Should a W&B list gross weight?

[Andrew Gideon]

Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
doesn't state the gross weight.

The changes were all avionics; no airframe or power plant work was done. So
I'd expect the gross weight to remain unchanged from the prior W&B.

But does the new W&B need to state the gross weight, even if it is
unchanged? If not, do we then need both documents to cover the legalities
of documentation in the airplane?

Or did the person that wrote the new W&B err?

- Andrew

[Seth Masia]

You need to list the new empty weight; gross weight shouldn't change without
an STC.

Seth

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
> sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
> doesn't state the gross weight.
>
> The changes were all avionics; no airframe or power plant work was done.
> So
> I'd expect the gross weight to remain unchanged from the prior W&B.
>
> But does the new W&B need to state the gross weight, even if it is
> unchanged? If not, do we then need both documents to cover the legalities
> of documentation in the airplane?
>
> Or did the person that wrote the new W&B err?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
> sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
> doesn't state the gross weight.
>
> The changes were all avionics; no airframe or power plant work was done. So
> I'd expect the gross weight to remain unchanged from the prior W&B.
>
> But does the new W&B need to state the gross weight, even if it is
> unchanged? If not, do we then need both documents to cover the legalities
> of documentation in the airplane?

I have never seen a W+B that didn't list the gross weight.

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
> sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
> doesn't state the gross weight.
>
Mine doesn't. The gross weight and the CG envelope are listed in the
operating limitations book. The Type Certificate requires the
equipment list AND the operating limitations book.

There's no specific requirement for W&B paperwork in the regs despite
what your flight instructor told you.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:

> I have never seen a W+B that didn't list the gross weight.

Mine doesn't, not even the original factory one did.

[Don Hammer]

>
>I have never seen a W+B that didn't list the gross weight.

If you are talking Max Gross Weight, transport category aircraft don't
list it with the last weigh job or re-calculation. It is however
listed elsewhere in the Type Certificate Data Sheet, Weight and
Balance Manual and the Limitation section of the AFM.

Long and short of it is there is no requirement to have that
limitation listed with the new weight and balance calculations.

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> There's no specific requirement for W&B paperwork in the regs despite
> what your flight instructor told you.

I have found 23.1583, which states that maximum weight and center of gravity
limits are part of the aircraft manual, and 23.1519 which states that
weight and CG limits are a part of operating limitations.

But what's the documentation requirement for equipment changes which alter
one or more of these factors? 23.21 discusses this for type certification,
but not for upgrades.

I've found nothing which discusses that. I'd have expected something in
part 43, but I'm not seeing it.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Mine doesn't.Â*Â*TheÂ*grossÂ*weightÂ*andÂ*theÂ*CGÂ*enve lopeÂ*areÂ*listedÂ*inÂ*the
> operating limitations book.Â*Â*Â*TheÂ*TypeÂ*CertificateÂ*requiresÂ*the
> equipment list AND the operating limitations book.

But what documentation is required for aircraft changes which alter the
empty weight and CG? If that documentation doesn't list the gross weight,
is it safe (ie. safe in a ramp check {8^) to assume that it's unchanged?

- Andrew

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>
>>Mine doesn't. The gross weight and the CG envelope are listed in the
>>operating limitations book. The Type Certificate requires the
>>equipment list AND the operating limitations book.
>
>
> But what documentation is required for aircraft changes which alter the
> empty weight and CG? If that documentation doesn't list the gross weight,
> is it safe (ie. safe in a ramp check {8^) to assume that it's unchanged?

You're talking empty weight. Gross weight is the max the airplane can
weigh.

[George Patterson]

Newps wrote:

> I have never seen a W+B that didn't list the gross weight.

IIRC, the one for my Maule didn't. It was listed elsewhere in the owner's manual.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:

> You're talking empty weight. Gross weight is the max the airplane can
> weigh.

No, I'm not. That's part of the problem. It is completely reasonable to
expect, with work that involves neither airframe nor powerplant, that the
gross weight won't change (even though empty weight has). But is it
*legal* to operate under that assumption, or must a new W&B list the "new"
gross weight even if it is not changed?

It appears, from some of the other postings, that a new W&B need not
describe the gross weight if it's not altered. I (and some others) have
merely been "spoiled" by always seeing the gross weight on any W&B.

- Andrew

[Mike W.]

I am not sure why you are so worried about the gross weight. You have
documentation for the new empty weight and CG, right? So whatever you decide
to put in the airplane, animal, vegetable or mineral, you can weigh and/or
calculate to do your W&B for a particular filght. As long as you are inside
the CG envelope and not over takeoff weight (and can show your work) you
should have no hassles. Right?

