temporary w/b changes

[Magman]

There are DPE s that will cash check, discover W & B issues like this ( very common

is wheel fairing condition) and want to reschedule after a Tech has resolved.

Additional charge of course.

Missing or improperly fastened Required Placards are also on their list.

W & B is not that difficult but often is not taught properly.

Anyone aspiring to heavy aircraft ops should become familiar with the

concept of a TOLD Card.

That is Takeoff and Landing Data and may require actions to keep in Envelope.

Gear Retraction , Fuel Burn/Transfer etc play a role and may require

computations in-flight to verify.

As an FE this was my task.

Not needed for Primary Students but realizing what lies ahead could be

motivating to master W & B.

 

[Bell206]

I'm not sure what to do about it.

Given the AP signed it off as the weight being negligible but you are still not in agreement the only thing you can do about it at the moment is not use that aircraft. Regardless, as mentioned, its these types of decisions that set the path. If you believe you are right about the empty weight stick to your guns and make your case. You have the references above. If you need another look at Note 1 in the TCDS for the aircraft... it will state a current WB and Equipment list is required to be airworthy. Good luck.

 

[Clip4]

I went to the flight school this morning to verify. There was no update to the w&b when the radio was removed. I asked about it and was told the weight change was negligible and did not require an updated w&b.

This answer doesn't sit right with me, but if the A&P who signed off on the work says its good to go I'm not sure what to do about it.

The weight is negligible, but for the airplane to be legal it needs to be done. If you take your test on a Saturday and the DME catches or doesn’t ignore the issue you are done for the day.

If another plane at your school has the same radio, have you CFI swap it into the plane you are going to use for 2 hours.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Given the AP signed it off as the weight being negligible….

Doesn’t sound to me like the A&P signed it off as negligible…sounds to me like the A&P didn’t do any paperwork and said none needed to be done because it was negligible.

 

[Bell206]

Doesn’t sound to me like the A&P signed it off as negligible…

I took it as the AP singed off the removal and placarded the missing radio but didn't correct the W&B due to the weight being negligible in his opinion. Now if there is no removal write up then thats an entirely different issue and a definite screw-up on the APs part. In that case there is no further discussion needed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

edit, you might know the radio was missing and the WB was incorrect. The radio (ADF) may have been removed 5 years ago, the WB correct, and you are sitting there doing a multi year logbook search to figure it out.

It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve done a multi year logbook search to see where the w&b was screwed up.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I took it as the AP singed off the removal and placarded the missing radio but didn't correct the W&B due to the weight being negligible in his opinion. Now if there is no removal write up then thats an entirely different issue and a definite screw-up on the APs part. In that case there is no further discussion needed.

I agree, if the removal was properly logged and signed off. Does there need to be a “negligible” notation in the maintenance log?

 

[Bell206]

Does there need to be a “negligible” notation in the maintenance log?

No. But have seen it in log and 337 entries and think it is a good note to add if applicable to the mx.

 

[Seth.A]

Well the radio is back in now so I guess its a moot point. I did learn quite a bit though, thanks y'all!

 

[Half Fast]

The school is supposed to be training you. It’s a perfectly legit question to ask them to explain to you why the weight is negligible. Ask the weight, and ask them to explain the reg.

Could be your instructor might learn something.

 

[Magman]

All teacher learn (or should learn) from their students.

Just might be a different subject.

 

[flyingron]

Given the AP signed it off as the weight being negligible but you are still not in agreement the only thing you can do about it at the moment is not use that aircraft. Regardless, as mentioned, its these types of decisions that set the path. If you believe you are right about the empty weight stick to your guns and make your case. You have the references above. If you need another look at Note 1 in the TCDS for the aircraft... it will state a current WB and Equipment list is required to be airworthy. Good luck.

It's not negligible, a KX155 weighs over 5 lbs for the no GS model, more if you have the GS.

 

[Clip4]

It's not negligible, a KX155 weighs over 5 lbs for the no GS model, more if you have the GS.

it may not be legally negligible, but 5# @ 24” aft of datum is functionally negligible to the CG and BEW.

 

[MauleSkinner]

it may not be legally negligible, but 5# @ 24” aft of datum is functionally negligible to the CG and BEW.

So do we pick “functionally negligible” or “legal”?

 

[Albany Tom]

Ok, I've had a long day, so indulge me a bit here. My suggestion is this: Arrive for your checkride with a bag of three cheeseburgers. Explain to the DPE that the W&B is a little bit off, but if the two of you eat the cheeseburgers, you'll be all set.

