35 lbs over gross in a C150
Dallas
tanks and I figured that would put us about 35 lbs over gross. I posed my
concern to the instructor and he said don't worry about it. As a low time
student, I have to trust the instructor.
So is 35 lbs in a 150 anything to worry about?
Dallas
Dudley Henriques
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:3Y3Wf.7708$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Being a little over gross isn't as bad as being out of the cg, but neither
is a good idea. Usually in a 150, the issue is the baggage compartment
behind the seats, but just be aware; it's a common practice with instructors
who have a 150 on the line with full tanks to "squeeze" the weight and
balance a bit with a large student who takes the left and right seat
allowable cg line out a bit too far. Rather than drain enough fuel to bring
the airplane back within it's cg limit, they "fudge" the GW if the cg isn't
out.
I don't like this practice and never have. Not only is it bad generally, but
it teaches the student right off the bat that it's ok to fudge a GW limit,
which is antithesis to what the instructor should be teaching the student.
The way to avoid this is for the FBO to put the airplanes on the line at 3/4
tanks, which many don't do. Another way is for the instructor to schedule
students properly and have an airplane waiting on the line whose fuel load
doesn't exceed the GW when the instructor/student weight is totaled.
In short, it probably won't kill you in a 150 unless you're in a high
density altitude situation on a hot day with a short runway, but as I said,
I never did it with my students and I don't like instructors who fly and
teach this way.
Dudley Henriques
Mike 'Flyin'8'
Depends if you like being a test pilot or not.
Mike Flyin' 8
Jim Macklin
the aircraft is designed and certified may give a clue as to
whether the operation of an airplane over gross weight is
"safe" but it is illegal and a violation of FAA regulations.
Every airport fuel truck can suck fuel out of a tank on most
airplanes [some tanks are shallow and you can't insert the
nozzle enough to get fuel out. Some tanks can be damaged,
care is needed.] So to remove 6 gallons of fuel can be done
faster than draining fuel using the sumps.
The issues beyond the simple legalities... gross weight may
be established because of structural strength, the power of
the brakes, the capacity of the tires or commonly with light
training aircraft, the climb performance. But what the
exact reason for the particular airplane would require some
engineering study. In Alaska, the FAA often approved
operation up to 10% over gross weight, to allow airplanes to
carry enough fuel for a round trip, but that does not mean
that it is safe for all airplanes at 110% of certified gross
weight.
The center of gravity is more important and critical than
weight because stability and stall recovery may not be
possible with an aft CG and rotation for take-off and
landing may not be possible with a forward CG. But if you
look a CG diagram, you will notice that on many airplanes
[above a certain weight] the forward limit moves aft and the
aft limit moves forward, at some weight the is no possible
weight and CG location that would be within the envelope.
I don't know your instructor, but If I were you, I'd print
this message and show it to him and have a long discussion
about FAR, aerodynamics, and instructor responsibilities and
ethics.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:3Y3Wf.7708$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Montblack
> Being a little over gross isn't as bad as being out of the cg, but neither
> is a good idea. Usually in a 150, the issue is the baggage compartment
> behind the seats, but just be aware; it's a common practice with
> instructors who have a 150 on the line with full tanks to "squeeze" the
> weight and balance a bit with a large student who takes the left and right
> seat allowable cg line out a bit too far. Rather than drain enough fuel to
> bring the airplane back within it's cg limit, they "fudge" the GW if the
> cg isn't out.
> I don't like this practice and never have. Not only is it bad generally,
> but it teaches the student right off the bat that it's ok to fudge a GW
> limit, which is antithesis to what the instructor should be teaching the
> student.
> The way to avoid this is for the FBO to put the airplanes on the line at
> 3/4 tanks, which many don't do. Another way is for the instructor to
> schedule students properly and have an airplane waiting on the line whose
> fuel load doesn't exceed the GW when the instructor/student weight is
> totaled.
> In short, it probably won't kill you in a 150 unless you're in a high
> density altitude situation on a hot day with a short runway, but as I
> said, I never did it with my students and I don't like instructors who fly
> and teach this way.
I liked this answer much better than a blanket ... "Don't ever do this if
you're a student!"
Montblack
cjcampbell
Dallas wrote:
> I switched over to a 150 last week. As I drove up they were topping off the
> tanks and I figured that would put us about 35 lbs over gross. I posed my
> concern to the instructor and he said don't worry about it. As a low time
> student, I have to trust the instructor.
I did that a couple times as an inexperienced instructor, too. You will
not see me doing it again.
There are several problems with being over gross in a 150. One of the
worst is that you have increased the stall speed, but you don't know by
how much. It is very easy to start to climb too soon when taking off
and it is even easier to stall on touchdown or even short final. You
can also run out of elevator on an over gross 150 and not be able to
flare on touchdown -- once you are over gross the cg limits begin to
narrow rapidly.
When over gross you also are beginning to put a lot of additional
structural strain on the airplane that it was not meant to take in
turns and other maneuvers. Being over gross can also put you in an
accelerated stall when turning and make it more difficult to recover,
especially if you are also out of cg limits (and again, you don't know
where those limits are if you are over gross -- you just know that they
are less than they are when you are within weight limits).
Airplanes as part of their certification are drop tested to make sure
that if they have a hard landing they will not strike their prop or
damage the plane. Being over gross might add just enough weight to
cause a prop strike or gear damage in a landing that you might have
been able to get away with if you were within weight limits.
Last of all, although you may not see the physical damage, exceeding
gross weight on a regular basis can shorten the life of the airframe,
creating invisible stress fractures that might not show up until the
airplane comes apart in the air. For this reason I am just about
opposed to do doing any flight training in a 150 or 152. All these
airplanes are old and have been subjected to decades of abuse.
Personally, if I was running a flight school, I would not trust them.
It is not that it has been raining Cessnas, you understand. I just have
to wonder whether it isn't worth the extra money to train in something
newer and more reliable.
Montblack
[snip]
> Understanding why and how gross weight is determined when the aircraft is
> designed and certified may give a clue as to whether the operation of an
> airplane over gross weight is "safe" but it is illegal and a violation of
> FAA regulations.
I like the post, a few years ago, that pointed out many of the (40 year old)
trainer's engines might, or might not, still pull like when they were new
...back when the (above) specs were determined.
1,600 lb. Gross Weight?
160 lbs. = 10%
16 lbs. = 1%
35 lbs over = 2% over MTOW
Montblack
NW_PILOT
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:Gy4Wf.1270$t22.443@dukeread08...
> In Alaska, the FAA often approved
> operation up to 10% over gross weight, to allow airplanes to
> carry enough fuel for a round trip, but that does not mean
> that it is safe for all airplanes at 110% of certified gross
> weight.
>
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
I wonder why only Alaska has the over 10% rule! Should we all get Alaskan Po
Boxes And Reg. Our airplanes there?
Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)
Roy Smith
> There are several problems with being over gross in a 150. One of the
> worst is that you have increased the stall speed, but you don't know by
> how much.
Well, actually you do. Vs0 (TAS) varies as the square root of the weight.
As a decent approximation, every 1% over gross increases Vs0 by 1/2%.
I'm not saying it's smart (and certainly not legal), just pointing out that
of all the factors mentioned by cjcampbell, stall speed is easy to
calculate.
Jim Macklin
about how to estimate performance changes with weight. What
makes life interesting is that things change by the square
or square root of the change. Makes live interesting when
the airplane flies great at some point and completely out of
control at a point just slightly higher or lower.
Airplanes climb performance is really very simple, whatever
horsepower is required to maintain level flight is
subtracted from the power the engine can produce, any excess
power divide by the weight determines the climb rate. This
is why a twin climbs so well with two engines running and so
poorly on only one. For example, a fictional airplane with
a 200 hp engine requires 100 hp to fly level at gross weight
of 2000 pounds, will climb at a rate of X fpm. [100
hp*33,000=3,300,0000/2,000=1,650 fpm. Increase the weight
to 3,000 pounds and the climb rate drops to 1,100 fpm. But
what about a real airplane like a Cessna 150, at 1,600
pounds it will have about a 700 fpm climb rate, or about 34
excess horsepower. Any increase in drag will increase the
power required to just maintain altitude, any increase in
weight will decrease the climb rate because it doesn't have
the excess power to maintain the climb. FAR 23 requires
that the climb rate, at certified gross weight be a minimum
gradient [old rules mentioned climb in fpm as a product of
stall speed times 10, if I remember]. In any case
increasing weight or drag reduces climb rate, [flaps may
increase gradient, nut reduce rate].
