Over Grossweight

[avbug]

I'm not comfortable flying at night, if we're flying together, is that OK with you?


A cute joke, but anything can be taken to an extreme. I have had first officers that felt uncomfortable with an operation and just needed to be educated.

Ace

While you posted tongue in cheek, yes, I would not fly with a pilot at night if he or she isn't comfortable. That's not as far fetched as it sounds. I've had First Officers assigned to me who were deficient enough in experience or skills that they were afraid of flying instruments, night cross country, and even talking on the radio. I found that rather unbelievable, but I've had it happen.

One of those individuals was very rough. It was more like a single pilot cockpit, but worse, because I ended up baby-sitting as much as anything. I began to get the impression that this was a very, very low time pilot who had probably falsified his experience and then bluffed his way into the position. One day he and I were talking, and approached by someone who wanted to know about learning to fly. During the course of the conversation, that individual asked us both about our experience and backgrounds.

I just about shot cocacola out my nose when the F/O told our visitor that he had six thousand hours.

That was fairly extreme, but yes, if another crewmember or passenger doesn't feel comfortable doing something, then we're not going to do it. I got employed as in a King Air 200 doing ambulance work. We often ended up at a metro airport, away from our rural base, and had to reposition at night. Some of the other pilots would hedgehop their way back at night, scud running as necessary. I evaluated the terrain, listened to all the advice, and decided that if I didn't feel comfortable and the weather wasn't at my comfort level, we would sit tight.

We spent the night a number of times in the FBO, waiting for low weather to lift so we could return home...where the field was surrounded by mountains on all sides and had no radar coverage and no approaches. I'd be happy to rent a car and drive the medical crew home if they liked, but the most conservative opinion always won...in this case it was me as PIC. On other occasions, I felt a trip was do-able, but the medical crew didn't like the turbulence, or some other factor. One hundred percent acceptable...the most conservative opinion wins.

Yours, too.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

While you posted tongue in cheek, yes, I would not fly with a pilot at night if he or she isn't comfortable. That's not as far fetched as it sounds. I've had First Officers assigned to me who were deficient enough in experience or skills that they were afraid of flying instruments, night cross country, and even talking on the radio. I found that rather unbelievable, but I've had it happen.

One of those individuals was very rough. It was more like a single pilot cockpit, but worse, because I ended up baby-sitting as much as anything. I began to get the impression that this was a very, very low time pilot who had probably falsified his experience and then bluffed his way into the position. One day he and I were talking, and approached by someone who wanted to know about learning to fly. During the course of the conversation, that individual asked us both about our experience and backgrounds.

I just about shot cocacola out my nose when the F/O told our visitor that he had six thousand hours.

That was fairly extreme, but yes, if another crewmember or passenger doesn't feel comfortable doing something, then we're not going to do it. I got employed as in a King Air 200 doing ambulance work. We often ended up at a metro airport, away from our rural base, and had to reposition at night. Some of the other pilots would hedgehop their way back at night, scud running as necessary. I evaluated the terrain, listened to all the advice, and decided that if I didn't feel comfortable and the weather wasn't at my comfort level, we would sit tight.

We spent the night a number of times in the FBO, waiting for low weather to lift so we could return home...where the field was surrounded by mountains on all sides and had no radar coverage and no approaches. I'd be happy to rent a car and drive the medical crew home if they liked, but the most conservative opinion always won...in this case it was me as PIC. On other occasions, I felt a trip was do-able, but the medical crew didn't like the turbulence, or some other factor. One hundred percent acceptable...the most conservative opinion wins.

Yours, too.

I hear you, Bug, but your post makes it sound like there is no such thing as being too conservative. Is that a fair assessment? If so, you and I dont' agree.

Ace

 

[Dizel8]

IIRC, the FAA is not allowed to delay a flight, however, they can request you set up a meeting with them at an appropiate time.

IIRC, the FAA tried to violate a pilot, because the Fed felt that said pilot was not setting up a meeting in a timely manner, the Fed lost said argument in court. I think it was in the NTSB reporter, but not sure.

