Gross Weight

[Fred Choate]

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

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

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

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

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

Fred

[Bob Gardner]

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

Bob Gardner

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
> takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
> enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
> landing?
>
> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>
> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring
> 2 male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with
> full fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were
> over weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my
> instructor had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and
> made me really work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It
> was a good training day.
>
> Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I thought
> it might make a good topic here.
>
> Fred
>
>

[Fred Choate]

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

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

Fred


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is legitimate
> (unless you are in Alaska). If you have an accident/incident, your insurer
> will not be impressed either. Your instructor was a dork to let you break
> the rules during an instructional flight (duh!). Not the best way to train
> safe pilots.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>>
>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
>> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
>> takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
>> enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
>> landing?
>>
>> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
>> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>>
>> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me
>> bring 2 male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172
>> with full fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we
>> were over weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and
>> my instructor had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy,
>> and made me really work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all!
>> It was a good training day.
>>
>> Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I
>> thought it might make a good topic here.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
> wrote in
>::

>How much is too much over gross weight?

Too much for what? Too much to prevent the aircraft from getting off
the ground in the available runway length? Too much to make the
aircraft uncontrollable? Too much to overstress the airframe and do
permanent damage to it? Too much to get by the inspector conducting
the ramp check? Too much to negatively impress those who are aware
that you are willing to betray their trust? ...

If you don't load the aircraft by the book, it won't fly by the book.

But the most serious aspect of your question has to do with attitude.
If one rule can be broken, how many more can be broken? It's a
slippery slope. Don't go there, least you find the answer to your
question.

Airmen have a responsibility to their passengers and those over whom
they aviate. If you yield to social pressure, and permit it to coerce
you into violating regulations, you haven't learned one of the hardest
lessons an airman must. When something goes wrong, those who coerced
you will not defend you; they will condemn you for not adhering to
regulations even if that didn't cause the problem. Rather, show
others that you are a safe, responsible airman who respects the trust
placed in him by those who expect you to be prudent and wise. Be an
asset to the ranks of your fellow airman. Please...

[Peter Duniho]

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
> takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
> enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
> landing?

The "...you are a test pilot" phrase applies to many situations, including
going over gross weight.

Assuming a non-emergency situation, you fly the airplane by the book. That
means, even one pound over max gross is too much.

Let's say after landing at a remote airport, you stumbled upon an
organized-crime pot growing operation, along with a kidnap victim they kept.
Just as you are untying the victim, you are discovered. You and the victim
run to the plane, but just as you are getting ready to take off, having
narrowly escaped your pursuers, you realize that with your additional
passenger, you may be as much as 50 or 100 pounds overweight.

Do you at that point shut down the airplane, get out and let yourselves be
tied up again by the mobsters? I sure hope not! :)

There may be moments when being a test pilot is appropriate. In those
moments, you should be aware of the effects of the extra weight. To some
extent, if you've ever flown the airplane at max gross as well as at lower
weights, you already have an idea of the change in performance.

The 2% overage you describe will produce a noticeable reduction in
performance, but probably nothing that even an average pilot can't
accomodate (assuming you're not cutting things too close already). A 10%
overage is likely to create significant problems; one can prepare for them
(and many pilots have, for the purpose of ferrying airplanes long distances
for example), but should attempt only after calculating exactly what the new
performance figures will be, and with adequate planning for the flight
itself (assuming the drug runners aren't chasing you, that is...in that
case, I suppose you can just play it off the cuff :) ).

None of that implies that over-gross operations, even by a small margin, are
to be taken lightly. When ferry pilots operate over-gross, they do so with
a special exception granted by the FAA. This isn't a normal operation, and
the fact that some pilots do it doesn't mean it can be done safely by any
other random pilot (and certainly doesn't mean it can be done legally).

Even ignoring the safety issues, I agree it was entirely irresponsible for
your instructor to teach you to fly over gross. And make no mistake, he was
*teaching* you to do that. It only makes it worse that he taught it very
poorly, not even bothering to address the actual performance issues related
to flying over-gross (other than to let you suffer through them).

I don't know what kind of discussion you were expecting, but IMHO for
standard operations, there is simply no amount of excess weight above max
gross that is reasonable.

Pete

[Hotel 179]

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight?

-----------------------------------------------------reply----------------------------------------

The weights were determined at some point by the manufacturer's testing
process and then presented to the government for approval. The statement
regarding test pilot is absolutely spelled out in the regs. The
manufacturer has to employ those folks to wring it out and their findings
are dumped into the formula which spits out that magic number.

If you are flying in Alaska, the regs allow a 15% fudge factor if you are
below a certain weight. Don't forget to factor in "and balance". You can
push the performance envelope but not the CG. Extra weight will make things
happen more slowly than you are accustomed to experiencing, i.e. take-off
rolls will be longer, climb rate decreased, control inputs
exagerated......of course, you already know this because you had an
instructor with the mind-set to expose you to this situation in a training
environment. Good for him.

Your candid discussion of this weight issue shows a regard for safety and a
desire to enter into a dialogue about a topic that is probably of interest
to many folks on the board.

Now, talk among yourself.....

Stephen
Foley, Alabama

[Thomas Borchert]

Fred,

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

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


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> It's a
> slippery slope.
>

I really like how you put that aspect.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Happy Dog]

"Fred Choate" > wrote in

> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.

If you're asking for advice, don't do it. But, 172? 45 lbs? Non-issue.
It's been done so many times by so many people that you don't have to worry.
Lots of 172 drivers here. Ask them what's an uncomfortable over-gross
figure. All of them. Again the advice; don't do it.

moo

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
> wrote:

>I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring 2
>male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with full
>fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
>weight.

The Taylorcraft (Sport?) that's supposed to go into manufacture would
likely be overweight with TWO adult American males on board.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Kyle Boatright]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Fred,
>
>> "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
>> pilot".
>>
>
> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

KB

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate" >
wrote:

>Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
>How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
>weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
>too much over, even if you are going to be burning enough fuel before your
>first scheduled stop to be under weight for landing?
>
>What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
>decision to "carry a little extra"?
>
>I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring 2
>male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with full
>fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
>weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my instructor
>had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and made me really
>work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It was a good
>training day.
>
>Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I thought
>it might make a good topic here.
>
>Fred
>

As others have written, you are being a test pilot under those conditions.

Some a/c will fly better over gross than will others.

So far as the 15% overage for Alaska is concerned, my understanding is that
there is not a blanket endorsement for all a/c, but rather that overage is
governed by the verbiage in 14 CFR 91.323.

I do know that at least one manufacturer (Mooney) has some data for flying
an Ovation at more than the MGW. Someone I know who flew his Ovation
around the world contacted Mooney and was able to obtain some sort of
authorization allowing him to do so in order to carry extra fuel.
Performance figures were obviously different -- I believe they were
supplied also by Mooney.

Data point: My a/c was born in 1965. About ten years ago, when my shop
obtained some scales, I decided to perform a real weight and balance,
instead of merely relying on the adds/subtracts over the years of the
various modifications done to the a/c. Well, I lost 80 lbs of useful load.
What that meant is that I had been frequently over MGW.

Did it shorten the airframe life -- I dunno.

Did I have a problem with short field performance? I was never in a
critical situation.

Did I not meet book figures? No, I did not; but how many a/c do?

As to insurance coverage if you fly over MGW, instead of relying on
anecdotes here, I would read your insurance policy. I buy insurance in
part to protect me against my mistakes or oversights. If I had a policy
which required that I be in compliance with every single in order to be
covered, I'd find a different company. My policy is in effect unless I
charge any person or organization for the use of the aircraft, although I
may be reimbursed for operating expenses.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mike Granby]

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

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

[Mike Granby]

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

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

[Fred Choate]

Exactly.....and well put.

Fred

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>How much is too much over gross weight?
>
> Too much for what? Too much to prevent the aircraft from getting off
> the ground in the available runway length? Too much to make the
> aircraft uncontrollable? Too much to overstress the airframe and do
> permanent damage to it? Too much to get by the inspector conducting
> the ramp check? Too much to negatively impress those who are aware
> that you are willing to betray their trust? ...
>
> If you don't load the aircraft by the book, it won't fly by the book.
>
> But the most serious aspect of your question has to do with attitude.
> If one rule can be broken, how many more can be broken? It's a
> slippery slope. Don't go there, least you find the answer to your
> question.
>
> Airmen have a responsibility to their passengers and those over whom
> they aviate. If you yield to social pressure, and permit it to coerce
> you into violating regulations, you haven't learned one of the hardest
> lessons an airman must. When something goes wrong, those who coerced
> you will not defend you; they will condemn you for not adhering to
> regulations even if that didn't cause the problem. Rather, show
> others that you are a safe, responsible airman who respects the trust
> placed in him by those who expect you to be prudent and wise. Be an
> asset to the ranks of your fellow airman. Please...

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Fred Choate wrote:
> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
> weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
> too much over, even if you are going to be burning enough fuel before your
> first scheduled stop to be under weight for landing?
>
> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
> decision to "carry a little extra"?


Everything makes a difference. On those occasions where I've flown over, the
weight has to be within reason, and the air needs to be cool if at all possible.
It's been my experience that balance is much more critical than weight.

In any case, you're entering uncharted waters. 45 lbs in a C-172 isn't going to
make any detectable difference.... 200 lbs is unflyable on the best of days.

Many years ago, I came out of the Bahamas in a Cherokee Six with six of us on
board plus all our crap. After I cleared customs in Ft. Pierce, FL, I taxied
over to get some lunch and fuel. I told them to fill the mains only. Later
after we'd eaten, I checked the mains to verify they were full and taxied out
for takeoff.

Jeez... what a pig it was. I averaged somewhere between 150 and 180 fpm climb
at best rate. I couldn't figure what was wrong until my eyes wandered across
the fuel guages... ALL four of them were full. That was an extra 34 gallons I
hadn't depended on with an already heavy aircraft on a hot day. I eventually
worked my way up to cooler air and burned off some fuel. And learned to check
*all* the tanks, not just the ones I ordered fueled.

If the aircraft had been out of balance, we'd have crashed for sure.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Fred Choate]

Thanks for the comments. I am beginning to feel as if my initial post is
being interpreted as if I wanted to be "re-assured" that flying over gross
is okay. That is not what I meant to convey, nor is that ever my
intentions. I simply was having a discussion at work about weight in
aircraft, and it turned out to be a good discussion there, so I thought it
might be one here as well.

I know what is legal. And I also know that I never intend on flying over
gross. But, I would bet that there are alot of pilots out there that have
come up against the max weight, and struggled with this exact
decision......."I am only 25 lbs over the max.....will that be okay". Now,
if a pilot does that, and the plane fly's 'okay', then the next time, that
same pilot may say "well, it flew okay with 25 over, it will probably be
okay at 45 over....." and so on.