An old, tired engine, high density altitude and every pound,
reduce climb rate and increase stall speed.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Montblack" <Y4-NOT...4monty4blacky@yvisiy.com> wrote in
message news:122hncr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Macklin
with fuel available.
"NW_PILOT" <NW_PILOT@"(nospammeok)"Warflying.net> wrote in
message news:r42dndRIGcj...@comcast.com...
Dave S
> So is 35 lbs in a 150 anything to worry about?
>
> Dallas
If we are talkin black and white, its illegal.
If we are talking shades of grey, an hour of flight at full throttle
will solve the weight problem.
As some other folks said, being within CG is the much more pressing concern.
That being said, you would likely have a problem if you were over gross
for a check ride, or if ramp-checked.. or if a post accident
investigation revealed that fact.
Dave
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> If we are talkin black and white, its illegal.
>
> If we are talking shades of grey, an hour of flight at full throttle
> will solve the weight problem.
>
> As some other folks said, being within CG is the much more pressing concern.
>
> That being said, you would likely have a problem if you were over gross
> for a check ride, or if ramp-checked.. or if a post accident
> investigation revealed that fact.
This is the best answer yet. People fly overgrossed all the time. OTOH, you
have to accept that if there are problems, you're not going to have a defense...
"oops" isn't going to satisfy the feds.
A C-152 35 lbs over isn't much of an example. I happen to know a C-210 will fly
200 lbs overgrossed *if* the CG is maintained adequately and the OAT is
reasonable; so will a PA-32. But if anything happens, you're basically left
twisting in the wind. I don't know that you'd enjoy the feeling.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
msch...@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE
Al
overweight aircraft, even one close to gross, you will spend a good part of
your lesson time climbing to the practice area. A lighter aircraft gives you
more time to practice your manuevers.
Al
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5d4Wf.10979$k75....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Andrew Sarangan
This is one of the most ignorant comments I keep hearing among pilots.
When I used to instruct in New Mexico, landing in cross winds greater
than the POH demonstrated numbers was not uncommon. Everyone there knew
this was perfectly legal. After moving to Ohio, everyone kept referring
to this practice as being a "test pilot".
Flying over gross is not a good idea for the reasons Dudley explained.
Brushing it off as "test pilot" only demonstrates ignorance.
NW_PILOT
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <morts...@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:vidWf.44609$915....@southeast.rr.com...
Ahh Cherokee Six Excellent Airplane I have about 30 solo hours in a PA32-300
it's not that fast but a heavy hauler. I seen a 260 at KAMA or some place
around that region that looked like it was an over stuffed turkey I guess it
was going over the North Atlantic to Germany and had a Turtle Pac 160
installed + a bunch of Gear. The pilot was saying it Was on a Special Flight
Permit the pilot flying was younger than I and a bit nervous. I wonder if
he ever made it? I know that would have been a fun trip with 16+ hours of
fuel.
Barney Rubble
maximum that a fully trained test pilot could safely accomplish whilst
maintaining some rudder authority, without scraping the wing on the ground.
The MGW is just that, a maximum all-up weight at which the aircraft has been
demonstrated to perform adequately.
Take the A/C beyond either of those and you ARE a test pilot, by attempting
to do something that was not accomplished during the certification. I think
the use of the phrase "Test Pilot" very succinctly describes the actions of
someone who does something with an aircraft that has not been demonstrated
before.
Oh and the FAA might not have the temerity to call you a test pilot after
you wind up in the field after an over-run caused by excessive ground roll
due to over MGW, but they will find other names, such as revocation,
suspension and fine, for example.
Also I think the FAA would cite the pilot (or instructor in your case) for
poor airmanship if there was as mishap with an x-wind beyond the
demonstrated maximum, they sure wouldn't say that the A/C wasn't certified
properly.
I'm pleased I didn't have to fly with you during my initial training if you
routinely taught students to exceed the demonstrated capabilities of the
plane.
- Barney
"Andrew Sarangan" <asar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143568330.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jim Macklin
land with a minimum of a cross wind equal to a percentage of
the stall speed. In other words, that the control authority
can establish a slip and/or that the landing gear can take
the stress from a landing.
The factory test pilot will fly and land the airplane and
must have at least as much cross wind component as required
by FAR. If the wind is blowing harder, that number is used,
but if it is just a little stronger but the controllability
limit has not been reached, they will not wait until the
wind is stronger, they just print the actual number as
"demonstrated cross wind."
Two reasons Cessna did not bring the C152 back into
production are weight and cabin size, the C172 is much more
comfortable and does not have a problem with three persons
in the cabin. The cost to retool and build C152 just was
prohibitive.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Andrew Sarangan" <asar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143568330.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
Jim Macklin
is blowing. It is not a limit since the wind is not always
blowing hard. In Kansas we can have steady winds over 40
mph, even 60 mph, but they may or may not be a cross wind.
The limit for the airplane is with the rudder deflected, the
ailerons cranked over and the wing about to drag. But the
pilot can always see whether he is tracking along the runway
and if there is more control movement possible. If the wind
is that strong, you change runways or land at a different
angle on the runway. I once watched a Helio Stallion at
Tulsa Riverside [Jones] land with the wind about 400% of the
demonstrated cross wind component. The wind was 270 at 40
knots, landed on runway 35, heading 270 at the threshold and
rolled straight ahead to the ramp at the FBO. The tower
asked about the heading and the pilot said he landed on the
runway, there was no regulation about landing aligned with
the runway number.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Barney Rubble" <barney...@boulder.com> wrote in message
news:442998ca$0$12003$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Jim Macklin
for ferry flights. The seats are UPS/FedEx on a cargo
flight. The O2 [Cessna 337] was ferried to Viet Nam with
the cockpit so full of tanks that the pilot had to crawl
over the tank in the co-pilot seat. Special purpose flights
can be approved for special purposes. For instance,
multiengine airplanes are required to be able to CLIMB on
one engine if they weigh more than 6,000 pounds. But if
being ferried at a higher weight they may be unable to hold
altitude on one engine for several hours after take-off. So
when a Beech 58TC/P is being ferried and has lots of extra
fuel tanks installed, and the take-off weight is 7,000
pounds, an engine failure at take-off or until 700 pounds of
fuel is used, means a controlled crash landing.
Big airplanes often have fuel dump systems because of
limitations on landing weight [often brake limits] so they
can dump fuel weight before a landing. They also have
"procedures" to follow after an over-weight landing to
return the aircraft to service.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"NW_PILOT" <NW_PILOT@"(nospammeok)"Warflying.net> wrote in
message news:_OadnQBYk4L...@comcast.com...
Dave Stadt
"Barney Rubble" <barney...@boulder.com> wrote in message
news:442998ca$0$12003$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>maximum that a fully trained test pilot could safely accomplish whilst
>maintaining some rudder authority, without scraping the wing on the ground.
Another aviation OWT. Max crosswind is simply a number that must be
achieved during certification. It must be at least 20 percent of stall
speed in the landing configuration. It has absolutely nothing to do with
the maximum cross wind the plane can be landed in. It's all in part 23 if
you want the gospel.
> The MGW is just that, a maximum all-up weight at which the aircraft has
> been demonstrated to perform adequately.
> Take the A/C beyond either of those and you ARE a test pilot, by
> attempting to do something that was not accomplished during the
> certification. I think the use of the phrase "Test Pilot" very succinctly
> describes the actions of someone who does something with an aircraft that
> has not been demonstrated before.
> Oh and the FAA might not have the temerity to call you a test pilot after
> you wind up in the field after an over-run caused by excessive ground roll
> due to over MGW, but they will find other names, such as revocation,
> suspension and fine, for example.
