Saying No

[PunkStarStudios]

Hope for a MEL failure.

[HavaJava]

hmm...

Been there done that.

If you do walk expect to have your name trashed .. ROYALLY. The aviation rumor mill will twist the story around 180 degrees... and you will come out looking like the bad apple.

Expect ZERO backing from your peers, other CP's etc. The first question when you phone up a new company will be " why did you leave X,Y,Z" They will not like your answer...

I am not condoning the way it is... just telling you the sad truth.

I have seen this happen before at a company a close friend of mine works at. Depending on the company, the rumour mill and the trashing can be worst than others.

Pilots are their own worst enemies! There is a ton of infighting and rumours between pilots even at unionized companies...the backstabbing and rumour mills at non-unionized shops can become unbearable. Pilots will step all over your back (while management is kicking the shit out of you) just to grab the next rung on the ladder. It sucks and I hope that the College of Pilots might help some of the people who are trying to do the right thing.

[GoinNowhereFast]

I don't work for the company as of now, I did in the past and that's why I know of their practices. They want to hire me back and I wanted to know if I could make it work and fly for them, or of I should avoid them like the plague. The answer has become pretty clear.
Thanks All.

[Cat Driver]

hmm...

Been there done that.

If you do walk expect to have your name trashed .. ROYALLY. The aviation rumor mill will twist the story around 180 degrees... and you will come out looking like the bad apple.

That is usually what happens.

There is a way to fix this age old problem and it is very simple.

Form an association or associations of pilots who will examine complaints of intimidation to fly illegally and document such practices, then if or when a pilot is terminated for refusing to fly illegally the association can show proof that the pilot was following the rules and would be an excellent choice for another company to hire.

Expect ZERO backing from your peers, other CP's etc. The first question when you phone up a new company will be " why did you leave X,Y,Z" They will not like your answer...

The very first fix for this appalling situation is for the association to carefully document proof that these chief pilots are unfit to hold the position of chief pilot and if TC will not act and remove them go to the news media right after you advise the new DGCA and the Minister of Transport of your intentions.

A word of caution, when a pilot complains to the association said pilot must be willing to testify under oath as to the truth of the allegations this will give the association some comfort when working on behalf of any pilot with a genuine complaint.

I am not condoning the way it is... just telling you the sad truth.

It has been this way forever, now all you people need to do is fix the problem.

[Tim]

here's a question to stir the pot a little furthur. there are king air 200's that have authorization to fly at 14000lbs. they have no special mods to get more torque, reduce drag, increase lift, improve low speed handling, etc. why can't ALL 200's take off at 14000lbs than? the legal answer of course is because afm and cars say you cant. but for those that are allowed, what makes it safe for them and not for the rest?

before i get flamed for this, its JUST A QUESTION

[tca]

here's a question to stir the pot a little furthur. there are king air 200's that have authorization to fly at 14000lbs. they have no special mods to get more torque, reduce drag, increase lift, improve low speed handling, etc. why can't ALL 200's take off at 14000lbs than? the legal answer of course is because afm and cars say you cant. but for those that are allowed, what makes it safe for them and not for the rest?

before i get flamed for this, its JUST A QUESTION

All airplanes can take off over gross. There's a safety margin built in, and unless you needed max performance for obstacle clearance, you'll probably make it ok. But at the same time, what's the point in having rules and numbers if every pilot jumps in and considers themselves sufficient of an engineer to decide if a load is acceptable? You as a pilot get paid to fly the airplane by the numbers, if your company want you to go outside of those numbers, well they should be paying you as a test pilot! Same thing goes for approaches... you are paid to go to the numbers. If you're at MDA and there's nothing but cloud -- go home! (or your alternate/whatever) Is the pop and chips in the back really that important that it can't wait until tomorrow?
Back to the weight question.... Your company sells its airplane to customers for a particular price. Chances are that they've worked out that price so that they break even with a partial load... lets say 75%, but it is more likely to be considerably less. So any load beyond that is pure profit, so just by taking off at gross, you're making your company money! Now lets say you load up to 125%... you're the test pilot now, and you'll be blamed if anything goes wrong, and for what??? So your company can make a few hundred (or thousand) extra dollars? What do you get out of that? My guess -- NOTHING! But, if you make a habit of doing it, you will probably be looking for a new job if you decide to put your foot down and say no more! So the easiest solution is to just say NO from the beginning, and tell your company that if they want to load their BE20 up to 14,000lbs, get the STC and have it in writing! And when your passengers show up with four 80 lb hockey bags each, direct them to the cargo agent and let them know their bags will get there on the next freighter.

