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

Hocky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whow, Hooky, thanks SO MUCH for educating all of us. Too bad you weren't around at Kitty Hawk, you could have taught the Wrights how to fly and save a lot of wasted effort.
 
Hocky said:
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?
Click to expand...

Those were normal flights - up until they became abnormal.

The NTSB listed over gross as causal in the other 6 accidents you failed to address. And those 6 were just a subset of the accidents I found meeting the over gross criteria and on point with respect to the question posed in the thread's subject line. One reason it is difficult to find accidents where over gross conditions cause structural failure is probably because the excess weight causes the accident very early - generally during takeoff.
 
frcabot said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are right.

OP, please make a note during your passenger briefing to let them know you are over the max gross weight of the plane but you can handle it because after all you are a student pilot..
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
You are right.

OP, please make a note during your passenger briefing to let them know you are over the max gross weight of the plane but you can handle it because after all you are a student pilot..
Click to expand...


:confused:

This makes no sense because if I am having a passenger briefing then I cannot be a student pilot by definition.

I feel like I'm in Kindergarten here. Do I need to explain everything?
 
Ok, I was on the fence before but now I also think troll.
 
Jaybird180 said:
No wonder N00bs cant learn; its authoritarianism like this that prevents it. I am sure Cap'n Ron will be along to tell you about that one too.
Click to expand...


So no one can possibly learn unless they make mistakes? Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to read the book created because of the previous mistakes of others, called a POH?
 
Alexb2000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sigh, limitations aren't set for the perfect pilot executing the perfect flight. Limitations are set for when thing go wrong and you are getting slammed around and/or dealing with compounding and cascading failures. They are there to leve you with a chance of surviving when the odds are of it are swirling down the toilet bowl.

I don't think there's a real appreciation for how complicated and how many factors are involved in calculating the limitations. Personally I don't care if someone violates the limitations, what ****es me off is when it goes wrong and the law suits start like it's someone else's fault.
 
Reminds me of a recent Oregon lawsuit suing everyone and their mother for running out of gas. But the justice system dealt with that appropriately, as it does most frivolous suits.
 
Hocky said:
You are very welcome. Like I said sometimes the student needs to become the teacher.
Click to expand...
This is not one of those times. The student is almost never the teacher by virtue of knowing what they're talking about, but rather by being inquisitive enough to take things in a direction previously unconsidered. You're not considering anything that has not been thought through before, you're just taking an arrogant stance of "this is what I want and I don't care what anyone else has to say":nono:
 
Obviously it depends on the plane what the "safe" overweight condition would be.
Some planes are MTOW limited because of regulations, many Senecas in Europe for example, with the 1999kg MTOW.

Yes, it would be safe to fly it at the "original" MTOW, if definition of "safe" includes having enough dosh in your wallet to pay for the hull and damages, if insurance company denies your claim.
So there are two things to consider, safe, and legal. It is never legal to knowingly fly over MTOW, although it is legal to use estimated weighs for passengers, and then fly legally over MTOW.

Straight and level stall speed isn't really that much affected by increase in weight, and when flying on a nice sunny day, structural limitations aren't really a problem either. On your average plane, lets say 2000kg MTOW, your wings can support 7600kg without any danger, and 11400kg without immediately snapping off. Thats +3.8G and the required 50% design margin.
PA28 Arrow's hershey wings were tested to fail at 6.86G.
If you are 10% overweight, instead of +3.8G you can pull +3,45G. On that nice sunny day, this requires real effort and a bit of stupidity.

The bigger issue is the CoG. It is not possible to reliably extrapolate that outside the envelope. Also, all your performance calculations are out, unless you really start to calculate stuff. This obviously is entirely possible, but I'm sure the OP would not do this, nor would he have the required values for a meaningful result (Cd = Cdo+K*Cl2, propulsive efficiency of the prop and so on...)

Also, landing overweight is another issue. Hard landing when overweight can seriously bend things.