The FAA cannot levy fines
> Also I think the FAA would cite the pilot (or instructor in your case) for
> poor airmanship if there was as mishap with an x-wind beyond the
> demonstrated maximum, they sure wouldn't say that the A/C wasn't certified
> properly.
No thay can't.
Jim Macklin
[fines] and they can always cite "careless and reckless" in
any incident.
Otherwise, you're correct, about cross wind and FAR 23.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Dave Stadt" <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:JEiWf.6553$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Robert M. Gary
but the plane won't fall from the sky. When we trained in the C-140 it
was a rare day that we were not over gross.
-Robert, CFI
Dave Stadt
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> FAA can impose certificate actions or civil penalties
> [fines] and they can always cite "careless and reckless" in
> any incident.
Yep, it's jail time they cannot impose. Got my penalties in a crosswind.
Andrew Sarangan
> I don't agree with you.... max demonstrated x-wind is just that, it was the
> maximum that a fully trained test pilot could safely accomplish whilst
> maintaining some rudder authority, without scraping the wing on the ground.
> The MGW is just that, a maximum all-up weight at which the aircraft has been
> demonstrated to perform adequately.
> Take the A/C beyond either of those and you ARE a test pilot, by attempting
> to do something that was not accomplished during the certification. I think
> the use of the phrase "Test Pilot" very succinctly describes the actions of
> someone who does something with an aircraft that has not been demonstrated
> before.
> Oh and the FAA might not have the temerity to call you a test pilot after
> you wind up in the field after an over-run caused by excessive ground roll
> due to over MGW, but they will find other names, such as revocation,
> suspension and fine, for example.
> Also I think the FAA would cite the pilot (or instructor in your case) for
> poor airmanship if there was as mishap with an x-wind beyond the
> demonstrated maximum, they sure wouldn't say that the A/C wasn't certified
> properly.
> I'm pleased I didn't have to fly with you during my initial training if you
> routinely taught students to exceed the demonstrated capabilities of the
> plane.
>
> - Barney
>
You highlight the exact point I was trying to make - lack of
understanding for why some things are 'prohibited' and some things are
'not recommended'. There is a difference, and there is a reason for why
they are that way. In order to keep things simple, it may be best for
beginning students to treat them both the same way, but sooner or later
you have to grow out of it and start asking questions. That is the only
way to continue learning.
If you get into an accident during a light crosswind, do you think the
FAA is going to say you did a fine job because you were below the
demonstrated crosswind?
You will be at fault regardless of what the POH says.
I am afraid to ask what you think about slipping with flaps in a 172.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
news:442998ca$0$12003$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>maximum that a fully trained test pilot could safely accomplish whilst
>maintaining some rudder authority, without scraping the wing on the ground.
Hardly.
23.233 Directional stability and control.
(a) A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe
for taxiing, takeoff, and landing must be established and must be not less
than 0.2 VSO.
(Assuming United States, FAA standards)
> The MGW is just that, a maximum all-up weight at which the aircraft has
> been demonstrated to perform adequately.
> Take the A/C beyond either of those and you ARE a test pilot, by
> attempting to do something that was not accomplished during the
> certification. I think the use of the phrase "Test Pilot" very succinctly
> describes the actions of someone who does something with an aircraft that
> has not been demonstrated before.
People demonstrate that airplanes fly at much more than 35 pounds overweight
all the time. I once saw 4, count them - 4, BIG people get out of a Luscombe
once (two were in the baggage space).
But, putting this "test pilot" nonsense aside for the moment...
Many (if not most) accidents occur at the end of a chain of events. And, in
some cases, being overweight will be one of the links in that chain that
could have been broken. You will usually get away with it, but then there
is always the case where the engine is just a little tired, the trees are a
little taller this year and...
Or, you hit clear air turblulance, and the strut attach fitting was
improperly repaired and you are overweight and...
It's just a bad habit to get into. Even if you usually get away with it, you
are eating into the margins of safety that you just might need someday.
Use some common sense.
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.
Mike 'Flyin'8'
>Brushing it off as "test pilot" only demonstrates ignorance.
Call it what you want. I prefer to operate within the certified
limits and not test the limits myself.
Mike Flyin' 8
BTIZ
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
> Understanding why and how gross weight is determined when
> the aircraft is designed and certified may give a clue as to
> whether the operation of an airplane over gross weight is
> "safe" but it is illegal and a violation of FAA regulations.
> Every airport fuel truck can suck fuel out of a tank on most
> airplanes [some tanks are shallow and you can't insert the
> nozzle enough to get fuel out. Some tanks can be damaged,
> care is needed.] So to remove 6 gallons of fuel can be done
> faster than draining fuel using the sumps.
Most operations will not allow fuel that has been in an aircraft to be
"sucked" back into the delivery truck tank, that action contaminates the
fuel. If this is a known practice, and then an aircraft has an accident and
claims fuel contamination from the delivery point. The delivery "agent"
would not have much defense.
BT
Jonathan
wanted to make sure I can land in a strong crosswind.
In the 172 I am training in, the max is 15. As my instructor states, if you
have full rudder deflection to keep it strait, then you are at max. And it
is time to abandon the landing if you can't keep it strait down the runway
on final with full rudder. I am sure an experienced pilot can land if need
be with some special routine to land. So I landed it with full rudder which
was the only way to keep it pointed down the runway and I was not attempting
a slip either.
I was landing on Runway 27 with the wind from 340 and I believe it was 16
knots of wind I was going into. I have about 55 hours and getting ready to
schedule my practical.
I had to perform no flap (0 Degree) landings and full flap(40 degree)
landings. Not all of them were pretty and I had to be reminded a couple of
times to turn the ailerons into the wind on touchdown to prevent be blown
off the runway. But it was a great challenge and now I know how to handle
it.
I have landed in a lot of crosswind experience since the wind when I fly
never seems to be coming from strait down any of the runways in my training
airport which has 9-27 and 18 -36 runways. Wind always seems to be atleast
20 degrees off the side and at least 10 knots.
-Jonathan
Jim Macklin
at the "nose" reference point at an angle toward the center,
rather than straight ahead. You can't keep the nose aligned
with the rudder without slipping and use of the ailerons is
essential. When you are on the ground the positioning of
the controls for taxi is very important in strong winds.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Jonathan" <jonab...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ofudnWb9n_rpZ7TZ...@comcast.com...
Jim Macklin
aircraft, defuels the aircraft and the fuel is filtered, I
see no problem assuming fresh fuel taken from the top of the
tank. Currently EPA doesn't want fuel sampled and dumped on
the tarmac, but into a closed container.
If they FBO can't defuel with a fuel truck, the shop
certainly has a fuel caddy with a two-way pump that can be
rolled out to the ramp. They probably use that fuel for
parts cleaning because it is cheaper [and more volatile]
than cleaning fluid. [or they mechanics use it in their
cars].
If all else fails you can pull the drain plug on the tanks,
just be prepared to properly reinstall and safety it.
I did my initial private training in a 150 and after solo
moved to a 172. Then before my private those airplanes were
sold and I had to solo in a Beech Muskrat Sport. After I
passed my check-ride I checked out in the Beech Muskrat
Super (200 hp/CSP/mechanical flaps and fixed gear).
My favorite 172s have EDO floats, my favorite Beech has big
turboprop engines and a gross weight at 14,000 pounds. It
can carry full fuel 539 gallons, fill the standard seats and
carry 500 pounds in the baggage area and still be under
gross and within the CG for the entire flight. Unless you
carry a lot of gold, don't see how you can get out of the
W&B envelope.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"BTIZ" <btizn...@cox.nospm.net> wrote in message
news:mplWf.492$CL6.350@fed1read11...
Jonathan
slip practice that I have also been doing to drop quickly from TPA on
final.. With full rudder, you constantly adjust the ailerons to keep the
plane coming down the center of the runway and not off to the sides. I did
have to use full rudder to keep pointing the nose toward the runway and
adjusting aileron to keep it to the center on final.
