Weight and Balance... This is an option?

[sepia]

The first 3 companies I worked for intentionally overloaded their planes on a hauntingly consistent basis. There are companies out there that don't do it, it Just took me 4 tries to finally find one. You'll find the companies that don't overload the planes also don't cut other corners either.

[Heliian]

Even under max gross how many twin a/c do you know that can climb on one engine? The limits are there for a darn good reason. you want more capacity? get a bigger plane. Don't have a bigger plane? do 2 trips. It's as simple as that. If you think that flying the a/c is going to be dangerous, don't fly it. If captain 100000hrs says it can be done, let him do it.

Most people can be reasoned with, bring the issue up to your boss and say you're not comfortable flying that way and see what you can do to fix it.

Fly Safely and you'll have a long and rewarding career.

[SunWuKong]

Even under max gross how many twin a/c do you know that can climb on one engine?

I think that carrying passengers with a multi engine that cannot climb on one engine after take off is not acceptable, even if under maximum take off weight.

[Rotten Apple #1]

Even under max gross how many twin a/c do you know that can climb on one engine?

I think that carrying passengers with a multi engine that cannot climb on one engine after take off is not acceptable, even if under maximum take off weight.

Okay, would you carry passengers in a single engined airplane? Obviously, very obviously, it is not capable of being able to climb after an engine failure, which seems to be the major problem you have with light twins.

[skiline69]

It seems like pilots are split on this topic.
So I guess half the operators are overloading?
Why do they not believe the people that built these things(POH). They must have a reason to put the max limit! Every designer would be happy to up their gross, I'm sure.
Any of you overloading your A/C and say it's ok to do so, care to name your company? I doubt it.
Sure the Navajo has a low SE ceiling but on take-off will it flip over when weighted properly?
Now how about the overweighted one, just after take-off? Any Guarantee?
I think the " I've done it for years" people should be happy they haven't killed people yet, and start teaching us newbies not to do it.
You are the ones that have to change it. Us new people just get fired or replaced.

[into the blue]

We have a thread on companies that don't require training bonds. Why not to start one on companies that don't intentionally overload? Unfortunately, none of the bad guys can be mentioned on this board - any post or thread that names someone doing something illegal disappears in a matter of minutes. But, I hope no one will be offended to see their name in the "good guys" list.

[StudentPilot]

The first place I worked did it on some flights - mostly long legs, when we needed IFR fuel, or charters with too much stuff.

While I don't agree with it, I have been told that military Twin Otters have a MTOW of 17,000 lbs (or something well above 12,500') and the civil Twin Otters have a 12,500 lb MTOW so they don't count as a large aircraft and all that entails (ATPL, flight attendent, etc). Assuming what I have heard about military Twin Otters is correct, do people generally think it is equally bad to load a civil Twin Otter over 12,500 as a another plane (Navajo, Caravan, whatever) whose MTOW was not chosen for the lower crew requirements? Anyone know why they didn't certify civil and military Twin Otters to the same weight and get an exemption from TC/FAA for the flight attendant and such? Or why they wouldn't certify the Twin Otter for 12,500 in 704 ops and higher for 705 ops and the operator can decide which rules to follow depending on their needs?

[sstaurus]

We have a thread on companies that don't require training bonds. Why not to start one on companies that don't intentionally overload? Unfortunately, none of the bad guys can be mentioned on this board - any post or thread that names someone doing something illegal disappears in a matter of minutes. But, I hope no one will be offended to see their name in the "good guys" list.

I like this idea

[fish4life]

The first place I worked did it on some flights - mostly long legs, when we needed IFR fuel, or charters with too much stuff.

While I don't agree with it, I have been told that military Twin Otters have a MTOW of 17,000 lbs (or something well above 12,500') and the civil Twin Otters have a 12,500 lb MTOW so they don't count as a large aircraft and all that entails (ATPL, flight attendent, etc). Assuming what I have heard about military Twin Otters is correct, do people generally think it is equally bad to load a civil Twin Otter over 12,500 as a another plane (Navajo, Caravan, whatever) whose MTOW was not chosen for the lower crew requirements? Anyone know why they didn't certify civil and military Twin Otters to the same weight and get an exemption from TC/FAA for the flight attendant and such? Or why they wouldn't certify the Twin Otter for 12,500 in 704 ops and higher for 705 ops and the operator can decide which rules to follow depending on their needs?

12,500lbs is the Transport Canada maximum take off weight (MTOW) - 14,000lbs MTOW restricted category for military/government operations with local airworthiness approval). This configuration is used by the Canadian & US Military, and several other countries.

thats a line from the vikingair pdf talking about there new 400 series twin otter although I don't know about the older ones

[GoinNowhereFast]

Following aircraft limitations are a no-brainer. Your ass and license may depend on it some day. Airplanes will still fly just fine if you load them 10% over gross on a good day, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. What's going to happen if an engine quits? If it's turbulent, what will the added stresses do to the wings? Will the landing gear hold up if you botch the landing?

