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

Would you takeoff 25 lbs over gross?

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
Well said BigD

bigD said:
The plane will fly just fine 25 over gross. But that's not the point. You'll do 25 and get away with it, and next time you'll be faced with the same question, only it's 50 pounds. Where are you going to draw the line?
bigD hit the nail square on the head. The airplane will fly just fine 25 pounds over. It will even fly just fine 250 pounds over. It gets better - if it's not a Part 135 airplane, it probably hasn't been weighed recently. Since airplanes have a tendency to gain weight with age, I would be very surprised if your W&B figures in the flight manual are correct. But as bigD said, that's not the point.


One of the big lessons that all pilots need to learn if they want to grow old is what is safe isn't always legal and what is legal isn't always safe. A pilot has to simultaneously operate within 3 specific spheres to maintain an acceptable level of safety:

1. The pilot’s individual limitations. A freshly soloed student pilot will have different personal limitations than a 500-hour private pilot, who will have different personal limitations than a 20,000-hour airline captain.

2. The aircraft’s limitations. There will always be aircraft that are more suited for a particular mission than another. A Super Cub might be just the ticket for flying off of a sand bar in Alaska, but you wouldn’t want to try shooting an ILS to minimums in icing conditions in one. A Lear is one fine airplane, but it isn’t the machine you want to be operating if your runway is only 3,000’ long. All aircraft have limitations whether they are a Super Cub or a B747. A Cessna 172 is probably one of the finest general aviation aircraft ever built and it has one of the best safety records. Can it be misused? Of course – fill it with fuel, put four people in it, and try taking off from an airport in Colorado during the middle of summer. You’ll probably make the headlines in the local papers.

3. The legal limitations imposed by the FARs.

Flight safety is, in large part, a mind set that allows you to keep within those three spheres. Where pilots get into trouble is when they attempt to operate outside of the area where all three of those spheres intersect. The accident record is full of reports where highly experienced airline or corporate pilots “bought the farm” trying to operate in conditions that the aircraft wasn’t suitably equipped to handle. (For example, trying to shoot an ILS to minimums in icing conditions in a Super Cub.) The same thing goes for “VFR only" private pilots continuing into IFR conditions in suitably equipped aircraft. The same would be true of an experienced pilot trying to operate a light twin under conditions that would leave him/her “hanging” if an engine quit.

You’ve heard the old saying…

“There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.”

You can ignore the dangers, and place your trust in the laws of probability. (After all, they say that nowadays, an engine failure is a “once in a career” occurrence – yeah, right!) But remember, if you choose this path, the danger doesn’t go away, it merely lies in wait.

Hey, we’ve all been there. In the exuberance of youth and with the desire and drive to build up our flying credentials many of us are willing to do just about anything to get our hands on an airplane. There was a time when I wouldn't have given much thought to operating properly equipped and maintained single-engine or multiengine light airplane almost anywhere, anytime day or night. That however, was a long time ago. I now have a much better understanding of just what can go wrong and realize that there are just some operations that are better off not being attempted.

As long as I’m quoting interesting old aviation sayings, here’s another one that I think pertains to the situation…

“A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgment to avoid situations requiring the use of his superior skills.”


Oh well, I'll climb off of my soap box.

'Sled
 
I used to say what if you have a blow out and the airplane goes in the ditch. At that point one of my pilots said, drain the fuel, light a cigarette, throw it, and run.
 
TurboS7 said:
I used to say what if you have a blow out and the airplane goes in the ditch. At that point one of my pilots said, drain the fuel, light a cigarette, throw it, and run.
TurboS7...
That technique works best if you also throw the aircraft logs and records into the fire. :p

'Sled
 
Problem has been resolved. Called the FBO and they told me that two pilots before me have booked the plane and it will be down about 2 hrs from full fuel. I will therefore be 75 lbs UNDER gross at takeoff and not only legal but safe. Since I didn't violate an regs by simply discussing the matter y'all can stop flaming me now!


As for being criminally charged that would be much more difficult than proving a pilot violated a reg. Except in very extreme cases(IE: flying drunk, threatning the crew or vanzalizing an aircraft amont other extreme actions) I have never heard of that happening in a GA plane without willful intent in the USA. Some colorful comments for sure FAN FAL! Last time I checked there was no FAR that states that it is a violation to discuss violating an FAR. Thank you.
 
minitour said:
...check me if I'm wrong here...