The crosswind was intentional for this practice. I could have landed on 30
at this airport and made it easier on myself. Plus my home airport has a 36
runway to land on. We flew from my home airport to this one to intentionaly
do these crosswind landing practice. The idea was to hone my skills more on
cross-winds. I had practice landing in crosswinds of 30 - 50 degrees before
with wind more like 25 knots and I thought that was a challenge.
-Jonathan
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:a2oWf.1376$t22.245@dukeread08...
Dave S
seemingly arbitrary weight for their weight and balance for passengers,
crew and baggage.
When I was riding in the back of learjets on lifeguard flights, the
pilots used 180 lbs for all adult occupants and I can attest that NONE
of the 6 souls on the aircraft were at or below that weight. Plus
medical gear, plus baggage, plus fuel and it got interesting.
It had me worried once, departing the short (5k ft) runway in July in
Greeley, CO. Unicom called and said the folks off the end of the runway
wanted their tree branches back.
Dave
Jim Macklin
approved manual provides instruction in how to use the
standard passenger weights, declared weights or must use a
scale and weigh everything and everyone on the airplane.
One point is that if the passengers are obviously heavier
than "standard" like a football team or just big, you have
to weigh them.
I got pretty good at estimating passenger weights, but if
there was any question, they got put on a scale.
Some of you may be old enough to remember when airline
flights would have seats blocked off or many seats
unoccupied even though you knew that passengers had been
left behind. The old airplanes often could not take-off at
max design gross weight, you have to reduce the payload to
fit into the safe take-off and departure performance. Not
many C150 or 172 pilots reduce their payload to fit the
required climb, many of those people end up in the trees a
mile from the runway.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Dave S" <Dast...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TNwWf.9314$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jim Macklin
comfortable, transition to the side slip can be done in the
last 1/4 mile very easily. Just pull the nose back with
rudder and roll in the bank to kill any drift. It is like
pulling a wishbone apart. With practice and experience you
will note how many degrees of crab can be transitioned into
a slip within the rudder effectiveness. I usually would
combine the crab to slip until the flare began.
Some airplane cannot be landed with the wing down very much
without dragging parts, like jet engines hung under the wing
or tip tanks, These airplanes are just flown to the runway
in a crab and the pilot just kicks the nose around and
plants it on the runway before the drift starts. Some have
castering landing gear, which goes all the way to the gear
on a B52 bomber. The navigator calculates the drift angle
and the gear is set to that angle and the plane is landed
with the wheels aligned with the runway and direction of
travel and the nose is pointed into the wind.
You may even see some airplanes with castering landing gear,
called cross-wind gear, that are unlocked to allow the
wheels to swivel on landing. This was an option on the
Helio Courier, looks very strange to see an taildragger taxi
by with the nose headed 350 and taxi track about 012.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
"Jonathan" <jonab...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:teqdneSXCtT...@comcast.com...
Barney Rubble
x-wind, and it is possible that the plane may be able to fly in a stiffer
breeze, but still, if you exceed the demonstrated x-wind, then you have
become the new test pilot, by definition, which was my point WRT Andrews'
comment....
- Barney
"Dave Stadt" <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:JEiWf.6553$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
Barney Rubble
POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
Have I done it? Yes,
Should I do it? No
Will the insurance pay if the fact came to light due to a mishap? No
Was I possibly trying to save a hot and high landing early in my flying
career? Maybe
Have I had to do it lately in a stabilized approach? No
Can I cause structural damage or rip the flaps off? could the next test
pilot willing to find out please step forward...
Can I accurately predict my speed when I might be low and slow in a slip? No
I'm a black and white kind of guy, perhaps the earth is still flat, maybe
rules are meant to be obeyed, perhaps the people certifying the plane knew
what they were doing? Oh well, who knows,
I'm not going to be the one who finds out. I remember one of those sarcastic
anti motivational posters that "go -getting companies seem to love to hang
on their boardrooms".
Underneath a guy standing at the top of a mountain or some such, the caption
read "Maybe the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to
others...."
- Barney
"Andrew Sarangan" <asar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143588717.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter R.
> My thoughts on slipping with flaps extended are in total agreement with the
> POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
> Have I done it? Yes,
> Should I do it? No
What exactly does this placard read? "Slips with flaps are *prohibited*"
or "slips with flaps *should be* avoided?"
--
Peter
Dave Stadt
> Point taken, I did and do understand that it is a maximum demonstrated
> x-wind, and it is possible that the plane may be able to fly in a stiffer
> breeze, but still, if you exceed the demonstrated x-wind, then you have
> become the new test pilot, by definition, which was my point WRT Andrews'
> comment....
I am afraid what you understand and believe is simply not true. The facts
have been presented by several people. If you wish to ignore them that is
up to you.
Dave Stadt
> My thoughts on slipping with flaps extended are in total agreement with
> the POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
> Have I done it? Yes,
> Should I do it? No
> Will the insurance pay if the fact came to light due to a mishap? No
Do you have evidence to support this? My insurance policy lists no such
exclusion.
> Was I possibly trying to save a hot and high landing early in my flying
> career? Maybe
> Have I had to do it lately in a stabilized approach? No
> Can I cause structural damage or rip the flaps off? could the next test
> pilot willing to find out please step forward...
I take it you have not read the POH. I explains the slips with flaps
situation. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything structural.
Mark Hansen
> "Barney Rubble" <barney...@boulder.com> wrote in message
> news:442b064b$0$9422$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> My thoughts on slipping with flaps extended are in total agreement with
>> the POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
>> Have I done it? Yes,
>> Should I do it? No
>> Will the insurance pay if the fact came to light due to a mishap? No
>
> Do you have evidence to support this? My insurance policy lists no such
> exclusion.
>
>> Was I possibly trying to save a hot and high landing early in my flying
>> career? Maybe
>> Have I had to do it lately in a stabilized approach? No
>> Can I cause structural damage or rip the flaps off? could the next test
>> pilot willing to find out please step forward...
>
> I take it you have not read the POH. I explains the slips with flaps
> situation. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything structural.
Is it explained in your POH? What does it say?
I'm looking at the POH for a 1980 C172N model, and all I can find is a
mention of the placard which must read "Avoid slips with flaps extended",
but nothing about why it is so.
However, from what I was told, the reason for this warning is that
the configuration may cause a flutter in the elevator. If that flutter
were to become serious (otherwise, why would they warn about it) wouldn't
you consider that a structural issue?
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Dave Stadt
"Mark Hansen" <m...@NOSPAMwinfirst.com> wrote in message
news:122mafk...@corp.supernews.com...
In the P manual it is in section 4 Amplified Procedures normal landing and
crosswind landing. It does not cause flutter. In the crosswind section
also notice the statement about cross wind velocity.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
If I recall correctly, full flaps can blank out the elevator in a slip in the
small Cessnas. If I am actually correct, then structural damage isn't the
problem, controllability is, followed shortly later by structural damage as you
plow it into the ground.
Roy Smith
"Barney Rubble" <barney...@boulder.com> wrote:
> My thoughts on slipping with flaps extended are in total agreement with the
> POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
> Have I done it? Yes,
> Should I do it? No
> Will the insurance pay if the fact came to light due to a mishap? No
To the best of my knowledge, the Flight Data Recorder in a C-150 does not
record flap position or slip-skid data, so I don't see how the insurance
company would ever figure it out.
Peter R.
> If that flutter
> were to become serious (otherwise, why would they warn about it) wouldn't
> you consider that a structural issue?
No, the warning is simply because this flutter can be disconcerting to the
unsuspecting pilot. It is not a hazard to the aircraft.
--
Peter
Peter R.
> If I recall correctly, full flaps can blank out the elevator in a slip in the
> small Cessnas. If I am actually correct, then structural damage isn't the
> problem, controllability is, followed shortly later by structural damage as you
> plow it into the ground.
I cannot speak for the older Cessnas with 40 degrees of flaps, but
regarding the later models with 30 degrees, slipping with flaps simply
causes flutter but no loss of elevator effectiveness. Nor will this
flutter cause structural damage.