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> Newps wrote:
>
> > You're talking empty weight. Gross weight is the max the airplane can
> > weigh.
>
> No, I'm not. That's part of the problem. It is completely reasonable to
> expect, with work that involves neither airframe nor powerplant, that the
> gross weight won't change (even though empty weight has). But is it
> *legal* to operate under that assumption, or must a new W&B list the "new"
> gross weight even if it is not changed?
>
> It appears, from some of the other postings, that a new W&B need not
> describe the gross weight if it's not altered. I (and some others) have
> merely been "spoiled" by always seeing the gross weight on any W&B.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:51:19 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
>sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
>doesn't state the gross weight.
>
>The changes were all avionics; no airframe or power plant work was done. So
>I'd expect the gross weight to remain unchanged from the prior W&B.
>
>But does the new W&B need to state the gross weight, even if it is
>unchanged? If not, do we then need both documents to cover the legalities
>of documentation in the airplane?
>
>Or did the person that wrote the new W&B err?
>
> - Andrew

The aircraft gross weight, also called maximum weight,is the maximum
authorized weight of the aircraft and all of its equipment as specified in
the Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) for the aircraft.

It is usually listed on the loading graph or chart supplied by the
manufacturer, or perhaps elsewhere in the POH/AFM.

The FAA publishes a handbook (FAA-H-8083-1) on weight and balance. With
regard to GA aircraft, the following seems to pertain:

"Weight and Balance Revision Record

"Aircraft manufacturers use different formats for their weight and balance
data, but Figure 5-2 is typical of a weight and balance revision record.

"...

"The weight and balance revision sheet should clearly show the revised
empty weight, empty weight arm and/or moment index, and the new useful
load."

HOWEVER, figure 5-2 shows NO sign of an entry of useful load (or maximum
weight). It shows the old empty weight of the airplane; the various
adjustments for removal and addition of various avionics with regard to
weight, arm and moment; and the computed new empty weight, moment and CG of
the aircraft.

And you were looking for clarity?

Good luck. Bottom line -- it's probably not a requirement. And changes in
allowable maximum weight should be reflected in the STC data for the
modification that allowed that change; and documented according to the
requirements in that STC.

"We're from the FAA, and we're not happy until you're not happy!"



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

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

[...]

> And you were looking for clarity?

<Laugh> Yes.

- Andrew

[Mike W.]

Let it go, Louie. Let it go.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > And you were looking for clarity?
>
> <Laugh> Yes.
>
> - Andrew
>

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>
> I have found 23.1583, which states that maximum weight and center of gravity
> limits are part of the aircraft manual, and 23.1519 which states that
> weight and CG limits are a part of operating limitations.

Part 23 has no meaning for my aircraft. As I said, the empty
weight/momemt is in an entirely different document than where the CG
envelope is defined in my plane and many others I have flown.

>
> But what's the documentation requirement for equipment changes which alter
> one or more of these factors? 23.21 discusses this for type certification,
> but not for upgrades.

Well since the max weight or CG doesn't change (unless you're doing a
major modfication), just the empty weight, the equipment list with a ne
emtpy weight/moment would seem not to need to duplicate that information.

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Well since the max weight or CG doesn't change (unless you're doing a
> major modfication), just the empty weight, the equipment list with a ne
> emtpy weight/moment would seem not to need to duplicate that information.

That's the conclusion to which I've been coming. I'd be more comfortable,
though, if I found something (ie. in part 43) which discussed what to do
when the maximum gross weight is altered. Since two of our club aircraft
have had such upgrades, it would just be more clear to me if I could see
the distinction drawn between modifications that do and do not alter gross
weight.

I'd also have liked to see some mechanism whereby a line was drawn for those
modifications which might or might not impact gross weight. Yes, it should
be obvious. But that uses common sense, and I fear the outcome should I
make the mistake of applying common sense to legal (esp. FAA {8^) matters.

- Andrew

[Mike W.]

A new weight and balance.

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> But what documentation is required for aircraft changes which alter the
> empty weight and CG? If that documentation doesn't list the gross weight,
> is it safe (ie. safe in a ramp check {8^) to assume that it's unchanged?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:54:02 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> Well since the max weight or CG doesn't change (unless you're doing a
>> major modfication), just the empty weight, the equipment list with a ne
>> emtpy weight/moment would seem not to need to duplicate that information.
>
>That's the conclusion to which I've been coming. I'd be more comfortable,
>though, if I found something (ie. in part 43) which discussed what to do
>when the maximum gross weight is altered. Since two of our club aircraft
>have had such upgrades, it would just be more clear to me if I could see
>the distinction drawn between modifications that do and do not alter gross
>weight.
>

What does the STC say? (I think they are available on line if you could
post the info regarding the STC).




>I'd also have liked to see some mechanism whereby a line was drawn for those
>modifications which might or might not impact gross weight. Yes, it should
>be obvious. But that uses common sense, and I fear the outcome should I
>make the mistake of applying common sense to legal (esp. FAA {8^) matters.
>
> - Andrew

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

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> What does the STC say?Â*Â*(IÂ*thinkÂ*theyÂ*areÂ*availableÂ*onÂ*line *ifÂ*youÂ*could
> post the info regarding the STC).

