Single pilot IFR, widespread fog, low fuel, do you bust MDA/DH?

[MikeD]

z987, RogerRoger, jrh

You guys are completely missing the point Im making. 200 lbs might not cause an accident, BUT the comment jrh made was "how would the Feds even know?? how would they even find out?"; and my answer is, from having done this biz for quite some time, is that they WILL know, depending on the phase of flight. Don't think it's something that can be easily gotten away with in this sense. So, while likely not a causal factor to an accident, rest assured in these cases that it WILL be A factor that's found out, and not one that is easy to "prove that you did it intentionally", because whether or not you knew the weight was there or not; as the one who signed the W&B, you're the one who's going to own it. Rightfully or wrongfully, those are the facts.

 

[Roger Roger]

z987, RogerRoger, jrh

You guys are completely missing the point Im making. 200 lbs might not cause an accident, BUT the comment jrh made was "how would the Feds even know?? how would they even find out?"; and my answer is, from having done this biz for quite some time, is that they WILL know, depending on the phase of flight. Don't think it's something that can be easily gotten away with in this sense. So, while likely not a causal factor to an accident, rest assured in these cases that it WILL be A factor that's found out, and not one that is easy to "prove that you did it intentionally", because whether or not you knew the weight was there or not; as the one who signed the W&B, you're the one who's going to own it. Rightfully or wrongfully, those are the facts.

You're right, of course. But, if you don't crash...
Not arguing right or wrong on the issue, as the psychology of why people operate like they do (or did) up here is, to say the least, a long and interesting study. But I guess the cold hard reality is people did it (and probably still do, though I of course don't know any of them personally).

 

[MikeD]

You're right, of course. But, if you don't crash...
Not arguing right or wrong on the issue, as the psychology of why people operate like they do (or did) up here is, to say the least, a long and interesting study. But I guess the cold hard reality is people did it (and probably still do, though I of course don't know any of them personally).

Thats what Im meaning. If you didn't crash......thats where the gamble comes in. You and I both know planes fly overweight all the time, we've seen it and we've likely done it, either knowingly or unknowingly. Hell, a Chieftain can likely fly 500 or more pounds overweight with no issue. But for anyone to make the statement that there's no way it will be known, my point is that it can and will be known, but normally after an event occurs. Hell, Ive been one to have had to find out that info while investigating certain accidents. FAA and NTSB have two different interests in an accident. So while being overweight might or might not have been causal to the accident itself; the "totality of circumstances" of being overweight significantly, cargo weights, fuel loadings/receipts, all combined with your signature on the W&B that doesn't agree with the facts at hand.....and Houston, there will be a problem. If you're dead, who cares? But if you live to tell about it.....the ramifications could get interesting.

 

[Tommay85]

One thing we must not forget as well is that this business and our certificates are governed under administrative law. Administrative law=/=criminal law. Under administrative law, all that's needed for a conviction is an abundance of evidence. In essence, once a case is brought against you, you're guilty until you yourself prove your own innocence. I don't remember when, but a SWA pilot got his license suspended for landing when RVR was reported below minimums. The thing is, it was only foggy over the station. The entire field was clear and a million. What got this pilot in the clear were signed affidavits from other pilots holding short while he was landing as well as from the controllers. The process took a LONG time to get sorted out. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[jrh]

z987, RogerRoger, jrh

You guys are completely missing the point Im making. 200 lbs might not cause an accident, BUT the comment jrh made was "how would the Feds even know?? how would they even find out?"; and my answer is, from having done this biz for quite some time, is that they WILL know, depending on the phase of flight. Don't think it's something that can be easily gotten away with in this sense. So, while likely not a causal factor to an accident, rest assured in these cases that it WILL be A factor that's found out, and not one that is easy to "prove that you did it intentionally", because whether or not you knew the weight was there or not; as the one who signed the W&B, you're the one who's going to own it. Rightfully or wrongfully, those are the facts.

Ok, but Mike, you seem to be missing *my* point.

Maybe I went about presenting this in the wrong way.

Forget about feds and legalities for a minute. Ask yourself, "Do *I* even know if I'm flying overweight or not?" I'd argue that many pilots don't. Sure, we know when we're close, but in all honesty, whether you're exactly on MGTOW or 150 pounds over, I think would be very difficult to tell, without putting the aircraft on a scale. I fly 402s eighty hours and 80+ takeoffs/landings per month, and I can't tell the difference between operating at 7200 and 7400 pounds.