--
Peter
Dave Stadt
"Peter R." <pjr...@gmailX.com> wrote in message
news:1iah8c2k...@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
Exactly and it isn't even flutter just a low speed oscillation. The FAA
would never certify an airplane with a known flutter problem.
Peter R.
> Exactly and it isn't even flutter just a low speed oscillation. The FAA
> would never certify an airplane with a known flutter problem.
You are correct. I was wrong to even use the word "flutter."
--
Peter
cjcampbell
Barney Rubble wrote:
> I don't agree with you.... max demonstrated x-wind is just that, it was the
> maximum that a fully trained test pilot could safely accomplish whilst
> maintaining some rudder authority, without scraping the wing on the ground.
Actually, no. As others pointed out, but they have not explained how it
was determined on the Cessna single engine aircraft, either. I took the
liberty some years ago of asking the guys at Cessna how they determined
it. I thought they might not remember. But there were a few old-timers
who were brought back when Cessna started making piston singles again.
Cessna had to do it; none of the new guys could figure out how to
assemble the new planes given what was left of the old jigs, parts, and
plans. For the new guys it was like trying to assemble a medium quality
homebuilt kit. You had all the parts. You had the blueprints. But
nothing quite fit. It turned out that Cessna had been assembling the
planes for years with guys who just knew how to do it -- and hardly any
of them worked for Cessna any more.
Anyway, what they did, and I don't know if this is the way it was
supposed to be done or anything else about it, but what they did when
it came to this stage of the certification process was they simply did
a slip at increasing angles of bank. When they could not apply enough
rudder to keep the nose pointed straight any more they marked the
airspeed indicator and noted the speed of their sideslip, calculated
the crosswind component that would compensate for, and called it the
maximum demonstrated crosswind component. They figured after that there
would be no way of landing the plane doing that without side-loading
the gear and maybe ripping the tires off.
They called it the maximum demonstrated crosswind limit because a more
experienced pilot can land in much higher crosswinds with the crab and
kick trick where you just crab into the wind and then kick the nose
straight down the runway at the last second before touchdown, causing
the upwind wing to dip just enough put the upwind main down first. In
fact, one of these old guys told me that he had landed the Cessna 152
in a thirty knot crosswind, but did not count it as the maximum
demonstrated crosswind component because the FAA wanted the "standard"
crosswind approach and landing demonstrated. The maximum demonstrated
crosswind component is what it takes to keep the nose pointed straight
down the runway throughout the final approach and landing without any
side loading of the gear. I believe the test was run without flaps, but
I don't remember for sure.
Now, that is how it was when these aircraft were certified. So there
are a lot of things that affect what the actual maximum crosswind is
that you can land in. For one thing, the rudder becomes more effective
at a higher indicated airspeed, so you can do a normal crosswind
approach and landing with more crosswind if you are willing to accept a
higher approach and landing speed, for example.
> The MGW is just that, a maximum all-up weight at which the aircraft has been
> demonstrated to perform adequately.
> Take the A/C beyond either of those and you ARE a test pilot, by attempting
> to do something that was not accomplished during the certification.
Well, no. Because the airplane is tested at above max gross during
certification. Max gross weight is actually determined by first
deciding what the minimum performance of the airplane should be and
then figuring out what the maximum weight can be without going below
that performance. So, if you want to be able to advertise that your
plane will take off in a certain distance or land in a certain
distance, withstand turns of a given angle of bank without losing
altitude, etc., then you figure out what the maximum gross weight can
be to meet those parameters. Obviously, some of those parameters are
fixed by regulation, but others are not.
There are many reasons for flying above maximum gross weight, even if I
will not do it with a student simply because I do not think you can
accomplish all the student maneuvers safely if you are above max gross.
Consider ferry flights with fuel bladders, for example. Airplanes being
flown across the Pacific routinely take off from Oakland with loads far
exceeding their maximum gross weight. Of course, pilots doing that may
take the entire runway to get off the ground and in some cases they
have been known to not climb out of ground effect until after passing
the Golden Gate (they flew under it). You would not want to make any
steep turns loaded like that! But it does not put undue stress on the
airplane as long as you are gentle. Nothing abrupt. After all, the
maximum gross weight takes into account the maximum g loading the plane
is designed for, so if you don't pull any g's you can increase your
load quite a lot and still fly.
Maybe you would not want to take any passengers along (in fact it would
be prohibited by the ferry permit), but neither is it particularly
dangerous.
Now, about slips with flaps. Perhaps the bloodiest flame war in the
history of this news group was started over this issue. There are some
folks here who still have the T-shirt (yes, there really was a
T-shirt). It was finally settled by talking to Cessna about it,
referenced in the handbooks, etc. So let us not get started on it
again. Here is the deal: Cessna says that there is nothing wrong with
slipping these planes with flaps extended. They have a placard saying
to avoid it because it is possible that the flaps will direct the
airstream over the tail surfaces in such way as to cause some vibration
which might alarm passengers or novice pilots and which even
experienced pilots might accidentally mistake for a stall buffet. The
airplane is not stalling or even close to it, but inappropriately
attempting a stall recovery on short final because you were slipping
with flaps could be dangerous. If you know about it, though, and are
expecting it there is nothing to be concerned about otherwise. But it
does feel a lot like a stall buffet, a thing which I have determined
through experimentation (at a safe altitude).
Now I almost feel like some sort of old-timer. Fortunately, we still
have Dudley and Bob Gardner and Gene Whitt around here to keep me
feeling young.
cjcampbell
Jim Macklin wrote:
> FAR 23 requires a demonstration proof that the airplane can
> land with a minimum of a cross wind equal to a percentage of
> the stall speed. In other words, that the control authority
> can establish a slip and/or that the landing gear can take
> the stress from a landing.
>
> The factory test pilot will fly and land the airplane and
> must have at least as much cross wind component as required
> by FAR. If the wind is blowing harder, that number is used,
> but if it is just a little stronger but the controllability
> limit has not been reached, they will not wait until the
> wind is stronger, they just print the actual number as
> "demonstrated cross wind."
>
> Two reasons Cessna did not bring the C152 back into
> production are weight and cabin size, the C172 is much more
> comfortable and does not have a problem with three persons
> in the cabin. The cost to retool and build C152 just was
> prohibitive.
There was the liability issue, too, which was related to weight and
cabin size. Who wants a two seat airplane which will not hold an
instructor and student? The moment one of these things prangs and it is
over gross, someone sues Cessna.
Besides, the 152 would have cost almost as much as a 172 by the time
they got done with it, which is another way of saying your second
point.
You kind of wish they would bring back the Aerobat, though.
cjcampbell
RNR
snipped...
>Is it explained in your POH? What does it say?
>
>I'm looking at the POH for a 1980 C172N model, and all I can find is a
>mention of the placard which must read "Avoid slips with flaps extended",
>but nothing about why it is so.
>
>However, from what I was told, the reason for this warning is that
>the configuration may cause a flutter in the elevator. If that flutter
>were to become serious (otherwise, why would they warn about it) wouldn't
>you consider that a structural issue?
It is my understanding (I'm not an aeronautical engineer) that the
flutter is nothing more than a source of discomfort and a potential
distraction, not a danger in and of itself. I haven't experienced it,
but I would expect no control loss or structural damage.
RNR
Barney Rubble
clause which excludes operating the airplane contrary to the limitations of
the manufacturers official operators handbook. I'm not sure of the exact
wording, so please do forgive me if this is a paraphrase, I don't tend to
carry the insurance document aroudn with me.
So if I damaged the plane by operating it in an un-approved manner, this
would be wriggle room for the insurers.
And I have read the POH, and for my 172 slips with full flaps are prohibited
due to the possibility of elevator oscillation at certain airspeeds, CG's
and sideslip angles. This is certainly a possible cause of damage to the
structure of the plane, as is spinning in whilst low and slow and relying on
an ASI that isn't reading accurately.
- Barney
"Dave Stadt" <dhs...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:1LEWf.60644$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Barney Rubble
"Peter R." <pjr...@gmailX.com> wrote in message
news:1iah8c2k...@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
Barney Rubble
similiar.
