How do you determine what a "safe" overweight condition is?

[Henning]

BTW, most of the time I fly a twin far below gross weight because less weight is as much of a safety benefit as more fuel, if not more. Over the CONUS it is a rare situation where you would over gross on fuel for safety, only overwater or large barren land mass where there is no potential for intermediate fueling.

The first question one asks in risk management is, "How many risks can I eliminate or reduce here on the ground?", then there is, "How many more can I operationally mitigate?" Only then does one ask "Is the remaining risk tolerable?" One also does the every flight, that it was ok yesterday doesn't make it ok today, or even between morning and afternoon.

 

[Henning]

And pro pilots still die on occasion from complacency.

When I was in Colorado Springs once, I arrived to find one of the runways closed in patchy IMC because some hotshot USAF bomber pilot with a billion hours dug a hole next to the runway with his Mooney. The scary thing is, there were perhaps five airports within 20 miles that were completely clear at the time, but he opted to complete the mission no matter what.

You bet, complacency, miscalculation, mishandling, and downright stupidity; happens all the time at all levels of experience.

 

[JimNtexas]

Hocky, if you must troll, trying to troll without making yourself look like a complete and total idiot.

 

[Hocky]

Hocky, if you must troll, trying to troll without making yourself look like a complete and total idiot.

That is a little offensive but I won't stoop to your levels. I am not trolling.

Some of you don't have the guts the admit the truth. Some of you do.

I got what I needed. I don't need your insults, Jim in Texas.

 

[JOhnH]

That is a little offensive but I won't stoop to your levels. I am not trolling.

Some of you don't have the guts the admit the truth. Some of you do.

I got what I needed. I don't need your insults, Jim in Texas.

Yeah, you finally got somebody to admit that they might have flown over gross and lived. You got the answer you wanted so you can give up now.

There is a another arbitrary limit in aviation, and it is there for a very good reason. You have to be 17 before you can get your ticket. The reason is the majority of people under 17 have not developed the maturity or judgement to make a safe pilot. When will you be 17?

 

[C182P]

I disagreed with the part I quoted.

Since the part you quoted does not stand alone, and it should be quite obvious be reading the entire post that it does not stand alone, your disagreement seems to be for the sake of arguing rather than having an actual conversation.

 

[RyanB]

Personally, I wouldn't consider any overweight condition "safe".

 

[JimNtexas]

I got what I needed. I don't need your insults, Jim in Texas.

Well that just breaks my heart, you special little snowflake!!!

 

[C182P]

I don't get this argument. If there has been abuse then who says you can even fly safely within spec? And what about annual inspections? Aren't those supposed to pick up any issues like cracks or other signs that something serious is happening?

If there is some structural weakness in the plane because it was abused, I don't want to fly it at 50% gross. So you're saying it is okay to fly it at max gross with a "weak link"?

You never know for certain that you can fly safely within weight limits. You just have a (generally much) higher expectation of being able to do so if the plane has not been flown overweight. If your most recent annual failed to detect any airframe problems, even if that annual was yesterday, this does not in any way mean you can go out today and abuse the aircraft without possibly serious consequences! It only means that signs of metal failure were not observed during that annual. If you never push the aircraft beyond its limits and you minimize the probability of structural failure, but you cannot completely eliminate them. You can just avoid being foolish... something which your posts imply you have no intention of doing.

 

[FastEddieB]

Some of you don't have the guts the admit the truth.

Is it possible that the truth is that the vast majority of working pilots were taught ab initio to respect operating limitations, and do their level best not to ever exceed them?

Is it possible that the truth is that the "cowboys" are in a tiny minority?

Is it possible that the truth is that hundreds, if not thousands of accident reports list exceeding the operating limitations of the aircraft as a causative factor?

Is it possible that the truth is that consensus advice from pilots far more experienced than you should be taken very seriously?

I have genuine concerns about your attitude. It reminds me of another pilot who boasted he would never be named in an NTSB report. He ignored, in a joking fashion, the advice of pilots with orders of magnitude more hours than he. Until, with very few flight hours under his belt, he had his (nearly inevitable, IMHO) first accident. And went on to blame everyone but himself.

Nothing personal, but if I had a student with your attitude, I would drop him immediately*.

But That's Just Me (tm) - and what do I know?


*As self-preservation, among other reasons. The aforementioned accident pilot went on to sue all of his instructors, among others.

 

[weilke]

This got to be lone of the most successful trolls in POA history.