I said what I said about fed's not knowing to counter the "but it's not legal" argument. I'm not advocating for pilots to go around doing whatever it takes to cover their tracks after busting regs. Some pilots simply get really wound up about having their numbers line up exactly, and I'm saying, relax, if you as the pilot aren't going to know the difference, the feds won't either. You and I both agree that it's not legal to have a MGTOW of X pounds, yet take off with X+100 listed on the dispatch. That would be ridiculous. But that's a paperwork issue.

My point all along maybe should have been, when in doubt, err on the side of extra gas. When I read UAL's original post, honestly, the thought that struck me was, "Why is this guy figuring his numbers down to a tenth of an hour when he just talked about how inaccurate his gauges are, coupled with needing to rely on the previous pilot?" To me, it seemed like a recipe for bad things to happen.

I think it's interesting you're hitting this point hard, when the thread originally started as a discussion about going below minimums, which, in my opinion, is a far more deadly scenario. To me, going below minimums is an absolutely last resort sort of action. Now, if I can keep myself out of that corner by throwing an extra 5 or 10 gallons/side on, just in case...you know what I'm going to do.

I don't consider this a "cowboy" move, it's just a tip that might be helpful to some pilots, under some circumstances. Take it or leave it.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, indeed. I was hesitant to even bring this topic up because I know how "cowboy" it sounds. But I also think it's worth talking about, because I know it happens out in the real world.

Agree. Open discussion of factual events doesn't necessarily equate to support or non-support thereof. It's just open discussion.

It's hard for me to comment on this without knowing more details. Here are a couple of the first thoughts that popped into my mind--200 pounds in a PA32R is not the same as 200 pounds in a a Baron, or 402, or Beech 1900 (in terms of percent GTOW). Also, what was the runway length/obstacles/density altitude? Was the accident caused directly and solely as a result of the weight? I can't help but wonder if engine trouble or weight outside of CG limits were also a factor.

Additionally, I didn't mean to imply 200 pounds overweight is somehow a magic number for being safe. 200 pounds is quite a lot, depending on the aircraft and location.

This is why in my original post I questioned the safety of ghost fuel and left it up to decide by the PIC in the moment.

The basics of that accident were both pilot technique as well as temps and weights. While overweight, the plane was within CG, but near aft limit. Again, the point there was the fact that the weight information was easy to discover by the feds.

Very true. Unfortunately that's getting in to philosophy beyond what any of us can solve in a single thread on the interwebs.

Let me add a few thoughts that might help clarify my original post.

There are many operators who fly without really knowing what's on their flight and could easily end up a bit overweight in the real world, while the numbers work on paper. I saw a joke in another thread recently about how ALL airline passengers weigh the FAA-standard 189 pounds in the winter. Sure.

I'll use my own carrier as an example, flying 402s. I should add, there are numerous reasons why I would never need to "ghost" fuel at this operation, but I'll use the numbers from here because it's what I know best.

We ask for passenger body weights during check-in. Let's say all nine pax fudge their weight by 10 pounds to the flattering side (or two passengers each lie by 40 or 50 pounds--not at all impossible!). And our fuel gauges are pretty accurate, but it's still not impossible to mis-read by 50 or 60 pounds. The difference between 500 and 550 pounds is hard to see. Now we're talking about potentially carrying 150 pounds total more than we intended. At normal cruise speed, that's nearly an hour's worth of fuel. At holding speed, that's over an hour's worth.

The OP pointed out how it's very difficult to know exactly how much fuel is in a Baron. We all agree this is not an exact science.

So why place a fuel order under the assumption that it IS an exact science? Especially when you know you're going to be dealing with unpredictable weather. And you're trusting the previous pilot's count, who might have been trusting the pilot before him as well. In the original post, times are mentioned down to the tenth of a hour. Why are you measuring fuel down to the tenth of an hour when you didn't REALLY know how much fuel you started with?

I think there is a time and place to "stack the deck" in your favor, so to speak. Sometimes that extra 100 pounds of fuel is going to make the difference between an easy diversion, versus sweating your balls off, constantly glancing at the gauges, hoping you don't become a glider in low IMC.

I should also point out that I'm not talking about sticking a little extra freight on to be a company man, or flying with twice as much fuel as you need, without listing it. I'm not advocating flying over gross weight all the time. Don't throw out flight planning because a guy on the internet said it doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. Don't let the company push you into doing something you don't think is safe. I can't stress this enough--you have to use this advice within reason.

All I'm saying is, this is another tool to help keep yourself from getting backed in to a corner.

