Wyatt Earp wrote:If Transport has their way, there will be no companies left operating in Canada other than West Jet and Air Canada. The Winnipeg office should be shut down and the inspectors fired!!
Or .... the companies that remain will be safe and regulatory compliant...... it isn't an impossible combination.
What do you mean by Joe's " version " of the W&B " a W&B is either legal or illegal.
I can not imagine me defending anyone for flying an airplane outside of its C of A.
Can you copy the post / posts you are refeering to?
You posted your opinion on the "other" site.
You felt that completing a W&B prior to every flight, was unnecessary and indicative of unintelligent pilots.
You did not differentiate between private, flight school, 703, 704, or 705 operations.
To re-fresh your memory, Buffalo had been found to not complete their W&B calculations until the flight was airborne or until after it had landed, in order to fudge the numbers.
My comments on filling out a W&B for " every " flight was directed at a light training airplane and the perticul ar case was a Grumman Cheetah in my flight school being flown by two normal size people with no baggage or freight in it.
It is not possible to be out of the W&B envelope therefore safety is not compromized by not filling out a paper W&B.
I fail to see what Buffalo Joe's W&B issues have to do with my comments, because I do not recall ever saying I approve of flying overweight unless you have approval for the overweight from TC which of course I have done on many occasions.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat,
Not sure if Donald is referring to the findings from the DC-3 accident a few years back but the company culture of doing a weight and balance en route...
Company culture and safety management system
A number of conditions contributed to the aircraft's inability to gain altitude, including the practice of operating the aircraft overweight. This portion of the analysis will focus on this practice, how it came to be accepted within the organization, and how the operator's safety management system (SMS) did not identify and address it. In addition, this section will examine how the regulator's approach to oversight of the operator's SMS reduced the likelihood of the regulator identifying this unsafe practice in the course of regulatory surveillance.
2. If Transport Canada does not adopt a balanced approach that combines inspections for compliance with audits of safety management processes, unsafe operating practices may not be identified, thereby increasing the risk of accidents.
Cat Driver wrote:My comments on filling out a W&B for " every " flight was directed at a light training airplane and the perticul ar case was a Grumman Cheetah in my flight school being flown by two normal size people with no baggage or freight in it.
It is not possible to be out of the W&B envelope therefore safety is not compromized by not filling out a paper W&B.
I fail to see what Buffalo Joe's W&B issues have to do with my comments, because I do not recall ever saying I approve of flying overweight unless you have approval for the overweight from TC which of course I have done on many occasions.
Would a company's weight and balance system in their COM ever get approved if the calculations weren't completed before take-off? I highly doubt it after reading through the guidance material (743.37)
You may be nicely under gross and exactly in the middle of the balance limits, but if you are in violation of your own company operations manual then TC won't be happy.
There are certain standard configurations that are known to be in weight and balance. Redoing the numbers for these is a waste of time. The problem is when you deviate from these standard configurations. A good pilot will know this and do the numbers. A less experienced pilot will not, and will get themselves into trouble. TC regulates to the lowest common denominator; Hence a weight and balance for every flight.
Fair point ., we all know that good paperwork does not always equal safe, and safe does not always need good paperwork either.
However when a 705 airline W&B "system" involves selecting random amounts of passengers and their bags, along with some cargo, and then "making it work" on paper, AFTER the flight has departed, then something is wrong.
Especially when said "airline" had been caught on this exact scenario previously.
Lets say you are flying a Navajo and all your passengers are obviously way over the average weight and you use standard weights for the W&B and the airplane crashes on take off.
When the investigators weigh the airplane and find it was way over gross on departure will it be deemed as a legal departure attempt?
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat Driver wrote:As to using standard weights for passengers.
Lets say you are flying a Navajo and all your passengers are obviously way over the average weight and you use standard weights for the W&B and the airplane crashes on take off.
When the investigators weigh the airplane and find it was way over gross on departure will it be deemed as a legal departure attempt?