All in all, it's risk management. On a cool sunny day, from JFK, 10% on many piston singles is not the end of the world.
Inadvert IMC, short field, high DA, slight tailwind, any of these can kill you.
Whatever you do, if you take passengers onboard make sure to brief them accordingly. The briefing could be "I have very little experience and this plane is overweight with unknown CoG position. A slight movement of the CoG, for example a passenger sitting in the back seat leaning back to get something, can turn the plane upside down with no chance of recovery. Would you be happy to risk dying in this rather horrible way?"
There was a WT9 LSA in Europe that came down that way. Overweight, way aft CoG, pilot undoes seatbelt, reaches to the back to get something, plane flips over, pilot falls through the canopy. He had the rest of his life to think if flying overweight was safe.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The NTSB listed over gross as causal in the other 6 accidents you failed to address.
Click to expand...

Reminder...

Two lives and our rental Citabria were lost.

Due to:

1) Over gross condition*

2) Low level aerobatics, and,

3) Suspicious wing attachment hardware

Often no single cause brings down a plane. Witnesses said the pilot had impressed them with low level aerobatics before. And whatever was up with the wing, I had safely flown the plane on it's prior flights.

Add over gross in, and it's one too many links in a chain and a dead pilot, dead teenager and destroyed plane.


*From the accident report:

"Weight and balance calculations were performed using the airplane licensed empty weight with oil (1,182 pounds), the weight of the pilot based on a February 1996, medical (255 pounds), information provided by one of the co-owners of the airplane pertaining to fuel on board at the time of takeoff (126 pounds), and the weight of the passenger based on a statement from his mother (172 pounds). The airplane weight at the time of takeoff was calculated to be 1,729.4 pounds including fuel used to start the engine taxi, and perform an engine run-up. The airplane weight at the time of the accident was calculated to be 1,711.4 pounds including 18 pounds of fuel consumed during the 21-minute flight. According to the pilot's operating manual the gross weight of the airplane is 1,650 pounds."
 
Last edited:
paflyer said:
But make sure the 25lb cans are filled with 30lbs of propane.
Click to expand...

Its all good if they are packed in dry ice. I hear other student pilots make good test weights, just count them as 'cargo other' and it is a-ok.
 
denverpilot said:
So no one can possibly learn unless they make mistakes? Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to read the book created because of the previous mistakes of others, called a POH?
Click to expand...

The PTS doesn't ask the examine if he read the POH or any FAA Pub, it simply asks for a body of knowledge and correlation of that knowledge. At the end of the day each examine has to make up his/ her own mind as to the significance of any datapoint.

There's a saying - I forget who said it:
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I asked in a long buried thread,why old-timers preach against use of technology (Ie GPS) and I said that it has to be much more than "because I said so", for such argument will only last as long as it takes to pass the generational baton.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The PTS doesn't ask the examine if he read the POH or any FAA Pub, it simply asks for a body of knowledge and correlation of that knowledge. At the end of the day each examine has to make up his/ her own mind as to the significance of any datapoint.

There's a saying - I forget who said it:
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I asked in a long buried thread,why old-timers preach against use of technology (Ie GPS) and I said that it has to be much more than "because I said so", for such argument will only last as long as it takes to pass the generational baton.
Click to expand...
He should be asking his CFI these questions.

Who are these "old-timers" you speak of? Over reliance on jazzy tech produces pilots who become passengers when it inevitably fails (See AF447) and retail checkout people who fold up when the "change calculator" doesn't work. Learn the basics first, then you get to use the cool information presentation tools.

I wish I could sit in at horse hocky's oral exam. It would be a hoot.
 
C182P said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your contention that the context changed the meaning of the statement with which I took issue.

I'm not really sure where the vitriol is coming from. I didn't call you names, call you stupid, or even say you were wrong. I simply stated my disagreement.
 
PPC1052 said:
I disagree with your contention that the context changed the meaning of the statement with which I took issue.

I'm not really sure where the vitriol is coming from. I didn't call you names, call you stupid, or even say you were wrong. I simply stated my disagreement.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if you take my response as vitriol. I don't mind being disagreed with when the disagreement is based on something real. The issue I have though is your disagreement is not with what I've said, it's with how I lead into my post -- making me feel you didn't bother to actually read my post. If your intention was to say "this first part, the part I quoted, is hogwash", saying you disagree without mentioning the rest of the post is insulting when in fact it would seem you actually agree with me.