Fred


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>>
>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
>> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
>> takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
>> enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
>> landing?
>
> The "...you are a test pilot" phrase applies to many situations, including
> going over gross weight.
>
> Assuming a non-emergency situation, you fly the airplane by the book.
> That means, even one pound over max gross is too much.
>
> Let's say after landing at a remote airport, you stumbled upon an
> organized-crime pot growing operation, along with a kidnap victim they
> kept. Just as you are untying the victim, you are discovered. You and the
> victim run to the plane, but just as you are getting ready to take off,
> having narrowly escaped your pursuers, you realize that with your
> additional passenger, you may be as much as 50 or 100 pounds overweight.
>
> Do you at that point shut down the airplane, get out and let yourselves be
> tied up again by the mobsters? I sure hope not! :)
>
> There may be moments when being a test pilot is appropriate. In those
> moments, you should be aware of the effects of the extra weight. To some
> extent, if you've ever flown the airplane at max gross as well as at lower
> weights, you already have an idea of the change in performance.
>
> The 2% overage you describe will produce a noticeable reduction in
> performance, but probably nothing that even an average pilot can't
> accomodate (assuming you're not cutting things too close already). A 10%
> overage is likely to create significant problems; one can prepare for them
> (and many pilots have, for the purpose of ferrying airplanes long
> distances for example), but should attempt only after calculating exactly
> what the new performance figures will be, and with adequate planning for
> the flight itself (assuming the drug runners aren't chasing you, that
> is...in that case, I suppose you can just play it off the cuff :) ).
>
> None of that implies that over-gross operations, even by a small margin,
> are to be taken lightly. When ferry pilots operate over-gross, they do so
> with a special exception granted by the FAA. This isn't a normal
> operation, and the fact that some pilots do it doesn't mean it can be done
> safely by any other random pilot (and certainly doesn't mean it can be
> done legally).
>
> Even ignoring the safety issues, I agree it was entirely irresponsible for
> your instructor to teach you to fly over gross. And make no mistake, he
> was *teaching* you to do that. It only makes it worse that he taught it
> very poorly, not even bothering to address the actual performance issues
> related to flying over-gross (other than to let you suffer through them).
>
> I don't know what kind of discussion you were expecting, but IMHO for
> standard operations, there is simply no amount of excess weight above max
> gross that is reasonable.
>
> Pete
>

[NW_PILOT]

Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
call from the Fed's!!!

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
gross
> weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is
that
> too much over, even if you are going to be burning enough fuel before your
> first scheduled stop to be under weight for landing?
>
> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>
> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring
2
> male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with
full
> fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
> weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my
instructor
> had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and made me
really
> work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It was a good
> training day.
>
> Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I thought
> it might make a good topic here.
>
> Fred
>
>

[Fred Choate]

Wasn't asking for advice, but I certainly agree with the "don't do it".

Fred

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in
>
>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
>> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.
>
> If you're asking for advice, don't do it. But, 172? 45 lbs? Non-issue.
> It's been done so many times by so many people that you don't have to
> worry. Lots of 172 drivers here. Ask them what's an uncomfortable
> over-gross figure. All of them. Again the advice; don't do it.
>
> moo
>
>
>

[Fred Choate]

Wow...that doesn't leave much flexibility for passengers. Why would someone
want an aircraft that you couldn't take anyone with you (other than
aerobatics of course)? I suppose if you used the aircraft for "commuting"
it might make sense.

Fred

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:23:42 -0700, "Fred Choate"
> > wrote:
>
>>I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me bring
>>2
>>male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with
>>full
>>fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
>>weight.
>
> The Taylorcraft (Sport?) that's supposed to go into manufacture would
> likely be overweight with TWO adult American males on board.
>
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Peter R.]

Bob Gardner > wrote:

> You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is
> legitimate (unless you are in Alaska).

Isn't there some type of "over gross" FAA waiver for which one can apply
when ferrying an aircraft?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Fred Choate]

Because I asked a question? That is what discussion groups are for. Asking
questions, and learning......

Fred


"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
> call from the Fed's!!!
>
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>>
>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
> gross
>> weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is
> that
>> too much over, even if you are going to be burning enough fuel before
>> your
>> first scheduled stop to be under weight for landing?
>>
>> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
>> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>>
>> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me
>> bring
> 2
>> male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a 172 with
> full
>> fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but we were over
>> weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway, and my
> instructor
>> had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very clumsy, and made me
> really
>> work at flying it. I didn't like that feeling at all! It was a good
>> training day.
>>
>> Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I
>> thought
>> it might make a good topic here.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter R.]

NW_PILOT > wrote:

> Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
> call from the Fed's!!!

You got called for rolling your C150?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Stubby]

Fred Choate wrote:
>...
> I chatted with an instructor down at my FBO after my discussion at work, and
> his spin was "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
> pilot".
I'm met a few USAF test pilots. None of them ever talked about flying
over max weight.

[Bob Moore]

"Fred Choate" wrote

> How much is too much over gross weight?

Terminology...terminology...terminology :-)

Where did you guys pick up the term "gross weight" with
regard to aircraft operating limitations? The FAA sure
doesn't use it and I understand it to mean what ever the
airplane weighs at some particular time.

From Part 23:

Section 23.3: Airplane categories.
(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have
a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine
or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500
pounds or less,

Section 23.25: Weight limits.
(a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest weight
at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this
part (other than those complied with at the design landing
weight) is shown. The maximum weight must be established so
that it is—

Note the use of "Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight" and
"maximum weight".

At some airlines, I have seen references to "Maximum Gross
Weight" and "Actual Gross Weight", but never just Gross Weight
meaning a certificate limit.

Bob Moore

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Fred,
>
> > "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
> > pilot".
> >
>
> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.

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

> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner > wrote:
>
> > You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is
> > legitimate (unless you are in Alaska).
>
> Isn't there some type of "over gross" FAA waiver for which one can apply
> when ferrying an aircraft?
>
> --
> Peter

Yes, and not just for ferry flights.

[Mike Granby]

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
the way to the airport? If so, do you feel that this makes you more
likely to drink and drive? Or to drive a vehicle without insurance? If
not, why not? Why does the slippery slope argument apply to gross
weight, but not to speed limits?

[Jose]

> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
> weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
> too much over

Imagine an answer, and then ask how much =beyond= that answer is "too much"?

My answer is that anything over book is too much. It nibbles away at
flight regimes that you might need, and discover too late that you are in.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Aluckyguess]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Fred,
>>
>>> "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
>>> pilot".
>>>
>>
>> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
> insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit in
> your system...
>
> KB
>
Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of California.
There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
> the way to the airport?

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

Consider the fact that in the US, the typical highway speed limit was 65
mph, then dropped to 55 mph over the late '70s, 80s, and 90s, then raised
back to 65 or in some states, even higher, in the late 90s.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Paul kgyy]

Addressing this as an intellectual problem, "it depends". With CG in
the middle of its range, smooth air, low density altitude, aircraft and
engine in excellent condition, a long runway, and a pilot capable of
flying and landing smoothly, I'd guess most light planes would easily
handle 10% over certificated weight. Long range ferry pilots often
take off overloaded, and I understand it's also common practice in
Alaska, where many of the above conditions do not exist.

Interesting to see how many people get fired up about this. When you
fly, you have to use your brain for all aspects of the flight, not just
quote the rules.

[Mike Granby]

> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of
> an arbitrary number than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

Like the max gross on the Warrior 161 that can be changed by putting a
sticker in the POH? Or the max gross in that Cessna that can be changed
by limiting the flap travel? Or the max gross on the PA-32-260 which is
the same as that on the PA-32-300, despite having a lot less power for
take-offs in marginal conditions? Once you start deciding for yourself
what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
"experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
max gross. You're thinking for yourself, and ignoring the rules. Thus,
if one is likely to make you an across-the-board rule breaker, so is
the other. There are good arguments against over weight operation, but
this slippery-slope argument isn't one of them.

Also, let's do away with this by-the-book argument. None of us fly
light aircraft by the book. We don't take-off from fields that are
*exactly* what is stated as required by the book and we don't land into
fields that are *exactly* what the book says we need to stop. We add a
safety margin that we are comfortable with, and that is based upon our
own experience of the aircraft that we've built-up over time. The book
figures are, as we always reminded, with a new aircraft with a pilot
who is probably a damn sight better than we are. So, since our aircraft
aren't new, and since we're not that good, we might as well say that on
every take-off, we're a test pilot, since we're operating in conditions
that aren't documented in the POH.

The fact is that over-weight operation is not particularly dangerous
unless you're out of balance or in marginal conditions re the take-off
in the first place. The structural effects aren't going to be a
problem, and the stall speed effects aren't going to be a problem. The
failure mode that matters is failing to get out of ground effect, or
failing to get into the air at all. And that is something that can
happen whether or not you stick to max gross, and that you have to use
your judgement to decide upon based upon your knowledge of the airplane
and what you're comfortable with. So while it isn't legal, it isn't
particularly dangerous, and it is far more common than most people
would admit.

[Mike Granby]

> When you fly, you have to use your brain for
> all aspects of the flight, not just quote the rules.

Amen.

[Peter R.]

Mike Granby > wrote:

> Once you start deciding for yourself
> what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
> "experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
> max gross.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact there are demonstrative
loss of performance characteristics when operating over a specific
aircraft's gross weight limitation and probably a much higher risk of
accident versus than that of operating an automobile at a speed higher than
what was arbitrarily chosen by the government without regard to the
specific vehicle type.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Granby]

> I was thinking more along the lines of the fact there are
> demonstrative loss of performance characteristics when
> operating over a specific aircraft's gross weight limitation
> and probably a much higher risk of accident versus than
> that of operating an automobile at a speed higher than
> what was arbitrarily chosen by the government without
> regard to the specific vehicle type.

Well, quite, but that's a conclusion that *you* are coming to, and in
doing so, you are ignoring the rules. And yet if someone comes to a
different decision and decides that, for example, being 5% over-gross
is safer than being 15% over the speed limit, that somehow makes them a
slippery-sloper who will suddently start to break other rules, while
the speeder's judgement as to what rules to follow is considered
without such dangers. Doesn't make sense........

[[email protected]]

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

Just to add a little gasoline to the legal vs. practical argument,
there are a good number of STCs out there that allow for gross weight
increases. Power Flow has one for the C-172N that with relatively small
modifications (limit flap travel, a cowl cooling lip that some N's
already have) makes it legal to carry an extra 100lbs.

http://www.powerflowsystems.com/products/grossweightincrease.htm

It would seem to me that the real risks come from (1) CG limits and (2)
takeoff performance. If you overload the plane beyond a certain point,
it just isn't going to fly. Somewhere below that line, you'll fly in
ground effect only, or have miserable climb rates. In either case, the
lethal failure is the failure to abort soon enough. This is an
experiment best conducted on a very long paved runway with no 50' trees
at the end. In the back-country, where overloading is often committed,
you're committed to flying soon after the plane starts rolling. Can an
average GA plane take off with a load great enough to cause damage in
the event of hitting some chop? I don't know, but I suspect that should
be the least of one's worries.

CG seems a more pernicious issue to me, as the plane's behavior can
fool you. Chances are you won't realize you're thoroughly screwed until
after you're up in the air without any good options. In addition to
takeoff CG, I'd also compute CG with half fuel and very little fuel,
just in case.

And then there's the conditions at the moment of takeoff. A C-172 at
gross on a hot humid day is in a lot worse situation than the same
plane 50lbs over gross in the middle of winter at -10c. One's legal,
the other's not, but which would you rather be in with a short runway
and tall trees?

As a low-time pilot, I choose to maintain wide safety margins,
including abiding by the book where I am not sure.

-cwk.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
>> weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
>> too much over
>
> My answer is that anything over book is too much. It nibbles away at
> flight regimes that you might need, and discover too late that you are in.


As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the difference
between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that you'll be as
popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.

