Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
User avatar
By AlexL
#378741
KevinH wrote:
MattD wrote:The way I read the Biggin report, they are suggesting that the insipient spin/stall could have been caused by the aircraft weight making the stalling speed equal to the best climb speed - in other words the fact that the aircraft was overweight drastically increased the likelyhood of a stall/spin when the engine stopped and reduced the possibility to safely execute a forced landing.


My point would be that one effect of knowing you are overweight would be that you don't climb at what you think is the best climb speed. Whilst it is clearly more dangerous to be overweight, the most dangerous spect is to carry on as if everything is normal.


If people don't know the basic principles of flight effects of weight, then its a good idea not to go over weight!
The stall speed is not the only speed the moves with weight, best rate, best angle, Va etc etc all change.
And this obsession with teaching 'stall speed' and not 'stall angle of attack' obviously has serious ramifications when over weight.
User avatar
By AlexL
#378745
The Wombat wrote:He comes in, looks at the figures, agrees acccuracy and then tells me to go and fill the tanks. It was common practice to fly the 38's at my old club over weight.

I would hazzard a guess and suggest more than 50% of all flights in this country in PA38's and 152's are overweight.

The Wombat


Quite possibly, but as my mum used to tell me. "Just because everyone else does it, doesn't mean that you have to". :wink:

IMO, going outside the W&B limits is a bit like drink driving, it doesn't mean that you will have an accident, but it significantly increases your risk of having one. And significantly reduces your margins should anything else go wrong.

This is just personal opinion, but I would think that if you go overweight and have an accident and kill a passenger, then I suspect that the courts would view that as a failure of duty of care, with all the legal ramifications, both criminal, and civil that entails.
You may think, who cares, I'll be dead. But your family won't be, and its them that will have to sell the house to pay the compensation. (you won't be insured against negligance).

On a personal note, I'm suprised that a forum that constantly berates me for driving over the speed limits, and gets all hot under the collar if anyone dares fly an approach at anything other than POH speed, seems to be fairly ambivalent about flying outside W&B limits.
By The Wombat
#378750
AlexL wrote:On a personal note, I'm suprised that a forum that constantly berates me for driving over the speed limits, and gets all hot under the collar if anyone dares fly an approach at anything other than POH speed, seems to be fairly ambivalent about flying outside W&B limits.


Training pilots and bimbling around (with a passenger) in the tradional two seaters (152 & PA38's) should be something for open discussion and review.

Of course the answer is to insist four seaters be used or if practical, restrictions on fuel.

Is it going to take a fatal accident which is solely caused by o/w in a two seater before the CAA will act?

Please don't tell me the CAA is not aware of this situation. I hear the lunches at the Belgrano are legendary for their studge.

The Wombat
Last edited by The Wombat on Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Moli
#378751
The attitude about MTOW for GA ac seems to fall into 2 camps from what I am reading, those who stick to it and those who see it only as a guidance figure to be manipulated as the pilot sees fit.

Pete L & I fly out of the same club and as pete says all the payload figures for each individual ac are on the wall in crew weight & fuel combinations to give you an idea before even doing a W&B calc. It is also SOP that when you land you refuel before putting the ac away......club orders are you refuel to 3/4 tanks so that the next P1 should remain within W&B. This is the environment I have learnt to fly in. I compare that with with some of the posts on here about training organisations using ac that they have little hope of remaining within W&B and then on top of that employing a SOP of refuelling to max that will virually ensure that any dual training will fall outside limits.

Incidentally someone sent me a PM that on his skills test, the ac was already fuelled & when he did his W&B calculation he was overweight a significant amount, the examiner then suggested he fudge the figures of the crew weight.

We in GA all shout that although not professional aviators ( i know some of us are) we all strive to fly in a professional manner. This attitude that some training organisations appear to have & then pass onto the graduates of their training hardly seems IMHO to be professional or at all healthy.

Moli
Last edited by Moli on Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By KevinH
#378754
AlexL wrote:IMO, going outside the W&B limits is a bit like drink driving, it doesn't mean that you will have an accident, but it significantly increases your risk of having one. And significantly reduces your margins should anything else go wrong.


If you are a bit overweight then you don't significantly affect your chances of having an accident. In any case, if you are drunk then you significantly affect your chances of killing other people rather than yourself.

The most overweight I have flown was 18% which was done legally. It was more like flying a boat than an aircraft and not something you would want to do on a regular basis. But flying a few pounds over isn't at all the same although it will obviously have an effect. There are aircraft, for example, where a newer model has the same wing but an extra 200lb MTOW. In my view this means that adding 200lbs to the older model means you need to adjust speeds/angles but doesn't mean you are the equivalent of a drunk driver. On the Seneca there is a MAUW of 1999Kg simply to keep it below the 2000kg limit rather than because being 2000kg causes you to crash and die.
User avatar
By Moli
#378756
KevinH wrote:
AlexL wrote:IMO, going outside the W&B limits is a bit like drink driving, it doesn't mean that you will have an accident, but it significantly increases your risk of having one. And significantly reduces your margins should anything else go wrong.



