Message-ID: <3650481B.598C@explornet.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:43:23 -0500
From: Victoria Deaton <vdeaton@explornet.org>
Reply-To: vdeaton@explornet.org
Organization: ExplorNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Over gross?  (was: Visually checking fuel EVERY TIME in preflight?
References: <72gnac$vu$2@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu> <72ifuu$2jl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m1n67ch39iv.fsf@fardm2.boston.deshaw.com> <roy-1511980813140001@mcsv45-p2.med.nyu.edu> <364EE3CF.61FE@ibm.net> <364f02d6.1218762@news.mindspring.com> <364F75E7.4DA0@ibm.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.134.14.12
X-Trace: 16 Nov 1998 10:51:40 GMT, 208.134.14.12
Lines: 65
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!news1.radix.net!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.30.182.5!news.tico.com!208.134.14.12
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:38980

Snowbird wrote:
> 
> Victoria Deaton wrote:
> 
> > From what I understand, the DE is able to okay up to 15% (?)  over
> > gross. My FAR-AIM is in the car, so I can't look it up to be sure at
> > this very moment. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong--it's either
> > 10 or 15.
> 
> I'm not aware of any provision in the FARs which allow the
> designated examiner to OK flying over gross.
> 
> So if you can look it up and cite the regulation, I would be
> much obliged to you.

I'll do just that--but it may be a while because I'm leavin' on a jet
plane for a flight from NC to NM for a week of business and trinket
hunting. FWIW, I heard it orginally from a reliable poster on this ng,
so I never checked it out myself (instead I've got my head in Kershner's
IFR book...)--mostly because I don't plan on overgrossing any a/c I'm
in. I was miserable enough wallowing around in a at-gross 172 to cure me
of any such inclination. I'm wondering if it falls under something
similar to the ferry flights weirdness. <g>

> Students should be aware that some DEs might accept this, but
> others absolutely will not.  Students have been sent home with
> no checkride because it would have been over gross.  One chap
> on this group was forced to transition quickly into a C172 just
> before his checkride.

It amazed the heck outta me as well. FWIW, the Katana behaved
beautifully. But believe me, I left non-essential stuff at the DE's FBO
when we went up for the checkride. I woulda gone in my underwear to
lighten the load if the mere sight of me would'nt have been an automatic
bust. 8-)

> A couple folks in email seem to be misunderstanding me.  I'm
> not trying to support any position here (whether it's fine
> to fly over gross or not).  I just want to know, if you're
> going to fly over gross, how do you decide how much over is
> OK?

That's pretty much my question as well, one that has bugged me since the
checkride. Not that I plan to load sandbags in the Katana. (To be a bit
more specific, the statement was we could be over gross over as long as
CG was in limits.)

Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating flying outside the limits given by
the POH, and I sure as heck don't want anybody to think that since I
flew okay as such, that they can fudge things. When planes bite, they
bite hard. This was a situation where the DE and CFI were aware of the
possibility of the plane being over gross but in CG limits with two big
folks in the a/c, and I strongly suspect there had been discussion with
the factory when they first started teaching in Katanas way back
whenever. My concerns seem to parallel Snowbird's.

> I don't think it's a FAR where Pt. 91 ops are concerned.

Probably not. I'll hunt around.

> Regards,
> Snowbird

cheers,
victoria