"Peter R." <pjr...@gmailX.com> wrote in message
news:jdj7jkvn...@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
Barney Rubble
record this information, or anything else. However the position of switches,
gauge marks and such like have been carefully examined in serious accidents.
The NTSB have years of experience in putting the puzzle back together.
"Roy Smith" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-BBBED2.2...@reader2.panix.com...
Barney Rubble
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143723385.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter R.
> Do you REALLY know that or are you guessing?
I REALLY know that, as I used to own a C172S, have about 500 hours in a
C172S, and experienced this oscillation first-hand on more than one
occasion.
--
Peter
Peter R.
> Yep the POH uses the term "oscillations", subtly different, but strangely
> similiar.
Oscillation = slow, steady movements of the control surfaces with no
apparent increase in speed or strength.
Flutter = increasingly stronger and faster movements that are a hazard to
the aircraft.
The first I have experienced first-hand, the second I have only read about.
--
Peter
Gary Drescher
> Ok I'll take the bait. I'm sure your insurance, like mine, has a general
> clause which excludes operating the airplane contrary to the limitations
> of the manufacturers official operators handbook. I'm not sure of the
> exact wording, so please do forgive me if this is a paraphrase,
The question is whether it's an *accurate* paraphrase; seeing the actual
wording would be helpful.
Many forms of pilot error result in violating a POH prohibition, and it
would be a poor insurance policy that doesn't cover you if you make a
mistake! I can assure you that my own renter's policy (quite standard, from
AIG, via AOPA) does not contain anything like the exclusion you describe. I
bet you'll find that yours doesn't either; but if it does, you might want to
switch to a new policy. Why accept a crippling exclusion like that when you
don't have to?
> And I have read the POH, and for my 172 slips with full flaps are
> prohibited due to the possibility of elevator oscillation at certain
> airspeeds, CG's and sideslip angles.
I have never seen a 172 POH with that prohibition (as opposed to the "avoid"
wording, which is not a prohibition). Could you provide an actual quote,
please?
--Gary
Dave Stadt
> Do you REALLY know that or are you guessing?
It is in the POH which you really should read cover to cover for any plane
that you fly.
Dave Stadt
> Ok I'll take the bait. I'm sure your insurance, like mine, has a general
> clause which excludes operating the airplane contrary to the limitations
> of the manufacturers official operators handbook.
Mine has no such exclusion. I would not enter into a policy with such an
open, one sided exclusion. Besides, slipping with flaps is approved in 172s
if you read the entire POH and ignore OWT. Fortunately my plane is old
enough the operating limitations are on a piece of paper about the size of
the 3X5 card.
Andrew Sarangan
Flutter is the term used to describe the aerodynamic instability that
is potentially destructive. Just do a search on "aerodynamic flutter"
and find out for yourself.
Andrew Sarangan
> Yep the POH uses the term "oscillations", subtly different, but strangely
> similiar.
>
No, flutter is a potentially destructive phenomenon. It is due to the
positive feedback between the dynamic airload and the elastic motion of
the airfoil. Increased airload results in increased flexing, which in
turn increases the airload, and things progress worse and worse until
the airload exceeds the structural strength of the airfoil.
The pitch and bank stability of the aircraft can also be described in
terms of oscillations, which could be damped (stable) or diverging
(unstable). But these oscillations are not coupled with the dynamic
airloads, hence they do not experience positive feedback like flutter.
The oscillations due to the slips with flaps fall into the same
category as pitch oscillations.
Andrew Sarangan
I hope you can see from all this discussion that some things like slips
with flaps and crosswinds are not black and white, as you implied in
your earlier post. By digging a bit deeper, we all come out slightly
more educated than before instead of blindly accepting what your may
have CFI told you.
RNR
wrote:
I don't have to look it up, I know that what you are saying is
correct. I continued to use the word "flutter" as it was previously
used in the thread and I was wrong to do so. With the exception of
using the incorrect term, I believe that the gist of my statement is
correct.
RNR
gwh...@ix.netcom.com
Here I come ...late again.
I believe that "tire pressure" stands alone as the most common illegality in
flying. Weight is not even on AOPA's listing.
In the following AOPA series of FAA vs. Pilot infractions, I find it very
interesting that 'weight' is not listed.
Gene Whitt
From: www.whittsflying.com
Crime and Punishment
Here are some common FAA flying 'lessons'
ACTION SUSPENSION/FINE*
Failure to produce pilot's log/certificate upon request 30 days
Runway incursion 60 days
Exceeding speed limit 60 days
Landing or taking off from a closed runway 60 days
Failure to make owner maintenance entry $550 fine
Initiating a below-minimums approach 90 days
Class B incursion 90 days
Exceeding flight and duty time limitations 90 days
CFIs exceeding flight time limitations 90 days
Altitude deviation 90 days
Taxi without clearance 90 days
Hand propping without qualified person at controls 90 days
Carrying passengers without 90 day/night currency 120 days
Failure to comply with airworthiness directives 180 days
Flying beyond inspection interval 180 days
Expired medical 180 days
Flying beyond a 100 hr. inspection 180 days
Landing at towered airport when visibility is below 3 miles 180 days
Flying an aircraft with outstanding ADs 180 days
Conducting 135 ops under Part 91 Revocation
Failure to comply with conditions of medical Revocation
Falsification of reports Revocation
Flight below minimum safe altitudes 120-180 days
Fuel mismanagement/exhaustion 150 days
* Suspensions and fines are typical penalties for each infraction. Actual
penalties could differ.
Peter R.
> Initiating a below-minimums approach 90 days
What is this one? Is this supposed to be going below published minimums,
or is it a Part 135/121 only infraction?
Last I knew, Part 91 was not prohibited from initiating an approach in
below minimums weather conditions.
--
Peter
Michael
Almost certainly not. It's done all tthe time.
This issue comes up so many times, sometimes I feel like writing an
overgross FAQ. The short answer is - it depends. Now for the long
answer:
Legal aspects:
Even 1 pound over max gross is not legal, and can subject you to civil
penalty - unless you have been granted some deviation. The deviaitons
come in many flavors. Many light aircraft in Alaska are eligible for
up to 15% increases if operated under Part 135 (obviously they fly
differently under Part 91). Some STC's allow you gross weight
increases with certain (often minor) modifications. Some engine change
STC's come in flavors where one gives you a gross weight increase and
the other does not - with the same engine. The FAA will give you a
ferry permit to operate up to 20% overgross without batting an eye if
you show that you understand what you're getting into.
In other words - understand that gross weights are as arbitrary as
speed limits - sometimes they exist for very good reasons, and may give
you very little margin for error (or even none at all, or less than
none), and other times they are arbitrary. It all depends on the
situation. But rest assured the FAA won't see it that way.
So how will you get caught? Well, you could have an accident. You
could be ramp checked - but in that case the overload would have to be
obvious and egregious - nobody will catch you on a 50lb overload. Put
four big guys into a Cherokee 140, though, and you are advertising an
overgross operation.
Insurance aspects:
Your insurance PRIMARILY covers you for pilot error, since that's
(officially, at least) the cause of most accidents. I've had many
insurance policies, and none have ever excluded coverage when operating
contrary to FAR's.
In other words, the idea that you're uninsured when overgross is a
myth. You're covered if you are drunk, overgross, and fly into an
airport without a clearance. Exemptions are clearly stated. Generally
they require you to have a certificate of a certain grade, certain
hours of experience, and an annual and medical that have not expired.
On the other hand, if you overload and fail to get off the ground, you
may have a hard time getting insurance after about the second or third
time this happens, and you will pay more the first time.
The slippery slope:
If you fly overgross, you're breaking the rules. Where will the
rulebreaking stop? The answer is really nowhere. It's like speeding -
you are substituting your judgment for regulation. Once you've shown a
willingness to do that, you will keep doing it when you feel it's safe
to do so. That's worth thinking about, assuming you never ever break
any regulations whatsoever, not only in your airplane but also in your
car, on your bicycle, etc. Otherwise, that ship has already sailed and
it's not a valid question.
A more on-point slippery slope - if 25 pounds over is OK, what about
50? And next time 100? 200? Where does it stop? That's the valid
question - and it has a valid answer, but not one you're going to like.
