don't pull a McNicoll on me.
>>
>> The statement that was wrong was the "stupid beyond belief" staement.
>
>"Pilots who fly airplanes over gross are stupid beyond belief" is simply a
>personal opinion, it's only right or wrong to the person reading it or
>hearing it. To you, it's obviously wrong. For me, it's an understatement.
>You have my blessing to fly anyway you feel is best for you. As for me, I'll
>continue to fly my airplanes within the weight and balance envelope, and
>encourage other pilots to do the same. From time to time, I'll even make a
>strong point, as I have done with this issue. If you object to my tone, so
>be it. You can't please everybody, and people telling you you pull too many
>g's, and your shorts are too tight is a way of life on the internet.
>Unfortunate, but unavoidable. Just remember there Wilber old boy, I managed
>to pull those g's, and I'm still here, so I must have been doing something
>right.....or perhaps you have an argument for that? :-)))))
>DH
>
>
Indeed I do.
I've been over gross, and I'm still here as well.
Dave Stadt
Mike Granby <mi...@redlion-controls.com> wrote in message
news:jQNO7.1169$0g.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
My guess is it is much more common than most people think. If nothing else
most do not know what their aircraft actually weigh. Many have not been
weighed in decades and they certainly gain weight over the years. If you
want an example, unload an "empty" airplane and weigh the stuff that doesn't
make it into the W&B calculations.
Dudley Henriques
"Mike Granby" <mi...@redlion-controls.com> wrote in message
news:jQNO7.1169$0g.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
There seems to be a lot of Clinton type "definition" demands going on about
this issue. and some kind of desperate need to nail individual meanings of
words and phrases, rather than understanding the basic issue. Common to one
reader will mean one thing; to the next, another. You can argue "true"
definitions all day.
Let me put it this way. Common to me, as a flight instructor, means (is it
ok to allow my students to fly their airplanes over gross?)(is it ok for me
to fly my airplane over gross?)(do any of the pilots I know fly their
airplanes over gross?)(are the exceptions allowed by special directive that
allow airplanes to be flown over gross sufficient enough to make flying
airplanes over gross a common occurrence?)
The answer to these questions as far as I'm concerned is an emphatic NO!!
Now, that being said, do pilots fly airplanes over gross? Yes.
Can it be done without killing yourself? Crap shoot. Is it done every day?
Probably. Is it good idea? Not as far as I'm concerned. You see, I don't do
it. I don't allow it in my airplanes.
I don't advocate doing it. I think it's stupid. I think pilots who do it are
stupid. Do I think that pilots who fly airplanes with special allowances to
fly over gross are stupid? No. Do I define common as pertaining to all these
factors? Yes!
Let me sum it all up in one simple sentence.
I advocate strongly that pilots don't fly airplanes outside the weight and
balance envelope, whether civilian or military. I know it's done, and done
regularly, but I don't recommend it as a "common" practice."
--
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired
DH
Dudley Henriques
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3c0baf01...@netnews.att.net...
What could I possibly add to that? :-)
Take care,
DH
Dudley Henriques
> Do you see the word "procedure" in my question? Also, the responses that
> have been given here leads one to believe, that flying over gross happens
> frequently as so stated by several posters.
You mean like THIS poster?
Dudley Henriques said;
"I advocate strongly that pilots don't fly airplanes outside the weight and
balance envelope, whether civilian or military. I know it's done, and done
regularly, but I don't recommend it as a "common" practice."
DH
Robert M. Gary
Aircraft performance is a slope not a drop off.
One pound over weight will not double runway requirement.
On the other hand, I can't ever imagine putting 4 adults
in a 172 with fuel. That's what the 182 was made for.
Richard Ross wrote:
>
> This is a really interesting response. I have been talking to high hour
> pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
> response like, yes I've done it many times. I guess these guys don't get on
> line.