Here's what happened when I asked a similar question a while ago viewtopic.php?f=54&t=63294

[SunWuKong]

Even under max gross how many twin a/c do you know that can climb on one engine?

I think that carrying passengers with a multi engine that cannot climb on one engine after take off is not acceptable, even if under maximum take off weight.

Okay, would you carry passengers in a single engined airplane? Obviously, very obviously, it is not capable of being able to climb after an engine failure, which seems to be the major problem you have with light twins.

It may seem like you have a point, if we read fast. But if we think a bit: what did you learn at your flight school? Engine failure with a single engine, land where you can, engine failure with a multi engine: power, drag up, identify, verify, feather, and continue right? In the POH the procedure is the same... So your twin engine HAS TO CLIMB. In addition when a customer rent a twin, he beleives that is what will happen in case of engine failure, and not a crash after take off even if one engine remains. If you look closer, no single piston engine can carry passengers IFR anyway, so a multi is a multi, it shouldn't be flown according to a single engine airplane procedure.
As long we won't understand it, W&B will mean nothing in the 703 operations.

Student pilot: you are right. Many airplanes can operate (under some authorities/states...) above the maximum weight we are familiar with, (because for different reasons we want to keep them in the 12500 pounds and below categorie), the king air B200 is a good exemple.
If one day "you" make a point not flying your king air 200 because "you" have half a pound more than the max T/O weight, and the day after you accept a passenger flight with a twin that cannot climb on one engine while respecting the W&B "you" will be proud of yourself because "you" think you respect the rules...

[mag check]

So your twin engine HAS TO CLIMB.

Wrong. It is completely dependant on the certification of the aircraft. An aircraft certified to CAR 3 simply needs to have a published single engine climb, OR descent rate in the POH.
That is why aircraft such as the B18, PA23-150, Twin Sea Bee, and the 402 Lancer among many others, wont climb on one, and are not required to do so.
A FAR 23 twin engine aircraft MUST climb on one.

[SunWuKong]

Exactly what I was talking about: not too good to hide behind the regulation to pretend we are safe.
Ok I should have added "HAS TO CLIMB FOR YOUR PASSENGERS TO SURVIVE", but I thought we all understood that point.

Beside, show me among the 703 operators using multi engine to carry passengers the procedure that says after one engine failure: land crash in front of you.

When the 703 operators and TC will become honnest about that point, W&B will be hopefully more respected. Nobody likes what is not logical. What is clear, simple, honnest has more chance to be applied. But weight and balance among the 703 multi engine operators is a real mess, and everybody knows about it.

[mag check]

"HAS TO CLIMB FOR YOUR PASSENGERS TO SURVIVE",

Again, wrong. In many cases, a landing straight ahead is the safer option, just like in a single.

Beside, show me among the 703 operators using multi engine to carry passengers the procedure that says after one engine failure: land crash in front of you.

I am pretty sure that would be up to the pilot in command. Even if the aircraft is loaded well below gross, and at it's optimal c of g, and capable of climbing on one, the stats show that there is a very good chance the aircraft will crash if an engine is lost on take off.
It is the PIC's job to analyze the situation, and deal with it accordingly.

[SunWuKong]

"HAS TO CLIMB FOR YOUR PASSENGERS TO SURVIVE",

Again, wrong. In many cases, a landing straight ahead is the safer option, just like in a single.

Again, wrong.
The safest option when you carry passenger in a 703 multi-engine operation carrying passenger in not crashing in front of you. Don't be confused and don't compare a pilot not well trained owning his own little twin (with a very low stall speed, so a low landing speed) and a 703 pilot carrying passenger night IFR, even with a navajo. In this case the safest option is to calculate your W&B so that you will be able to climb in order to respect the company and POH procedure: feather continue and come back to land.

What kind of multi engine do you fly, for what kind of operator? Do you carry passenger? Maybe the nature of your activity could explain why you think like a PPL owner of a small twin. And even in this case, open your POH and read what it says for an engine failure after take off. An owner can choose his runway to be able to crash in front of him, not a commercial pilot (702/703/704) who has to take off from a lot of different runway including the night and in bad weather.

It looks to me that some of us really thought until now that they were respecting the W&B limit.

[iflyforpie]

I am really surprised that in spite of all this arguing, nobody has touched on the most dangerous part of being over gross, and it has absolutely nothing to do with single engine takeoff performance, temperature, or even aircraft performance in general...

[SunWuKong]

I am really surprised that in spite of all this arguing, nobody has touched on the most dangerous part of being over gross, and it has absolutely nothing to do with single engine takeoff performance, temperature, or even aircraft performance in general...