As a former part 135 charter and cargo pilot, I can also tell you that you
wouldn't hold on to your job for long if you hold on to your principles so
tightly. Some leeway is expected, as nobody operates in the perfect world
except the FAA... and apparently, you.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dale]

In article >,
"Hotel 179" > wrote:

> If you are flying in Alaska, the regs allow a 15% fudge factor if you are
> below a certain weight.

Not true. The 15% increase is for specific airplanes with approval.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Jose]

> As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the difference
> between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that you'll be as
> popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.

Leave some gas behind and alter your flight plan if necessary.

If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

> How much is too much over gross weight?

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 - but who? Not this guy:

> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor
> once had me bring 2 male adults with me to a lesson.

He then had you project performance and handling characteristics by
extrapolating from the POH and maybe other sources. In flight, he
discussed these issues with you so you would know how to handle the
situation in the future, pointing out quirks of the operation. No? He
just told you to get in and go?

I wish that were the exception, but it's the rule. He was teaching you
how to fly overgross, and he was doing about the worst possible job of
it. Yeah - you did it in that particular instance. You learned a
little - mainly, you learned that operating outside the published
envelope has consequences, and a bit about what they can be. But
without an underlying framework for understanding, all you learned is
what happens in that one specific case. Since that specific case is
unlikely to be repeated exactly, you haven't really learned anything
very useful.

So the answer to your question of how much is too much? When the
safety margin associated with the limiting factor in play under the
circumstances becomes uncomfortably slim, that's too much.

Michael

[Hotel 179]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Hotel 179" > wrote:
>
>> If you are flying in Alaska, the regs allow a 15% fudge factor if you are
>> below a certain weight.
>
> Not true. The 15% increase is for specific airplanes with approval.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
-------------------------------------------reply---------------------------------------

A very general statement about a hypothetical situation should have
read"...below a certain weight in a specific aircraft with approval."

I didn't cite the regulation because it was just a what-if about 40 pounds
in a C172. I stand corrected.

Stephen
Foley, Alabama

[Bob Gardner]

"Test pilot" is a little extreme. Let's just say that none of the
performance numbers in your flight manual mean anything when you operate
over gross.

Bob

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> You are right Bob.....I agree. But I was hoping for discussion on the
> topic, not whether my old instructor did a good or a bad thing..... ;)
> (But I do agree with you about my old instructor. That lesson should not
> have been flown, but on the upside, I did learn from it)
>
> I chatted with an instructor down at my FBO after my discussion at work,
> and his spin was "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a
> test pilot". I hadn't heard that one before, and will remember it.
>
> Fred
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You'll never convince the FAA that anything over gross is legitimate
>> (unless you are in Alaska). If you have an accident/incident, your
>> insurer will not be impressed either. Your instructor was a dork to let
>> you break the rules during an instructional flight (duh!). Not the best
>> way to train safe pilots.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Here is a topic that was of discussion at work today:
>>>
>>> How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a
>>> gross weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of
>>> takeoff.....is that too much over, even if you are going to be burning
>>> enough fuel before your first scheduled stop to be under weight for
>>> landing?
>>>
>>> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
>>> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>>>
>>> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor once had me
>>> bring 2 male adults with me to a lesson. That put 4 male adults in a
>>> 172 with full fuel. I don't recall the specific weight we were at, but
>>> we were over weight. The airport we flying out of had 8000' of runway,
>>> and my instructor had me doing pattern work. The aircraft was very
>>> clumsy, and made me really work at flying it. I didn't like that
>>> feeling at all! It was a good training day.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it was a good discussion between a few of us at work, so I
>>> thought it might make a good topic here.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:18:12 -0400, Stubby
> wrote:

>I'm met a few USAF test pilots. None of them ever talked about flying
>over max weight.

During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission. All the
weight was where it needed to be, relatively, although gunners had a
habit of loading in extra flack jackets to stand on. The bombs were
right at the C of G and the majority of the fuel tanks were. The P-51
Mustang had a 75 gallon fuselage tank that was aft of the pilot and
made the fighter seriously sensitive when full. Normal procedure was
to select that one immediately after takeoff to burn it off and bring
the C of G into spec.

Takeoff in the bombers was always harrowing and most of the time
nearly the entire runway was used with the bombers laboring airward
for several hours to get to mission height and form up.

Yes, there were LOTS of accidents. I've read that most casualties and
fatalities occured from training and operational accidents, rather
than from enemy activity. That would likely have been more so for the
fighters than for the bombers, because the fighters could and did
normally avoid flack when on escort. But the bombers had to plow
right on through it. Imagine looking ahead over the target and seeing
a black cloud dead ahead, filled with flashes of exploding shells, and
you have to fly directly into it. Every human instinct would be to
turn away.

On the other hand, later in the war the fighters were often released
from escort duty after bringing the bombers safely to the target,
whereupon they were ordered to strafe targets of opportunity. That
brought them down into the sights of the light AA and the Germans were
very very good at putting up curtains of cannon fire around valuable
targets like airfields.

Some of best known pilots were shot down by flack, rather than by
other airplanes. Francis Gabreski, for one. Robert Stanford Tuck for
another.

Corky Scott

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Michael" > writes:

> [...] 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.
> [...]

As a contrary data point, my (Canadian Marsh/Lloyds) insurance
includes an explicit requirement to stay within W&B limits to retain
coverage.

- FChE

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
> If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?



It depends on the aircraft. Some are more capable than others. It depends on
the weather. I'm more willing to carry a load in cold weather than hot. Less
in cold wet weather. And it depends on how bad do I need to get there with the
load. And what the consequences are of not doing it.

There is no simple pat answer.... unless you tend to think in terms of black and
white.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Fred Choate]

Mike,
I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at the
performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it better
than the older one?

Fred

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of
>> an arbitrary number than an aircraft's gross weight figures.
>
> Like the max gross on the Warrior 161 that can be changed by putting a
> sticker in the POH? Or the max gross in that Cessna that can be changed
> by limiting the flap travel? Or the max gross on the PA-32-260 which is
> the same as that on the PA-32-300, despite having a lot less power for
> take-offs in marginal conditions? Once you start deciding for yourself
> what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
> "experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
> max gross. You're thinking for yourself, and ignoring the rules. Thus,
> if one is likely to make you an across-the-board rule breaker, so is
> the other. There are good arguments against over weight operation, but
> this slippery-slope argument isn't one of them.
>
> Also, let's do away with this by-the-book argument. None of us fly
> light aircraft by the book. We don't take-off from fields that are
> *exactly* what is stated as required by the book and we don't land into
> fields that are *exactly* what the book says we need to stop. We add a
> safety margin that we are comfortable with, and that is based upon our
> own experience of the aircraft that we've built-up over time. The book
> figures are, as we always reminded, with a new aircraft with a pilot
> who is probably a damn sight better than we are. So, since our aircraft
> aren't new, and since we're not that good, we might as well say that on
> every take-off, we're a test pilot, since we're operating in conditions
> that aren't documented in the POH.
>
> The fact is that over-weight operation is not particularly dangerous
> unless you're out of balance or in marginal conditions re the take-off
> in the first place. The structural effects aren't going to be a
> problem, and the stall speed effects aren't going to be a problem. The
> failure mode that matters is failing to get out of ground effect, or
> failing to get into the air at all. And that is something that can
> happen whether or not you stick to max gross, and that you have to use
> your judgement to decide upon based upon your knowledge of the airplane
> and what you're comfortable with. So while it isn't legal, it isn't
> particularly dangerous, and it is far more common than most people
> would admit.
>

[Fred Choate]

That is interesting. I will start re-reading. Thanks for pointing that
out.

Fred


"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Fred Choate" wrote
>
>> How much is too much over gross weight?
>
> Terminology...terminology...terminology :-)
>
> Where did you guys pick up the term "gross weight" with
> regard to aircraft operating limitations? The FAA sure
> doesn't use it and I understand it to mean what ever the
> airplane weighs at some particular time.
>
> From Part 23:
>
> Section 23.3: Airplane categories.
> (a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have
> a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine
> or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500
> pounds or less,
>
> Section 23.25: Weight limits.
> (a) Maximum weight. The maximum weight is the highest weight
> at which compliance with each applicable requirement of this
> part (other than those complied with at the design landing
> weight) is shown. The maximum weight must be established so
> that it is-
>
> Note the use of "Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight" and
> "maximum weight".
>
> At some airlines, I have seen references to "Maximum Gross
> Weight" and "Actual Gross Weight", but never just Gross Weight
> meaning a certificate limit.
>
> Bob Moore

[Fred Choate]

Exactly what we were discussing at work.....

I guess maybe it might relate to how many drinks can I have in a specified
period before driving home.....

Fred

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the difference
>> between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that you'll
>> be as popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.
>
> Leave some gas behind and alter your flight plan if necessary.
>
> If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?
>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Fred Choate]

Right. I also like how you put that.

Fred

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Addressing this as an intellectual problem, "it depends". With CG in
> the middle of its range, smooth air, low density altitude, aircraft and
> engine in excellent condition, a long runway, and a pilot capable of
> flying and landing smoothly, I'd guess most light planes would easily
> handle 10% over certificated weight. Long range ferry pilots often
> take off overloaded, and I understand it's also common practice in
> Alaska, where many of the above conditions do not exist.
>
> Interesting to see how many people get fired up about this. When you
> fly, you have to use your brain for all aspects of the flight, not just
> quote the rules.
>

[Fred Choate]

Thanks for that link.....

Fred


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>

>
> Just to add a little gasoline to the legal vs. practical argument,
> there are a good number of STCs out there that allow for gross weight
> increases. Power Flow has one for the C-172N that with relatively small
> modifications (limit flap travel, a cowl cooling lip that some N's
> already have) makes it legal to carry an extra 100lbs.
>
> http://www.powerflowsystems.com/products/grossweightincrease.htm
>

[Fred Choate]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I know that when I was receiving training, my instructor
>> once had me bring 2 male adults with me to a lesson.
>
> He then had you project performance and handling characteristics by
> extrapolating from the POH and maybe other sources. In flight, he
> discussed these issues with you so you would know how to handle the
> situation in the future, pointing out quirks of the operation. No? He
> just told you to get in and go?
>
> I wish that were the exception, but it's the rule. He was teaching you
> how to fly overgross, and he was doing about the worst possible job of
> it. Yeah - you did it in that particular instance. You learned a
> little - mainly, you learned that operating outside the published
> envelope has consequences, and a bit about what they can be. But
> without an underlying framework for understanding, all you learned is
> what happens in that one specific case. Since that specific case is
> unlikely to be repeated exactly, you haven't really learned anything
> very useful.
>
> So the answer to your question of how much is too much? When the
> safety margin associated with the limiting factor in play under the
> circumstances becomes uncomfortably slim, that's too much.
>
> Michael
>

Very nice post, and I enjoyed reading it. I especially like your view on
what my instructor did, and you make a very good point. I have admitted to
myself, that he did some things in my training that, although we got away
with, were wrong, and I remember those each time I fly. You make a very
good point with regard to teaching without the proper framework. I will
also remember that. Thank you for you comments.

Fred

[Mike Granby]

> If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?

How about as far as airlines go over-weight on a daily basis as a
result of the FAA standard person not being equal to the actual load
they're dealing with? Not everyone weights 170lbs or whatever the
latest number is..........

[Michael]

> Can an
> average GA plane take off with a load great enough to cause damage in
> the event of hitting some chop? I don't know, but I suspect that should
> be the least of one's worries.

