Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

On Apr 17, 11:27 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Apr 17, 2:53 am, tman inv@lid 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.

The biggest problem with flying a little overgross is the same problem
with flying at high density altitude. The plane will perform different
and a pilot who isn't expecting this can run into serious problems.
The site picture over the nose will look a bit different. This is why
I always teach my students to climb out on airspeed. I know some CFIs
focus on the site pitch picture but that only works with consistant
weight, altitude, etc.
Many pilots have bitten the big one because they keep pulling the nose
up when climbing out of mountain airports until they stall it. They
keep trying to achieve the site picture their CFI taught them down in
the valley.

-robert, CFII

Consider this. When was the last time the airplane was weighed? Does
your engine performance exactly the same as when it was manufactured?
Do you get the same cruise speeds as published on the AFM?

Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or whatever
the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.

Chances are this airplane is a little heavier, and engine is little
weaker. Almost every rental airplane I have flown does not cruise as
the book says. Takeoff and landing performance has a lot to do with
pilot capability, but cruise performance is a good benchmark that does
not involve pilot capability.

If you have ever flown an airplane at max gross or close to it, then
you have flown it overgross. Legally the airplane may not be over
gross, but practically it is.

Not only do I recommend against flying overgross, I do not recommend
flying at gross either, unless you are the owner of that airplane and
are very familiar its performance.

"george" wrote

A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
Insulation and floatation built in

I don't know for sure what kind of suits they wear if the ship sinks on the TV
series, "Dangerous Catch" (I think they are dry suits) but they had a guy tell
about surviving in the water for well over 24 hours, in the Bearing Sea.

His partner was in the same situation, and she did not survive.

So I guess the moral of the story is that a survival suit can help you survive
in cold water for a pretty good time, hopefully until you are rescued alive.
--
Jim in NC

WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:39 am, gatt wrote:

I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross.

You people need to go on diets! The 172 should be a 3 seater with full
fuel (144l)...

Unfortunately, too true. Under the pilot's storm window on a B-17 is a
placard with the maximum crew weight: 1200 lbs. Let's see: 10 men in
uniform, bunny suits, flight suits, boots, gloves, mae west, parachute
and harness, body armor, flak helmet...

I went to a park on Sunday with my wife and noted that previous
generations would be absolutely stunned by the average American's
physical condition nowadays.

An old 96th BG waistgunner/armorer told me one time that they would
sneak in extra ammunition for the long raids, but if the pilots found
out they'd make 'em offload it. So they ditched the fire
extinguishers, waist and radio room windows and just about everything
else nonessential and replaced it with a steel plate on the floor of the
waist, and whatever extra ammo could be slipped onboard in the tail
without the pilots finding out. "Aft of CG limit" apparently meant
nothing to gunners.

(Also mentioned using their oxygen masks to keep cigarettes lit on the
way to Schweinfurt.)

-c

Almost every rental airplane I have flown does not cruise as
the book says.

Nither do the new cessna right out of the factory! I have flown plenty
Now Cirrus Hell yea better than Book most the time!

wrote:

Knowingly taking off over gross invalidates any insurance.

No. It doesn't invalidate mine, nor does it invalidate any of the policies
I've had in the last 18 yrs.

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

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200804/1

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
NW_Pilot wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft
then you have a half day or so.



Interesting; about the same as the military suit. Looks well made, and
might be a tad more comfortable and easy to move about in :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

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

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
wrote:
Knowingly taking off over gross invalidates any insurance.

No. It doesn't invalidate mine, nor does it invalidate any of the policies
I've had in the last 18 yrs.

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

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
company instigates after the accident.
It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.

--
Dudley Henriques

NW_Pilot wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
NW_Pilot wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques
About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft
then you have a half day or so.



Interesting; about the same as the military suit. Looks well made, and
might be a tad more comfortable and easy to move about in :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

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




Looks like the same suit we had. Probably is if it's expensive. I
remember having mixed emotions about them. I absolutely hated wearing
the damn thing but I sort of had in the back of my mind a thought about
how long I'd last after ejecting into the bay without having it on. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

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 !!!!

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.