[Shiny Side Up]

All airplanes can take off over gross.

It boils down to the fact that should you do something is often more important than can you do something.

[Roar]

I have flown the King Air 200T (14,000lbs gross weight) the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.
So does the extra 1500 lbs make a big difference in performance? Under most circumstances I only noticed a slight decrease in climb performance, it was not until we started doing V1 cuts in Aspen (in a SIM) that it became a major factor. So flying legally at higher than standard weights watch your density altitudes and of course the landing weights did not change so make sure to burn fuel off before landing soon after a heavy take-off.

[Widow]

the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

[tca]

All airplanes can take off over gross.

It boils down to the fact that should you do something is often more important than can you do something.

that was the point I was trying to make in my long winded drivel.

I have flown the King Air 200T (14,000lbs gross weight) the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.
So does the extra 1500 lbs make a big difference in performance? Under most circumstances I only noticed a slight decrease in climb performance, it was not until we started doing V1 cuts in Aspen (in a SIM) that it became a major factor. So flying legally at higher than standard weights watch your density altitudes and of course the landing weights did not change so make sure to burn fuel off before landing soon after a heavy take-off.

As I said, if your company wants you to use these numbers, get the STC and follow the rules associated (no pax?, etc.). I know that it can be done, but unless you have the documentation to prove it, you are outside of the design envelope, and if anything were to go wrong, you can bet that the insurance company would say that they weren't paying a cent, since you were over weight...

[tca]

the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

It's true, and this isn't the only case. It all comes down to liability, and manufacturers are much more willing to accept the liability of two pilots than that of two pilots plus a full load of pax. There are numerous freighter aircraft that are no longer certified for passenger carrying because of their age and number of cycles and/or hours, but still fly daily, because the risk to the crew is deemed "acceptable".

[ScudRunner]

Just add "Heavy" to your call sign.
"ABC 100 Heavy" departing runway 25. Their you go and your covered giver shit man .

[tca]

Just add "Heavy" to your call sign.
"ABC 100 Heavy" departing runway 25. Their you go and your covered giver shit man .

I thought that was just for when you medevac'd the land beasts that required the super reinforced stretcher and 4 people to lift them into the plane!

[Widow]

the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

It's true, and this isn't the only case. It all comes down to liability, and manufacturers are much more willing to accept the liability of two pilots than that of two pilots plus a full load of pax.

Iinsurance does not have to pay out for deaths of workers. It is overrided by Worker's Compensation Acts. Plus, they can't sue (again, WCA's).

[Roar]

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

Absolutely not!! My overriding concern on every flight I make, is to get myself back on the ground safely (If I get back unscathed so do my Pax.) The difference is as the PIC I am aware that there will be less of a safety margin when flying at 14000lbs as opposed to 12500 and I accept that. A passenger would not know this and therefore deserves the full established safety margin.

I want to make it clear that the KA 200T comes from the factory with 14000 lbs MGTOW and therefore was always flown according to the AFM. What it goes to show is how much of a safety margin is built into the standard KA200 that a 200T even 1500lbs heavier can be flown safely.

[tca]

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

Absolutely not!! My overriding concern on every flight I make, is to get myself back on the ground safely (If I get back unscathed so do my Pax.) The difference is as the PIC I am aware that there will be less of a safety margin when flying at 14000lbs as opposed to 12500 and I accept that. A passenger would not know this and therefore deserves the full established safety margin.