Take 30 pounds out of the wings and put it in the back...the airplane will still be 25 over gross, no? Just because it isn't in the wings, doesn't mean it isn't in the airplane...

Milkdud99 said:
If you take it outa the wing and put it in the back seat.. .now ur 26lbs over weight (including the "can)


:)

:D



:D

:)







.
 
apcooper said:
Problem has been resolved. Called the FBO and they told me that two pilots before me have booked the plane and it will be down about 2 hrs from full fuel. I will therefore be 75 lbs UNDER gross at takeoff and not only legal but safe. Since I didn't violate an regs by simply discussing the matter y'all can stop flaming me now!


As for being criminally charged that would be much more difficult than proving a pilot violated a reg. Except in very extreme cases(IE: flying drunk, threatning the crew or vanzalizing an aircraft amont other extreme actions) I have never heard of that happening in a GA plane without willful intent in the USA. Some colorful comments for sure FAN FAL! Last time I checked there was no FAR that states that it is a violation to discuss violating an FAR. Thank you.


You've been misled... there actually aren't any FAR's anymore ;)
 
apcooper said:
Problem has been resolved. Called the FBO and they told me that two pilots before me have booked the plane and it will be down about 2 hrs from full fuel. I will therefore be 75 lbs UNDER gross at takeoff and not only legal but safe.
Awsome, that wasn't that hard now, was it? Just make sure you dipstick the plane before you go and fly your plan.

apcooper said:
As for being criminally charged, that would be much more difficult than proving a pilot violated a reg. Except in very extreme cases(IE: flying drunk, threatning the crew or vanzalizing an aircraft amont other extreme actions) I have never heard of that happening in a GA plane without willful intent in the USA.
It doesn't have to be extreme cases, all you need is property damage, injury or death.

As far as the compairson of being convicted by an administrative law judge for a FAR violation v. being convicted in a criminal court? Hahaha...you can be tried by both...there is no federal preemption and in fact, the conviction in the administrative law court can be used as evidence in the criminal case.

Standards of Liability

Civil Liability

Simple negligence is the least culpable level of legal liability. It is usually defined as the failure to exercise "ordinary care in the circumstances." Liability does not attach to such misconduct unless the negligence is a cause of injury or damages. In the aviation industry, the violation of regulations such as the FARs, and failure to comply with good operating practices or procedures, may constitute a breach of the duty to exercise ordinary care. In this regard, airline and Part 135 charter operators are held to the "highest duty of care" because they act as common carriers when holding themselves out to the public — they carry anyone for hire. Private operators on the other hand are generally held to the standard of "ordinary care."

Federal Aviation Administration enforcement actions involve a different type of civil liability. The FAA is empowered by the Federal Aviation Act to issue certificates and licenses to regulate the industry. As a result, the FAA can bring enforcement actions and revoke or suspend the certificates or issue civil penalties when there have been violations of their rules. These proceedings are administrative law proceedings and are not criminal in nature. Indeed the FAA itself cannot bring criminal charges against aviation professionals; the FAA must refer such charges to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution.

Criminal Liability

Criminal liability is established by federal criminal statute and various state criminal laws. It is important to understand that every state has its own criminal laws, and these laws vary significantly from state to state. Further, the states are not preempted from enacting laws to impose criminal sanctions on aviation personnel who engage in reckless conduct leading to injury, death or property damage.
 
apcooper said:
Problem has been resolved. Called the FBO and they told me that two pilots before me have booked the plane and it will be down about 2 hrs from full fuel. I will therefore be 75 lbs UNDER gross at takeoff and not only legal but safe. Since I didn't violate an regs by simply discussing the matter y'all can stop flaming me now!
Hey, they're just having a little fun. Actually, I respect you for asking the question. It's shows integrity on your part. Pilots run into this all of the time - to one degree or another. Is it OK for a mid-sized bizjet to takeoff 300 pounds overweight? or an airliner to take off 3,000 overweight? (The percentages are the same.) A couple of years ago I quit a corporate job that I held for 15 years because I consistantly refused to fly airplanes that were being operated "slightly" overweight or "slightly" out of the c.g. envelope. The chief pilot's rationalization...

"They build enough safety margin into the charts so that we can safely ignore them."

No you can't.

'Sled
 
TrafficInSight said:
You've been misled... there actually aren't any FAR's anymore ;)


This might be unrelated... but can i call "you" as soon as i see you or would that be wrong??
LOL
(not telephone call)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top