 

[drotto]

Been watching this since it started, and it has been a nice little show. This is so simple. The FAA says the weight limit is x lbs, you are not permitted to go above that unless you receive special ferry permits. Doing so is against regulations, and if something happens you will get burned for it. Can the planes do more, in many cases yes, but that is a moot point. In the cases where additional permits are issued they are temporary, and usually for long distance transport (ie extra fuel tanks). The pilots flying those planes are usually high hour, trained ferry pilots that have additional training that allows them to do so safely. Those planes will have decreased peformance across the board, that allowences must be made for. They will not perform like is certified in the POH.

Under normal circumstances these special permits will not be issued, therefor it is illegal and, you are liable if anything happens. Just don't do it.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Can anyone point me to an NTSB report of any 172 folding up in flight short of going into a large thunderstorm? There are many out there that have over 10K hours, been beat mercilessly their whole lives by students, been flown overweight, etc. There are many here operating 50 year old aircraft of all types that have been through who knows what and we don't have them folding up in flight.

There are many more important things to worry about.

Lots to choose from; here is a sample:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20071218X01970&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130227X70316&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100215X82210&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20070111X00045&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030325X00386&key=1

Sample of accidents where flying over gross was causal though not so much as to cause the wings to fold up:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110814X60630&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130428X00603&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120527X21141&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110815X10520&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110528X21434&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100602X45201&key=1

This one isn't a Cessna, but is rather infamous:

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

 

[Hocky]

Well that just breaks my heart, you special little snowflake!!!

I laugh at you since you have shown that you are unable to argue convincingly at an intellectual level so you feel the need to resort to cheap shots, lame insults and name calling. If that makes you feel better and more special and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling then I am glad to be of service.

Now go away Jim in Texas.

 

[FastEddieB]

This got to be lone of the most successful trolls in POA history.

Pretty sure at this point.

The alternative is kinda scary.

 

[Alexb2000]

Lots to choose from; here is a sample:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20071218X01970&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130227X70316&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100215X82210&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20070111X00045&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030325X00386&key=1

Sample of accidents where flying over gross was causal though not so much as to cause the wings to fold up:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110814X60630&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130428X00603&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120527X21141&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110815X10520&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110528X21434&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100602X45201&key=1

This one isn't a Cessna, but is rather infamous:

Jim, OK, my bad, I should have been more specific. I should know that with this group. I was suggesting that a 172 flying along under control doesn't just fold up because of past stresses or being over by a pound and people shouldn't obsess about it. I agree when you put something in a VNE dive and then yank and bank it will break.

Agreed, not knowing how to fly will bite you, not knowing how to fly and choosing to do so over weight and/or at high DA, well that leaves a mark. Some of the decisions in the reports were.... Really bad.

 

[Hocky]

Lots to choose from; here is a sample:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20071218X01970&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130227X70316&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100215X82210&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20070111X00045&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030325X00386&key=1

First one doesn't count (spatial disorientation pilot got the plane sideways)
Second one doesn't count (pilot lost his vision WTF and got the plane sideways)
Third one doesn't count (bad modification)
Fourth one doesn't count (spatial disorientation pilot got the plane sideways)
Fifth one doesn't count (pilot dove straight down again WTF)

So how about a case where an overloaded 172 failed a structure in normal flight. No spatial disorientation, no going blind, no attempt to face plant the plane?

 

[Magic 8 Ball]

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

http://news.yahoo.com/too-much-weight-may-caused-fatal-plane-crash-003331325.html

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1483343/

http://english.people.com.cn/90777/8388162.html

http://belmontshore.patch.com/group...y-long-beach-airport-plane-crash-reae92e608e3

But I'm with Magic at this point.
Just Fu&#ing do it already. Chances are you either are not a pilot at all or you are and have been for years and either way are just excited to see people responding to this crap.

I say load it up man, throw in some sandbags. Strap some go pros to the wings and tail live and stream it to youtube.

It would actually be one thing if you were a seasoned pilot and asked this in the lessons learned thread as "hey I have this coming up and I may be over gross but I have x amount of experience yatta yatta"

But the fact that you so persistently defying any given advice while at the same time claiming to be a student is pure bull**** If you were a student and had this attitude, there is no way you would be able to turn it off for a CFI and it wouldn't be tolerated by any instructor.

I don't believe for 1 second that you are a student pilot.

Happy Trolling.

 

[MAKG1]

So how about a case where an overloaded 172 failed a structure in normal flight. No spatial disorientation, no going blind, no attempt to face plant the plane?