I want to make it clear that the KA 200T comes from the factory with 14000 lbs MGTOW and therefore was always flown according to the AFM. What it goes to show is how much of a safety margin is built into the standard KA200 that a 200T even 1500lbs heavier can be flown safely.

I wasn't saying that you flew outside the AFM, but rather those with 12500 lb BE20s that figured because there were versions that were certified for 14000 lbs that they could too.

[Roar]

No worries TCA no offense taken, in fact that was the point I was trying to make also that the 200T has different limitations than the 200.

Cheers,
Roar

[Widow]

Roar, if your a$$ was covered (insurance, right to sue, right to refuse flight) the same as a pax (or his/her survivors), then I would understand accepting less of a safety margin for yourself. But it isn't that way ...

[Tim]

widow, it sounds to me like you might be mixing up 'less of a safety margin' with 'dangerous'

a car on the highway isn't as safe as a car going 30 on a side road. doesnt mean its dangerous, just less safe.

theres less of a safety margin at gross weight versus 1000lbs lighter too, but again, not dangerous. flying is icing has less of a safety margin than clear skies, bare dry runways versus icy runways, etc, etc.

the point i wanted to make about the BE20 though is that there is nothing special done to the 14000lb version over the 12500lb version, yet they fly safely every day, granted with the crew being aware of the extra degree of caution required.

[Roar]

Widow, I think you are equating less of a safety margin with being less safe and it is not the same thing. The KA200T is a perfectly safe airplane at 14000lbs.
I think of it in terms of a chart. 0-10 on a vertical line this is your aircraft performance limits, in the interest of safety this A/C will have a safety margin built in so you shall fly in conditions that will keep you between 2-8 on the chart, so a need arises to fly it between 1-9 this is still safe as long as you narrow the safety margin to 3-7.

I guess me saying there is less of a safety margin is poor wording on my part, what I am getting at is that(while always staying within regulations) it is still safe to move toward the edges of an aircrafts performance envelope as long as you also narrow the conditions that will be flown in to maintain a safety margin.

So in this example a passenger flight would be limited to the 2-8 margin but a crew only flight could go to 1-9 while still being safe.

[Romantic Lung]

This debate is not limited to aviation BTW.

[Kilo-Kilo]

Just to bring this back on track, the original post was about flying with the equivalent of an extra snowmobile after being at gross.

[CBSW]

Not to hijack the original thread..


But:

Friend of mine got a job out east today.

This individual was told to supply their own aircraft for the checkout, help out loading the aircraft and undergo some specialized training. (I'm trying to protect this person by speaking in generalities). This was the " interview"

This person was not reimbursed for ANY of the aforementioned expenses. I asked? Why did you do this? And the person said: because I want a job...


To the original poster.. This is why you will have HUGE issues refusing to fly over gross.. It is this mentality.

Widow,

I thank you for all the efforts to improve this industry. You have a monumental task ahead...Please please make sure you ensure this backstabbing and work for free attitude has no place in this college...

To the rest of you.. before you treat someone like shit and try and kick them when they are down.. remember we are all on the same team.. and we are stronger and will accomplish more as a team than a bunch of individuals. This is not only true in aviation .. but in pretty much any walk of life

Karma is a b&&(*( LOL

[Cat Driver]

To the original poster.. This is why you will have HUGE issues refusing to fly over gross.. It is this mentality.

Conversely if you compromise right from the start and bend to intimidation and fly in contravention of the rules on something as cut and dried as the legal gross weight of the airplane you are making a decision to violate not only the trust the public should have in pilots you have violated your own self worth.

[Big Pistons Forever]

the difference for us on why we could fly it at 14,000 as opposed to the standard 12500 was we were limited to aircrew only onboard.

This would indicate that the safety of crew is somehow less important than the safety of pax. Say it ain't so ...

Pilots have always been expendable in this industry. Name one company that had their OC taken away by TC when only pilots were getting killed.... But if there is a smoking hole with a few dead pax then things start to happen fast like the Regency debacle......