W&B indeed isn't an exact science, so there are percentage fudge factors therein. As mentioned here, cargo can always be bumped, fuel added, etc. There are any number of ways to set yourself up for success....additional fuel, enroute stops, etc. Stacking the deck in your favor is always good.....no one wants to intentionally stack the deck against themselves.

My advice would to just make sure why it is that you're finding that you need to stack the deck in the first place. And make sure those reasons pass the logic test from the outset.

 

[MikeD]

Ok, but Mike, you seem to be missing *my* point.

Maybe I went about presenting this in the wrong way.

Your point regarding the overall situation is answered while you were writing this.....writing at the same time. Presentation-wise, I always apply internet-standard limiting factors to communications.

I think it's interesting you're hitting this point hard, when the thread originally started as a discussion about going below minimums, which, in my opinion, is a far more deadly scenario. To me, going below minimums is an absolutely last resort sort of action. Now, if I can keep myself out of that corner by throwing an extra 5 or 10 gallons/side on, just in case...you know what I'm going to do.

I don't consider this a "cowboy" move, it's just a tip that might be helpful to some pilots, under some circumstances. Take it or leave it.

Natural thread progression.....as the OPs situation was a fairly easy answer, based on his idea of not wanting to address the *how* he got there, but more the "what do I do at this point now".

Working back from there, we got into the "how to avoid" discussion. So we find ourselves where we are now. And as I said, nothing wrong with helping yourself succeed.....it'd be dumb to do anything otherwise. Just make sure the reasons for having to do it in the first place are sound; while at the same time it's understood that not every situation can be planned for. Sometimes, crap just happens, much like the OPs situation could happen, even with the best of planning.

 

[Tommay85]

I just didn't see any reason to do any deck stacking on that day with the information I had available at the time. Even enroute, the info(to me) still looked good. It was only well after landing that it became clear that the weathermen weren't on their A game that day.

I'm over sensationalizing the "relying on the other pilot" a bit. A quick check of flightaware, adding 20 minutes for poops and giggles and erring on the side that the guy didn't lean is where I get my numbers. The only thing I figured out down to the 10th was the flight times. 2.5 hours of fuel sounds pretty vague doesn't it?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You guys scoffing at the FAA standard passenger and baggage weights should do a little research. These numbers were just adjusted less than 10 years ago, as a result of the crash of the BE1900 in CLT. Take a look at Advisory Circular 120-27E for the details. The quick version is that the standard passenger weights are determined by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a peer reviewed study conducted in a clinical setting to determine the average weight of Americans. The weights in the survey have been going up consistently over the past few decades as obesity has become more common. Whenever the weight goes up by 2% or more, the FAA adjusts the standard weights. Right now, the standard FAA weights fit perfectly with what every study indicates is the average weight of Americans.

As far as average bag weights, these weights were determined following the BE1900 crash by having operators of 10-19 seat airplanes actually weight the bags of every passenger over a period of several months. The averages were calculated using the results of that study.

FAA standard weights are very accurate. It's far more likely that my B717 with 117 passengers on board has a more accurate weight and balance than the guy flying a C402 who is actually asking his passengers their weights. His passengers are lying, and my passengers don't have the chance to lie. Their weights are determined by scientific study.

 

[SteveC]

I am a firm believer that "stacking the deck" in your favor is a good thing. I also believe that knowingly flying an overweight aircraft is a bad thing. And that there is practically NO situations (in civilian flying) where you HAVE to chose between the two.

 

[Tommay85]

I am a firm believer that "stacking the deck" in your favor is a good thing. I also believe that knowingly flying an overweight aircraft is a bad thing. And that there is practically NO situations (in civilian flying) where you HAVE to chose between the two.

Aside from the zombie apocalypse and needing to load your hijacked learjet with all your shot guns and flame throwers, I agree.

 

[cmill]

I know I'm disregarding important things, like WHY i only have 30 minutes of fuel, but if im down that low in IMC, no, I will not be going around. The plane is landing as far as im concerned.

 

[jrh]

I just didn't see any reason to do any deck stacking on that day with the information I had available at the time. Even enroute, the info(to me) still looked good. It was only well after landing that it became clear that the weathermen weren't on their A game that day.

Oh yeah, not saying you didn't carry adequate fuel. Just giving you something to think about for flights in the future.