Structural failure happens with G's. Not in straight and level flight.

The wings are certified to hold 3.8 times the max gross weight of the aircraft. You won't break the wings unless you overload severely, or you pull some G's. However, you may make other bad things happen, such as poor controllability.

Some aircraft have a "kink" in the W&B envelope, for instance late model 182s (not earlier ones, though). Do you know where that comes from? Do you know there aren't any outside the conventional envelope in your 172? You're over gross, so you're off the chart by definition. What does it look like? Why does it have a trapezoidal shape, and what's the source of each of the limits? If you can't answer that, you are not at all qualified to evaluate whether overweight flying is safe. You can't mitigate a hazard you can't identify.

 

[Hocky]

http://news.yahoo.com/too-much-weight-may-caused-fatal-plane-crash-003331325.html

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1483343/

http://english.people.com.cn/90777/8388162.html

http://belmontshore.patch.com/group...y-long-beach-airport-plane-crash-reae92e608e3

But I'm with Magic at this point.
Just Fu&#ing do it already. Chances are you either are not a pilot at all or you are and have been for years and either way are just excited to see people responding to this crap.

I say load it up man, throw in some sandbags. Strap some go pros to the wings and tail live and stream it to youtube.

It would actually be one thing if you were a seasoned pilot and asked this in the lessons learned thread as "hey I have this coming up and I may be over gross but I have x amount of experience yatta yatta"

But the fact that you so persistently defying any given advice while at the same time claiming to be a student is pure bull**** If you were a student and had this attitude, there is no way you would be able to turn it off for a CFI and it wouldn't be tolerated by any instructor.

I don't believe for 1 second that you are a student pilot.

Happy Trolling.

Whoa, settle down there dude. It's all right. No need to get all worked up.

I've always been a difficult student. I'm the guy who always asks the questions. The tough questions. You are probably happy to just be told what to do and to take the happy path through life. I am not.

This thread really is out of hand now. Like I said I got what I needed there were many very reasonable responses. There are just a few of you now getting all worked up and turning this into some kind of ****ing contest.

Settle down and let's move on.

 

[MAKG1]

I've always been a difficult student. I'm the guy who always asks the questions. The tough questions.

Umm, no.

I've met a lot of students. Really good ones do ask tough questions that get the instructors thinking hard.

You're not tough. You're dense.

 

[JOhnH]

I laugh at you since you have shown that you are unable to argue convincingly at an intellectual level so you feel the need to resort to cheap shots, lame insults and name calling. If that makes you feel better and more special and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling then I am glad to be of service.

Now go away Jim in Texas.

But you see Hokey, many have given you serious intellectual answers and you ignore it or impugn it. So I suggest you try the suggestion of load up over gross and go for it. If you survive, add 10 or 20#s and do it again. Keep doing that until you crash. Then you will have your answer.
Keep us posted.

 

[paflyer]

Umm, no.

I've met a lot of students. Really good ones do ask tough questions that get the instructors thinking hard.

You're not tough. You're dense.

He's a tool who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, but in reality he's an empty suit.

 

[JOhnH]

He's a tool who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, but in reality he's an empty suit.

I doubt he's old enough to own a suit.
Can we vote him off the Island?

 

[RotorAndWing]

thread ignore

 

[Jaybird180]

Oh WoW. The insult bandwagon. I'll bet y'all sat at the Cool Kids' table in Jr High. Who's immature now?

 

[weilke]

Just Fu&#ing do it already. Chances are you either are not a pilot at all or you are and have been for years and either way are just excited to see people responding to this crap.

I say load it up man, throw in some sandbags. Strap some go pros to the wings and tail live and stream it to youtube.

I suggest propane tanks for the test weight.

 

[bullwinkle]

I suggest propane tanks for the test weight.

No way, dry ice. It will make a cool, creepy Transylvania ground fog effect at the crash site.

 

[Hocky]

No testing required. I asked an "actual" expert in person today.

For a 172 it is straightforward to get a 10% to 15% six month gross weight increase from the appropriate FSDO for example if you're doing some kind of specialized photo shoot.

For ferry flights you can get 30%.

It is done all the time. Just got to take into account all the stuff I already said takeoff and landing increased distances, fly at or below maneuvering speed, etc.

It is again a situation where the student becomes the teacher but such is life.

Admins please lock this thread, it is now complete. That is the answer.