That depends on the airplane. If you're dealing with a normal category
airplane with old and possibly deteriorated wing structure, I sure
would worry about it. Some of the heavier Cessna twins that served a
lifetime in hauling cargo (where, contrary to regulations, gross weight
is often exceeded, as is zero fuel weight on short runs). Consider
these accidents:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00460&ntsbno=FTW99FA123&akey=1

This is a narrative of the NTSB accident investigation that prompted
the original Airworthiness Directive against the 400-series Cessnas.
Note that the blame is placed on a manufacturing defect, but that does
not diminish the role that repetitive misloading may have played in the
failure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X21530&ntsbno=MIA00FA208&akey=1

This is narrative of an NTSB accident investigation of a Cessna 402
engaged in Part 135 cargo operations that crashed into the Caribbean
Sea. Only parts of the aircraft and some cargo were recovered, and no
probable cause is listed. However, known circumstances outlined in
this report point to wing spar failure, the report suggests that
misloading played a factor.

Is this is a factor overloading a C-172? Not just no, but hell no.
But here's the problem - you get away with it on a C-172, and unless
you understand what you did and why you did it, you have no frame of
reference to know you can't do the same thing on a C-402.

> CG seems a more pernicious issue to me, as the plane's behavior can
> fool you. Chances are you won't realize you're thoroughly screwed until
> after you're up in the air without any good options.

Well, that's overstating the case by quite a lot. The cg needs to be
quite a bit aft of limits before normal flight and a normal landing are
a problem. Oh, you'll feel the reduced longitudinal stability, but it
likely won't be bad enough to keep you from landing the plane. Just
don't stall. Also realize that as weight increases, generally the cg
limits narrow.

The real issue occurs in a tailwheel airplane. A tailwheel airplane
loaded aft of cg can be a real bear on the ground - lots of weight aft
of the mains give it very poor lateral stability.

> In addition to
> takeoff CG, I'd also compute CG with half fuel and very little fuel,
> just in case.

It's not a just in case. In the Beech Bonanza, it's a real issue. As
you burn fuel, cg moves aft - and unless you have some real big boys up
front and little or nothing in back, you're never far from the aft
limit anyway. On the other hand, you have to try real hard to get a
Brand C or Brand P aft of limits.

Michael

[Mike Granby]

Excellent post!

I have two comments...

> If you fly overgross, you're breaking the rules. Where
> will the rulebreaking stop? The answer is really nowhere.

I agree. But as you pointed out earlier, keeping within max gross won't
keep you safe, either. In other words, every flight includes making
decisions about performance that are arbitary, or more precisely, that
are based on experience. If experience didn't matter, why would we keep
log books? If the rules were enough, why would we need anything else?

> 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.

If it is structural issues -- which I would suggest it very rarely is
-- you'll still have a huge safety margin when 5% or 10% over-weight.
You are not going to be getting that close to the 'g' envelope, and
your landings are hopefully not going to be hard enough to be given 10%
of collapsing the gear!

Further, if you look at accident reports where over-weight operation
was a factor, I doubt you'll find many where structural issues came
into play. In fact, I can't recall reading a single one, and like most
pilots, I eat 'em up to try and learn from others' mistakes. As I said,
the failure mode that matters most is failing to fly, or failing to get
out of ground effect.

[Jose]

>>If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?
>
> It depends on the aircraft.

Well then, what does the word "limit" mean to you?

As a test pilot, I agree there is no simple pat answer, and a previous
post went into many of the factors that go into aircraft handling at
high weights. But I'm not a test pilot, and have no intention of being
one. And I've found in life that most of the time I've gotten into
trouble with the laws of physics has been when I've been "over the
limit" in one form or another. I'll stick with the book.

That said, it would be nice if the book addressed limits a bit more
completely (such as a graph showing the maximum takeoff weight vs
density altitude). It doesn't, so I won't go there.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Exactly what we were discussing at work.....
>
> I guess maybe it might relate to how many drinks can I have in a specified
> period before driving home.....

Actually, I've found alcohol to be quite useful in aviation. In
situations where I'd be over gross, I have a few six-packs of beer. If
the pilot is already flying, then his weight can be subtracted from the
manifest, allowing more cargo, or more fuel. By getting the passengers
suitably high also, I can reclaim almost all the payload that way. So
then, after the passengers have boarded the airplane, I calculate how
much extra fuel each one represents, and have the FBO fill up one of
those big fifty gallon drums full and we load it into the cargo
compartment... you know, the one in the back that says "200 pounds max".
Well, ok 50 gallons is 300 pounds, but if we average that over the
whole airframe we're only 25 pounds over per passenger (and the bigger
the passenger, the less that 25 pounds is, percent wise). And more fuel
makes you safer anyway.

So then I get on the runway, open the throttle, and climb as fast as I
can. Really pull back on that yoke - the plane should climb like a bat
out of hell, since it's virtually empty.

Remember - eight bottles, then throttle. :)

Jose
(*) kids - don't try this at home!
--
Get high on gasoline. Fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Fred Choate]

LOL!

Fred


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Exactly what we were discussing at work.....
>>
>> I guess maybe it might relate to how many drinks can I have in a
>> specified period before driving home.....
>
> Actually, I've found alcohol to be quite useful in aviation. In
> situations where I'd be over gross, I have a few six-packs of beer. If
> the pilot is already flying, then his weight can be subtracted from the
> manifest, allowing more cargo, or more fuel. By getting the passengers
> suitably high also, I can reclaim almost all the payload that way. So
> then, after the passengers have boarded the airplane, I calculate how much
> extra fuel each one represents, and have the FBO fill up one of those big
> fifty gallon drums full and we load it into the cargo compartment... you
> know, the one in the back that says "200 pounds max". Well, ok 50 gallons
> is 300 pounds, but if we average that over the whole airframe we're only
> 25 pounds over per passenger (and the bigger the passenger, the less that
> 25 pounds is, percent wise). And more fuel makes you safer anyway.
>
> So then I get on the runway, open the throttle, and climb as fast as I
> can. Really pull back on that yoke - the plane should climb like a bat
> out of hell, since it's virtually empty.
>
> Remember - eight bottles, then throttle. :)
>
> Jose
> (*) kids - don't try this at home!
> --
> Get high on gasoline. Fly an airplane.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Granby]

> But I'm not a test pilot, and
> have no intention of being one.

If being 1lb over-weight makes you a test pilot, then so does having an
engine which is operating at 1hp less that its rated outputs. Or a wing
that is contaminated with bugs and is producing less than the CoL that
was present during POH testing. Or brakes that are operating at 1% less
than new condition. Or, well, you get the idea...........

[Hilton]

Fred Choate wrote:
> How much is too much over gross weight?

I will not fly 1 pound over gross, I will not delibrately break an FAR, I
will always do a thorough pre-flight on the aircraft, I will only cancel IFR
once I'm more than 500' below or 1000' above the clouds, etc. As a CFI, I
have canceled lessons because the compass card was missing or not legible -
perhaps the cancelation proves to be a better lesson for the student in the
long run than the instructional flight. Either way, I'm not prepared to be
tempted by the slippery slope.

NAFI Code Of Ethics: http://www.nafinet.org/who/code.html

Hilton

[Michael]

> If it is structural issues -- which I would suggest it very rarely is
> -- you'll still have a huge safety margin when 5% or 10% over-weight.
> You are not going to be getting that close to the 'g' envelope, and
> your landings are hopefully not going to be hard enough to be given 10%
> of collapsing the gear!

The answer to this is - it depends. I agree - the average flight does
not take you anywhere near the limits of the g-envelope. However,
momentary loads of 3 gees or more are not unheard of when flying in
moderate turbulence. So for a VFR flight under a stratus overcast,
sure, I wouldn't worry. For an IFR flight in cumuliform cloud, with
scattered embedded T-storms, I would reconsider. Note that while the
ultimate design load is 150% of the rated load, there is no requirement
for the structure to withstand the ultimate design load without damage.
Deformation is permissible. Repeated deformation due to excess loads
may be a problem. This all assumes the key structural components were
correctly manufactured in the first place, and have not deteriorated.
With an aging fleet, that may not be all that valid. However, I will
grant you that for a utility category aircraft, this is not an issue
worth considering.

The same issue comes up with regard to landings. Long smooth runway in
daylight and light winds, in a plane I've flown before many times? No
problem. Unfamiliar airplane and short strip with gusty crosswinds? I
think I want all the protection I can have. How tough is the gear,
anyway? When effectively the same gear is being used on an airplane
with a significantly higher gross weight, that tells you something (the
gear has plenty of margin). When you have a max landing weight lower
than the max takeoff weight, that tells you something too (the gear has
no margin - it is maxed out). Just something to think about.

> Further, if you look at accident reports where over-weight operation
> was a factor, I doubt you'll find many where structural issues came
> into play. In fact, I can't recall reading a single one,

See the NTSB references in my reply to cwk.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Mike Granby > wrote:
>
> > Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
> > the way to the airport?
>
> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
> than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by the
marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
specification rather than some engineering requirement.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the
difference
> > between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that you'll
be as
> > popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.
>
> Leave some gas behind and alter your flight plan if necessary.
>
> If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?

If you take off 45 lbs. over in a 172 in how many minutes will you be at
gross?

>
> Jose
> --
> Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >>> "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
> >>> pilot".
> >>>
> >>
> >> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
> > That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
> > insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit
in
> > your system...
> >
> > KB
> >
> Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of California.
> There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
> they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.

Cite.

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote

> During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
> for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.

The Hiroshima bomber took off 8 tons overweight. Wow.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
> call from the Fed's!!!

I thought you went away, No? Too bad.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Fred Choate wrote:

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

One pound over is too much if you want to be legal, maintain your
insurance, have the airplane perform according to published specs, etc.


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

Most airplanes don't perform better with age so having a tired engine
and then overloading certainly isn't going to make things any better.


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

Your instructor was (maybe still is) a moron.


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

Why?

I would only knowingly fly an airplane over gross in an emergency
situation. Most airplanes are probably fine a few percent over gross,
but you may well be exploring unknown territory if you fly over gross.


Matt

[Morgans]

"Mike Granby" > wrote
>
> Further, if you look at accident reports where over-weight operation
> was a factor, I doubt you'll find many where structural issues came
> into play.

Right. I seem to remember that maneuvering speed (the max speed for not
over stressing the airframe in turbulence, or hard maneuvers) is higher, for
a more heavily loaded aircraft.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Jose wrote:
>
>>>How much is too much over gross weight? For example.....the 172 has a gross
>>>weight of 2300 lbs, but what if you are 2345 at time of takeoff.....is that
>>>too much over
>>
>>My answer is that anything over book is too much. It nibbles away at
>>flight regimes that you might need, and discover too late that you are in.
>
>
>
> As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the difference
> between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that you'll be as
> popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.
>
> As a former part 135 charter and cargo pilot, I can also tell you that you
> wouldn't hold on to your job for long if you hold on to your principles so
> tightly. Some leeway is expected, as nobody operates in the perfect world
> except the FAA... and apparently, you.

