Bernie Knight Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Dazza 38 Guess I agree somewhat, as it is an ideal forum or place to get ones point of view across... Love this smilie.. But I'm still concerned about comments or blatant disregard for regulations in particular MTOW etc as dangerous. My concern is seeing so many 'Posts' where pilots are stating they load to clear the runway fence. This is my concern as it reflects badly on the safety conscious pilot who calculates weights, fuel capacity etc staying under RA 600KG importantly representing RA responsibly. Recent Natfly saw CASA weighing. Was it because people were 'Posting' those type of comments regarding MTOW. Guess we will never know... But I am not going to go on a public forum and let the Police know I speed up the Hume Highway every Friday night. Maybe I'm reading to much into it but I think it's basically baiting the hook.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 And hopefully so. If someone blatantly posts their illegal activities it usually has the value of swift response in rebuke from responsible forum members ... And hopefully the offender will learn. It beggars belief that a RAAus pilot certificate holder doesn't understand the implications of exceeding the particular MTOW for the aircraft they are flying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Knight Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 David Yes I agree the understanding or lack of is a concern. Guess we all see that guy trying to climb..... I was at a recent flyin where I saw two guys empty their Waeco fridge having flown 200km and they were weighed at 110kg over, plus stickers, plus plus.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The HummelBird is known to be flown as, " every takeoff is over weight" as the designer was a slim 70 klg person, for my 90 Klg frame I loose half the fuel capacity (10 Lts) = a couple of hours. Please explaine, as it makes no sence to me: Note: This regulation creates a defence to the offences created by subsections 23(2) and (2A) of the Act. A defendant charged with either of those offences bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters set out in this regulation—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. spacesailor 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The HummelBird is known to be flown as, " every takeoff is over weight" as the designer was a slim 70 klg person, for my 90 Klg frame I loose half the fuel capacity (10 Lts) = a couple of hours.Please explaine, as it makes no sence to me: Note: This regulation creates a defence to the offences created by subsections 23(2) and (2A) of the Act. A defendant charged with either of those offences bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters set out in this regulation—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. spacesailor It means that you have to prove that you didn't do it ie a reverse onus of proof to the usual. If the designer of the Hummel only designed it with a 70 kg pilot in mind then that is what he intended. If you can't take off at less than MTOW then you are faced with 4 problems 1. the law might get you 2. gravity might get you (the stall speed increases with weight and altitude) 3. the plane might fall apart (because it is over stressed) 4. Power to weight decreases and you might not be able to accelerate fast enough. If "every takeoff is over weight" then you are clearly in the wrong plane all the time. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Marvelous plane, ( sitting in a tin can ) was the quote that won me over to it. Yes 30 odd HP is a small power to weight, but its stressed 6 G. " Law" another problem to stop Happiness. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 If the Hummelbird was load tested to over 6G, that would be at its design MTOW. BUT ... Is the 6g max design load i.e maximum operating load, or destruction load? Have you ever considered the exponential effect on loadings as the weight increases above the design maximum. If it is as strong as is claimed, perhaps an engineer could re certify it with a power increase. I am not familiar with a hummelbird, I take it it is CAO 95-10 category, in which case there is a legislated MTOW OF 300kgs regardless of design strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 My concern is seeing so many 'Posts' where pilots are stating they load to clear the runway fence Bernie - many comments on here are made tongue-in-cheek by pilots with all different senses of humour. Don't take them too seriously - ask your instructor, or, better still, your CFI, to verify facts. The oft used throw-away line about keep loading until you can just close the doors is one which I was told by senior pilots back in 1963......... it's an industry wide quip. I did once use it inappropriately in 1982 - the year that BFR's were introduced for all GA pilots. I rocked up to a small country airport in my C182, and experienced my 1st BFR with a Jandakot based CFI. 'How much load can you fit into it?' was the question. Answer - 'until you can't close the doors - even more without the back seats'! He wasn't sure how to take it initially, but a grin plus a quick calculation and reference to the AFM charts saw a relieved composure return. happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 The law is...MTOW is a specified number. No excuses for going over, no variation unless by the manufacturer, if you dont like it, cant fly without going over then get another aircraft...QED> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 All done with that approval of the regulator(s) Mark, they also take off up to 25% over MTOW, but should we all do that too? Yes, Certified aircraft have often been approved for over MTOW operations because the manufacturer has provided the regulator with hard numbers to establish the safety case. (probably not even available in LSA). Another example is what used to be called 'agricultural overload' which was a 