I beleive you will be amazed: my max weight is sometimes limited by my single engine climb performance, especially when I take off from high atltitude airport, or for other reasons.
Have a look here:

Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)
The maximum takeoff weight (also known as the Maximum Break Release Weight) is the maximum weight authorised at brake release for takeoff, or at the start of the takeoff roll.

The maximum takeoff weight is always less than the maximum taxi/ramp weight to allow for fuel burned during taxi by the engines and the APU.

In operation, the maximum weight for takeoff may be limited to values less than the Maximum Takeoff Weight due to aircraft performance, environmental conditions, airfield characteristics (takeoff field length, altitude), maximum tire speed and brake energy, obstacle clearances, and/or enroute and landing weight requirements.

A bit more here:
In many circumstances an aircraft may not be permitted to take off at its MTOW. In these circumstances the maximum weight permitted for takeoff will be determined taking account of the following:

Wing flap setting. See the Spanair Flight 5022
Airfield altitude (height above sea-level) - This affects air pressure which affects maximum engine power or thrust.
Air temperature - This affects air density which affects maximum engine power or thrust.
Length of Runway - A short runway means the aircraft has less distance to accelerate to takeoff speed.
Runway wind component - The best condition is a strong headwind straight along the runway. The worst condition is a tailwind. If there is a crosswind it is the wind component along the runway which must be taken into account.
Condition of Runway - The best runway for taking off is a dry, paved runway. An unpaved runway or one with traces of snow will provide more rolling friction which will cause the airplane to accelerate more slowly. See the Munich Air Disaster
Obstacles - An airplane must be able to take off and gain enough height to clear all obstacles and terrain beyond the end of the runway.
The maximum weight at which a takeoff may be attempted, taking into account the above factors, is called the maximum permissible takeoff weight, maximum allowed takeoff weight or regulated takeoff weight.

[Sulako]

I am really surprised that in spite of all this arguing, nobody has touched on the most dangerous part of being over gross, and it has absolutely nothing to do with single engine takeoff performance, temperature, or even aircraft performance in general...

I'm assuming you mean lawyers, and I referenced it in my post on the previous page

[sarg]

The first place I worked did it on some flights - mostly long legs, when we needed IFR fuel, or charters with too much stuff.

While I don't agree with it, I have been told that military Twin Otters have a MTOW of 17,000 lbs (or something well above 12,500') and the civil Twin Otters have a 12,500 lb MTOW so they don't count as a large aircraft and all that entails (ATPL, flight attendent, etc). Assuming what I have heard about military Twin Otters is correct, do people generally think it is equally bad to load a civil Twin Otter over 12,500 as a another plane (Navajo, Caravan, whatever) whose MTOW was not chosen for the lower crew requirements? Anyone know why they didn't certify civil and military Twin Otters to the same weight and get an exemption from TC/FAA for the flight attendant and such? Or why they wouldn't certify the Twin Otter for 12,500 in 704 ops and higher for 705 ops and the operator can decide which rules to follow depending on their needs?

The Twin Otter was certified well before CAR's at the time 12,500 lbs meant single pilot operation was okay. At 12,501 or over it was 2 crew manditory at all times and none of the civil operators wanted that restriction, I believe that it was only the 300 series that was designed for the14,000 gross.

[mag check]

"HAS TO CLIMB FOR YOUR PASSENGERS TO SURVIVE",

Again, wrong. In many cases, a landing straight ahead is the safer option, just like in a single.

Again, wrong.
The safest option when you carry passenger in a 703 multi-engine operation carrying passenger in not crashing in front of you. Don't be confused and don't compare a pilot not well trained owning his own little twin (with a very low stall speed, so a low landing speed) and a 703 pilot carrying passenger night IFR, even with a navajo. In this case the safest option is to calculate your W&B so that you will be able to climb in order to respect the company and POH procedure: feather continue and come back to land.

What kind of multi engine do you fly, for what kind of operator? Do you carry passenger? Maybe the nature of your activity could explain why you think like a PPL owner of a small twin. And even in this case, open your POH and read what it says for an engine failure after take off. An owner can choose his runway to be able to crash in front of him, not a commercial pilot (702/703/704) who has to take off from a lot of different runway including the night and in bad weather.

It looks to me that some of us really thought until now that they were respecting the W&B limit.

Well, since you bring up a 'ho, why don't you have a look what the POH says. The one I have, which is FAA approved, says that "Certain combinations of weight, configuration, ambient conditions, and airspeed will result in NEGATIVE climb performance."

It also says "If insufficient runway remains, the terrain ahead is unsuitable for a safe landing, and the decision is made to continue the take off" then you go ahead with the standard procedure. This clearly puts the dcision in the hands of the pilot, not the company, or the aircraft manufacturer.

You will also note that the performance charts(including the single engine climb performance ones) are not FAA/TC approved data, so there is no guarantee that the aircraft will meet those numbers.