Is that why you are a former charter and cargo pilot? :-)


Matt

[Fred Choate]

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

I tend to agree with you and Bob on this. Said instructor is no longer with
us. Here is the final report text from the NTSB:

AIRCRAFT 1 PRELIMINARY REPORT

On August 17, 2004, about 2340 mountain daylight time, a Beechcraft 99
Airliner, N199GL, operated as Alpine flight 5071, was destroyed during a
collision with mountainous terrain approximately six nautical miles
northeast of Neihart, Montana, near the summit of Big Baldy Mountain. The
aircraft was operated by Alpine Aviation, Inc, dba Alpine Air, of Provo,
Utah, as a visual flight rules (VFR) non-scheduled domestic air cargo flight
under the provisions of Title 14, CFR Part 135, when the accident occurred.
The airline transport pilot-in-command and pilot rated passenger received
fatal injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a company
VFR flight plan was filed. The flight originated from Billings, Montana, at
2305. The flight planned destination was Kalispell, Montana (FCA). On the
evening of August 17, Salt lake Center issued an Alert Notice (ALNOT) after
radio and radar contact with the accident aircraft was lost. The following
day, about 1145 local, the aircraft wreckage was located approximately 175
feet below the summit of Big Baldy Mountain.


The "pilot rated passenger" was a friend of mine, who likely was flying the
aircraft. This gentlemen was a long time pilot, whom I took some flight
lessons from. I didn't finish with him, and I am glad I didn't. However, I
did learn things from him, one way or another....



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

Because discussion is a great way to bring up questions, answers, things you
may not have considered before. I believe there is a heck of a lot of
knowledge out there, but the only way to get to much of it is to ask
questions, start discussions. I think to ask why to my remark is silly. Do
you ever discuss anything with your friends or co-workers? Do you ever
discuss things among other pilots? That is why... ;)


> I would only knowingly fly an airplane over gross in an emergency
> situation. Most airplanes are probably fine a few percent over gross, but
> you may well be exploring unknown territory if you fly over gross.
>
>
> Matt

I agree with you, and there have been alot of things brought up in this
thread that have given me more information as to why. Sometimes "because
you were told not too" isn't good enough if you know what I mean.

Fred

[Lakeview Bill]

Engine horsepower will have no effect on what happens to the landing gear
when you are over gross, or out of balance...



"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > But I'm not a test pilot, and
> > have no intention of being one.
>
> If being 1lb over-weight makes you a test pilot, then so does having an
> engine which is operating at 1hp less that its rated outputs. Or a wing
> that is contaminated with bugs and is producing less than the CoL that
> was present during POH testing. Or brakes that are operating at 1% less
> than new condition. Or, well, you get the idea...........
>

[Lakeview Bill]

If you take off at 45 lbs. over gross in a 172 and are forced to immediately
return to the ground, assuming you don't change anything, such as draining
fuel or restarting the engine for some period, you will be over gross for an
infinite period.

But since nobody ever has to turn back, and no one ever lands "hard" in an
emergency, there's really nothing to worry about, is there?


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> m...
> > > As a practical matter, if being 45 pounds over gross makes the
> difference
> > > between somebody going or being left behind, I can tell you that
you'll
> be as
> > > popular as a turd in the punchbowl if you leave that person behind.
> >
> > Leave some gas behind and alter your flight plan if necessary.
> >
> > If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?
>
> If you take off 45 lbs. over in a 172 in how many minutes will you be at
> gross?
>
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
> Engine horsepower will have no effect on what happens to the landing gear
> when you are over gross, or out of balance...

Does the landing gear fall off if you are overgross or out of CG?

[Lakeview Bill]

A brand new 172 would have the advantage of not having endured the
overstresses brought on by 30 years of operation over gross...


"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
> I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
> flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at
the
> performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it better
> than the older one?
>
> Fred
>
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of
> >> an arbitrary number than an aircraft's gross weight figures.
> >
> > Like the max gross on the Warrior 161 that can be changed by putting a
> > sticker in the POH? Or the max gross in that Cessna that can be changed
> > by limiting the flap travel? Or the max gross on the PA-32-260 which is
> > the same as that on the PA-32-300, despite having a lot less power for
> > take-offs in marginal conditions? Once you start deciding for yourself
> > what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
> > "experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
> > max gross. You're thinking for yourself, and ignoring the rules. Thus,
> > if one is likely to make you an across-the-board rule breaker, so is
> > the other. There are good arguments against over weight operation, but
> > this slippery-slope argument isn't one of them.
> >
> > Also, let's do away with this by-the-book argument. None of us fly
> > light aircraft by the book. We don't take-off from fields that are
> > *exactly* what is stated as required by the book and we don't land into
> > fields that are *exactly* what the book says we need to stop. We add a
> > safety margin that we are comfortable with, and that is based upon our
> > own experience of the aircraft that we've built-up over time. The book
> > figures are, as we always reminded, with a new aircraft with a pilot
> > who is probably a damn sight better than we are. So, since our aircraft
> > aren't new, and since we're not that good, we might as well say that on
> > every take-off, we're a test pilot, since we're operating in conditions
> > that aren't documented in the POH.
> >
> > The fact is that over-weight operation is not particularly dangerous
> > unless you're out of balance or in marginal conditions re the take-off
> > in the first place. The structural effects aren't going to be a
> > problem, and the stall speed effects aren't going to be a problem. The
> > failure mode that matters is failing to get out of ground effect, or
> > failing to get into the air at all. And that is something that can
> > happen whether or not you stick to max gross, and that you have to use
> > your judgement to decide upon based upon your knowledge of the airplane
> > and what you're comfortable with. So while it isn't legal, it isn't
> > particularly dangerous, and it is far more common than most people
> > would admit.
> >
>
>

[Fred Choate]

;)


"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
>A brand new 172 would have the advantage of not having endured the
> overstresses brought on by 30 years of operation over gross...
>
>
> "Fred Choate" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike,
>> I like your post. I was thinking today about how a pilot would approach
>> flying a brand new 172, versus a mid 70's 172. Would the pilot look at
> the
>> performance differently, thinking that the new bird would handle it
>> better
>> than the older one?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of
>> >> an arbitrary number than an aircraft's gross weight figures.
>> >
>> > Like the max gross on the Warrior 161 that can be changed by putting a
>> > sticker in the POH? Or the max gross in that Cessna that can be changed
>> > by limiting the flap travel? Or the max gross on the PA-32-260 which is
>> > the same as that on the PA-32-300, despite having a lot less power for
>> > take-offs in marginal conditions? Once you start deciding for yourself
>> > what is acceptable and was isn't in terms of speed, and ignoring the
>> > "experts" who set the limits, you're in the same position as busting
>> > max gross. You're thinking for yourself, and ignoring the rules. Thus,
>> > if one is likely to make you an across-the-board rule breaker, so is
>> > the other. There are good arguments against over weight operation, but
>> > this slippery-slope argument isn't one of them.
>> >
>> > Also, let's do away with this by-the-book argument. None of us fly
>> > light aircraft by the book. We don't take-off from fields that are
>> > *exactly* what is stated as required by the book and we don't land into
>> > fields that are *exactly* what the book says we need to stop. We add a
>> > safety margin that we are comfortable with, and that is based upon our
>> > own experience of the aircraft that we've built-up over time. The book
>> > figures are, as we always reminded, with a new aircraft with a pilot
>> > who is probably a damn sight better than we are. So, since our aircraft
>> > aren't new, and since we're not that good, we might as well say that on
>> > every take-off, we're a test pilot, since we're operating in conditions
>> > that aren't documented in the POH.
>> >
>> > The fact is that over-weight operation is not particularly dangerous
>> > unless you're out of balance or in marginal conditions re the take-off
>> > in the first place. The structural effects aren't going to be a
>> > problem, and the stall speed effects aren't going to be a problem. The
>> > failure mode that matters is failing to get out of ground effect, or
>> > failing to get into the air at all. And that is something that can
>> > happen whether or not you stick to max gross, and that you have to use
>> > your judgement to decide upon based upon your knowledge of the airplane
>> > and what you're comfortable with. So while it isn't legal, it isn't
>> > particularly dangerous, and it is far more common than most people
>> > would admit.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Lakeview Bill]

I can only assume that you didn't ask the question that you intended to
ask...



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Engine horsepower will have no effect on what happens to the landing
gear
> > when you are over gross, or out of balance...
>
> Does the landing gear fall off if you are overgross or out of CG?
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
...
> I can only assume that you didn't ask the question that you intended to
> ask...

Actually I did. What's all this about landing gear? Cessna gear can take
some ungodly high Gs and at 45 over gross the last thing you would need to
worry about is the gear.

[John Clear]

In article >,
Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
>Actually I did. What's all this about landing gear? Cessna gear can take
>some ungodly high Gs and at 45 over gross the last thing you would need to
>worry about is the gear.

A Cessna 152 landed with a Piper on its back, without much problem,
so the gear can take alot more then the gross weight.

Pic of the Cessper :
http://community.webshots.com/photo/44906520/44907920sThfTi

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Brian]

And just what do you do with that 7 1/2 gallons of gas? Especially if
you are not at you home field.

And have you ever tried draining several gallons of fuel out of an
airplane? I know it is done but it typically is not that easy
especially at a remote location.

And after draining 7 1/2 gallons our of a Champ I only have 4 1/2
gallons left.

Brian

[Mike Granby]

> Engine horsepower will have no effect on
> what happens to the landing gear when
> you are over gross, or out of balance...

If 1lb over-weight breaks the landing gear, you need more landing
practice. Hell, if 200lb over-weight breaks it, you're still banging it
in way too hard.........

[Brian]

Hilton

Have you ever drained 5 gallons of fuel out of an airplane to get it
under the maximum gross weight?

Have you ever cancelled the Lesson due to the missing compass
correction card while instructing/flying was your only source of income
and you haven't flown (or been paid) for 3 weeks due to bad weather?

What do you do on your Dual Cross countries when any of the following
occur 100 miles from your home airport and 30 miles from the nearest
Mechanic? And you have 3 more students waiting for you when you get
back since they haven't been able to fly for past 3 weeks due to bad
weather.

1. The Starter Fails
2. The Alternator Fails
3. The Trim Tab Indicator Breaks off
4. The Flap Position indicator Fails
5. The Compass Correction Card Blows out the Window.
6,. You discover the Fluid has all drained out of the Compass
7. Screw falls out of the Cowling
8. Transponder Fails
9. Brake Fails
10. Vacuum Pump fails
11. Stall Warning become inoperative
12, Flap motor Fails


True flying with some of these failures is not even illegal. on the the
other hand I have almost all of them occur to me at some time or
another if not mulitple times.

The Vacuum pump failed about 1 hour into my 1st solo Cross country. Not
a big deal.

Anyway the point is I doubt the statement "I will not delibrately break
an FAR" would hold up many in these situations. Perhaps I am wrong in
your case if so I suspect you are in a unique situation and more power
to you.

Also remember that many aircraft are crashed or damages without ever
breaking a FAR.

Brian

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> "once you go over the max weight,
>> you are essentially a test pilot".
>
> That's putting it a bit strongly.

No, it's putting it quite accurately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> [...]
> At some airlines, I have seen references to "Maximum Gross
> Weight" and "Actual Gross Weight", but never just Gross Weight
> meaning a certificate limit.

And yet, somehow, we all knew what he meant. We must all be psychic.

[Mike Granby]

> As a CFI, I have canceled lessons because the
> compass card was missing or not legible - perhaps
> the cancelation proves to be a better lesson for the
> student in the long run than the instructional flight.

