BGA Concession AUW

[[email protected]]

I was looking for some numbers for the Pegasus and came across a BGA document that listed max gross weights for many gliders. The chart had two different max gross weights, one from the manual and one titled "BGA Concession - non-aero-batic" which was, IIRC, 3% higher. I've never heard of this term before. I know that max gross weights have some safety margin built in but what is this 3% and how did BGA arrive at it?

[C-FFKQ (42)]

What I've noticed with my Kestrel is that there is a MTOW (Dry) of 990 lbs and MAUW of 1040 lbs.

Then, there's the BGA Concession of 1020 lbs (Dry). It's the 3% above my MTOW (Dry) but does NOT exceed my MAUW.

It seems the concession is for dry weight only. My Kestrel, out of the factory, had a very narrow pilot weight band. I think the concession was to allow heavier pilots. (The Dry max weight was also increased during production, originally 960 lbs).

[Dan Marotta]

BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the glider?


On 5/1/2015 8:23 AM, C-FFKQ (42) wrote:
> What I've noticed with my Kestrel is that there is a MTOW (Dry) of 990 lbs and MAUW of 1040 lbs.
>
> Then, there's the BGA Concession of 1020 lbs (Dry). It's the 3% above my MTOW (Dry) but does NOT exceed my MAUW.
>
> It seems the concession is for dry weight only. My Kestrel, out of the factory, had a very narrow pilot weight band. I think the concession was to allow heavier pilots. (The Dry max weight was also increased during production, originally 960 lbs).

--
Dan Marotta

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:32 01 May 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
glider?
>
>
In a word, yes.
Just to add to your angst the only legal requirement on glider flying in
the UK is that you must be over 14 years of age. You do not legally need a
medical or any form of licence to fly or instruct. Funny old world.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 12:45:05 PM UTC+3, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 14:32 01 May 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
> >pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
> glider?
> >
> >
> In a word, yes.
> Just to add to your angst the only legal requirement on glider flying in
> the UK is that you must be over 14 years of age. You do not legally need a
> medical or any form of licence to fly or instruct. Funny old world.

You don't have to belong to a club and do what the CFI says if you want to continue flying? The club doesn't have to be affiliated to the BGA? The BGA doesn't have to approve the CFI?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 5:32:14 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
> glider?*

Light aircraft routinely have different max all up weights listed in the manual depending on how you intend to operate them on any particular flight.

It would of course be better if glider manufacturers assisted in the same way but, in the absence of that, 3% seems like a rather conservative increase for non-aerobatic flight!

In New Zealand, it is routine to grant agricultural operators waivers to operate at a whopping 30% over the manufacturer's specified max all up weight, with the proviso that the excess weight can be dumped in five seconds or so.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 11:27 02 May 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 12:45:05 PM UTC+3, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 14:32 01 May 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> >BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>> >pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
>> glider?
>> >
>> >
>> In a word, yes.
>> Just to add to your angst the only legal requirement on glider flying
in
>> the UK is that you must be over 14 years of age. You do not legally
need
>a
>> medical or any form of licence to fly or instruct. Funny old world.
>
>You don't have to belong to a club and do what the CFI says if you want
to
>continue flying? The club doesn't have to be affiliated to the BGA? The
BGA
>doesn't have to approve the CFI?

Correct on all counts except the last one. Legally that is. There have been
from time to time clubs which were not affiliated to the BGA who operated
quite legally with instructors and pilots who had no "official"
qualifications. Such clubs have legally appointed a CFI without reference
to the BGA so I suppose even your last count is correct.
The position on AUW occurred because, prior to EASA there was no LEGAL
requirement for registration of gliders.

[Dan Marotta]

No angst here, just the irony of "our way is better" or "the grass is
always greener"...

Fly safe, ground your aircraft if the radios don't work, and I'll enjoy
steering the tug and being steered by the glider.

Cheers!

On 5/2/2015 3:40 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 14:32 01 May 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
> glider?
>>
> In a word, yes.
> Just to add to your angst the only legal requirement on glider flying in
> the UK is that you must be over 14 years of age. You do not legally need a
> medical or any form of licence to fly or instruct. Funny old world.
>

--
Dan Marotta

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32:14 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
> glider?*

We'd all benefit from keeping UK/USA discussions about soaring civil. There may be room for change and improvement on both sides of the pond and comments that discourage open discussion are harmful to the sport.

Please vent somewhere else.

[[email protected]]

On 3/05/2015 02:04, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32:14 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with the
>> glider?
>
> We'd all benefit from keeping UK/USA discussions about soaring civil. There may be room for change and improvement on both sides of the pond and comments that discourage open discussion are harmful to the sport.
>
> Please vent somewhere else.