Having said that, it is not adviseable to operate an aircraft outside the manufacturers limit. Yes, the are a certain fudge factor built in, average pilot skills, reaction times etc, etc., however, the question always becomes, how far out of limits is too far? Since we do not know, the better choice is to stay inside those limits prescribed by the airplane manufacturer.

 

[501261]

I'm not advocating operating over gross at all (see my earlier post), but the key to this situation is that they were 135. If your friend was 91, he could have told them to pound sand.

Truthfully, your friend could (and should) have told them to buzz off anyway-- FAA inspectors are not permitted to delay a departure in order to conduct a ramp check.

As mentioned before, the Inspector certainly can delay the flight if there is a safety of flight issue. Kindly and professionally stating "Sir, we're scheduled to depart, is there anything else you need?" is obviously a much better idea than to slam the door in an inspector's face, as you can almost be assured someone will "help " you when you land.

Also under 91 you don't have to do a weight and balance for every flight as you do under 135/121. HOWEVER, as I learned from first hand experience, the last thing you'll ever want to do is a W&B under the "helpful" eye of an inspector*. It's much simpler to just print out a copy of the Ultranav, and when you get asked "Are you guy's within W&B?" You simply state "Yes sir, according to this we're within limits, anything else you need or can we grab lunch?"

*This happened a back in 96' ferrying an air ambulance Lear 35 to it's new owners. At a fuel stop we're ramped, and the W&B came up, well I "knew" we were legal because I'd flown this plane over a couple hundred hours on 135 flights always doing a manifest. Sure enough, he asks if we can do a W&B, so I comply and sure enough the AFM doesn't have any revised data for the stretcher in it! After a couple of hours and faxes we were on our merry way, but after that I realized how much easier it would have been to just spend 10 seconds of my time and do a W&B.

 

[ManChild]

Thanks for the input. In answer to Avbugs question, the airplane has no useful load. People or fuel but not both (legally). I guess I'm glad to see that this seems to be a company problem versus an industry problem. It’s nice to know that there are some quality flight departments out there. I've made it clear recently within the company my views on the matter. If it keeps being an issue I guess I'll be sending out some resumes.

 

[CL60]

Performance

We operate an airplane that is very weight critical. Frequently to keep from making a stop, gross weight is exceeded by a couple hundred pounds, sometimes more. Flying as a copilot I don’t have much choice other than refusing to get on the plane. I’ve tried arguing both the safety and legal aspects. No one seems to think there would be a problem on one engine over gross. Even if the plane could do it, I’ve tried to say that the FAA could easily violate for being over gross if ramp checked. However no one believes that the FAA would ever be able to figure that out. So I guess my question is this an operating norm in the industry, and has anyone ever heard of an instance of being violated for being over gross? Thanks

I assume you are talking about tacit approval from your immediate superior/s to operate over maximum ramp/takeoff weight.

To answer your questions: No, this is not an operating norm, (for professionals anyway), and no, I've never seen anyone violated for this. I suspect that one of the few ways to get violated on this infraction is to survive the post crash fire after you hit an obstacle on a departure. They are playing Russian roulette. Accidents are common enough in our business... by the way, what is the purpose of mitigating safety?

If "no one seems to think there would be a problem," as you put it, then ask them to back up their assertion with approved data. Ask them to show you the manufacturers documentation that says you can operate outside the aircraft's approved envelope without being a test pilot. How about insisting that they support their tacit authority with written approval to operate in such a manner? Obviously they would never do that and would have to passively acquiesce or at least address your concerns.

If your family were prospective passengers, would you want them to be aboard an aircraft operated outside the manufacturers limitations?

Good luck,

 

[HMR]

In answer to Avbugs question, the airplane has no useful load. People or fuel but not both (legally).

Sounds like an early serial# G200.

 

[G100driver]

I was thinking 601-3R or ER.

G200 is a good guess as well. I wonder if Manchild lives in S. Oregon?

 

[501261]

I wonder if Manchild lives in S. Oregon?

That company you're thinking of built my vacation condo .

 

[HMR]

G200 is a good guess as well. I wonder if Manchild lives in S. Oregon?

No comment.

 

[HMR]

That company you're thinking of built my vacation condo .

That's OK. You can still operate your condo within the CG envelope. Just keep the chief pilot out of it.