 

[jrh]

You guys scoffing at the FAA standard passenger and baggage weights should do a little research. These numbers were just adjusted less than 10 years ago, as a result of the crash of the BE1900 in CLT. Take a look at Advisory Circular 120-27E for the details. The quick version is that the standard passenger weights are determined by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a peer reviewed study conducted in a clinical setting to determine the average weight of Americans. The weights in the survey have been going up consistently over the past few decades as obesity has become more common. Whenever the weight goes up by 2% or more, the FAA adjusts the standard weights. Right now, the standard FAA weights fit perfectly with what every study indicates is the average weight of Americans.

Interesting. I'd always assumed it was something like this, but never heard the exact background.

Just curious, is there any need to compensate by region? Do all the fatties coming out of Huntsville, Alabama make a difference compared to all the hippy granola eaters coming out of Durango, Colorado?

As far as average bag weights, these weights were determined following the BE1900 crash by having operators of 10-19 seat airplanes actually weight the bags of every passenger over a period of several months. The averages were calculated using the results of that study.

Again, interesting. Do you think this still holds true now that passengers are used to packing more in their carryons to avoid checked bag fees?

FAA standard weights are very accurate. It's far more likely that my B717 with 117 passengers on board has a more accurate weight and balance than the guy flying a C402 who is actually asking his passengers their weights. His passengers are lying, and my passengers don't have the chance to lie. Their weights are determined by scientific study.

Another just curious question--any idea how they compute weights for sports charters? I'd imagine a football team an would throw off the averages, but don't know what the procedures are.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Just curious, is there any need to compensate by region? Do all the fatties coming out of Huntsville, Alabama make a difference compared to all the hippy granola eaters coming out of Durango, Colorado?

I would be really surprised if average weight varied much by market served. Remember, for every "local" on that flight to Huntsville, there are probably two business men from some other locale. It all averages out.

Again, interesting. Do you think this still holds true now that passengers are used to packing more in their carryons to avoid checked bag fees?

Well, if you fly on SWA, then "bags fly free." Sorry, shameless plug for my new corporate overlords.

I haven't noticed much of a difference in cargo compartment weights since we started charging for bags. For the most part, I think passengers are just continuing to check the bags and just paying the fees (and then bitching about it incessantly later, even though they only paid $95 to go from LAX to ATL). Our ancillary revenues seem to bear that out as well, since we're making about $300 million a year just from these ancillary fees.

Another just curious question--any idea how they compute weights for sports charters? I'd imagine a football team an would throw off the averages, but don't know what the procedures are.

I'm sure other airlines may have different procedures, but I know that we have a separate W&B form that has to be used for special charters that involve unusual weights. We use actual weights, not standard weights, for these flights.

 

[z987k]

I am a firm believer that "stacking the deck" in your favor is a good thing. I also believe that knowingly flying an overweight aircraft is a bad thing. And that there is practically NO situations (in civilian flying) where you HAVE to chose between the two.

Excluding Alaska(91.323) and most ferry flights(offshore) then?

I find it funny how and airplane's geographical location makes it capable of carrying more weight.

 

[MikeD]

Excluding Alaska(91.323) and most ferry flights(offshore) then?

I find it funny how and airplane's geographical location makes it capable of carrying more weight.

Most ferry flights get an FAA special airworthiness certificate waiver for operation over gross weight, if need be, much like 91.323. Not just the geo location, as there are other factors that go into it of course. Too, Ive seen planes denied an exemption like this for different factors.

Insofar as the reasoning for operations within the State of Alaska, maybe if the plane crashes, it'll only kill the people onboard and unlikely to kill persons on the ground? I honestly don't know.

 

[z987k]

Most ferry flights get an FAA special airworthiness certificate waiver for operation over gross weight, if need be, much like 91.323. Not just the geo location, as there are other factors that go into it of course. Too, Ive seen planes denied an exemption like this for different factors.

Insofar as the reasoning for operations within the State of Alaska, maybe if the plane crashes, it'll only kill the people onboard and unlikely to kill persons on the ground? I honestly don't know.

I don't think being 15% over matters in the slightest. It was just such a need to continue to conduct normal operations up there, that someone paid enough money to the right person to get it put in. That's what I'd bet on. And from what I've seen, they get pretty liberal with the 15%.

 

[MikeD]

I don't think being 15% over matters in the slightest. It was just such a need to continue to conduct normal operations up there, that someone paid enough money to the right person to get it put in. That's what I'd bet on. And from what I've seen, they get pretty liberal with the 15%.

Im sure most planes can fly just fine 15% over. And you're probably fully correct about how it came to be, and how it's used real time.

 

[ppragman]

Excluding Alaska(91.323) and most ferry flights(offshore) then?

I find it funny how and airplane's geographical location makes it capable of carrying more weight.

Denalt