Also check the timeline, I have to give it to BST, they are very patient people.
Transport Canada's response to A04-01 (04 December 2012)
On 28 August 2012, TC provided the following information:
Transport Canada has published an amendment to subsection 723.37(3), Weight and Balance Control, of the Commercial Air Services Standard. The amendment can be found at the following link: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... tm#723a_37.
CAR723.37 (3) now states:
Weight of passengers, carry on baggage and checked baggage, where the weight of passengers and carry-on baggage is determined either by actual weight, or by using segmented weight values, either as published, or derived from statistically meaningful data using a methodology acceptable to the Minister, and where the weight of checked baggage and cargo is determined by actual weight
On 04 December 2012, TC provided the following update:
In response to this recommendation, NPA 2008-058 was published and made effective 01 June 2012. TC sent a letter to the TSB on 28 August 2012, recommending that this recommendation be closed.
Board assessment of the response to A04-01 (06 March 2013)
TC has amended the CARs to reflect that actual passenger weights should be used for aircraft certified for less than 5 passengers, and that segmented weights be used for aircraft certified for 5 to 11 passenger seats. Guidance Material for Regulations & Standards – Part 703 – Air Taxi Operations – Division III – section 743.37(5) provides direction on how to compute passenger weights. The segmented weight tables were developed by TCCA for use by subpart 703 of the CARs operators seeking an alternative to actual weights for computing weight and balance for the given number of passengers on board. The above reference also states that the use of segmented weights provide a 95% confidence level and a 1% margin of error tolerance that the actual weight of passengers will not exceed the total weight of passengers obtained by using segmented weights for the given number of passengers on board.
Although TSB Recommendation A04-01 called for using actual weights for aircraft with a capacity of 9 or fewer passengers, the use of actual weights for aircraft certified for less than 5 passengers and segmented weights for 5 to 11 passengers will significantly reduce the deficiencies underlying Recommendation A04-01.
On the topic of standard weights for large vs small aircrafts, I think this text is very interesting.
A comparison of various aircraft types indicates that the ratio of passenger weight to overall aircraft weight is inversely proportional to the size of the aircraft. For example, in a Boeing 747, the passenger weight represents approximately 9 per cent of the aircraft's weight (450 passengers at 188 pounds, aircraft of 875 000 pounds) whereas the passenger weight in a Caravan can represent approximately 22 per cent (10 passengers at 188 pounds, aircraft of 8550 pounds). For aircraft under 12 500 pounds, there can be significant deviations from the published standard passenger weights due to the small sample size (nine passengers or fewer). This deviation error is further amplified in small aircraft due to the higher percentage of total aircraft weight that the passengers represent. If a small aircraft is being loaded to maximum gross weight, this discrepancy in passenger weight could result in an overweight condition that adversely affects the safety of flight. For example, stall speeds increase with increased aircraft weight; if the pilot is unaware of this change to aircraft performance, the reference speeds used for critical phases of flight will be incorrect.
Hopefully the pilots who are just starting in this industry understand how important it is to make sure your aircraft's gross weight is legal before attempting to fly it.
One night I went to the airport to fly a courier flight and found it loaded to the roof with freight, I did a quick random check of the cargo and was convinced the weight sheet they gave me was wrong so I refused to fly it until it was weighed by a reliable third party.
Anyhow all hell broke lose because because they said it was a courier flight and had to go.
In the end they had it weighed and as I suspected it was way, way over what the weights they gave me was.
I told them I would fly the flight with as much of the freight as could be legally carried and to find another pilot to replace me when I returned.
When you make a stand like that be sure you document exactly what takes place because some of these operators will try and prevent you from getting other jobs, if you have good documentation you will have no problem getting work with reputable operators.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
The aircraft has a maximum certified take-off weight (MCTOW) of 26 200 pounds in the passenger configuration. On the day of the occurrence, the aircraft was configured for 28 passengers, which is the maximum allowed. In addition to the 2 crew members in the cockpit, there were 21 passengers and 1 flight attendant in the main cabin. Additionally, the flight was loaded with cargo. Departure fuel was listed as 2707 pounds, which equates to 1702 litres.