>
> I'm not trying debate the issue of flying over gross, I was trying to see
> how prevelant this might be. I guess asking someone to confess sins in a
> public forum and in print, is not a good idea.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
> "Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > In conversations I have had with other pilots, there seems to be alot of
> > pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
> > adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
> >
> > My question is, is this common?
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Dudley Henriques
> Do you see the word "procedure" in my question? Also, the responses that
> have been given here leads one to believe, that flying over gross happens
> frequently as so stated by several posters.
No kidding...really?
I didn't see the word "canary" in your question either Richard.
Your question was, and I quote,
"My question is, is this common?"
It's perfectly acceptable by any normal standard for this to be interpreted
as "Is this common procedure?"
It's also perfectly ok for you to not like the answer I gave you. I suggest
you simply take the answers you DID like and be a nice little happy camper
again. Then, who knows; perhaps we can stop all this word parsing crap.
DH
C J Campbell
they are probably intelligent people who do not understand the risks
involved. They are told that a plane has a maximum gross weight, but they
are not really told why. They fly the plane over gross and nothing happens,
so they assume that they were lied to about the maximum gross weight, or
that there are fudge factors built into it (which amounts to the same
thing), or that the gross weight is limited for reasons that are tolerable
to exceed occasionally. Or they may know all the reasons, but decide that
other risk factors are low and go anyway. My guess is that the typical pilot
who flies over gross is more intelligent than most pilots, more likely to
question authority, and more demanding of justification for what appear to
be artificial limits published by aircraft manufacturers to protect
themselves from liability. We owe pilots like this a better explanation of
why flying over gross is a bad idea other than insults ("It is stupid") and
demonstrably false theories ("The wings will fall off!" and "The plane was
not tested for that weight/cg").
It is very common for certain trainer aircraft, such as the Cessna 152, to
be flown over gross. Instructors get away with it a few times and then by
example teach their students to do it, too. These light trainers were
designed in a time when the average American was considerably smaller than
now. Like most planes, this plane will fly over gross, but its already
inadequate performance suffers terribly for reasons I discuss below. A
Cessna 172 costs only $10 an hour more to rent and is much more comfortable.
My belief is that most pilots who are willing to fly over gross do so
because of bad habits they learned from their instructors in light trainer
aircraft. There are also several reasons a pilot might inadvertantly fly a
plane over gross.
Most airplanes are never weighed. Manufacturers usually weigh sample
aircraft in different configurations and then use that for the weight and
balance they send out with the plane. The typical ratio is the manufacturer
weighs about one in five aircraft coming off the line. As equipment is added
or removed from the plane a new weight and balance is computed. I have seen
errors of as much as 90 pounds in these computations (my own Cessna 206
gained this much weight when an Apollo MX20 was installed!). These errors
get carried over from one sheet to the next; no one ever questions them.
Then, of course, there is the weight that you are carrying that you don't
know about, such as last night's rain that didn't drain out of the little
holes in the belly of the plane because they were plugged with dirt or wax.
Add to this the fact that many pilots assume (wrongly) that a four place
plane cannot be over gross or out of CG if it has only one or two people on
board. The Bonanza and Baron can easily move out of CG as fuel is burned
off. The Cessna 206 is forward of CG if it has two people in the front seat
and is full fuel, but is otherwise empty. The Stationair is very easy to
load out of CG and computing a weight and balance for this plane for each
flight is absolutely essential. The big Cessna's legendary nose heaviness is
responsible for plenty of landing accidents. For all these reasons it is
probable that a fair number of aircraft are inadvertantly flown over gross
or out of CG.
Exceeding the max gross weight results in a higher takeoff speed -- and it
takes longer to accelerate the plane to that speed -- so the takeoff run is
greatly increased. Add to that a reduced rate and angle of climb, lower
maximum altitude, shorter range and endurance, reduced cruising speed and
maneuverability, higher stalling speeds, and higher landing speed and a
longer landing roll. Although aircraft become more stable at higher weights,
exceeding the gross weight can overcome the stability forces and make the
aircraft very unstable. Additionally, loading an aircraft over its gross
weight can physically damage it, especially the landing gear.
