weight and balance

A recent event unfolded with the resultant actions having taken place.

Engine upgrade from a Jab 1600 to a Jab2200

No weight and balance carried out.

Lead missing in the rear (was drilled out)

Elevator travel adjusted to excessive UP and zero DOWN.

Resultant prop strike.

I am still at a loss as to how this series of comical, yet deadly events managed to introduce themselves. It is a serious issue, and needs to be brought to the attention of the pilots that weight and balance is necessary and if they don't understand the figures, ask someone who does. The 'she'll be right' attitude will end up possibly killing them one day. Certificated aircraft particularly should have a weight and balance section with a CG graph in it. Why not use it and draw the line on the graph.

Needless to say, there will be more on this issue coming out over time. Education and recognition of the effects of weight and balance are a key to giving pilots just that extra little bit of survivability on a test flight so that they don't have to worry about too much more if the engine conks out.

Chris

Aware of the importance of weight and balance, I just had a radio, transponder and extra gauges installed and a weight and balance was carried out after the installation by the LAME. Do I have to inform the RAA of this and if so how?

My answer is "Yes", because fore & aft CG are supposed to be recorded as part of the aircraft data; there is certainly provision in the database for the data.

Why not send a copy of the W&B sheets to the office and ask that they be put on the aircraft's file.

Sorry, but my answer would be NO!

The aircraft's log book is the correct place for recording of data. RAA has mandatory updates via various forms socentral files are up-dated periodically.

More effort must be put into member education on what a log book actually is and we may have less problems with peripheral issues (that themselves are vital safety issues like W & B).

Just loading the office up with yet more filing to do is not going to solve much other than yet another reason to not do other things!

Practical Flight Safety begins in the hangar and progresses out to the airfield - not with some increasingly unapproachable and mysterious edifice in Canberra! It is the grass roots knowledge levels that need to be addressed!

For some of the trusting and pious wimps out there try this: About two months after the AGM/Board Meeting we have had NO feedback of any note. The management questions I put to the Board Howard kindly informed us would have to wait for the draft minutes. My several approaches to the 3 SE Qld Reps have gone largely unanswered except for Andre (who has had to go away for a few weeks). The Chat Line has been closed, the web site is now down (for reasons not RAA's fault) and the magazine is about two months behind what is happening so who can maintain interest?

No, my friends, do not give the Office more to do that we should anyway be doing ourselves! I have heard too often now the 'We were too busy to get to that'. That can be and is a too often used excuse for answer what is of interest and stuff the rest! Or it is in the two hard basket.

One of my customers could not get even a simple response to what an RAA member's qualifications actually were when he was plainly ripping her off and using alleged qualifications to do so!

Not impressed at all!

You can do nothing about stupidity. To issue more regs is meaningless without policing them - heaven forbid - and the stupids of the earth will still disregard them. I recall a finding in the auto trade that showed the rate of accidents/fatalities was the same across ALL states those with yearly inspections and those without. A sane person does not drive a car with obvious safety faults continuously but a DH stupid will no matter what the laws/regs are. Yearly inspections a simpply a means of gathering revenue and do nothing to affect the safety outcomes.

The parralells twixt aviation ie machinery and ANY machinery are obvious. I beleive we will see more and more of this as more GA just take the back seats out types are registered and flown fat as ultralights.

Just a question? Did the plane concerned actually depart mother earth at all? or did this occur on attempting a landing?

Isuppose it was "better" than having a aft balance, but why on earth would someone change the elevator operation?? All I could think of was to counteract the foward cg, strange.

Just curious, Micgrace.

Hi,

Yes the aircraft did fly, although pretty much with the stick in the aft position. The elevator throw was altered to counteract the nose heavy moment.

Chris