Rubbish! Poms thrive on near-abuse so get stuck into them. They give
as good as they get and enjoy it. The US's mealy-mouthed weasel words
style gets a bit irritating after a while. Don't change, Dan and Don.

GC

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 09:29 03 May 2015, wrote:
>On 3/05/2015 02:04, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32:14 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>>> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with
the
>>> glider?
>>
>> We'd all benefit from keeping UK/USA discussions about soaring civil.
>There may be room for change and improvement on both sides of the pond
and
>comments that discourage open discussion are harmful to the sport.
>>
>> Please vent somewhere else.
>
>Rubbish! Poms thrive on near-abuse so get stuck into them. They give
>as good as they get and enjoy it. The US's mealy-mouthed weasel words
>style gets a bit irritating after a while. Don't change, Dan and Don.
>
>GC
>
He is right, when people are angry they type what they think. If someone
agrees with you they think no further, if they disagree they look for
reasons. We do have different ways of doing things and of course we think
they are right, if we didn't we would do something else. Maybe if enough
people think enough to counter an argument then some of the "holy writ"
things that we do would be seen for what they were, better done another
way. If something said on here results in one person thinking about limits
and saving a life then all to the good. Agreement never tries anything,
argument does.
Finally, no we have not forgiven you for dumping our bloody tea, so expect
a hard time, always :-)

[[email protected]]

On 4/05/2015 09:26, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 09:29 03 May 2015, wrote:
>> On 3/05/2015 02:04, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 10:32:14 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>> BGA trumps the manufacturer on max dry weight of the glider, yet US
>>>> pilots are crazy, stupid, and unsafe for steering the tug with
> the
>>>> glider?
>>>
>>> We'd all benefit from keeping UK/USA discussions about soaring civil.
>> There may be room for change and improvement on both sides of the pond
> and
>> comments that discourage open discussion are harmful to the sport.
>>>
>>> Please vent somewhere else.
>>
>> Rubbish! Poms thrive on near-abuse so get stuck into them. They give
>> as good as they get and enjoy it. The US's mealy-mouthed weasel words
>> style gets a bit irritating after a while. Don't change, Dan and Don.
>>
>> GC
>>
> He is right, when people are angry they type what they think. If someone
> agrees with you they think no further, if they disagree they look for
> reasons. We do have different ways of doing things and of course we think
> they are right, if we didn't we would do something else. Maybe if enough
> people think enough to counter an argument then some of the "holy writ"
> things that we do would be seen for what they were, better done another
> way. If something said on here results in one person thinking about limits
> and saving a life then all to the good. Agreement never tries anything,
> argument does.
> Finally, no we have not forgiven you for dumping our bloody tea, so expect
> a hard time, always :-)

Sorry Don but the tea leaves were effectively stolen (along with the
rest of India) by the East India Company - that bunch of pirates,
mercenaries, hustlers, chancers, con men ...and tea leaves (sorry) - in
the first place so it's a travesty to call it 'our tea' and you've no
cause to object to the Boston dumpsters.

I speak as a neutral observer.

GC

[Nick[_5_]]

You have to remember that a lot of Australians come from ancestors who were too stupid and got caught. Evolution does kick in! :-)

The corollary is that Brits are descended from a load of crooks.

N.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 09:01 04 May 2015, Nick wrote:
>You have to remember that a lot of Australians come from ancestors who
were
>too stupid and got caught. Evolution does kick in! :-)
>
>The corollary is that Brits are descended from a load of crooks.
>
>N.

I think you are confusing us Brits with the residents in our former penal
colony in the southern ocean. If you had not been so rebellious and
disobedient we would have taught you geography and other useful stuff. You
do however make some half decent television programmes :-)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Back to the original thoughts on AUW. I love the USA because I have a Glasflugel 604 that I can legally (and safely, too) fly at 1800 lbs AUW (about 816 KG) and a Nimbus 3 that I can load up to 1930 lbs AUW (about 875 KG). No matter what the manufacturer might say about such things. :-)

I have only gotten the 604 up to about 1750 (need bigger bags for the outer panels) and only flown the Nimbus as high as about 1850 (outers full, inners were full, but I did about a one minute dump. It has the early, 80 gallon tanks). But, oh, they are nice when heavy!

Mine are both approved to the higher gross weights by the FAA. I know. Anything I do that is not approved by the manufacturer makes me a test pilot. And I am OK with that. In both cases, it was done lots before me on the subject sailplanes.

Steve Leonard