Most pilots who overload an aircraft get away with it because they use
runways that are far longer than what they need, don't go near the service
ceiling for the aircraft, and never use more than 30 degrees of bank. But if
their destination has unforecast crosswinds, or they have to fly to an
alternate with a short runway, or they forget the effects of density
altitude, or if they overshoot final and try to correct back, or they lose
an engine and try to turn toward a safe area to land, or they hit a little
turbulence, or any of a number of other unexpected things happen, their
excess weight becomes deadly. Sure, flying overweight is easy, until you get
into an accelerated stall and you discover that you can't reduce your angle
of attack enough to break out of it.
Sheesh. Reading my own post makes my hair stand on end -- and I'm bald! I
hope it has the same effect on you.
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tsyO7.181364$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
| In conversations I have had with other pilots, there seems to be alot of
| pilots flying small GA A/C over gross witth proper c/g, as an example, 4
| adults in a C172, 150 lbs over gross.
|
| My question is, is this common?
|
| Richard
|
|
|
|
nospam@cfl.rr.com Richard Ross
That would have been a great response at the very beginning of this posting.
Richard
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:byOO7.16175$Ao6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dudley Henriques
> LOL , after all that discussion, now you say that it is done
"regularly"!!!
> That would have been a great response at the very beginning of this
posting.
Are you serious?
My first post to you was in response to the following statement you made,
"Richard Ross" <rross5 nos...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GDzO7.181675$zK1.48...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> This is a really interesting response. I have been talking to high hour
> pilot friends and pilots at airshows and when I ask this question I get a
> response like, yes I've done it many times. I guess these guys don't get
on
> line.
To which I responded, since air shows are my business, and it looked to me
like you were saying air show pilots were telling you they flew their
airplanes over gross;
DH said,
"I don't know what air show pilots you are talking to who say they fly their
airplanes over gross, but I flew air shows for many years and I've NEVER
flown an airplane over gross."
Simple enough....non threatening.....deals with only air show pilots....not
a general statement at all.
Then YOU, in your infinite wisdom, instead of merely saying that wasn't what
you meant to convey, came at me with this gem;
Ross wrote;
"You have jumped to the conclusion that I talked to Air Show Performers.
That
is not true, I talked to pilots attending Sun N Fun and Stuart Airshow I
find your comments insulting, offensive and pompous. I don't care what type
of background you have, calling someone you don't know a liar is totally out
of line.Why would you attack me for simply repeating what I heard and then
calling me liar?
I can see this is going absolutely nowhere, so I'll attempt to extricate
myself at this point. If I've offended you, I apologize.
Now, let's get away from this crap and give the rest of the group a well
earned rest shall we?
No hard feelings....and no further communication necessary between us on
this issue, unless you initiate it.
DH
Dudley Henriques
here, at least in part. I'll elaborate with inserts.
"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VoPO7.8832$726.4...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> I would not say that pilots who fly over gross are stupid. I would say
that
> they are probably intelligent people who do not understand the risks
> involved.
They are told that a plane has a maximum gross weight, but they
> are not really told why.
If this is the case, the flight instructor, AND the examiner has failed
completely. It is incumbent on the instructor to INSURE that the student
doesn't leave the training program with just the attitude you say exists,
and it's incumbent on the examiner to INSURE that the instructor has done
the job properly. There is absolutely no excuse for a pilot entering the
system not knowing that flying an airplane outside it's weight and balance
envelope is wrong and dangerous.
They fly the plane over gross and nothing happens,
> so they assume that they were lied to about the maximum gross weight, or
> that there are fudge factors built into it (which amounts to the same
> thing), or that the gross weight is limited for reasons that are tolerable
> to exceed occasionally.
What you describe here is a textbook example of an improperly trained pilot.
Or they may know all the reasons, but decide that
> other risk factors are low and go anyway.