 

[chemgeek]

Well, I can't just accept it as gospel. That is not in my nature to just do something because "someone said so". Call it anti-authority if you want. Yes, I'm anti-authority that is why I'm learning to fly myself somewhere. I want the freedom to go wherever I please.

My takeaway is that going 10% over gross is fine as long as you stay within CG and compensate by allowing a longer takeoff and landing distance and reduced climb rate. If I had to choose between being 10% over gross and not having enough fuel, I'm sorry but I'm going for the 10% over gross.

This attitude may succeed in getting your extra fuel load to a flaming crater at the end of the runway. Climb rate is determined by EXCESS power. If you go 10% over gross (that would be a whopping 220 lb in my aircraft) you will not reduce your performance by 10%; you may possibly reduce your available excess power by100%, depending on DA, engine condition, and pilot technique. You won't go far with a climb rate of 0 fpm. The same reason (excess power) adding 10 HP adds several hundred fpm climb also means adding a few extra pounds over MGW will subtract several hundred fpm climb rate.

If you actually have flown a plane at MGW on a hot day, you would understand. Most 2 seat trainers are MGW or more with two overweight bodies and full fuel, and are seriously underpowered in that state. It will get your attention.

You can question authority, but when you question physics by applying Disney's First Law (wishing will make it so) someone will get hurt. If you decide to flout physics and common sense, please do it alone in a secluded location.

 

[frcabot]

This attitude may succeed in getting your extra fuel load to a flaming crater at the end of the runway. Climb rate is determined by EXCESS power. If you go 10% over gross (that would be a whopping 220 lb in my aircraft) you will not reduce your performance by 10%; you may possibly reduce your available excess power by100%, depending on DA, engine condition, and pilot technique. You won't go far with a climb rate of 0 fpm. The same reason (excess power) adding 10 HP adds several hundred fpm climb also means adding a few extra pounds over MGW will subtract several hundred fpm climb rate.

If you actually have flown a plane at MGW on a hot day, you would understand. Most 2 seat trainers are MGW or more with two overweight bodies and full fuel, and are seriously underpowered in that state. It will get your attention.

You can question authority, but when you question physics by applying Disney's First Law (wishing will make it so) someone will get hurt. If you decide to flout physics and common sense, please do it alone in a secluded location.

i think he means 10% over useful? Maybe?

 

[frcabot]

http://news.yahoo.com/too-much-weight-may-caused-fatal-plane-crash-003331325.html

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1483343/

http://english.people.com.cn/90777/8388162.html

http://belmontshore.patch.com/group...y-long-beach-airport-plane-crash-reae92e608e3

But I'm with Magic at this point.
Just Fu&#ing do it already. Chances are you either are not a pilot at all or you are and have been for years and either way are just excited to see people responding to this crap.

I say load it up man, throw in some sandbags. Strap some go pros to the wings and tail live and stream it to youtube.

It would actually be one thing if you were a seasoned pilot and asked this in the lessons learned thread as "hey I have this coming up and I may be over gross but I have x amount of experience yatta yatta"

But the fact that you so persistently defying any given advice while at the same time claiming to be a student is pure bull**** If you were a student and had this attitude, there is no way you would be able to turn it off for a CFI and it wouldn't be tolerated by any instructor.

I don't believe for 1 second that you are a student pilot.

Happy Trolling.

I only looked at the first link but the crash was due to the newly certified pilot trying to take off with flaps 40. Nothing to do with an overweight condition and in fact the NTSB and Cessna determined that the plane was not overweight.

There is a big difference between being 50 lbs overweight, 200 lbs overweight, and 500 lbs overweight. Gross weight is treated by most people and most airliners as an estimate. Passengers aren't asked their weights when they board a B1900 or a C421 or whatever. Rather, regs say that an assumption can be used, e.g. 170 lbs per passenger or so and 20 lbs for luggage per pax. In some cases this likely results in a nominal overweight condition. It's typically not fatal. I'm pretty sure I've flown 50 lbs over gross on a couple of occasions. Most people who say otherwise are probably lying. If you are familiar with your plane, with limitations, and ESPECIALLY with density altitude, you're probably OK.

DA gets lots of people in trouble, even if they're under gross. I'd rather be 100 lbs over gross at 0 DA than 100 lbs under gross at 6000 ft DA.

