W&B before " EVERY " flighht?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well on one flight I had a crew of four and six passengers, yet T.C. issued the ferry permit.


If flying over gross is so dangerous where do they draw the line?

[Colonel]

Crunch:  as a 100 hr PPL that flies a handful of
hours every year in a C150 that you don't even
own, I understand you think that qualifies you
to lecture pilots with 100, 200 or 300 times your
experience.

You have no idea how silly that makes you
look.

But I am sure you are familiar with FAR 91.323:

[url=http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?no ... .2.91_1323]http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?no ... .2.91_1323[/url]

[size=13px][font=arial]§91.323  Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated in the State of Alaska by—
(1) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter; or
(2) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire suppression activities concerning public lands.
(b) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not exceed—
(1) 12,500 pounds;
[b][u](2) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;[/u][/b]
(3) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load factor requirement for the normal category specified in §23.337 of this chapter; or
(4) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance requirements under which it was type certificated.
(c) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.
(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.[/font][/size]

[Colonel]

I am sure Crunch will refer you to the
FAR under which the FAA will issue
ferry permits 30% over max gross.

I remember my friend at Basler telling
me about an occasion when they legally
operated [font=verdana]the turbine DC-3 (BT-67) many [/font]
[font=verdana]thousands [/font]of pounds over max gross with
no problems.

I keep mentioning this, and no one gives
a shit:

Learn about the physics first, and the
paper second.  The aircraft always obeys
the laws of physics, and really doesn't
give a shit about the paper of whatever
country it's in at the moment.

[Liquid Charlie]

Now it's all about the paper. You need paper to make the aeroplane fly -- come on guys we all know that. That is a law, it creates lift.


Seriously - twin otters have been ferried for years at 18000 lbs and even did pole trips with passengers leaving YRB or punta arenas at that weight -


The DC3T with aux tanks and dump system is now upped to 30000 lbs from 28750 with the ability to use 110% torque (engines are de-rated)


Wt/bal on the turbine 3 is a wiz wheel and a calculator but loading is common sense.


Under 705 we needed the paper, now load control does it but not to long ago either the F/O or the load master did it. It just was an exercise since the aircraft was already loaded. On the herc we used the nose wheel oleo for our balance and the load master saying tab nose heavy or tad tail heavy and he would complete the w/b while we did our job.


In the real world load security is the killer not so much w/b paper work. W/B is the killer when the load shifts as demonstrated in that dash cam vid of a cpl years ago. Like most issues in this industry the focus is on the wrong thing.

[Colonel]

Now it's all about the paper ...
Like most issues in this industry the focus is on the wrong thing.

Funny how all the experienced pilots
have the same opinion.  According to
"the experts" W+B must have brought
down:

[size=14px]Germanwings Flight 9525 (pilot suicide)[/size]
[size=14px]Metrojet A321 (russian airliner bomb)[/size]
[size=14px]AC624 (AC cyhz no gs)[/size]
[size=14px]Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (russian shoot-down)[/size]
[size=14px]Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (missing)[/size]

[size=14px]etc[/size]

[CpnCrunch]

Well on one flight I had a crew of four and six passengers, yet T.C. issued the ferry permit.


If flying over gross is so dangerous where do they draw the line?

Perhaps you need to read my original post again. I was referring to flying over gross and fudging to W+B to make it appear that you are under gross. And I don't think your passengers were members of the public who paid you a fare to transport them.

[CpnCrunch]

Crunch:  as a 100 hr PPL that flies a handful of
hours every year in a C150 that you don't even
own, I understand you think that qualifies you
to lecture pilots with 100, 200 or 300 times your
experience.

Well it seems you don't really know a lot about me. But anyway, that's very classy of you (as usual).

[size=13px]§91.323  Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.[/size]

I wasn't talking about Alaska, or ferry permits. We were talking about deliberately fudging the numbers on a W+B on fare-paying passenger flights, and then not being able to maintain altitude after an engine failure. Are you condoning that practice, or is it just a strawman? Or do you just have difficulty with reading comprehension?

[size=1.45em]You have no idea how silly that makes you[/size]

[size=1.35em]
Interesting.[/size]

[Liquid Charlie]

[quote][font=Verdana][size=5px]Perhaps you need to read my original post again. I was referring to flying over gross and fudging to W+B to make it appear that you are under gross. And I don't think your passengers were members of the public who paid you a fare to transport them.[/size][/font][/quote]


Well strangely enough w/b right now is still a paperwork exercise. By fudging what do you mean - hiding fuel, aeroplane going faster than actual, leaving passengers off the manifest, throwing in a cpl of kids to replace adult males. Just how does one fudge numbers in a believable way. Fuel is about the only variable. Having said all this we are counting on that the aircraft was weighed properly in the first place. I have witnessed on several occasions aircraft change empty weight dramatically from one weighing to another. Until such time there are drive over scales w/b calculations are just a piece of paper with calculations we think are correct. 

[CpnCrunch]

[quote author=Liquid Charlie link=topic=1270.msg4822#msg4822 date=1449508798]

By fudging what do you mean - hiding fuel, aeroplane going faster than actual, leaving passengers off the manifest, throwing in a cpl of kids to replace adult males. Just how does one fudge numbers in a believable way.
[/quote]


I think Buffalo senior management might be able to answer those questions for you:

[font=Verdana][size=2px]"the practice of adjusting weight and balance calculations to maintain them within limits after departure was well known and accepted by senior management" (from the TSB report).[/size][/font]

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This forum is a good place to talk aviation however we seem to be degenerating into arguing with people who really don't seem to have a clue about what flying is really about.


So lets just end this conversation before it really degenerates.