Yeah, right. And I'm sure the guy who took time off work, drove to the
airport, and then had you cancel on him 'cos the bloody compass card
was ilegible was really pleased with the lesson you taught him. It's up
to you how you teach, but I'm glad my CFI had a more realistic
attitude.........

[Peter Duniho]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 08:18:12 -0400, Stubby
> > wrote:
>
>>I'm met a few USAF test pilots. None of them ever talked about flying
>>over max weight.
>
> During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
> for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.

Were the test pilots flying those missions? If not, I fail to see the
relevance to the post you quoted.

In any case, if I were loading up an airplane in order to intentionally fly
it somewhere that had a good chance of getting me killed anyway, I probably
wouldn't worry so much about aircraft weight either. That doesn't mean it's
a reasonable philosophy for the rest of us.

Pete

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>> As a former part 135 charter and cargo pilot, I can also tell you that you
>> wouldn't hold on to your job for long if you hold on to your principles so
>> tightly. Some leeway is expected, as nobody operates in the perfect world
>> except the FAA... and apparently, you.
>
> Is that why you are a former charter and cargo pilot? :-)



Not even close. Nursing pays much better and the jobs are waiting for me in any
town I chose to visit. My last flying position ended in a pilot's meeting on a
Thursday telling us that the bank had taken our aircraft and it's been nice
knowing us. On Saturday I picked up a newspaper telling me that a new nursing
school had just been approved by the State Board and that they were taking
applications. I was on the phone to them on Monday. The rest is history.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
> I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by the
> marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
> specification rather than some engineering requirement.

Cite

[Mike Granby]

> The same issue comes up with regard to landings. Long
> smooth runway in daylight and light winds, in a plane I've
> flown before many times? No problem. Unfamiliar airplane
> and short strip with gusty crosswinds? I think I want all
> the protection I can have.

Agreed 100%. As I said before, it's about JUDGEMENT.

> See the NTSB references in my reply to cwk.

I looked at these, both of which were for Cessna 402Cs, which I think
immediately says something about whether we're dealing with a general
or model-specific issue. The first, for N819BW, happened when the spar
broke where it had been subject to mechanical damage AND deep machining
marks. Hardly sounds like being over-weight was the cause here. The
second, N405MN, can't really be put down to anything, since very little
of the airplane was recovered. Again, hardly a clear case of
over-weight operation causing structural failure.

[Stubby]

Morgans wrote:
> "Corky Scott" > wrote
>
>
>>During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
>>for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.
>
>
> The Hiroshima bomber took off 8 tons overweight. Wow.
OK but that was a very special mission, not the typical test pilot task.

Test pilots are not supposed to see how much over gross they can fly.
They do things like fly in a 60-deg bank at 420 kts with a power setting
of X to see what altitude change results.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Brian wrote:
> Have you ever drained 5 gallons of fuel out of an airplane to get it
> under the maximum gross weight?


Good God... no. Nor will I. I'd never be welcome there again.


> Have you ever cancelled the Lesson due to the missing compass
> correction card while instructing/flying was your only source of income
> and you haven't flown (or been paid) for 3 weeks due to bad weather?


I can tell you at least have operated with the constraints placed on someone who
flies for a living. These simplistic rules of thumb I've been reading from the
self righteous here are making me want to spew. Simple rules are for simple
people.


> What do you do on your Dual Cross countries when any of the following
> occur 100 miles from your home airport and 30 miles from the nearest
> Mechanic? And you have 3 more students waiting for you when you get
> back since they haven't been able to fly for past 3 weeks due to bad
> weather.


You tie down the airplane, set the brake, set the throttle (gently) and hand
prop it. Then you fly it home IFR (I follow roads). I've had most of that crap
happen to me one time or another too. My last 135 cargo company expected us to
continue to the destination on one engine if the other failed; they didn't get
paid otherwise. That's the reality of flying for pay. You don't get the
privileges of flying for fun.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mike Granby]

> As a contrary data point, my (Canadian Marsh/Lloyds)
> insurance includes an explicit requirement to stay within
> W&B limits to retain coverage.

Which may or may not be enforcable, depending on state laws. It is
true, thought, that some carrier demand in-envelope operation, and that
others required the airworthiness cert to be in full force and effect,
and then argue that over-weight operation voids said cert. Again,
whether this latter approach would work would depend on the state.
Avemco, though, specifically say that you can be over-weight and
they'll still pay. And no-one has yet produce an example of *any*
company failing to pay as a result of an aircraft being over-weight....

[Doug]

Has anyone identified an accident that was caused by being overweight.
Are they common? Certainly not as common as running out of fuel.

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>As a former part 135 charter and cargo pilot, I can also tell you that you
>>>wouldn't hold on to your job for long if you hold on to your principles so
>>>tightly. Some leeway is expected, as nobody operates in the perfect world
>>>except the FAA... and apparently, you.
>>
>>Is that why you are a former charter and cargo pilot? :-)
>
>
>
>
> Not even close. Nursing pays much better and the jobs are waiting for me in any
> town I chose to visit. My last flying position ended in a pilot's meeting on a
> Thursday telling us that the bank had taken our aircraft and it's been nice
> knowing us. On Saturday I picked up a newspaper telling me that a new nursing
> school had just been approved by the State Board and that they were taking
> applications. I was on the phone to them on Monday. The rest is history.

Yes, I pretty much figured this was the case ... hence the smiley!

Matt

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 8 Jul 2005 17:55:19 -0700, "Doug" > wrote:

>Has anyone identified an accident that was caused by being overweight.
>Are they common? Certainly not as common as running out of fuel.

Plenty of accidents caused by being outside of the CG envelope.

I recall a Bonanza that crashed on takeoff leaving KASH with a load of NH
tax-free liquor.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Aluckyguess]

I don't have a cite. I have been sued by a few insurance companies. You
learn a lot that way. Mostly you learn they like stringing it out
forfreakinever.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Fred,
>> >>
>> >>> "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
>> >>> pilot".
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>> >
>> > That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
>> > insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit
> in
>> > your system...
>> >
>> > KB
>> >
>> Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of
>> California.
>> There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
>> they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.
>
> Cite.
>
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe
either.

If you have ever flown slightly gross weight, then you have already
flown as a test pilot. First, the official weight and balance is
probably decades old, and your aircraft most likely weighs several
pounds more now. Second, people under-estimate their weight. Unless you
have a weighing scale as people board, you can never be sure of the
actual weight. Finally, the aircraft is far different from when it was
tested during manufacture. A dirty airframe will reduce performance,
and an old prop will not work as well as a brand new one. Most
importantly, your engine definitely will not perform like a brand new
engine. So, whether you like it or not, you have already been a test
pilot. For this reason, I never fly an aircraft near its max gross. I
have seen pilots diligently trying to unload weight until it is exactly
equal to the max gross weight.







"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>> "once you go over the max weight,
>>> you are essentially a test pilot".
>>
>> That's putting it a bit strongly.
>
> No, it's putting it quite accurately.
>
>> As long as the CG issues are OK, the
>> effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in
>> terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc.
>
> The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of
> stall speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during
> certification, the airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety
> of configurations by a *test pilot* to demonstrate the actual
> performance.
>
> Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the
> fact that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they
> know) configuration is a "test pilot".
>
>> The structural issues won't
>> come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by
>> other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to
>> go-around at max gross with full flaps)
>
> Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum
> allowed value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value"
> isn't really so much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer
> is required to meet in order to avoid other things). It's true that
> max gross weight may be affected by things other than structural
> issues, but there is no way to know whether this is true without
> consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the theoretical over-gross
> pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least one common airplane
> for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing weight (which
> is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane).
>
>> and in any case, there's a
>> large safety margin in there.
>
> The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight
> operations. It's not so you can operate over the legal limits.
> Operate over the legal weight, and you've just abandoned your "large
> safety margin".
>
>> The fact is that assuming you're not on
>> the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe.
>> It isn't legal, but it will be safe.
>
> It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the
> legal weight, which is the comment to which you replied.
>
>> As to the arguement that breaking one
>> rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense.
>> That's like saying speeding leads to murder...
>
> That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we
> had better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many
> people disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way
> when it comes to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people
> disregard for rules. Each person winds up setting their own limits,
> rather than respecting the limits society claims to have made. And
> yes, in some cases, those limits go way beyond just speeding.
>
> Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but
> general disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative
> behavior.
>
> Pete
>
>
>

[Jose]

>>If your limit is 45 over gross, how far over your limit is ok?
>
> If you take off 45 lbs. over in a 172 in how many minutes will you be at
> gross?

Sixty or so, assuming you stay in the air. Which has nothing to do with
my question.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> And just what do you do with that 7 1/2 gallons of gas? Especially if
> you are not at you home field.

I suppose it depends how it got there.

> And have you ever tried draining several gallons of fuel out of an
> airplane?

Yes. For precisely those reasons.

> And after draining 7 1/2 gallons our of a Champ I only have 4 1/2
> gallons left.

Then it would be a short flight. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>
> Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe
> either.

I can certainly agree with that. There's safe, and there's legal. Safe is
not always legal, and legal is not always safe.

As a pilot, it is our duty (in my opinion) to take the more conservative of
either limitation, except under duress (in which case it could still be
argued the chosen action is still the most conservative action available at
the moment).

Pete

[Greg Farris]

I did my initial training in C-150's and 152's.
We were over gross on many, if not most of those flights, and I'll bet I'm not
the only one here.

When Cessna restarted production of piston singles, many asked why they did
not bring back the venerable 152. The official reply was that it would cost as
much to build an up to date 152 as the new Skyhawks - but I'll bet they also
looked at the utility, and decided once the modern seats and avionics were in
it, it would be dangerously over gross with two adults and full fuel. Since it
has two seats, this would be a liability concern for them.

G Faris

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
>> And have you ever tried draining several gallons of fuel out of an
>> airplane?
>
> Yes. For precisely those reasons.


I'm curious what you did with it, particularly if you were away from home. I
have a mental image of Cheech and Chong carrying a metal garbage can full of
purloined gas with paper and plastic trash floating at the top. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Cub Driver]

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

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

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

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


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Mike Granby]

> Has anyone identified an accident that was caused
> by being overweight. Are they common?

I've read of quite a few where over-weight operation combined with high
DA to result in an aircraft either running off the end of the runway on
take-off, or, worse, getting into the air and then spinning in upon
being unable to maintain a climb. I am quite convinced that over-weight
operation will cause accidents; I'm not convinced it results in
accidents as a result of structural failure.

[Mike Granby]

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

Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
the accident, at least in many states. Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

[Jose]

> I'm curious what you did with it, particularly if you were away from home.

When I was at home base, the FBO drained it into a plastic tank which I
presume they have for that very purpose, and I assume they put it into
another airplane (it's clean gas) or saved it for us later.

Other times I've changed airplanes (to one with a bigger payload) and
when I was away and was overfueled, I had the FBO drain it and I don't
know what they did with it. But the procedure appears to be common
enough that they are prepared for it.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
> > Can an
> > average GA plane take off with a load great enough to cause damage in
> > the event of hitting some chop? I don't know, but I suspect that should
> > be the least of one's worries.
>
> That depends on the airplane. If you're dealing with a normal category
> airplane with old and possibly deteriorated wing structure, I sure
> would worry about it. Some of the heavier Cessna twins that served a
> lifetime in hauling cargo (where, contrary to regulations, gross weight
> is often exceeded, as is zero fuel weight on short runs). Consider
> these accidents:

Point taken. I guess I would lump this in with the T-34 accidents we've
seen which IIRC have involved exclusively planes used in weekend
fighter pilot games.