 

[Clip4]

So do we pick “functionally negligible” or “legal”?

Just make sure when we check the oil and find a 6 quart oil level in an 8 qt sump we add 2 quarts. Most likely the aircraft basic empty weight and moment is based on full oil and we have no data to account for the new moment. I wouldn’t want anyone to be illegal knowing 3.75# is missing from the legal basic empty weight thus the moment used to calculate WB is inaccurate. You might want to make sure the hydraulic systems are full too.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just make sure when we check the oil and find a 6 quart oil level in an 8 qt sump we add 2 quarts. Most likely the aircraft basic empty weight and moment is based on full oil and we have no data to account for the new moment. I wouldn’t want anyone to be illegal knowing 3.75# is missing from the legal basic empty weight thus the moment used to calculate WB is inaccurate. You might want to make sure the hydraulic systems are full too.

So you’re going with “legal is too much work”.

 

[Clip4]

So you’re going with “legal is too much work”.

Where we differ is your belief the PIC has to do an investigation when a radio has been removed to determine the AP did his job. The PIC doesn’t; Nor should he need too.

1. There is no specific requirement for a pilot operating under 14 CFR part 91 to conduct weight and balance calculations prior to each flight.

2. The PIC is only required to determine a WB and other documents are on board the aircraft.

3. The PIC is required to determine the status of required inspections under 91. That doesn’t require the PIC to examine the logbooks before every flight.

4. 91.9 requires the pilot in command (PIC) to comply with the operating limits in the approved AFM. Which is easily completed with a 5# radio removed and placarded as required by the regs.

5. 43.5 does require the person returning the aircraft to service to complete the maint. log and enter any required data in the AFM.

So if there is anyone not legal, it’s the person in #5, but his inaction does not put the pilot in violation.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Where we differ is your belief the PIC has to do an investigation when a radio has been removed to determine the AP did his job. The PIC doesn’t; Nor should he need too.

1. There is no specific requirement for a pilot operating under 14 CFR part 91 to conduct weight and balance calculations prior to each flight.

2. The PIC is only required to determine a WB and other documents are on board the aircraft.

3. The PIC is required to determine the status of required inspections under 91. That doesn’t require the PIC to examine the logbooks before every flight.

4. 91.9 requires the pilot in command (PIC) to comply with the operating limits in the approved AFM. Which is easily completed with a 5# radio removed and placarded as required by the regs.

5. 43.5 does require the person returning the aircraft to service to complete the maint. log and enter any required data in the AFM.

So if there is anyone not being legal, it’s the person in #5.

No, where we differ is your belief that the PIC shouldn’t know or care if the airplane is legal to fly.

 

[Clip4]

No, where we differ is your belief that the PIC shouldn’t know or care if the airplane is legal to fly.

The airplane in the given scenario is legal for the PIC to fly because he fully met his requirements under the regulations. Your issue is crap mechanics that you believe you have to ride herd over. That one you can change.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The airplane in the given scenario is legal for the PIC to fly because he fully met his requirements under the regulations. Your issue is crap mechanics that you believe you have to ride herd over. That one you can change.

I agree that the pilot shouldn’t need to ride herd over the mechanic’s paperwork, but I’ve seen enough mechanics scrambled and ferry permits to get the airplane home from free checkrides with the FAA that didn’t happen to believe that it’s legal to fly an airplane with a known paperwork discrepancy.

 

[Clip4]

I agree that the pilot shouldn’t need to ride herd over the mechanic’s paperwork, but I’ve seen enough mechanics scrambled and ferry permits to get the airplane home from free checkrides with the FAA that didn’t happen to believe that it’s legal to fly an airplane with a known paperwork discrepancy.

LOL. I have only heard of one free FAA ride in the last 10 years. I asked the person if the were related the FAA Administrator.

 

[Bell206]

The airplane in the given scenario is legal for the PIC to fly because he fully met his requirements under the regulations.

You seem to forget the pilot has the legal responsibility and is final authority for the condition of the aircraft prior to flight per 91.3 and 91.7. So if the pilot encounters a wing dent, engine oil leak, or even a missing radio with a suspect mx entry, it is his responsibility to ensure the aircraft is airworthy prior to that flight. Appears the OP did exactly what he was required to do per the regulations. And when the answer he was given didn’t seem right to him, he checked into it further. Kudos on him. You’re not by chance the OP’s CFI?

 

[Rgbeard]

Is there a junk 155 sitting around somewhere to toss in the hole? Don’t forget the INOP placard as appropriate.

