Gross Weight

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

VE

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

"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