Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

On Apr 23, 10:26*am, gatt wrote:
gliderguynj wrote:
So to get back to the OP comments.....
He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.

And this group says Well Done? *Oh the Humanity!

I guess I missed something. *I thought he ended up being under max gross..

You are correct, being under Max would be gross.
:-P
Cheers

gatt wrote:
gliderguynj wrote:
So to get back to the OP comments.....
He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.

And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!

I guess I missed something. I thought he ended up being under max gross.



-c
I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish
this anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the
pax???

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
gatt wrote:
gliderguynj wrote:
So to get back to the OP comments.....
He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.

And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!

I guess I missed something. I thought he ended up being under max gross.



-c
I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish this
anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the pax???

--
Dudley Henriques

That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.

The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped when
planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the acceptable range
for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a normally rather than
lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized" learning experience.

So he got the correct reinforcement early on, which helped him to refused
the known overweight flight, and made the right decisions.

Peter

On Apr 23, 9:54 am, Buttman wrote:

If an insurance company can argue they don't owe anything because the
pilot deliberately took off 30 pounds over max gross, then they can
equally argue that they don't owe anything when a pilot deliberately
launches into a thunderstorm filled area.

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

And airlines 'launch into thunderstorm filled areas' only they do it
at altitude

Are you still pretending to be a pilot ?

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish this
anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the pax???

That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.

The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped when
planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the acceptable range
for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a normally rather than
lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized" learning experience.


Given the altitude, the hot weather and the trees it goes to show how
bad things could have gone if the airplane had been more overgross than
expected.


Pax are a dime a dozen, but, who wants to waste a perfectly-good Cessna?

;


-c

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:15:08 -0700, george sayeth:

On Apr 23, 9:54 am, Buttman wrote:

If an insurance company can argue they don't owe anything because the
pilot deliberately took off 30 pounds over max gross, then they can
equally argue that they don't owe anything when a pilot deliberately
launches into a thunderstorm filled area.

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

And airlines 'launch into thunderstorm filled areas' only they do it at
altitude

Are you still pretending to be a pilot ?

Are you still pretending you know how to read? I never said any of those
things are untrue.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
Tman,

That's with
a C172 filled to the tabs -- leaving exactly 1 hour of reserve,


One little trick I use in all aircraft, even those with a "BOTH"
setting on the tank selector: I don't set it there. I conciously fly
from either the left or the right tank, switching regularly to avoid
imbalance. The reason do it: When the tanks get emptier, I can keep a
known amount of fuel in one side while flying the other down to (near)
empty. Much better than having everything empty at the same rate, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


C-172 checklist, tanks both for takeoff and landing....

"gatt" wrote in message
news:jrudnQw6Ec_OGpPVnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@integraonlin e...
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish
this anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the
pax???

That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.

The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped
when planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the
acceptable range for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a
normally rather than lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized"
learning experience.


Given the altitude, the hot weather and the trees it goes to show how bad
things could have gone if the airplane had been more overgross than
expected.

The point is that he ultimately rose to his responsibility, took command,
and off-loaded the necessary pax and stores. Admittedly, the advice given
early in the thread would have been very well advised--to fly with an
instructor at near maximum weight and near the aft CG limit. However,
personal belief (or supposition if you insist) about the high temperature is
that he had simply trained in a lightly loaded aircraft at cooler
temperatures and actually had a more than adiquate safety margin--it was
simply a different sight picture and he is now a little more experienced and
none the worse for wear.

My own experience was nearly the opposite. I trained mainly in a Cessna
150M, the weather was nearly always warm, and we were probably below gross
by about the weight of whatever trinkets (such as extra pencils) we forgot
to bring. I also had some time in each of the four seats of a Cessna
172--which was also nearly always maxed out. The first time I soloed a 172,
I was really amazed--it climbed like a homesick angel, was reluctant to come
back down, and seemed to nearly stop before the wheels would touch the
pavement on landing.
OK, I exagerate; but probably no worse that the OP's takeoff. :-)


Pax are a dime a dozen, but, who wants to waste a perfectly-good Cessna?

;

Now, there's a good place to restart the Piper vs Cessna debate! ;-)


-c

Peter

gatt writes:

Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
aircraft.

There are other differences. My judgement is not clouded by testosterone, for
example, nor do I suffer from insecurity or a bloated ego.

Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot.

Agreed, but some of the loudest mouths are also some of the worst pilots, if
I'm to judge by the mistakes they make here.

There are some here
who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and, ...funny...
they continue to make it quite clear that you're a clueless idiot also.

People who are highly accomplished don't need to resort to personal attacks.
Those who engage in personal attacks always have issues.

You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do.

Some people here don't do it very well. They dismiss risks that could easily
get them killed. I guess being studly is important enough to them that they
are willing to die for it.

george writes:

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

Unfortunately, take-off is over in 30 seconds.