Simple light airplanes have a single maximum gross weight - one size
fits all (really one size fits nobody, because it's a compromise). The
bigger and more complex the airplane gets, the less true that is.
Some airplanes have zero fuel weights, because the wing attach points
are a weak point in the design. Some have a maximum takeoff weight
higher than the maximum landing weight, because the landing gear is a
weak point in the design. Some are eligible for gross weight increases
with tip tanks, provided the extra weight is fuel in the tip tanks and
nothing else. And when you get all the way up to the airlines, their
maximum takeoff weight depends on the runway length, the required climb
gradient, and the density altitude - in other words, it's not a single
number, but must be computed for every takeoff.
So how much is too much? It all depends on what sets the limit. On
some Cessnas, the limiting factor is being able to show the required
positive rate of climb with full flaps (40 degrees). Limit flap travel
to 30 degrees, and you get a 100 lb gross weight increase. Suppose you
simply limit travel operationally (and don't install the hardware)? Is
that OK? How about if the selector switch gets stuck in the down
position?
Are you protected if you stay within the rules? You only think so.
The gross weight is the same at 7000 ft density altitude as it is at
sea level - but at that density altitude, the plane will NOT climb with
full flaps at gross. Never forget, these limitations are arbitrary -
staying within them won't necessarily keep you safe, and breaking them
isn't necessarily dangerous.
It is possible (but not legal) for you to do the same thing the
airlines do - come up with your own calculations and procedures.
Sufficient data exist in the average POH to extrapolate performance
curves for various operations above gross weight, so you can estimate
takeoff, landing, and climb performance, compute new operational
speeds, etc. You can study the design, and the available modifications
and authorizations, to determine if it is performance, rather than
structural integrity of some component, that limits gross weight. You
can consider the nature of the flight - perhaps 3.0 positive gee limit
is sufficient on a smooth VFR day. In other words - you can approach
operation outside the established envelope the way a real, modern test
pilot does it.
Can the average private pilot do this? Will he? No, and no - and
that's why the rules are what they are. They are written to the lowest
common denominator.
Can you learn how to do it? Probably. If you have sufficient
technical background, you may do it on your own. Or someone can teach
you.
Michael
Robert M. Gary
> or is it a Part 135/121 only infraction?
> Last I knew, Part 91 was not prohibited from initiating an approach in
> below minimums weather conditions.
I don't think the poster knows, he's just copy/pasting this from a web
site of questionable origin. However, you are correct, there is no
regulation prohibiting part 91 opeartors from begining an approach when
wx is reported as 0/0.
-Robert, CFI
cjcampbell
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <442b064b$0$9422$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> "Barney Rubble" <barney...@boulder.com> wrote:
>
> > My thoughts on slipping with flaps extended are in total agreement with the
> > POH and placard right in front of me every time I get in the plane.
> > Have I done it? Yes,
> > Should I do it? No
> > Will the insurance pay if the fact came to light due to a mishap? No
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the Flight Data Recorder in a C-150 does not
> record flap position or slip-skid data, so I don't see how the insurance
> company would ever figure it out.
Reminds me of the old "There I Was" cartoon where the wing commander
has had it with the gear up landings. "The next one of you guys who
lands gear up gets court martialed!" he roars. Sure enough, the next
day a trainee comes in for a landing and forgets his gear. The plane
pancakes, spins around into the dirt and flips over on its back as the
wing commander and the emergency crews all come running out. As they
reach the plane, the gear pops up. "Nice try, Lieutenant," sneers the
colonel.
Barney Rubble
document and get it notarized and witnessed. Please continue to split hairs
and generally try to pass camels through the eye of any passing camels.
Over and out
- Barney
"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s_6dna7GfJtHdbbZ...@comcast.com...
Barney Rubble
exclusions "Operated with your knowledge and consent for either an unlawful
purpose or for other than the Approved Use". Section 5 doesn't doesn't
define the term "Approved Use" but my interpretation (with a background that
I don't need to justify here) is that operating an aircraft outside of the
POH would give the insurers the wiggle room they need. Also section 1.C.7
appears to exclude any claim resultant from pretty much any kind of
mechanical failure. Either way, you are welcome to find out, please report
back on how it goes.
I carry both renters and owners insurance, but the owners insurance is in
the plane....
Good luck
"Gary Drescher" <GLDre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s_6dna7GfJtHdbbZ...@comcast.com...
Roger
<jonab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Last week I got to test out maximum crosswind component. My instructor
>wanted to make sure I can land in a strong crosswind.
>
>In the 172 I am training in, the max is 15. As my instructor states, if you
>have full rudder deflection to keep it strait, then you are at max. And it
>is time to abandon the landing if you can't keep it strait down the runway
>on final with full rudder. I am sure an experienced pilot can land if need
>be with some special routine to land. So I landed it with full rudder which
>was the only way to keep it pointed down the runway and I was not attempting
>a slip either.
If you were using much of any rudder and staying aligned with the
runway you *were* slipping. You can't do that without slipping.
I watched a 172 land at Cehboygan MI with a lot more wind than 15. The
guy did a beautiful job.
>
>I was landing on Runway 27 with the wind from 340 and I believe it was 16
>knots of wind I was going into. I have about 55 hours and getting ready to
>schedule my practical.
>
>I had to perform no flap (0 Degree) landings and full flap(40 degree)
>landings. Not all of them were pretty and I had to be reminded a couple of
>times to turn the ailerons into the wind on touchdown to prevent be blown
>off the runway. But it was a great challenge and now I know how to handle
I really, really, dislike no flap landings with strong cross winds. I
want as short a roll out as possible with as little float as possible.
Today the winds were pretty much out of the south at 15 to 20 at 3BS.
The 172s were using 18 while the high performance singles and twins
were using 24 to stay away from the noise sensitive area to the south.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>it.
>
>I have landed in a lot of crosswind experience since the wind when I fly
>never seems to be coming from strait down any of the runways in my training
>airport which has 9-27 and 18 -36 runways. Wind always seems to be atleast
>20 degrees off the side and at least 10 knots.
>
>-Jonathan
>
Gary Drescher
> You win, I'm out of the crack house. I won't be back when I scan the exact
> document and get it notarized and witnessed. Please continue to split
> hairs and generally try to pass camels through the eye of any passing
> camels.
Uh, knowing whether your insurance policy covers common pilot errors is
hardly "splitting hairs". If it doesn't, you're not much better off than if
you're flying uninsured.
Knowing whether a given maneuver (such as slipping with flaps) is prohibited
by your POH, or whether the POH merely suggests you avoid it unless there's
good reason to do otherwise, is also not "splitting hairs". On the contrary,
it's part of a pilot's responsibility to understand that distinction.
> Erm, you need to re-read the AIG policy, part 2, section 1.C.1. Quote
> under exclusions "Operated with your knowledge and consent for either an
> unlawful purpose or for other than the Approved Use". Section 5 doesn't
> doesn't define the term "Approved Use" but my interpretation (with a
> background that I don't need to justify here) is that operating an
> aircraft outside of the POH would give the insurers the wiggle room they
> need.
Since the term isn't in boldface, a definition in Section 5 wouldn't apply
anyway. The only plausible meaning of "Approved Use" is that it refers to
uses that the policy itself does not disapprove (many disapproved uses are
specified). If they'd meant "approved by the POH", "approved by the AIM", or
whatever, they could easily have said so.
Therefore, your interpretation requires them to argue that despite the
detail with which they specify many obscure exclusions (e.g. "herding
animals"), they somehow neglected to mention the essential content of an
exclusion that's so broad and central that it largely vitiates the
protection offered by the policy! It is not remotely plausible that they
have that much "wiggle room"--especially in the absence of any known example
of their ever invoking it.
(As for your "background": if there's anything less convincing than argument
by appeal to authority, it's argument by appeal to anonymous, unspecified
authority.)
> Also section 1.C.7 appears to exclude any claim resultant from pretty
> much any kind of mechanical failure.