 

[Witmo]

Where we differ is your belief the PIC has to do an investigation when a radio has been removed to determine the AP did his job. The PIC doesn’t; Nor should he need too.

1. There is no specific requirement for a pilot operating under 14 CFR part 91 to conduct weight and balance calculations prior to each flight.

2. The PIC is only required to determine a WB and other documents are on board the aircraft.

3. The PIC is required to determine the status of required inspections under 91. That doesn’t require the PIC to examine the logbooks before every flight.

4. 91.9 requires the pilot in command (PIC) to comply with the operating limits in the approved AFM. Which is easily completed with a 5# radio removed and placarded as required by the regs.

5. 43.5 does require the person returning the aircraft to service to complete the maint. log and enter any required data in the AFM.

So if there is anyone not legal, it’s the person in #5, but his inaction does not put the pilot in violation.

Wow. Now I understand why all those accident reports where the PIC filled all the seats with pax, loaded on their baggage, took on full gas, and crashed on takeoff, were perfectly legal because the PIC has no specific requirement under Part 91 to conduct a weight and balance. Exaggeration? Not really because there's plenty of accident reports like that. Let's say a different airplane was easily below max gross weight but the clay pots from Pottery Barn in the baggage compartment moved the CG too far aft and the PIC stalled on takeoff. No legal problem since all he has to do is ensure the WB & documents are aboard. Maybe we need another placard pasted in front of the pilot "Operating this aircraft outside the approved W&B envelope is PROHIBITED." Really?

 

[Witmo]

Doesn’t sound to me like the A&P signed it off as negligible…sounds to me like the A&P didn’t do any paperwork and said none needed to be done because it was negligible.

Find a different A&P. You can't legally remove a radio installed in a standard category aircraft without making at least a logbook entry to return the aircraft to service after maintenance since removing the radio is maintenance. Whether or not the W&B needs to be changed is up to the A&P to determine. Some radios are less than 1 pound such as our gliders' installed radios. Some radios are heavier, some radios may not have the slide in trays and would have to have the wiring properly shielded from shorting out or fouling the flight control linkages behind the panel without the radio in place.

If the A&P makes the logbook entry saying the W&B change is negligible, liability for that statement falls on the A&P and the PIC or owner is off the hook. I would suspect an A&P unwilling to sign his name to a logbook entry is avoiding legal responsibility. His verbal assurance that no logbook entry is needed keeps the owner/operator on the hook if there's an encounter with the FAA. He can deny he said anything or say he was misunderstood or say nothing at all and then the owner/operator is the fall guy for flying an unairworthy aircraft. Remember, an airworthy aircraft is one that is both safe to fly AND legal to fly because all the i's are dotted and t's crossed in the paperwork.(Yes, I know "conforms to its Type Certificate or has been properly altered,.,.yada yada; but that is documented in the paperwork).

 

[Bell206]

Maybe we need another placard pasted in front of the pilot "Operating this aircraft outside the approved W&B envelope is PROHIBITED." Really?

FYI: I believe 91.103 takes care of the the placard requirement when it come to aircraft performance, aircraft weight, etc. It's also the reason one of the first things they check for after an incident or accident is proper loading W&B/CG and the associated performance requirements.

 

[Joe_B1]

How many of you weigh yourself and recalculate your W&B before each flight? I can only speak for myself but my weight varies from day to day by a few pounds. These planes have margin and 5 pounds either way won't make a rats ass worth of difference.

 

[PPC1052]

LOL. I have only heard of one free FAA ride in the last 10 years. I asked the person if the were related the FAA Administrator.

My private check ride was right around 10 years ago. But it was with an FAA inspector.

 

[PPC1052]

Wow. Now I understand why all those accident reports where the PIC filled all the seats with pax, loaded on their baggage, took on full gas, and crashed on takeoff, were perfectly legal because the PIC has no specific requirement under Part 91 to conduct a weight and balance. Exaggeration? Not really because there's plenty of accident reports like that. Let's say a different airplane was easily below max gross weight but the clay pots from Pottery Barn in the baggage compartment moved the CG too far aft and the PIC stalled on takeoff. No legal problem since all he has to do is ensure the WB & documents are aboard. Maybe we need another placard pasted in front of the pilot "Operating this aircraft outside the approved W&B envelope is PROHIBITED." Really?

There was no need to do a weight and balance check because the clay pots were only temporary.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There was no need to do a weight and balance check because the clay pots were only temporary.