I'll try to express why I feel you took it out of context with a (somewhat extreme) analogy. Imagine I said "You can fly without any fuel reserves but you run the risk of a forced landing". In this analogy, your disagreement would have you quoting "You can fly without any fuel reserves" and quoting that to state your disagreement, as if that was all I had to say on the matter.
 
C182P said:
I'm sorry if you take my response as vitriol. I don't mind being disagreed with when the disagreement is based on something real. The issue I have though is your disagreement is not with what I've said, it's with how I lead into my post -- making me feel you didn't bother to actually read my post. If your intention was to say "this first part, the part I quoted, is hogwash", saying you disagree without mentioning the rest of the post is insulting when in fact it would seem you actually agree with me.

I'll try to express why I feel you took it out of context with a (somewhat extreme) analogy. Imagine I said "You can fly without any fuel reserves but you run the risk of a forced landing". In this analogy, your disagreement would have you quoting "You can fly without any fuel reserves" and quoting that to state your disagreement, as if that was all I had to say on the matter.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point I made in my original post, and what I was disagreeing with you about. You indicated that if one chooses to fly over gross, you will probably be fine for that flight, but you may be causing hidden structural harm to the plane, and you create a hazardous attitude that results in possibly pushing the limits over time until something bad happens. My dispute is that you cannot say with any certainty that the first flight will probably be okay. Lets use the OP as an example. This guy doesn't really seem to have any understanding of the flight envelope. He says he's willing to fly 10% over gross. Let's assume he does that on a hot, high DA altitude day, from a high altitude airport. At the end of the runway, there is nothing but rising terrain and trees. Under these conditions, he is not "probably going to be okay." Your lasts two statements are true enough, but they don't make the first one true.

And this last analogy is not accurate. I didn't quote a sentence fragment. I quoted a complete sentence.
 
PPC1052 said:
I don't think you understand the point I made in my original post, and what I was disagreeing with you about. You indicated that if one chooses to fly over gross, you will probably be fine for that flight, but you may be causing hidden structural harm to the plane, and you create a hazardous attitude that results in possibly pushing the limits over time until something bad happens. <snip to be filled in later>

And this last analogy is not accurate. I didn't quote a sentence fragment. I quoted a complete sentence.
Click to expand...

First off -- I did _not_ say that even a first flight would be fine. I said that was a summarization of what had been said by others (and perhaps calling that a summarization was an overstatement; if you wish to criticize me for that I accept it). Second, quoting a complete sentence does not mean you didn't break things apart and I wonder if you're just saying that to be argumentative. If my analogy stated instead "You can fly without any fuel reserves. However, you run the risk of a forced landing." you could still just as easily quoted only the first sentence and in doing so, abused the (clear) intention of what had been said. Posts are made as a whole... if you draw meaning from only one piece instead of the whole thing, you're making an error.

To refresh your memory, my original post stared out:
I think this thread can be summarized by: yeah, if you do something you've been advised not to do, you might (and even "will probably") come out just fine. But, it's not fine, for two important reasons:
Click to expand...
If you stop right there, it should be clear as day that it's _not_ fine... I mean, the very next sentence (in the same paragraph!) starts out clearly "But, it's not fine"! So again, criticize me for an overstatement if you feel it due, but don't for a second think I'm suggesting that even a single overweight flight is acceptable.


PPC1052 said:
My dispute is that you cannot say with any certainty that the first flight will probably be okay. Lets use the OP as an example. This guy doesn't really seem to have any understanding of the flight envelope. He says he's willing to fly 10% over gross. Let's assume he does that on a hot, high DA altitude day, from a high altitude airport. At the end of the runway, there is nothing but rising terrain and trees. Under these conditions, he is not "probably going to be okay."
Click to expand...

Again, you're agreeing with me but you're fixated on an initial sentence. Read the entire post and comprehend: I never stated a first flight would be ok.
 