This is total incompetence, and can be directly related to the term
"stupid". :-)
My guess is that the typical pilot
> who flies over gross is more intelligent than most pilots, more likely to
> question authority, and more demanding of justification for what appear to
> be artificial limits published by aircraft manufacturers to protect
> themselves from liability.
I find this completely unacceptable as an excuse to fly over gross. Equating
intelligence and flying over gross weight because you question authority or
a manufacturer's stated limit is contrary to anything I have ever taught or
believed in while acting as a flight instructor.
We owe pilots like this a better explanation of
> why flying over gross is a bad idea
Exactly! And explaining it away with weak excuses is not what I consider the
way to go.
other than insults ("It is stupid")
I've known two pilots who were killed by flying outside the weight and
balance envelope of their airplanes. One was over grossed and the other an
aft cg problem. Both instances could have been avoided by proper pre-flight
procedures. Both of these pilots were friends; one a very close friend. He
left behind a wife, three wonderful children; and a business worth millions.
He was thirty two when he died. That was thirty years ago. His wife and
children remain friends of ours to this day. He lost all this because he was
in a hurry, and was under pressure to deliver a very expensive and heavy
item that his company manufactures.
If he was alive and with me here right now, he would join me I'm sure, in
telling you, and the rest of the world as well, that what he did that day
was STUPID!!!!
and
> demonstrably false theories ("The wings will fall off!" and "The plane was
> not tested for that weight/cg").
If your baggage floor is rated at a certain number of g's with 200 pounds in
there and you pull that number of g with 400 pounds in there.......something
just might give!!!
>
> It is very common for certain trainer aircraft, such as the Cessna 152, to
> be flown over gross.
This will unfortunately be the case if we start making excuses for pilots
who do it.
Instructors get away with it a few times and then by
> example teach their students to do it, too.
How bout we try and change that CJ, instead of just saying it happens!! :-)
These light trainers were
> designed in a time when the average American was considerably smaller than
> now. Like most planes, this plane will fly over gross, but its already
> inadequate performance suffers terribly for reasons I discuss below. A
> Cessna 172 costs only $10 an hour more to rent and is much more
comfortable.
> My belief is that most pilots who are willing to fly over gross do so
> because of bad habits they learned from their instructors in light trainer
> aircraft. There are also several reasons a pilot might inadvertantly fly a
> plane over gross.
>
> Most airplanes are never weighed. Manufacturers usually weigh sample
> aircraft in different configurations and then use that for the weight and
> balance they send out with the plane. The typical ratio is the
manufacturer
> weighs about one in five aircraft coming off the line. As equipment is
added
> or removed from the plane a new weight and balance is computed. I have
seen
> errors of as much as 90 pounds in these computations (my own Cessna 206
> gained this much weight when an Apollo MX20 was installed!). These errors
> get carried over from one sheet to the next; no one ever questions them.
You mean there isn't a 337 form with an updated weight and balance for your
airplane?
It's for these reasons that a weight and balance envelope is established,
and all the more reason that it should not be exceeded in any way under
normal conditions. The safety factors built into the weight and balance
envelope considers normally anticipated factors. To misuse that envelope, or
accept excuses for misusing it are contrary to my conception of good safety
practices.
I'm sorry, but you and I are going to part company on this one CJ.
The very best to you,
John Clonts
Dave Stadt <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:QkOO7.5446$Rw2.3...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Its more common than many people think. Its less common than many other
people think. Most people think that its more common than many others
think. Less people think its more common than the others, but they don't
think so.
Accelerating this discussion to nowhere. :)
Cheers,
John
PPASEL
Temple, Texas
Foureyes
the difference between being outside the CG limits versus being overgross.
Sure, a/c are flown regularly overgross but I would submit that many fewer
flights are made with the lateral CG limits exceeded. At least many fewer
successful flights. There is a difference between being outside the
envelope in weight and being outside in balance.news:9ugan3$1cg$1...@spider.cqu.edu.au...