In your opinion, if you have a structure which has been fatigued beyond
book limits over many years (find a 402 that hasn't?), how do you judge
what's safe?

> > CG seems a more pernicious issue to me, as the plane's behavior can
> > fool you. Chances are you won't realize you're thoroughly screwed until
> > after you're up in the air without any good options.
>
> Well, that's overstating the case by quite a lot. The cg needs to be
> quite a bit aft of limits before normal flight and a normal landing are
> a problem. Oh, you'll feel the reduced longitudinal stability, but it
> likely won't be bad enough to keep you from landing the plane. Just
> don't stall.

That was kind of my point. Seems like a departure stall is how a good
number of these flights end.

> > In addition to
> > takeoff CG, I'd also compute CG with half fuel and very little fuel,
> > just in case.
>
> It's not a just in case. In the Beech Bonanza, it's a real issue. As
> you burn fuel, cg moves aft - and unless you have some real big boys up
> front and little or nothing in back, you're never far from the aft
> limit anyway. On the other hand, you have to try real hard to get a
> Brand C or Brand P aft of limits.

As I exceed FAA standard dimensions considerably myself, I've never
lost too much sleep on this point :)

-cwk.

[Andrew Sarangan]

At the same time, if an airplane can fly safely at MGW with an
underpowered engine and a dirty airframe, what prevents an airplane
maintained to a higher standard from flying slightly above MGW? I am
not suggesting that people try this, but except from a regulatory point
of view, what is the real difference between these two scenarios?

[Jose]

> At the same time, if an airplane can fly safely at MGW with an
> underpowered engine and a dirty airframe, what prevents an airplane
> maintained to a higher standard from flying slightly above MGW? I am
> not suggesting that people try this, but except from a regulatory point
> of view, what is the real difference between these two scenarios?

It depends on what the actual limiting factor is. If there is a
structural member that is the limiting factor, more engine power and a
cleaner airframe won't make a difference.

What I can see more easily is, for situations where (say) takeoff
aerodynamics is the first limiting factor, a graph of MGW vs density
altitude.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave]

Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.
Don't do it. It is very dangerous.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> At the same time, if an airplane can fly safely at MGW with an
> underpowered engine and a dirty airframe, what prevents an airplane
> maintained to a higher standard from flying slightly above MGW? I am
> not suggesting that people try this, but except from a regulatory point
> of view, what is the real difference between these two scenarios?

I guess that depends on whom you ask. I already stated that I didn't feel
the 2% overage example given in the original post was likely to cause
problems for most pilots. I think it ought to be obvious to the most casual
observer that in reality, flying a pound or so over max gross is, for all
intents and purposes, the same thing as flying right at max gross.

Performance suffers in a continuously gradual way as weight increases.
There's nothing magical about the certificated max gross weight that changes
a safe plane into an unsafe plane at the moment you cross that line. But
there IS a limit to how safe the plane is as you increase its weight. There
IS a weight above which you should not be flying the plane, even from a
safety standpoint. The manufacturer and the FAA have drawn a very clear
line for the pilot to mark that maximum weight, and it is the pilot's
responsibility to respect that line.

A pilot's personal judgment may place that line somewhere else. But they do
not have the legal ability to put that line at a higher weight than the
manufacturer and FAA have put it. While piloting is in many respects all
about making individual judgment calls in order to establish the safety of
the flight, that is not ALL that it is about. Not today, and it hasn't been
for a long time. Pilots have a responsibility to ensure that the flight
remain safe AND legal.

The maximum certificated weight of the airplane is a somewhat arbitrary
line. Yes, it could have been set a little lower or a little higher, with
very little practical effect on airplane performance. But for better or for
worse, it is set where it is set. A responsible pilot will respect that.

Pete

[buttman]

I took my private checkride in a 152 that was 30 some pounds
overweight. The examiner knew it was overweight and said it would be OK.

[Dave Stadt]

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.

Actually it isn't.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave wrote:

> Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.
> Don't do it. It is very dangerous.
>

Really? I find that rather surprising. Do you have any data to support
this assertion?

I certainly don't recommend operating over weight and wouldn't do it
intentionally myself, but in the scheme of illegal things to do in an
airplane, I suspect that being a little heavy is one of the more benign
offenses.


Matt

[Casey Wilson]

While you will never get the manufacturer's to 'fess up to it, I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that the MGW given in all the aircraft specs,
and the POH, has a significant buffer built into it if only to add some
protection to the manufacturer's liability.
That said, it is still my firm belief that you should never, ever exceed
the W&B envelope. I have heard more than once the saw, "Complacency KILLS!"
So you add 45# over MGW, this week and the next. What the hell, let's make
it 90#, the airplane didn't feel a thing at 45, right? Then, maybe 150 or
even 200.
So you get complacent about the extra weight. And fly out to a patch in
the Mojave Desert like KIYK where the field elevation is 2455 and this
morning the density altitude nudged the 7,000 foot mark. My point is, more
factors exist than just gross weight.
What are you going to tell the investigators if you have a malfunction
totally unrelated to the overweight condition, but they add up the numbers
anyway? The insurance guys will love it.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:

No he didn't.

> > Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.
> > Don't do it. It is very dangerous.
> >
>
> Really? I find that rather surprising. Do you have any data to support
> this assertion?
>
> I certainly don't recommend operating over weight and wouldn't do it
> intentionally myself, but in the scheme of illegal things to do in an
> airplane, I suspect that being a little heavy is one of the more benign
> offenses.
>
>
> Matt

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> During WWII, my impression is that nearly all the escort fighters and
> for sure all the bombers were over gross for every mission.

That's true, but the rationale for that was the fact that sending the bombers
out over MGW resulted in fewer missions being required to accomplish the desired
destruction. The increased accident rate from going out heavy was still cheaper
than the casualty rate due to enemy action. In the case of the fighters, going
out with extra gas increased the escort range, which reduced casualties more
than the increased losses due to accidents.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Fred Choate wrote:
>
> How much is too much over gross weight?

In the 10 years I owned my Maule, I never once operated it over MGW. I
carelessly took my 150 off overweight once.

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

Since I bought the Maule new, I would say that it made no difference to me.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Fred Choate]

Hey George....

There is a maule at my local airport operated by CAP. That looks like a
pretty fun plane.

Fred

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:nr1Ae.329$WA4.214@trndny04...
> Fred Choate wrote:
>>
>> How much is too much over gross weight?
>
> In the 10 years I owned my Maule, I never once operated it over MGW. I
> carelessly took my 150 off overweight once.
>
>> What about airframe age, prop age...etc? Does it make a difference on
>> decision to "carry a little extra"?
>
> Since I bought the Maule new, I would say that it made no difference to
> me.
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[Hilton]

Mike wrote:
>
> > As a CFI, I have canceled lessons because the
> > compass card was missing or not legible - perhaps
> > the cancelation proves to be a better lesson for the
> > student in the long run than the instructional flight.
>
> Yeah, right. And I'm sure the guy who took time off work, drove to the
> airport, and then had you cancel on him 'cos the bloody compass card
> was ilegible was really pleased with the lesson you taught him. It's up
> to you how you teach, but I'm glad my CFI had a more realistic
> attitude.........

For the record, "the guy" finished his Private with me, wants to do
recurrent training with me, wants to get checked out in other aircraft
models with me, and if/when he does his IR, he said it'll be with me.

Not all the lessons to be taught during training are in the air.

Hilton

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave wrote:
>
> No he didn't.

If he didn't, then why did you post this:

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.

You "wrote" in your post that "Dave wrote" the exact same thing Matt "wrote"
in his post. Yet you are contradicting Matt's post?

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" > wrote:

>Further, as I've asked before,
>can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
>insurance companies behave this way?

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
insurance.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

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

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave wrote:
>
>
> No he didn't.
>
>
>>>Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.
>>>Don't do it. It is very dangerous.
>>>
>>
>>Really? I find that rather surprising. Do you have any data to support
>>this assertion?
>>
>>I certainly don't recommend operating over weight and wouldn't do it
>>intentionally myself, but in the scheme of illegal things to do in an
>>airplane, I suspect that being a little heavy is one of the more benign
>>offenses.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

Actually, aka "Dave", did write what I
quoted above on 7/9/2005 at 5:58 PM.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Fred Choate wrote:
> How much is too much over gross weight?

My 2001 8KCAB has a certificated maximum weight of 1800 lbs. The new
ones have gear legs one inch longer and are allowed 1950 lbs. in the
utility envelope (mine doesn't have a utility envelope). The new legs
are not stronger per se, but rather prevent a prop strike in the
required drop test. The rest of the airframe is identical. With me, a
'chute, and full tanks, my airplane comes in over weight at 1802 lbs.

In my airplane, I'd rather be 30 lbs over weight on takeoff than 5
gallons short of the field.


-Dave Russell
8KCAB/N2S-3

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:
>On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" > wrote:
>
>>Further, as I've asked before,
>>can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
>>insurance companies behave this way?
>
>It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
>an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
>copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
>drunk,or making an off-airport landing.
>
>You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
>insurance.
>
No. That's not how it works. You claimed that insurance companies
*will* deny a claim if they find something "wrong" such as being
over gross. You have been asked to back up that claim (footnote
call) with just one citation of an actual incident. You don't get
to deflect that by insisting that someone else must show the
contrary first.

By trying to dodge the request, you suggest that you are bull****ting
us. If you weren't, why would you be avoiding the question? Or
is it actually the case that you are just making this up?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Aluckyguess]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:57:36 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote:
>
>>That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured.
>
> This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance. Rather,
> it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing (warranting?)
> that everything is in order. And if the insurance company can prove
> that something was NOT in order, then ba-bing! it will disclaim any
> responsibility.
>
> I'm not even sure it's the case with automobile insurance, though to
> be sure I've always gotten a fair shake from mine. People who insure
> with the cut-rate companies (Giego, Allstate, Progressive) sometimes
> have a different experience.
>
>
Automobile insurance has to cover the claim no matter what. (at least in
california) Its the law.
Airplane insurance is different. A buddy of mine was asked how many hours he
had he guessed at the number, he hit the gear up switch instead of the flap
switch in a 55 Barron I watched both props hit. The insurance company asked
to see the hours and he came up short. They did not cover the claim so he
went and saw a lawyler he basicaly said your screwed.
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Doug]

Generally, if it is not excluded, it is covered. So look in the
exclusions. Mine does not have an exclusion for over maximum weight. So
I am covered.

[Aluckyguess]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Granby > wrote:
>>
>> > Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
>> > the way to the airport?
>>
>> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
>> than an aircraft's gross weight figures.
>
> I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by the
> marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
> specification rather than some engineering requirement.
>
>
>
Wrong.

[Dave Stadt]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Mike Granby > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit
on
> >> > the way to the airport?
> >>
> >> One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary
number


> >> than an aircraft's gross weight figures.
> >
> > I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by
the
> > marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
> > specification rather than some engineering requirement.
> >
> >
> >
> Wrong.

Yea, whatever.

[Rob]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Let's say after landing at a remote airport, you stumbled upon an
> organized-crime pot growing operation, along with a kidnap victim they kept.
> Just as you are untying the victim, you are discovered. You and the victim
> run to the plane, but just as you are getting ready to take off, having
> narrowly escaped your pursuers, you realize that with your additional
> passenger, you may be as much as 50 or 100 pounds overweight.