I thought of that, and I tried to locate it. I could not. It is: sa703gl.

I did locate plenty of planes that had this done, though, which was fun. I
found a couple of NTSB reports regarding aircraft that had had this done,
which was less fun.

- Andrew

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:08 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> What does the STC say?**(I*think*they*are*available*on*line*if*you*c ould
>> post the info regarding the STC).
>
>I thought of that, and I tried to locate it. I could not. It is: sa703gl.
>
>I did locate plenty of planes that had this done, though, which was fun. I
>found a couple of NTSB reports regarding aircraft that had had this done,
>which was less fun.
>
> - Andrew

That modification includes "• STC Paperwork Package with Gross Weight
Increase and all FAA Approved Drawings, Instructions, Flight Manual
Revisions, etc."

I will bet that in there, possible in the AFM revisions, is the "legal"
entry of the gross weight increase.


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

[Fly]

Here is another one for youse guys..

What requirement is there that mandates a recomputation of the W&B?
The below mentioned handbook states a percentage change, but that will
calculate to be more than any simple radio change! IIRC, About 1/2 percent
of the maximum gross weight.

I have stopped putting useful load and gross figures on the weighing data
sheets that I sign off.

Take for instance, some turbo sytems allow a gross weight increase. Some
tip tank systems allow a gross weight increase. Some jet paperwork allows
for a gross weight increase.

Beechjet 400 can have a 200 pound takeoff weight increase. All it consists
of is paperwork.
It means another person can be carried.
Wanna know how much. A few years ago, $8k. now about $12K. !!

How do I know this/ I weigh one and put tdown the max takeoff weight,
useful load etc.
A few days later the operators called me and asked for a revision of my
document.

gee whiz

Kent Felkins
Tulsa Ok









s more mentions
"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:51:19 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
> wrote:
>
> >Some work was done on an airplane. The new W&B is of the "removed/added"
> >sort and computes a new empty weight and moment arm. But the document
> >doesn't state the gross weight.
> >
> >The changes were all avionics; no airframe or power plant work was done.
So
> >I'd expect the gross weight to remain unchanged from the prior W&B.
> >
> >But does the new W&B need to state the gross weight, even if it is
> >unchanged? If not, do we then need both documents to cover the
legalities
> >of documentation in the airplane?
> >
> >Or did the person that wrote the new W&B err?
> >
> > - Andrew
>
> The aircraft gross weight, also called maximum weight,is the maximum
> authorized weight of the aircraft and all of its equipment as specified in
> the Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) for the aircraft.
>
> It is usually listed on the loading graph or chart supplied by the
> manufacturer, or perhaps elsewhere in the POH/AFM.
>
> The FAA publishes a handbook (FAA-H-8083-1) on weight and balance. With
> regard to GA aircraft, the following seems to pertain:
>
> "Weight and Balance Revision Record
>
> "Aircraft manufacturers use different formats for their weight and balance
> data, but Figure 5-2 is typical of a weight and balance revision record.
>
> "...
>
> "The weight and balance revision sheet should clearly show the revised
> empty weight, empty weight arm and/or moment index, and the new useful
> load."
>
> HOWEVER, figure 5-2 shows NO sign of an entry of useful load (or maximum
> weight). It shows the old empty weight of the airplane; the various
> adjustments for removal and addition of various avionics with regard to
> weight, arm and moment; and the computed new empty weight, moment and CG
of
> the aircraft.
>
> And you were looking for clarity?
>
> Good luck. Bottom line -- it's probably not a requirement. And changes
in
> allowable maximum weight should be reflected in the STC data for the
> modification that allowed that change; and documented according to the
> requirements in that STC.
>
> "We're from the FAA, and we're not happy until you're not happy!"
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> That modification includes "• STC Paperwork Package with Gross Weight
> Increase and all FAA Approved Drawings, Instructions, Flight Manual
> Revisions, etc."

Where did you locate this?

- Andrew

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:56:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> That modification includes "? STC Paperwork Package with Gross Weight
>> Increase and all FAA Approved Drawings, Instructions, Flight Manual
>> Revisions, etc."
>
>Where did you locate this?
>
> - Andrew


http://www.pennyanaero.com/pdfs/superhawk.pdf

I looked up the STC at the FAA web site and discovered that, although they
did not have a copy of it, it was owned by Penn Yan.

I went to the Penn Yan website, and that comment is in the advertising
information for the STC. I could not locate the actual STC, though.
However, it should be with the paperwork for the aircraft, and the
appropriate AFM changes should have been made.


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

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> I went to the Penn Yan website, and that comment is in the advertising
> information for the STC. I could not locate the actual STC, though.
> However, it should be with the paperwork for the aircraft, and the
> appropriate AFM changes should have been made.

Thanks!

- Andrew