Does the same apply to regular pot?

 

[Witmo]

There was no need to do a weight and balance check because the clay pots were only temporary.

You need to paste a sarcasm emoji after your statement or some people will think you're serious.

 

[Witmo]

How many of you weigh yourself and recalculate your W&B before each flight? I can only speak for myself but my weight varies from day to day by a few pounds. These planes have margin and 5 pounds either way won't make a rats ass worth of difference.

No one is saying you have to get on a scale or even formally write down a weight and balance calculation provided you, as PIC, at least mentally consider weight and balance. If, however, your loading on a particular flight, exceeds the envelope, and you have occasion to deal with the FAA, I doubt a "mental calculation" will suffice to convince them you paid due consideration for the weight and balance for your flight. If, God forbid, an accident occurs and damage and or death to the public results, you or your heirs will need to have a good explanation why civil liability due to negligent operation of an aircraft outside its published weight and or balance envelope shouldn't be a factor in awarding damages.

 

[Witmo]

As an owner I worked out some preplanned weight and balance calculations and printed them out to keep in the airplane. I would look at the closest one and be able to see how the actual loading that flight would change to and see if it remained in the envelope. If it was borderline, I'd pull out the calculator and do a for real calculation to ensure I was legal. YMMV

 

[PPC1052]

You need to paste a sarcasm emoji after your statement or some people will think you're serious.

Maybe. But only the really dumb ones.

 

[flyingron]

So if there is anyone not legal, it’s the person in #5, but his inaction does not put the pilot in violation.

Sorry, there is this:

§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

This goes way beyond just knowing the inspection is up to date. Especially in the case when the PIC *KNOWS* there is an airworthiness issue, it's going to be 100% on him if he flies the plane.

In the scenario presented:

1. The PIC knows equipment was removed from the aircraft.
2. The PIC knows that the W&B was not updated.
3. The PIC (after reading this thread) knows that the paperwork MUST be updated.

This is no longer something that can be explained off for beyond what would normally be due diligence of the renter-PIC.

 

[bflynn]

1. The PIC knows equipment was removed from the aircraft.

But, does the PIC absolutely KNOW that the equipment removed was substantial? He's gotten two opinions, one from SGOTI and one from the mechanic. Which should he give more weight to?

You surely aren't suggesting that we listen to Some Guy On The Internet over what our mechanic tells us, right? That's the logic that leads to taking horse dewormer.

 

[bflynn]

You seem to forget the pilot has the legal responsibility and is final authority for the condition of the aircraft prior to flight per 91.3 and 91.7. So if the pilot encounters a wing dent, engine oil leak, or even a missing radio with a suspect mx entry, it is his responsibility to ensure the aircraft is airworthy prior to that flight.

By the logic in this thread, if there's a dent somewhere, an oil leak, or a missing radio, the aircraft no longer conforms to the type certificate, so the pilot should not fly. I'm amazed some of you guys ever go fly.

The pilot is not responsible for maintenance. The pilot is not responsible for the upkeep of the records, or the accuracy of the W&B, the operator is in charge of those things. The pilot needs to look at something and decide if it's airworthy. I really hope none of you really believe that an airplane becomes grounded because a radio is taken out of it?

 

[Joe_B1]

No one is saying you have to get on a scale or even formally write down a weight and balance calculation provided you, as PIC, at least mentally consider weight and balance. If, however, your loading on a particular flight, exceeds the envelope, and you have occasion to deal with the FAA, I doubt a "mental calculation" will suffice to convince them you paid due consideration for the weight and balance for your flight. If, God forbid, an accident occurs and damage and or death to the public results, you or your heirs will need to have a good explanation why civil liability due to negligent operation of an aircraft outside its published weight and or balance envelope shouldn't be a factor in awarding damages.

I use Garmin pilot for my weight and balance calcs. I have plugged in the actual W&B for my plane and run the calls every time I change the loading but I never really come close to the envelope so 5 pounds either way isn't a concern.

 

[Bell206]

The pilot is not responsible for maintenance. The pilot is not responsible for the upkeep of the records, or the accuracy of the W&B, the operator is in charge of those things.

If the pilot is not the operator, then who is per the FARs? Hint, you may want to read up on the Part 1 definition of operate..... But FWIW the owner is responsible for things you list.

I really hope none of you really believe that an airplane becomes grounded because a radio is taken out of it?

If it is not removed properly the aircraft is unairworthy on several levels. Hence the reason the OP questioned it. I'm surprised you believe what you wrote.