Amazing, troll comes here and does his troll thing and otherwise reasonable posters get into each others hair.
 
Amazing indeed. I asked a legitimate thought provoking question and there happens to be differences in opinion.

So if that is a "troll thing" then whatever.
 
Hocky said:
Amazing indeed. I asked a legitimate thought provoking question and there happens to be differences in opinion.

So if that is a "troll thing" then whatever.
Click to expand...
No it's the fact that you ask a question and then disregard any answers you don't like. So what's the point of asking in the first place? Just do what you want and leave it at that.
 
Hocky said:
Amazing indeed. I asked a legitimate thought provoking question and there happens to be differences in opinion.

So if that is a "troll thing" then whatever.
Click to expand...

You are not allowed to provoke thought, it's unAmerican to think for yourself, just follow the damned rules. People don't want to have to think, it's too much like work and hurts. The establishment doesn't want you to think, it will make you uppity if you figure out all the ways you are being ****ed. Just quit ****ing thinking and messing things up for the lazy and the greedy because they know what's best for you.
 
weilke said:
Amazing, troll comes here and does his troll thing and otherwise reasonable posters get into each others hair.
Click to expand...

I dispute that. How dare you accuse me of being reasonable.
 
C182P said:
First off -- I did _not_ say that even a first flight would be fine.
Click to expand...
You said it might be fine, or probably would be fine. Not sure there's too much difference. But that is why I quoted your exact language in my original post. Then you beat me up about it.

C182P said:
I said that was a summarization of what had been said by others (and perhaps calling that a summarization was an overstatement; if you wish to criticize me for that I accept it).
Click to expand...
True-- you said it was a summarization. I was not criticizing whether the summary was correct; just whether the proposition set forth in your summary was valid. Since you are distancing yourself from that proposition, I don't know why you want to defend it to the death.

C182P said:
Second, quoting a complete sentence does not mean you didn't break things apart and I wonder if you're just saying that to be argumentative.
Click to expand...
I was not. I made what I feel to be an important point. I still don't know why that ruffles your feathers so much. Its a critical point of safety. I make no apologies just because you have taken offense.


C182P said:
If my analogy stated instead "You can fly without any fuel reserves. However, you run the risk of a forced landing." you could still just as easily quoted only the first sentence and in doing so, abused the (clear) intention of what had been said.
Click to expand...

True. But that is not at all what I did. I question how anyone could think differently.


C182P said:
Posts are made as a whole... if you draw meaning from only one piece instead of the whole thing, you're making an error.
Click to expand...

Not always. If you spend a paragraph talking about what a great guy I am, and then in one sentence call my wife a whore, I can fairly object to the your characterization of my wife.


C182P said:
Again, you're agreeing with me but you're fixated on an initial sentence. Read the entire post and comprehend: I never stated a first flight would be ok.
Click to expand...
No, I am not agreeing with you because the first sentence, even in context, is simply wrong. (Okay, now I said it.) The consequences of ignoring limitations is not something that you can presume you will/might/probably get away with just this once. Your post communicates falsely otherwise.

C182P said:
I never stated a first flight would be ok.
Click to expand...
But the consequences you cite are both remote 1) hidden damage, and 2) dangerous attitude resulting in future exceeding of limits. Omitting any reference to the immediate risks creates a false impression.
 
Last edited:
Hocky said:
Amazing indeed. I asked a legitimate thought provoking question and there happens to be differences in opinion.

So if that is a "troll thing" then whatever.
Click to expand...

The troll part is the totality of your threads here. As others have pointed out, your passive aggressive posting style and the theme of your threads is quite similar to to the pfleming troll we had here a while ago, I suspect they are the product of the same writer. You claim to be a student pilot yet in some of the arguments your familiarity with aviation beyond the student pilot persona shines through.

This place used to be bettet in weeding out the trolls.
 