That's preposterous; again, your interpretation would render the policy
almost worthless. Section 1.7.b (I don't have a 1.C.7) merely excludes
compensation for damage to the airplane that is "*confined to*" wear, tear,
deterioration, and other mechanical failure. (If your policy's wording
doesn't contain the words "confined to", please quote the relevant passage.)
In other words, if you blow a cylinder, the insurance doesn't pay for
repairing the cylinder; that's just a maintenance expense. But if the blown
cylinder leads to the plane crashing during takeoff, you're still covered
for the resulting destruction of the plane and for the resulting injuries or
property damage.
I wonder what if anything you *do* think your policy actually covers!
--Gary
Dave Stadt
> Erm, you need to re-read the AIG policy, part 2, section 1.C.1. Quote
> under exclusions "Operated with your knowledge and consent for either an
> unlawful purpose or for other than the Approved Use". Section 5 doesn't
> doesn't define the term "Approved Use" but my interpretation (with a
> background that I don't need to justify here) is that operating an
> aircraft outside of the POH would give the insurers the wiggle room they
> need. Also section 1.C.7 appears to exclude any claim resultant from
> pretty much any kind of mechanical failure. Either way, you are welcome to
> find out, please report back on how it goes.
So based on your 'background' someone that lands gear up either through
pilot error or mechanical trouble the insurance company is going to say too
bad. Me thinks your 'background' and interpretation is in question and just
might need justification.
Andrew Sarangan
Barney Rubble wrote:
> Erm, you need to re-read the AIG policy, part 2, section 1.C.1. Quote under
> exclusions "Operated with your knowledge and consent for either an unlawful
> purpose or for other than the Approved Use". Section 5 doesn't doesn't
> define the term "Approved Use" but my interpretation (with a background that
> I don't need to justify here) is that operating an aircraft outside of the
> POH would give the insurers the wiggle room they need. Also section 1.C.7
> appears to exclude any claim resultant from pretty much any kind of
> mechanical failure. Either way, you are welcome to find out, please report
> back on how it goes.
>
> I carry both renters and owners insurance, but the owners insurance is in
> the plane....
> Good luck
>
I thought that your orginal argument was based on flight safety, FAR
and test piloting. When did insurance enter the picture? The rules vary
from one company to the next, and can't really be used to make a sound
argument.
abigk...@myrealbox.com
Robert M. Gary wrote:
> a web site of questionable origin.
Peter R.
Hmmm... there is the potential for AOPA's legal plan advertisement page to
exaggerate the truth, wouldn't you think?
--
Peter
Highflyer
>
> There was the liability issue, too, which was related to weight and
> cabin size. Who wants a two seat airplane which will not hold an
> instructor and student? The moment one of these things prangs and it is
> over gross, someone sues Cessna.
>
> Besides, the 152 would have cost almost as much as a 172 by the time
> they got done with it, which is another way of saying your second
> point.
>
> You kind of wish they would bring back the Aerobat, though.
>
My goodness. The Aerobat may have been one of the most marginal aerobatic
machines ever built! The 150 series was always a bit marginal on gross
weight. By the time you added the structural beefing the Aerobat had the
useful load was diminished even more. The power available was definately
marginal.
Flying aerobatics in the Cessna 150 Aerobat was primarilly an excercise in
climbing back up high enough to have sufficient energy available to perform
the maneuver intended.
You are much better off with a Decathlon if you want a new aerobatic
training machine. Of course, there are a number of excellent two place
aerobatic machines available if you are willing to spend the money for them.
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
cjcampbell
Highflyer wrote:
> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143723749.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > There was the liability issue, too, which was related to weight and
> > cabin size. Who wants a two seat airplane which will not hold an
> > instructor and student? The moment one of these things prangs and it is
> > over gross, someone sues Cessna.
> >
> > Besides, the 152 would have cost almost as much as a 172 by the time
> > they got done with it, which is another way of saying your second
> > point.
> >
> > You kind of wish they would bring back the Aerobat, though.
> >
>
> My goodness. The Aerobat may have been one of the most marginal aerobatic
> machines ever built! The 150 series was always a bit marginal on gross
> weight. By the time you added the structural beefing the Aerobat had the
> useful load was diminished even more. The power available was definately
> marginal.
>
> Flying aerobatics in the Cessna 150 Aerobat was primarilly an excercise in
> climbing back up high enough to have sufficient energy available to perform
> the maneuver intended.
Yeah, but it makes you appreciate it more when you watch someone
perform in it. You know they really had to master energy management.
Besides, I think it is kind of cute.
Dudley Henriques
> Yeah, but it makes you appreciate it more when you watch someone
> perform in it. You know they really had to master energy management.
You can say THAT again!
The Aerobat gives new meaning to the term Ps=0.
I can think of no other machine ever designed by man that can, in flight at
a given velocity above stall, can convert that excess power to absolute 0 in
a nano second by raising the nose one inch in pitch :-)))))
Dudley
Dallas
> This issue comes up so many times, sometimes I feel like writing an
> overgross FAQ.
As the original poster, I just wanted to say I'm still here quietly reading
everything.
This group is an incredible resource.
Dallas
Dylan Smith
> Flying aerobatics in the Cessna 150 Aerobat was primarilly an excercise in
> climbing back up high enough to have sufficient energy available to perform
> the maneuver intended.
I think when I did spin training in the 150 Aerobat I spent most of the
time waiting to climb back up to altitude! But then again, these days, I
do aerobatics in a glider. That _really_ teaches you energy management.
I'm still only a beginner at it, though. (There's some video on our
glider club's 2005 Round-Up here -
http://www.alioth.net/Video/AGC2005.mp4 - mpeg4 format, get VideoLAN
client from http://www.videolan.org if you need an mpeg4 player)
However, I tell you what - I'd be ten times more impressed with the Blue
Angels if they did a display in 150 Aerobats rather than overpowered
jets.
Going off on a tangent, one of the best military precision aerobatic
displays I've seen was by the Royal Jordanian Air Force - not because
they were necessarily more highly skilled than anyone else, but they
flew Extra 300s and were therefore always close to the airshow crowd
instead of zooming by and disappearing, followed by another zoom by and
disapperance that the fast jet display teams tend to do.
Oh, and I should be making it to P'ville this year. It falls on my
birthday again :-)
--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
Jase Vanover
used for aerobatics. I remember doing spiral/spin training, and my
instructor mentioning that he could see the wing "rippling" during a high G
pullout (all things relative... it was not dramatic). From that point on, I
always wanted to be in "Yankee, Alpha, Tango" if there was any serious upper
air work to be done. It may be heavier, but I didn't want the wings to fall
off. It was anemic, like all 150's, but the extra beef was appreciated in
certain circumstances. I certainly couldn't see it being an impressive
aerobatic performer. "Performance" and "Cessna 150" do not go in the same
sentence together very well.
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed3.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrne375vg...@vexed3.alioth.net...
Deane Judd
"Jase Vanover" <jase_v...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:1gEZf.34294$OC6.6...@weber.videotron.net...
> Where I earned my private, they had an aerobat in the string. It was not
> used for aerobatics. I remember doing spiral/spin training, and my
> instructor mentioning that he could see the wing "rippling" during a high
G
> pullout (all things relative... it was not dramatic). From that point on,
I
> always wanted to be in "Yankee, Alpha, Tango" if there was any serious
upper
> air work to be done. It may be heavier, but I didn't want the wings to
fall
> off. It was anemic, like all 150's, but the extra beef was appreciated in
> certain circumstances. I certainly couldn't see it being an impressive
> aerobatic performer. "Performance" and "Cessna 150" do not go in the same
> sentence together very well.
>
About 10 or 12 years ago I attended an 'airport day' at Half Moon Bay, CA
(HAF). Amelia Reid performed that day doing a low-level aerobatic routine in
her Cessna aerobat. It was a magnificent performance, low over the runway
and at speeds so slow you wondered what kept her in the air. It was a
performance as good as the many I've seen with much more powerful aircraft
at the Reno air races, etc.
(If you don't know who she was, see
http://www.ameliareid.com/about_amelia_reid.php4 . She was a fixture at
Reid-Hillview (RHV) in San Jose, CA.)