David B Brownell
Putting aside all of the WT/CG 'legal envelopes,' if one kept the CG
near or slightly ahead the mean center of lift, any general aviation
aircraft could be taken off and flown at double it's max/legal gross
weight!
Rotation and best climb speed would be 1.414 times higher than normal.
A 160 HP Cessna 172 at 5000 lbs gross, would be rotated at 106 KIAS,
with a climb out of maybe 110-115 KIAS. (very flat climb out
indeed-but the AC would fly-and could be landed with no
problem--approach speed-my edu-guess-115 KIAS-to be safe, of course.
Dave Brownell
Cessna 180/182 jump pilot/skydiver
DB Technologies
Mesa, AZ
Ron Natalie
David B Brownell wrote:
> Putting aside all of the WT/CG 'legal envelopes,' if one kept the CG
> near or slightly ahead the mean center of lift, any general aviation
> aircraft could be taken off and flown at double it's max/legal gross
> weight!
>
> Rotation and best climb speed would be 1.414 times higher than normal.
> A 160 HP Cessna 172 at 5000 lbs gross, would be rotated at 106 KIAS,
> with a climb out of maybe 110-115 KIAS. (very flat climb out
> indeed-but the AC would fly-and could be landed with no
> problem--approach speed-my edu-guess-115 KIAS-to be safe, of course.
>
You think you can get a 172 up to 106 knots with the wheels still on the
ground? I can barely get that in cruise :-)
However, your theory presumes that CG and CL only act along the longitudinal
axis of the aircraft. This is not the case, they also apply laterally.
For this reason my aircraft has a higher gross weight when you put some
of the weight out in the tip tanks.
Ron Natalie
And thinking about it further, it's even worse than that. Put a ton on
nose and a ton in the tail, equidistant on either side of the longitudinal
Cl. The thing would probably bend in half even though the Cg is centered on
the Cl.
CDR Pain
a well earned rest shall we?"
CDR Pain says, "Sounds good Dudley, but I would be remiss if I did not point
out the fact that you have posted the majority of this thread. I think that
you may be the legitimate alter ego of the notorious Bertie the Bunyip.
Lets shut this stupid thread down. Richard, I am sorry that you posted a
legitimate question to this forum and all you got was a burned out retired
CFI giving you a hard time."
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u%PO7.25400$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
CDR Pain
a well earned rest shall we?"
CDR Pain says, "Sounds good Dudley, but I would be remiss if I did not point
out the fact that you have posted the majority of this thread. I think that
you may be the legitimate alter ego of the notorious Bertie the Bunyip.
Lets shut this stupid thread down. Richard, I am sorry that you posted a
legitimate question to this forum and all you got was a burned out retired
CFI giving you a hard time."
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u%PO7.25400$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
CDR Pain
a well earned rest shall we?"
CDR Pain says, "Sounds good Dudley, but I would be remiss if I did not point
out the fact that you have posted the majority of this thread. I think that
you may be the legitimate alter ego of the notorious Bertie the Bunyip.
Lets shut this stupid thread down. Richard, I am sorry that you posted a
legitimate question to this forum and all you got was a burned out retired
CFI giving you a hard time."
Dudley Henriques <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u%PO7.25400$WC1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dudley Henriques
"CDR Pain" <CDR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F3XO7.826$Zs5.15...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> DH said. "Now, let's get away from this crap and give the rest of the
group
> a well earned rest shall we?"
>
> CDR Pain says, "Sounds good Dudley, but I would be remiss if I did not
point
> out the fact that you have posted the majority of this thread. I think
that
> you may be the legitimate alter ego of the notorious Bertie the Bunyip.
> Lets shut this stupid thread down. Richard, I am sorry that you posted a
> legitimate question to this forum and all you got was a burned out retired
> CFI giving you a hard time."
Can't you personal attack types even post an insult correctly? Or do you
just like to see yourself in print? Three times to get it right.......
figures!! :-)
Have a good day.
DH
Peter Duniho
> [snipped]
It's going to take more double-posts than just that one if you expect to
catch up with Dudley... :)