MTOW that mythical number

[Geoff13]

Is it just my imagination, or is total disregard for the rules in RA Aus an ingrained culture.

 

Or are people just playing me for a fool. I refer to MTOW of aircraft for sale. I have been trying to buy an aircraft, although thankfully I think that search may have finally come to an end. If I had a dollar for everyone who has an aircraft advertised who when asked what the MTOW was for their aircraft answered with one of the following comments I would be rich.

 

In order of qty of respondents.

 

1. I've got no idea but she gets of the ground with me and me mate and we are both over 100kgs each.

 

2. I don't know mate how heavy are you? When I respond with mine and my wife's combined weight it is invariably oh no worries mate shell get of with that on board. Might take a bit more runway. Even the bloke I told we were over 300kgs between us.

 

3. They are all 600kgs now mate. She all changed when the LSA's came in.

 

4. Who cares, no-one checks anyway. if you get fit in it she'll take off.

 

And people are surprised by CASA's reaction to the perceived problem with J motors. With some of the attitudes that I have seen in the last 6 months, I am surprised that CASA haven't moved against us sooner.

 

I must admit with the administration that I have had dealings with so far I believe that there are moves afoot to change that culture and imho not a minute to soon and hopefully they can start the attitude adjustment quickly enough to convince CASA that we are not all cowboys.

 

I understand it is recreational aviation but at the end of the day we live by a set of rules. We need to abide by them. We accept those rules by virtue of the fact that we renew our membership, so we should adhere to them. If the rules are wrong, then ignoring them is not the right way to change them.

 

Just my rant for this week. It has made the journey of looking for an aircraft almost impossible when I have continually come up against this attitude.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Yes it is a common attitude. Mostly it is irresponsible. I have some sympathy for 550kg airframes that are identical to 600kg versions, and for 600kg reg that could be reg GA at higher weights. When these people plan long cross country legs, an extra 10kg of fuel may save lives, without any real (as distinct from regulatory) MTOW problem.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I understand what you are saying PM. And in the case where the airframes are Identical I tend to agree, however (and there always is a but) to get that 600 kgs LSA rating the manufacturer has to certify/test the airframe. Do you not agree that he should be entitled to some benefit for the extra cost and R & D to get that rating. And how can we be certain that the home built version is identical. Maybe the manufacturer has had to beef something up somewhere to pass all those tests. I know it seems silly if 2 identical aircraft have different mtow's but then the LSA version needs the extra to carry all that paperwork. My comment was not so much about the meaning of the regulations, it was more about the culture/attidtudes to them. And when I say culture I do mean that.

 

There does appear to be two cultures that I have noticed.

 

1. The guys who say we where flying before there were rules so we don't need them.

 

2. And then there are those who follow the rules to the best of their ability.

 

Oh there are two more.

 

3. The greenhorns who are trying to learn and do the right thing.

 

4. The guys who have decided that it is all just to hard to understand so have decided to do the best they can within their interpretation of the rules.

 

The worrying thing is that I found these attitudes right back when I first started looking for an FTF. If we have this variation within our FTF's then how are the guys from groups 3 and 4 ever going to learn.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

My head gets firmly applied to the desk when I hear, and read this sort of thing. geoff, Im sure you have a great attitude already towards this sort of thing, but just to make doubly sure you are not lead astray by your FTF and the people you have been talking to.

 

MTOW is a very real number that ALL pilots in ALL aircraft should not only be aware of, but abide by STRICTLY!!!!

 

Its not something to be messed with, if for NO other reason, in the event you have a prang you can kiss your insurance goodbye if you are over weight.

 

Secondly, CASA can and will ramp you, and if you answer the q, like the guys in your first post, well then expect a nice letter from them which starts with the line " We have made recommendation to the RAA that your privileges as PIC be suspended"

 

Thirdly, if you fly + MTOW, you are essentially a test pilot, as the aeroplane's performance is now outside its design envelope. Sure, it may fly quite happily, but the way it behaves may vary quite significantly.

 

Further to this, the C of G is rated at MTOW with Pilot and Pax and BAGGAGE etc being UNDER MTOW (Useful load) so there is no garuntee's you are within the design CofG range (a very scary thing indeed)

 

Lastly, and probably the most significantly, if we are to hold the concept of "airmenship' with due regard, then knowingly flying outside a design limitation puts us on the bottom end of the 'airmen' scale IMHO, and if we are prepared to either bend this rule, or not care about it enough to even KNOW the numbers, then im afraid we are just accidents looking for a place to happen.