The OFP has a weight and balance section. The calculation for the occurrence flight had been started by the FO, but not completed prior to departure. It was common practice to complete the OFP and weight and balance enroute. The OFP reflected a crew of 2, weight of 400 pounds, passenger seats weight of 546 pounds and the departure fuel load of 2707 pounds. Data from the incomplete OFP indicated a take-off weight of 21 844.2 pounds. An actual take-off weight was not determined. The passenger manifest did not include the weights of the passengers or of their carry-on baggage. Passengers and their luggage were not weighed when they checked in, which was in contravention of company procedures. A separate cargo manifest, which was not available to the crew of BFL168, indicated a cargo weight of 1071 pounds. A review of previously completed OFPs from other flights indicated the use of passenger weights that were adjusted to facilitate and maintain the weight and balance calculation within limits.
Using the applicable standard passenger weights as prescribed by the Company Operations Manual (COM), the data from the OFP and the actual cargo weight, the operational take-off weight for the occurrence flight was determined to have been 27 435 pounds, 1235 pounds over the MCTOW. The centre of gravity of 25% of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) was within the limits prescribed by the manufacturer.
Cat Driver wrote:As to using standard weights for passengers.
Lets say you are flying a Navajo and all your passengers are obviously way over the average weight and you use standard weights for the W&B and the airplane crashes on take off.
When the investigators weigh the airplane and find it was way over gross on departure will it be deemed as a legal departure attempt?
While it may be legal, it may not be right to do. There were days that I have had a legal W&B according to our COM and SOP's but still bumped a passenger because while legal I knew we were in fact quite overweight in reality. It's a call that needs to be made sometimes and any good true professional pilot hopefully would hopefully do the same.
It is PIC's responsibility to operate an aircraft within the W&B envelope. Using standard weights should not be a way around this and someone who cares about their life should adjust accordingly. They are to help expedite the operation and make calculations quicker and easier, not to take extra weight. I know some operators will use actual weights when it suits them and standard weights when it helps them. That's not the point of having standard weights, you can't have it both ways.
The above reference also states that the use of segmented weights provide a 95% confidence level and a 1% margin of error tolerance that the actual weight of passengers will not exceed the total weight of passengers obtained by using segmented weights for the given number of passengers on board.
The problem with this is it may work in city centers, but up north not quite. I have had days where I clearly had passengers all over their standard weights. Like but 100-150lbs. When you do your standard weight W&B and you're you know, 50lbs below gross but look back and everyone is obese.. it might be a good time to make an exception to the rule and boot someone. I know I did on more than one occasion.
the use of segmented weights provide a 95% confidence level and a 1% margin of error tolerance that the actual weight of passengers will not exceed the total weight of passengers obtained by using segmented weights for the given number of passengers on board.
TC admits right here, even with segmented weights, 5% of flights will be heavier than expected. Taking off slightly overweight 5% of the time is not all that risky, hence the legal use of segmented weight. It's all about risk management. Airplanes don't magically fall out of the sky when they're 1lb overweight and TC knows this. Segmented weights are a tool generated by TC to allow companies to realistically operate without weighing every single passenger, and do so at a minimum of risk. Problems arise when when the plane is 15% beyond of the limit and into icing conditions or experience an engine failure that it becomes a problem. That's why Cat Driver and Black_Tusk kick off a passenger when they're flying a load of 250lb construction workers in full winter gear.
If you believe segmented weights are a realistic representation of the passengers, then go flying! Even if you rolled the plane on a scale and are actually 20lbs over, it is legal. Got a load of fatties? Maybe use estimated or actual weights and leave somebody/baggage behind.