[Liquid Charlie]

There was actually an american operator a few years back after having 2 fatal chieftain crashes in a very short time because there was an attempt both times to return to the field on one engine published an SOP that if an engine failed on takeoff below 1000' AGL you were to retard the good engine and land straight ahead. Doesn't that say a lot for the safety of cabin class twins --

NWOACA tried to get a Beach 18 on floats declared a single engine class and up the gross weight to make the loads legal -- mmmm -- now there is a novel and creative approach --

What would you do ???

-> trip in your cabin class twin to "nowhere" north - the boss wants you to go VFR with one way fuel because that's the load needed. Issue -> no airport with the 45 min reserve - it's a place that is in a coastal environment -- and the nearest airport is 1+15 away -- it's clear but getting closer to late afternoon -- and might as well throw in - window shot wx information and poor communications --

How do you handle this one ?? and anyone who says they would shit can the trip is fired --

[ScudRunner]

I've said it before and I'll say it again Multi Engine IFR is just not safe, Give me a PC-12 anyday.

[Liquid Charlie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again Multi Engine IFR is just not safe, Give me a PC-12 anyday.

[SunWuKong]

First of all, when it comes to multi engine rating, this is true, nothing mention the influence of the weight on single engine performance. It is a fact, have a look below. And anyway this my point, this is what I want us to think about.
I know TC is reading Avcanada so I hope that they will think about this issue.
In commercial operation it is very different from a flight test approved by TC designed initially for a PPL holder and schools who opperates Piper Seminole, Beech Duchess (which is not as every body knows a Beech baron, even less a Beech 350...) and the like, those kind of airplane can sometime achieve a positive climb only if you don't take on board the examiner, yeah... It doesn't make sense.
But if we speak about the navajo (or commercial 703/704 operation) that can carry fuel, cargo and 7 passengers, well there is more room to make a decision. Anyway a flight test has nothing to do with carrying passenger for a living. Not being able to climb on one engine means it is not a multi engine anymore, nor a single. It's something that shouldn't exist if we speak about carrying passenger under 703/704 regulation.


D. Weight and Balance, Loading
Aim
To determine that the candidate can correctly complete weight and balance calculations for the aeroplane to be used for the flight test.
Description
The candidate will be required to complete accurate computations for an assigned practical load requirement that addresses all or most of the passenger and baggage stations, using actual weights and approved weight and balance data applicable to the aeroplane to be used for the test, including take-off weight, landing weight and the zero fuel weight. If a loading graph or computer is available with the aeroplane, it may be utilized.
Knowledge of weight and balance graphs and envelopes, and the effect of various center of gravity locations on aeroplane flight characteristics will be demonstrated. Practical knowledge of how to correct a situation in which the centre of gravity is out of limits or in which the gross weight has been exceeded will be demonstrated.
Performance Criteria
Assessment will be based on the candidate’s ability to:
(a) determine if the take-off, landing and zero fuel weights as well as center of gravity locations in each case are within permissible limits with the assigned load;
(b) demonstrate practical knowledge of how to correct a situation in which the centre of gravity location is out of limits and/or a weight limit is exceeded; and
(c) explain the effect of various center of gravity locations on aeroplane flight characteristics.

You will also note that the performance charts(including the single engine climb performance ones) are not FAA/TC approved data, so there is no guarantee that the aircraft will meet those numbers.

Franckly, what do you mean by that, what is your message and goal? What Piper says about its airplane count for nothing? If TC tells you it is fine to takeoff with max weight, so be it?

When it comes to light multi piston airplanes in 703 operations, i guess there is 2 kind of pilots,
-the ones who crash in front of them because they have no choice, and no other option, they are going down anyway,
-the ones who maybe (different factors could influence this decision like day time, no trees or obstacle, low altitude, below VYSE...) will take the option and make the decision to crash in front of them, but not because they are forced due to a wrong W&B that doesn't allow a positive climb on one engine.

A responsible commercial 703/704 pilot take the decision to adapt the airplane load so that his W&B will give him a positive climb, as Sulako said.

[mag check]

Franckly, what do you mean by that, what is your message and goal? What Piper says about its airplane count for nothing? If TC tells you it is fine to takeoff with max weight, so be it?

I guess my point is; if you want a "guarantee" that the aircraft you are flying will climb on one engine, at gross, at any given C of G, and with a magin of error built in for sloppy piloting, and misrigged controls, then you better make sure it is a FAR 23 certified aircraft, (which most "light" twins are not). If you find that the twin yu are flying is a CAR 3 certified aircraft(most are if they are older than '79 ish), then there is a good chance that it will NOT climb on one under certain conditions, so you as PIC should be prepared for that, and be ready to fly it like a single if need be, so you don't roll it over and crash trying to climb,(like many have).
Make sense?