Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

If insurance policies were invalidated by poor decision-making, they'd be
worthless.

Not to people who make good decisions, who represent the kind of customers
that insurance companies want.

Drag-racing an ordinary automobile is a poor decision, and crashing during
such an activity may not be covered by insurance in consequence.

Of course, if you're dead, it doesn't matter.

Robert M. Gary writes:

That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
just trolling.

The aircraft was overweight, and everyone on board died in the crash that
resulted from that.

I knew that people would argue with me just because I'm the one who made the
point. Thank goodness I don't have to fly with people like that in the
pilot's seat. That kind of "rules don't count" attitude is one of the danger
signs for pilot safety.

george writes:

One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!

Is there a lot of livestock beneath the ice?

tman wrote:
Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.

When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe
100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some
inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about
just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these
planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten
away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will
perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that
you would when solo.

Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors:

This is the 160HP C172, standard.
Departure runway is 5000'.
No steep terrain to climb out of.
Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways.
Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for
departure or any point of landing.

I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase
1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66
knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways.

I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over
gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be
aware of? Am I dangerous?

Being 100 lbs over gross is probably not dangerous. Having an attitude
that it is OK to fly over gross is VERY dangerous. Some day it will
kills you.

Matt

WingFlaps wrote:

Not really. The slight excess is fuel which will be burnt off. before
landing time. Remember the structure is stressed to much higher G
than 1.015 and if you just slapped a bigger engine in the MTOW would
be increased to as much as 2500. What is dangerous is the position of
the COG and the reduced climb. Make sure you do a weight and COG calc.
for the trip. I can tell you that you should probably expect a more
tail heavy feel than you are used to which will promote a tendency to
rotate too early. Just raise your Vx by 5k and she'll be fine. Your
climb will be reduced to (say) about 400 fpm at 2000' (if I remember
correctly). Don't crash it or you will be in real trouble :-0

Actually, your tongue-in-cheek comment raises a good point. Operating
over gross may well void your insurance. So, question to the OP: do you
really want to make a flight with no insurance in force? Even a small
mishap that gets investigated may well result in your insurance company
abandoning you when you need them most. I'd read my policy carefully
before making this flight just to be sure.

Matt

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Ross writes:

I took a helicopter ride into the Grand Canyon last year and as we
signed up EACH person stood on a scale fully loaded (cameras,
backpacks, etc) and they captured your weight.

Is this because it was a helicopter, or was it just the idiosyncrasy
of the operator? I've read that helicopters are much more sensitive
to weight and balance than fixed-wing aircraft.

Why, you gonna sandbag your kitchen chair?

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
just trolling.

The aircraft was overweight, and everyone on board died in the crash
that resulted from that.

I knew that people would argue with me just because I'm the one who
made the point.

No, people argue with you because you are an idiot.

Bertie

tman wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Tell you what; instead of my "advising you" on what to do specifically
with this flight, let me suggest to you that you run a weight and
balance for this aircraft at full tanks, THEN run the same pax and
baggage loading figuring 1/4 tanks, just to see what this does to the cg.

I did. CG is pretty much center of the acceptable range.
C172 410lbs in the front seats, 170lbs in the back, 30lbs in the baggage
area, fuel to tabs -- CG is "good". Same situation, empty fuel. CG
good too.

A lot of ppl are talking about CG issues. Hey maybe I better check my
math before I fly this thing!

This must be one heavy C172. Most 172s I've flown had a useful load of
~840 lbs. Even with full fuel, this leaves almost 600 lbs of payload.
If you are 100 lbs over gross with fuel at the tabs and 610 lbs of
payload, it sounds like this is either one heavy 172 or you have fuel
tanks with greater than 42 gallon capacity.

Matt

george wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:15 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
george wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:01 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
NW_Pilot wrote:
Now this is Over Gross....
http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
Exposure suit?
How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
Insulation and floatation built in
Oh that poop suit is a full wet suit all right. I'm only glad I'll never
have to get into one again :-))

One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!


That's what you call a "cool job" :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

NW_Pilot" service(Spam)@aircraft"nospam"-me-ok-"spamer wrote:
For Best Comfort and Time in water 15 to 20 min it's Mustang.... but wow
$$$$$$$$$$ and custom tailored.

http://www.mustangsurvival.com/produ...uct.php?id=135



Now I've worn both wet and dry suits for diving and the one thing they shared
was being incredibly hot... to the point of dehydration if you didn't get into
the water and cool down. Do these survival suits have any provision to keep you
from passing out from the heat while you are hopefully still in the air?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com