As I was reading this I was enjoying a nice mental image of "rescuing
the damsel in distress"... until I got to the part about "50 or 100
pounds overweight". Doh!

-R

[Rob]

NW_PILOT wrote:
> Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
> call from the Fed's!!!
>

I'd bet that asking a rhetorical question here is less likely to lead
to a call from the "Fed's" as posting a link to a video of yourself
breaking the rules.

-R

[Peter Duniho]

"Rob" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As I was reading this I was enjoying a nice mental image of "rescuing
> the damsel in distress"... until I got to the part about "50 or 100
> pounds overweight". Doh!

What's the problem? There are dozens of ways that still works. A six-foot
goddess could add a lot of weight, while still being quite the "damsel". :)
If you're 50 pounds overweight, you might have only been 50 or 100 pounds
below max weight in the first place (depending on height, 150 pounds could
be a weight still well within societal norms of beauty, and certainly
weights between 100 and 150 are). Or, to be quite frank about it, you might
find that a person can be plump and yet still quite the damsel.

Personally, I favor the "six foot goddess" scenario, but please feel free to
choose your own. :)

Pete

[Lakeview Bill]

But does an exclusion requiring the aircraft to be operated in accordance
with it's type certificate?

That will exclude overgross operations.

So will an exclusion requiring operation in accordance with the FARs...



"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Generally, if it is not excluded, it is covered. So look in the
> exclusions. Mine does not have an exclusion for over maximum weight. So
> I am covered.
>

[Doug]

No such exclusions for those either.

[Michael]

> It's up
> to you how you teach, but I'm glad my CFI had a more realistic
> attitude.........

Just remember - not everyone can really tell you what happens
realistically, and some people do try to be holier than the pope (or in
this case the FAA administrator). Not even the FAA inspectors really
take all this stuff to that kind of extreme until they want to get you.

I recall the morning of my initial CFI checkride. It was the first
(and only, out of a dozen) checkride I took not with a DE, but with a
real live FAA inspector. The had to ship him out from another FSDO,
because I chose to do my initial CFI in a glider (it was new and very
hard to ground), and we didn't have a glider-qualified inspector in our
FSDO. I requested one in August, and finally got one in November. Of
course, to be honest, this was 2001 so the little matter of 9/11 did
throw things into disarray.

We met at 8:00 AM. I can't say I wasn't extremely nervous. I knew FAA
inspectors breathed fire and ate babies for sport, and would pin you to
the wall for least little violation of FAR's. Over the course of the
oral I relaxed - clearly this wasn't that kind of inspector. Yes, he
expected me to know all sorts of stuff - but he clearly wasn't out to
get me, just there to make sure I really knew it.

Then he asked to see the aircraft documents. He checked to see that it
was in annual (and agreed that no 100-hour was necessary for us to fly)
and had the proper registration, airworthiness certificate, and flight
manual - and finally asked me to work a W&B.

"I weight 215 lbs" I said (anyone who has ever met me knows this is
bull****). "What do you weigh?"
"What do you think I weigh?" he asked, and didn't quite wink. OK... I
remembered that the L-23 we would fly had a useful load of right around
415 lbs. Of course this was a semi-aerobatic glider, with a max
loading over 5 gees, so I wasn't terribly worried about the wings
coming off. With the soft grass, I also wasn't worried about
overstressing the gear. The gentleman from the FAA easily looked like
he wighted 230-250 lbs, but I confidently said...
"Oh, right around 200 lbs."
"Yep, that's right" he said, and we both knew he was lying.
I checked to make sure I had the latest data, worked the convoluted
graphical W&B in the flight manual - and came up just about a pound
over gross. Oops. Of course he had watched me do it and explain what
I was doing.
"You know, maybe I made a bit of a mistake. I think you really weigh
about 198 lbs." I said with a straight face.
"I think you're right," he said, with an equally straight face. "I
just went to the bathroom."
So I reworked the W&B with him at 198 lbs and me at 215, and sure
enough we were just under - and well within the cg limits. (In fact,
we were well within cg limits even at our real weights).
And then we went out and we flew the glider. And by noon, I was a
certificated flight instructor with glider rating.

I always find it just a little bit amusing when people try to be holier
than the FAA. Even the people who make and enforce these rules know
they're not meant to be followed 100% of the time to the letter, any
more than traffic rules and speed limits. In those situations where
the operation is under scrutiny and can't just ignore the ones that
don't make sense (high visibility stuff like transoceanic, Part 135,
etc) the FAA issues waivers and whatever other sort of authorization
makes sense. For low visibility stuff like my initial CFI checkride,
we just winked and ignored it.

It's only when someone int he FAA wants to get you that the rules come
into play - and then they'll find a way to bust you in any case -
careless and reckless if nothing else.

Michael

[Mike Granby]

Nice work if you can get it...........

[Mike Granby]

> The gentleman from the FAA easily looked like he
> wighted 230-250 lbs, but I confidently said... "Oh,
> right around 200 lbs." "Yep, that's right" he said,
> and we both knew he was lying.

Almost precisely what happened on my private checkride. I told the DE
I'd put him down as 200lbs, and he glanced at the W&B, noticed it was
1lb shy of max gross, and said, yep, that's right, although we both new
different.

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 06:29:38 in message
>, Aluckyguess > wrote:
>
>"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>>> "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
>>>> pilot".
>>>>
>>>
>>> As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>> That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
>> insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit in
>> your system...
>>
>> KB
>>
>Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of California.
>There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
>they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.
>
AFAIK in the UK there would be two types of insurance involved in the
same policy. The part relating to claims by third parties would have to
stand because that insurance is not for you but for those 'third
parties' who suffer the consequences - even though you pay the premiums
to be legal..

Insurance companies may pay out for victims even if the actual driver
was not insured. That is often quoted as a reason for high premiums.

However if you leave you car outside your house or on the drive way with
the key in the ignition then you will probably get nothing if it is
stolen.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 04:48:52 in message
. com>, Mike Granby
> wrote:
>As to the arguement that breaking one
>rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
>like saying speeding leads to murder...

I was once at a local discussion about crime when one person
'contributed' that speeding was the 'same as murder'. I started to have
a real go at him but the police terminated the discussion and changed
the subject!

It made me realise what weird views abound.
--
David CL Francis

[LWG]

T'is so. Aviation insurance operates under the old principles of contract
law, not the ones softened up for consumers.

There is a well-known case where a piece of a nose gear broke when a guy was
taxiing a twin, causing a double prop-strike. Insurance contract specified
he had to have 200 hours in type, or some-such number, and he had less.
Clearly time-in-type had nothing to do with failure of the gear, and his
negligence was not alleged. Insurer denied coverage, and was upheld on
appeal. I think you can find the details on AvWeb, under the legal section.

Aviation is a different world, in almost every respect.

Les

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance.
>> Rather, it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing
>> (warranting?) that everything is in order. And if the insurance
>> company can prove that something was NOT in order, then
>> ba-bing! it will disclaim any responsibility.
>
> Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
> disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
> the accident, at least in many states. Further, as I've asked before,
> can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
> insurance companies behave this way?
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:54:10 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 04:48:52 in message
. com>, Mike Granby
> wrote:
>>As to the arguement that breaking one
>>rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
>>like saying speeding leads to murder...
>
>I was once at a local discussion about crime when one person
>'contributed' that speeding was the 'same as murder'. I started to have
>a real go at him but the police terminated the discussion and changed
>the subject!
>
>It made me realise what weird views abound.


Each of us is endowed with a finite amount of innocence. There is
only one first cigarette, only one first copulation, only one first
deliberate act of law violation. To the extent that breaking a petty
law removes that innocence, it paves the way for further breaches of
laws.

So while speeding and murder are certainly not the same in their
degree of transgression, they are both members of the class labeled
breaches of law. For that reason, unreasonable laws (like the former
national 55 mph speed limit) rob law abiding citizens of their
innocence, and overcome one's natural aversion to wrong, thus
facilitating further legal transgressions.

[Mike Granby]

> thus facilitating further legal transgressions.

Well, it rather depends whether you get your morality from man's law,
or from a higher source.

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 Jul 2005 03:57:19 -0700, "Mike Granby" > wrote
in . com>::

>
>> thus facilitating further legal transgressions.
>
>Well, it rather depends whether you get your morality from man's law,
>or from a higher source.

I prefer to remain among the rational, thanks.

[Mike Granby]

So religious people are irrational?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> So religious people are irrational?
>

How could they not be, with respect to their religion/faith? Faith by
definition is irrational.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Granby]

So someone who holds an irrational belief is an irrational person?

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 Jul 2005 06:13:37 -0700, "Mike Granby" > wrote
in . com>::

>So religious people are irrational?

Haven't you noticed? :-)

Would you characterize those 19 religious Islamic suicide terrorists
who attacked the US on September 11, 2001 as rational?

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> So someone who holds an irrational belief is an irrational person?
>

Ah, the world ain't black and white like that. With regard to that
aspect of his or her personality, that someone certainly is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Faith by definition is irrational.

by what definition?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> > Faith by definition is irrational.
>
> by what definition?

By rational definition.

> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> > Faith by definition is irrational.
>
> by what definition?
>

Uhm, any. Any that deserves the label "definition" in the sense
accepted by the majority of people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > > Faith by definition is irrational.
> >
> > by what definition?
>
> Uhm, any. Any that deserves the label "definition" in the sense
> accepted by the majority of people.

that's circular.

From Websters (and ignoring definitions related to math - i.e., rational numbers)

Rational: 1 a: having reason or understanding b : relating to,
based on, or agreeable to reason.

Reason: a statement offered in explanation or justification ...
a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense.

Irrational: not rational. lacking usual or normal mental clarity
or coherence. not govern by or according to reason.

I guess you don't think Websters has the definitions correct.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> relating to,
> based on, or agreeable to reason.
>

Well, any key aspects of religion (any, that is) that are?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

> Actually I did. What's all this about landing gear? Cessna gear can take
> some ungodly high Gs and at 45 over gross the last thing you would need to
> worry about is the gear.

The entire world is not Cessna. Many late-model Mooney's can't even be
landed at their legal maximum takeoff weight without risking damage to
the gear.

The inherent problem with opearting overgross is NOT that it can never
be done without cutting the safety margins below the accepted
standards. Often it can. But there are indeed times when even being 1
pound overgross does take you into test pilot territory - and other
times when 200 pounds is no big deal. The trick is knowing which is
which.

I'm not big on rules, but here's a pretty good guideline - unless you
know what limitation sets the gross weight for the operation you
intend, and how (or even if) you are reducing the safety margins by
operating overgross, you really shouldn't do it. And yes, that does
mean you need a knowledge of aircraft design and certification, as well
as aerodynamics, far in excess of what is required to pass ANY pilot
checkride.

Michael

[Michael]

> It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
> an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
> copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
> drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

First off, this is backwards (as the other poster remarked).

But second, I can provide such examples.

Pilot flew without current BFR. Didn't pay attention to storm, landed
downwing, wrecked aircraft but walked away. Insurance paid.

Glider pilot with rope break, no medical, and medications in his blood
(determined by toxicology) that would have precluded the issuance of a
medical. Spun in and died. Insurance paid.

Now - can you provide contrary examples?

Michael