PPC1052 said:
Not always. If you spend a paragraph talking about what a great guy I am, and then in one sentence call my wife a whore, I can fairly object to the your characterization of my wife.
Click to expand...
This is a good point to address because everything centers around it. If I did what you describe here then I would agree with your assessment -- however that's not what I did. In your comparison what I did is say something more like:

Some people state that PPC1052's wife is a whore. However, that's not the case at all; whores cannot be married to great guys and PPC1052 is a great guy for the following reasons....
Click to expand...

Sure, to fit your comparison this is a bit contrived. I can't steer you towards seeing the big picture any more than I've tried though; if you still don't see it, so be it, but things are not as you seem to see them. Have you ever heard the term "agreeing violently"? Temper down the meaning of violently and that's what you've been doing but I'm sure I can't make you see that either.
 
Hocky said:
Amazing indeed. I asked a legitimate thought provoking question and there happens to be differences in opinion.

So if that is a "troll thing" then whatever.
Click to expand...
There really have not been differences in opinion -- not a single person in this thread other than you has taken the position that it's really ok to violate weight limitations. Your question was equally not thought provoking, and your insistence on so many things contrary to what anyone has said, with absolutely nothing to back any of it up, is the sheer definition of trolling. I suspect 6PC was right when he claimed you and Pete were the same person.
 
C182P said:
There really have not been differences in opinion -- not a single person in this thread other than you has taken the position that it's really ok to violate weight limitations. Your question was equally not thought provoking, and your insistence on so many things contrary to what anyone has said, with absolutely nothing to back any of it up, is the sheer definition of trolling. I suspect 6PC was right when he claimed you and Pete were the same person.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Don't know which thread you've been reading because it isn't this one.

In THIS thread there are most definitely differences in opinion.

In THIS thread there are most definitely other individuals, respected pilots, who have indicated they have flown over gross weight and that it is probably safe in some cases.

Yes 6PC claims all kinds of things about me, why don't you ask him about that Robin Hood character he invented? You know, the one who is PMing him and meeting him? I would look there if you're trying to find your Pete...
 
Hocky said:
:rolleyes:

Don't know which thread you've been reading because it isn't this one.

In THIS thread there are most definitely differences in opinion.

In THIS thread there are most definitely other individuals, respected pilots, who have indicated they have flown over gross weight and that it is probably safe in some cases.

Yes 6PC claims all kinds of things about me, why don't you ask him about that Robin Hood character he invented? You know, the one who is PMing him and meeting him? I would look there if you're trying to find your Pete...
Click to expand...

I forget, how many hours have you logged? Have you reached your 18th birthday yet?
 
C182P said:
This is a good point to address because everything centers around it. If I did what you describe here then I would agree with your assessment -- however that's not what I did. In your comparison what I did is say something more like:



Sure, to fit your comparison this is a bit contrived. I can't steer you towards seeing the big picture any more than I've tried though; if you still don't see it, so be it, but things are not as you seem to see them. Have you ever heard the term "agreeing violently"? Temper down the meaning of violently and that's what you've been doing but I'm sure I can't make you see that either.
Click to expand...

I think this is the point where we agree to buy each other a beer and talk about how great the Colts are going to be this year.
 
C182P said:
There really have not been differences in opinion -- not a single person in this thread other than you has taken the position that it's really ok to violate weight limitations.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. It is safe to take off 10% over gross. That is for an experienced ferry pilot after consideration of CG, distance to be covered, available runway, available alternates etc.
 
weilke said:
Well, I disagree. It is safe to take off 10% over gross. That is for an experienced ferry pilot after consideration of CG, distance to be covered, available runway, available alternates etc.
Click to expand...
Right, and also with the FSDO signoff to make it legal.
 
paflyer said:
Right, and also with the FSDO signoff to make it legal.
Click to expand...

Just in case anyone cares, page 4-100 to 4-102 in FAA order 8130.2G details what they are looking for.

10% over can be approved without involving a DER. The flight permit may contain limitations on route of flight and which runway to be used for takeoff.

There is also an older AC (not sure if still valid) that spells out the kind of stuff they are looking for and what limitations (e.g. speed) they may write into the permit:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac21-4b.pdf

But that is of course if someone cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top