Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Over Grossweight

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
ManChild said:
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


Far from the norm.

Many places would have your a$$ for operating the aircraft outside its published limitations.

always love that "they build in a cushion" crowd. Total ametuers.
 
This happened just recently to a pilot I know. Two individuals watched him load his King Air , after he was done loading, they walked up to him, indentified themselves as inspectors and told him they believed he was over gross. They proceeded to borrow scales from the local maintenance facility and take everything out and weigh it. 9 pounds under gross!! It was a 135 flight but the inspectors had no idea of that until after the inspection was started. I guess I am saying it can happen anytime, anywhere. Its a bad idea to do it once, much less time and time again. And like the gentleman before me said, if your willing to start overlooking this, what are you gonna be willing to overlook in the future?
 
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.

CitationXDriver said:
This happened just recently to a pilot I know. Two individuals watched him load his King Air , after he was done loading, they walked up to him, indentified themselves as inspectors and told him they believed he was over gross. They proceeded to borrow scales from the local maintenance facility and take everything out and weigh it. 9 pounds under gross!! It was a 135 flight but the inspectors had no idea of that until after the inspection was started. I guess I am saying it can happen anytime, anywhere. Its a bad idea to do it once, much less time and time again. And like the gentleman before me said, if your willing to start overlooking this, what are you gonna be willing to overlook in the future?
 
We have a phrase at our company that can be used by captain, copilot, and flight attendant alike. "I'm not comfortable with this." That throws the red flags. Drop the anchor, all stop on the engines.

I've always maintained the same policy. The most conservative opinion on the flight wins. That doesn't matter if it's my opinion, that of my first officer, or a passenger for that matter. If I'm not comfortable, we're not going. We're going to change something, stay, delay, go elsewhere, whatever. Same if the F/O isn't comfortable. It's his life and certificate on the line, too. Perhaps he sees or knows something I don't. If a passenger doesn't like something, that's also a red flag. It either needs an explaination, needs to be changed, or something needs to be done to ensure the passenger is satisified, or it's not going to go. The most conservative opinion wins.

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.

Negativo. First of all, the Administrator does have the option to conduct a ramp check, and second of all, failure to demonstrate an attitude of compliance will land you in hot water faster than anything.

If the Adminstrator believes a safety of flight issue is involved, the Administrator has EVERY right to delay a flight.
 
A call to the ops unit supervisor telling him that his guy delayed my flight for no reason (because remember, in the story above the guy was BELOW gross weight) will not help out that inspector's career. A written request for an explanation from the FSDO manager, ops unit supervisor, and the inspector would be even better.

I agree about safety of flight issues. However, the administrator does not have the option of requesting my load manifest or other weight and balance data on a 91 ramp check if there is not an obvious safety of flight issue.

Read Chapter 56 ("Conduct A FAR Part 91 Ramp Check") of the GA Inspector's Handbook (8700.1). It specifically states that "If the surveillance will delay a flight, the inspector should use prudent judgement whether or not to continue." It goes on to say that "The inspector should also bear in mind that he or she may not be able to complete all items on every ramp inspection. "

Chapter 56 also says nothing about weight and balance, beyond verifying that the appropriate weight and balance documents in the AFM are on board.

Always be polite and helpful where possible-- after all, they are just doing their job-- but know what they can and cannot ask you to do, and don't let them push you around.

avbug said:
Negativo. First of all, the Administrator does have the option to conduct a ramp check, and second of all, failure to demonstrate an attitude of compliance will land you in hot water faster than anything.

If the Adminstrator believes a safety of flight issue is involved, the Administrator has EVERY right to delay a flight.
 
Last edited:
"Always be polite and helpful where possible-- after all, they are just doing their job-- but know what they can and cannot ask you to do, and don't let them push you around."

This is a big difference between how you said it the first time. I think go pound sand comes to mind. Now who do you think would end up in hot water in the first scenario.
 
avbug said:
I've always maintained the same policy. The most conservative opinion on the flight wins. That doesn't matter if it's my opinion, that of my first officer, or a passenger for that matter.

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
 
I'll bet you wouldnt be so worried about a couple hundred pounds if you were trying to jumpseat home.
 
You are correct, I definitely overdid it in the first post.

DAL737FO said:
"Always be polite and helpful where possible-- after all, they are just doing their job-- but know what they can and cannot ask you to do, and don't let them push you around."

This is a big difference between how you said it the first time. I think go pound sand comes to mind. Now who do you think would end up in hot water in the first scenario.
 
B-200 type rating only applies to a few special mission military aircraft with specific limitations. Good luck to whomever decides to operate a B-200 Normal Catagory.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top