Now, 10% of gross (mgw) in my plane is 280 lbs or so. Never in a million years would I do that. 10% over useful is 90 lbs. While I certainly wouldn't intentionally fly 90 lbs over gross, it wouldn't surprise me if I might have unintentionally come closer to that number (on the lower end obviously) from clothes, miscellaneous items like books, purses, charts, chocks in the back, a few extra lbs of fuel, etc. But I'll typically add 10 or 20 lbs to any weight given by a passenger and I'd rather overcalculate the weight so I am aware of these risks.

 

[RoscoeT]

No testing required. I asked an "actual" expert in person today.

For a 172 it is straightforward to get a 10% to 15% six month gross weight increase from the appropriate FSDO for example if you're doing some kind of specialized photo shoot.

For ferry flights you can get 30%.

It is done all the time. Just got to take into account all the stuff I already said takeoff and landing increased distances, fly at or below maneuvering speed, etc.

It is again a situation where the student becomes the teacher but such is life.

Admins please lock this thread, it is now complete. That is the answer.

Yes, admins - now that Sir Hocky has bestowed his brilliance upon us, please lock this thread.

 

[chemgeek]

There is a big difference between being 50 lbs overweight, 200 lbs overweight, and 500 lbs overweight. Gross weight is treated by most people and most airliners as an estimate. Passengers aren't asked their weights when they board a B1900 or a C421 or whatever. Rather, regs say that an assumption can be used, e.g. 170 lbs per passenger or so and 20 lbs for luggage per pax. In same cases this likely results in a nominal overweight condition. It's typically not fatal. I'm pretty sure I've flown 50 lbs over gross on a couple of occasions. Most people who say otherwise are probably lying. If you are familiar with your plane, with limitations, and ESPECIALLY with density altitude, you're probably OK.

DA gets lots of people in trouble, even if they're under gross. I'd rather be 100 lbs over gross at 0 DA than 100 lbs under gross at 6000 ft DA.

Agreed. Bear in mind most turbine aircraft are overpowered, and have spectacular climb rates at MGW. Not so single engine piston aircraft, where 700 fpm at MGW is normal. Going overweight in piston singles is much closer to safe margins. I'm not keen on flying a piston single with 200 fpm climb. (Reminds me of my C152 days.)

 

[Jaybird180]

This attitude may succeed in getting your extra fuel load to a flaming crater at the end of the runway. Climb rate is determined by EXCESS power. If you go 10% over gross (that would be a whopping 220 lb in my aircraft) you will not reduce your performance by 10%; you may possibly reduce your available excess power by100%, depending on DA, engine condition, and pilot technique. You won't go far with a climb rate of 0 fpm. The same reason (excess power) adding 10 HP adds several hundred fpm climb also means adding a few extra pounds over MGW will subtract several hundred fpm climb rate.

If you actually have flown a plane at MGW on a hot day, you would understand. Most 2 seat trainers are MGW or more with two overweight bodies and full fuel, and are seriously underpowered in that state. It will get your attention.

You can question authority, but when you question physics by applying Disney's First Law (wishing will make it so) someone will get hurt. If you decide to flout physics and common sense, please do it alone in a secluded location.

For land based vehicles the typical formula used is about 7lbs per HP. Given your 220lbs over, this yields a 31HP requirement of excess thrust. Given that we could load a 180HP Skyhawk as you specify and the fact that 150HP versions are known to fly well, I think we could extrapolate that the climb rate would be well north of 0FPM.

 

[chemgeek]

i think he means 10% over useful? Maybe?

Nope. Don't think so. I know the type, unfortunately. MGW is only a suggestion, ethanol auto fuel is OK (who needs a stinking STC? That 100 octane limitation is just there go scare me into buying expensive gas), fuel reserves are overrated, and flying VFR in the clouds is OK if you turn your transponder off. Rules and safety margins are for "dumb" people.

 

[frcabot]

Not the video I wanted but this will do

http://youtu.be/Scd4TWNGLhU

far from clear was overloaded. Two pax plus pilot? Depends on DA I guess. Looks like a ****ty soft field takeoff though, he never lowered the nose in ground effect to gain altitude. Probably immediately stalled the plane once out of ground effect.

 

[frcabot]

Nope. Don't think so. I know the type, unfortunately. MGW is only a suggestion, ethanol auto fuel is OK (who needs a stinking STC? That 100 octane limitation is just there go scare me into buying expensive gas), fuel reserves are overrated, and flying VFR in the clouds is OK if you turn your transponder off. Rules and safety margins are for "dumb" people.

10% over gross in a c172 is about an extra 250 lbs. I wouldn't want to try. Or fly with someone who did.