15% increase over the normal category MTOW. It was widely applied to C180 aircraft spreading superphosphate fertiliser where the permitted ag overload was around 185 kgs. The C185 fitted with a Sorenson spraying kit plus underwing booms had an overload of around 220kgs if memory serves me. However, there's a lot more to flying the aircraft in 'overload' situations. Tyre pressures may need to be increased to the very top of their permitted range. You need every help to gain lift quickly - a good headwind, downslope too. These things you learn in ag work, and are trained for low level emergencies in heavily loaded aircraft. The RAAus PC has none of this training - which is a very good reason to not press your luck by overloading. happy days, 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I thought there was a very good reason for specifying an MTOW. If you cant get over the fence, or the aircraft handles like a bus when flying, then maybe your too heavy. Those wings are only built to take so much, or so I thought. How about we have no MTOW and when the plane cant get over the fence and kills everyone on crashing, then worry about it. I for one, dont push the safety boundaries, or manufacturers specs and I have survived and enjoyed myself so far. However, go ahead, maintain your rights and kill yourselves, not my problem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I dont recall anyone saying they flew overweight or loaded to the point they could just clear fence. Thats just stupid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 precisely and that's what happens when you try to increase the MTOW past recommended limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There is an even bigger issue that Facthunter tried to raise in an earlier post and I think it went over most peoples heads. That is you can be well below your MTOW and may still not make it over the fence if you haven't done your takeoff calcs right. We used to call that using your 'P' charts. This can be the case at high altitude strips, or high density altitude or short strip or long grass or slope uphill or lack of headwind component and God help you if all of the above are combined. These are also issues NOT understood by a worrying number of RAAus Pilot certificate holders. This issue alone has killed many a Cessna and Piper pilot and PAX in the low powered models, so RAAus is NOT exempt the risks to the unwary. 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Try taking off from Armidale on a 35 degree day with high humidity. Even my little beast takes a while to get there. Then try to take off at sea level and compare the two. Amazing difference in performance. This what you mean David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickH Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I find it incredulous that Pilots can not tell you the empty and/or the mtow of their aircraft after all it is in the Acft Handbook, SHOULD be in the front of their Maintenance Logs. and has to be weighed and balanced, documented and placarded (mtow) in cockpit for Rego. Maybe they have ulterior motives for not saying. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Years ago I did he P chart calcs for a C172 taking off from Walcha at MTOW (Full fuel and two up) on a 40 degree day, quite common there. I cannot remember the exact input data, but was staggered she needed 5,000' to clear a 50' obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRviator Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is what happens when you ignore your P charts. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I haven't seen that one before but another similar, I cannot understand how a pilot of an aircraft with performance degraded to this level would not abort, he had heaps of runway available and time to put it back on the deck but chose to continue. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Mtow= full fuel plus pilot! Fat pilot = less fuel for Mtow. +6G and -6G, without wingtip extensions, (needed for learners, slower landing speed. Home buit by plans = What engineer? HummelBird, renamed McullacBird with a 4 cylinder two-stroke. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Knight Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Great video. Mmm yes I would have put it down certainly once it bounced. There was still plenty of runway and grass. Later in the day when it was cooler may have been an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Knight Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 poteroo Yes I knew you were tongue in cheek... I was more responding to the group who say these types of things and possibly both believe them and action out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 ... I cannot understand how a pilot of an aircraft with performance degraded to this level would not abort, he had heaps of runway available and time to put it back on the deck but chose to continue. Optimism, blind faith, she'll be right mate… it's why we do the same thing over and over again expecting different results (Einstein's definition of insanity). We're not programmed robots and don't always act rationally in the face of a looming threat. Something the Human Factors course might aim at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 One day (I hope) we will cover the human factors thing properly. It's not a cram and tick it off thing. It has to be ongoing and become. a safety mindset . I've always applied a test when I'm tempted to do something a little adventurous. HOW WILL THIS LOOK IF IT GOES PEARSHAPED and ENDS UP IN THE COURTS. That thought has helped me to make the right decision a lot of times. Nev 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 HOW WILL THIS LOOK IF IT GOES PEARSHAPED and ENDS UP IN THE COURTS. That thought has helped me to make the right decision a lot of times. Nev Too right! Present legal dramas not withstanding :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now