The most overweight I have flown was 18% which was done legally.


Kevin

How could you be legally overweight?

Moli
User avatar
By AlexL
#378758
KevinH wrote:
AlexL wrote:IMO, going outside the W&B limits is a bit like drink driving, it doesn't mean that you will have an accident, but it significantly increases your risk of having one. And significantly reduces your margins should anything else go wrong.


If you are a bit overweight then you don't significantly affect your chances of having an accident. In any case, if you are drunk then you significantly affect your chances of killing other people rather than yourself.

The most overweight I have flown was 18% which was done legally. It was more like flying a boat than an aircraft and not something you would want to do on a regular basis. But flying a few pounds over isn't at all the same although it will obviously have an effect. There are aircraft, for example, where a newer model has the same wing but an extra 200lb MTOW. In my view this means that adding 200lbs to the older model means you need to adjust speeds/angles but doesn't mean you are the equivalent of a drunk driver. On the Seneca there is a MAUW of 1999Kg simply to keep it below the 2000kg limit rather than because being 2000kg causes you to crash and die.


Kevin, I agree with much of that, however you are intelligent and knowlegable enough to know why the seneca has a MTOM of 1999kg etc. Many ppls and students aren't.
Maybe the drink driving was the wrong example in terms of degree of risk, but the principle remains. It does increase the risk (apart from a few cases where teh MTOM is due to the laws of man, not the laws of physics), and the main part of my comparison was that it is a risk thing, not an absolute, so just because you've done it once and got away with it doesn't make it safe.
User avatar
By Pete L
#378761
Moli wrote:
KevinH wrote:
AlexL wrote:IMO, going outside the W&B limits is a bit like drink driving, it doesn't mean that you will have an accident, but it significantly increases your risk of having one. And significantly reduces your margins should anything else go wrong.



The most overweight I have flown was 18% which was done legally.


Kevin

How could you be legally overweight?

Moli


Ferry permit?
User avatar
By KevinH
#378762
Moli wrote:How could you be legally overweight?

Moli


If you look at Flying Femmes earlier post you will see tht she does it regularly. It is possible to do many things which are normally not allowed if you get a permit. For example, you can get a chitty to allow you to fly a twin on one engine in order to get it to a maintenance outfit.
User avatar
By Moli
#378775
Kevin

Ah.... okay it was a genuine question to which I knew there would be a legitimate answer or you wouldnt have posted what you did, although I didnt want to assume you and FF were refering to the same thing .

My original point though is not referring to legally approved ferry pilot ops but to run of the mill GA & how / why do some people appear to operate aircraft significantly overwieight.

Moli
By mikej
#378794
Don't most Warrior II in the UK have a MOTW of 2325lbs, but the same have a MTOW of 2440lbs in the US.. the difference being the cost the CAA want to amend the POH in the UK? purely a paperwork exercise I belileve.

Ergo... is it unsafe in the UK to fly a warrior II at 2400lbs in the UK?
User avatar
By scuderia
#378797
mikej wrote:Don't most Warrior II in the UK have a MOTW of 2325lbs, but the same have a MTOW of 2440lbs in the US.. the difference being the cost the CAA want to amend the POH in the UK? purely a paperwork exercise I belileve.

Ergo... is it unsafe in the UK to fly a warrior II at 2400lbs in the UK?


I think there is somthing similar regarding the 1999kgs in a Seneca which is purely a paperwork exercise and placarding in the aircraft??

Scud
By mikej
#378799
The Seneca is at 1,999lbs to avoid Eurocontrol charges. I'd be curious to know what the Seneca "weighs in" at in the US
User avatar
By KevinH
#378800
Moli wrote:Kevin

Ah.... okay it was a genuine question to which I knew there would be a legitimate answer or you wouldnt have posted what you did, although I didnt want to assume you and FF were refering to the same thing .

My original point though is not referring to legally approved ferry pilot ops but to run of the mill GA & how / why do some people appear to operate aircraft significantly overwieight.

Moli


I don't know that many people do operate significantly overweight, I certainly don't, but I do think people regularly may be a bit over. If an aircraft can be legally flown 25% overweight then this isn't because the ferry pilot has magical powers, it is that the aircraft will stand it. Flying 25% over must be really horrible and not something you want to make a habit of, but 3% makes virtually no difference although that doesn't mean I would do it unthinkingly.
User avatar
By scuderia
#378801
mikej wrote:The Seneca is at 1,999lbs to avoid Eurocontrol charges. I'd be curious to know what the Seneca "weighs in" at in the US


Yes donkey that's well known, its the method of getting it to 1999kgs that I am questioning.

Curry????

Scud
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10