Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

On Apr 17, 10:52*am, gatt wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.

The insurance company doesn't give a crap. Your not over gross by the
name you land anyway.

-Robert

"gatt" wrote in message
news:zKCdneYD7P5nGprVnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@integraonlin e...
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.

You shouldn't be scared, you should be confident. (And above all safe.)

In more cavalier flying days I have done this once or twice, right at or
slightly over gross, in a 172 on an ideal day. For the purpose of
discussion let's assume you're going to do it.

Where's your CG and how will it influence takeoff and climbout? What
happens if the engine quits on departure? How much extra runway do you
have, and what does your density altitude look like? An airplane that
is overgross might still perform better in straight climbout than an
undergross airplane on hot, humid day. If you've got 11,000 feet of
runway ahead of you with the elevation at near sea level, and no obstacles
to clear, and it's cold and dry, that will help. If you're going to be
going over mountains or it's turbulent, you need to know what to expect.

My biggest concern here would be the "never had anybody in back" factor.
When you launch and land with four adults on board, even under gross it's
a different feel. If you've experienced that and you already know what to
expect with an airplane near max gross, you will be able to recognize how
the airplane is handling differently once you're over gross. Without that
previous experience it would be pretty tough to tell whether you're
experiencing a situation caused by being over-gross, or something that
feels normal with four adults on board. The additional stress and
distraction on the PIC could be more of a factor than that placed on the
airframe.

Finally, I personally -hate- feeling like I'm a half-ass pilot or that I
just put my pax at the edge of my envelope without their knowledge. If
they're all aware of it and they understand, that's one thing, but if
something happens you might end up feeling like a total heel, or worse.

If I were going to do this flight I would run around the pattern a few
times with pax in back so you get a feel for what's supposed to happen.

Keep your airspeeds up, keep your pitch and bank rates low, watch your
angle of attack (!!!), stay coordinated and fly like you're carrying a
load of nitroglycerin. Work your CG figures for both takeoff and landing,
and also empty in case you have to divert. If you're "scared" you're more
likely make mistakes.

Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. But I
have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.

-c

Gatt,

read this on a piper but very similer on a 172.

http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypil...nkedpermit.pdf
http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypil...nkedpermit.pdf

On Apr 17, 11:15*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
tman writes:
Risky?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...-12-Overloaded...

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

-Robert

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!

For your scenario, as long as the fuel burn doesn't alter the cg to a
dangerous area your main concern is the over gross condition.
I should note that you might well be flying an aircraft down the line
someday where the fuel burn COULD be a cg altering consideration. This
was why I had you do both W&B :-)

There are several ways to approach this situation and all of them are
relevant.
The prime condition for me would be the insurance condition. You should
consider that in the event of an accident...ANY accident, even one not
involving the over gross condition, the aircraft insurance could most
certainly become an issue post accident because of the over gross condition.

Your training and skill at handling an over gross airplane, even one
"just a tad over gross" should be a consideration.

As PIC, you are asking your Pax to fly with you in an aircraft that is
over gross at takeoff; something that you might wish to reconsider.

Bottom line for me advice wise is that for some pilots, the airplane
won't necessarily fall out of the sky at 40lbs over gross, but are you
one of these pilots, and secondly, have you considered the rest of the
above factors?
The decision as PIC is yours. Make it a wise one.
--
Dudley Henriques

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
gatt wrote:
Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.

Ferry pilots don't carry unwitting passengers in back when they're
overgross.



They might if they hadn't already loaded it to capacity with fuel.
Ferrying operations are a good example of flying overgrossed successfully.
Unfortunately, the cabin is usually stuffed with fuel bladders so there's
no room for passengers unless they want to ride outside in the smoking
section.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com




We as ferry pilots have to explain we are overgross and out contents to all
passengers if allowed by FAA, you know every now and then a client wishes to
ride along most are not pilots or just a private.

Now this is Over Gross....

http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:49:24 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote:

Now this is Over Gross....

http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg



You look like you're making a recycling run. G

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

At this point in the thread I'd be very curious to find out the actual
Real World weight of everything....as opposed to the original posters
assumption's.

Have the buddies get on a scale, with clothes and shoes on, watches,
wallets keys, a full stomach a few cups of coffee each.... Do the same
for the luggage. Don't forget to add all the extra headsets,
camera's, water bottles.....

It might be a useful example for all reading. I'd almost guarantee
it's far heavier than the numbers being used. I can't tell you how
many times people show up at the field for a ride and they say they
weigh 200 and they easily have 30 or 40 lbs on me and I'm 200!!!

doug

On Apr 18, 6:44 am, Michael wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?

That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.


Not here not ever. You get a rating you have to demonstrate at least
one MAUW circuit.
And the idea of crosscountry flying without weighing the pax is
foolish to say the least