 

 

[poteroo]

It's an interesting exercise at the start of a BFR, to ask for the Basic Empty Weight of the aircraft. Then ask for all the 'additional' items to be taken out of the aircraft, eg, tiedown kit, hammer, tool kits, spare wheels, water, bottles of oil, first aid kit, nav bag, etc....ie,... anything that was not included in the BEW. A little bit of addition and we discover that the real BEW is often 25kgs more than noted in the aircrafts' POH. So - try that test for starters.....

 

Then we have the case of what constitutes your personal 'weight'. Technically, it's your weight sans clothing, but mostly we allow you jocks. Then redress in your jeans, jacket, and boots and reweigh yourself. Result is usually another 2-4 kgs. So, for 2 persons, there's another 6-8 kg of purely personal clothing.

 

Only after you've done the above checks does your Zero Fuel Weight have any accuracy. My experience says that there is often a 30-35 kg weight which is unaccounted for in pre-flight calculations.

 

This doesn't make the 600 kg maximum weight unusable. Let's face it - most people are tending toward over their optimum weight, and it may well be that the only way to 'fit' into a 600 kg LSA aircraft is to slim down the crew weights. Over the last 2 years, I've reduced my weight by 9 kgs, (10%), by simply following the 1 or 2 days 'fasting' eating plan - (sometimes called the 5:2 or Mosely plan). Costs nothing and it really works. It's also helped me drop my BSL's by over 0.8 units. Google it if you are interested.

 

happy days,

 

 

[ave8rr]

Geoff13, you have started a very good thread. I have found most sellers know the MTOW however most do knot know the aircrafts empty weight hence how can they know what payload is available??

 

Another interesting question is that of air speeds. A lot of these fairly high cruise speed (100+ Kt) European designs have a very low max structural cruise speed. Some owners don't appear to understand the significance of design max structural cruise and manoeuvreing speeds when asked.

 

 

[Geoff13]

My head gets firmly applied to the desk when I hear, and read this sort of thing. geoff, Im sure you have a great attitude already towards this sort of thing, but just to make doubly sure you are not lead astray by your FTF and the people you have been talking to.MTOW is a very real number that ALL pilots in ALL aircraft should not only be aware of, but abide by STRICTLY!!!!

 

Its not something to be messed with, if for NO other reason, in the event you have a prang you can kiss your insurance goodbye if you are over weight.

 

Secondly, CASA can and will ramp you, and if you answer the q, like the guys in your first post, well then expect a nice letter from them which starts with the line " We have made recommendation to the RAA that your privileges as PIC be suspended"

 

Thirdly, if you fly + MTOW, you are essentially a test pilot, as the aeroplane's performance is now outside its design envelope. Sure, it may fly quite happily, but the way it behaves may vary quite significantly.

 

Further to this, the C of G is rated at MTOW with Pilot and Pax and BAGGAGE etc being UNDER MTOW (Useful load) so there is no garuntee's you are within the design CofG range (a very scary thing indeed)

 

Lastly, and probably the most significantly, if we are to hold the concept of "airmenship' with due regard, then knowingly flying outside a design limitation puts us on the bottom end of the 'airmen' scale IMHO, and if we are prepared to either bend this rule, or not care about it enough to even KNOW the numbers, then im afraid we are just accidents looking for a place to happen.

I could not agree more. MTOW = MAXIMUM Take Off Weight. I have spent 6 months and only managed to find 3 aircraft that I can fly with my wife in the cheaper bracket that I have been looking at. And one of those does not allow for any luggage. I have spent my life living by the rules. 18.5 years as a Military Tradesman in a trade where safety was paramount and people could die if we got it wrong. And the last 22 driving semi's where it was nothing to get pulled over for checks 2 or 3 times a night and on average on a weekly basis. So I for one have no intention of flying overweight. I see aviation as a reasonable safe sport. But I only see it that way because of the rules, not in spite of them. As I said before if the rules are wrong then that needs to be proven to those who are capable of changing them it certainly does not mean flying outside them. The bonus with those people who could not or would not tell me the BEW and MTOW of their aircraft was it saved me a follow up call. A big red cross went through the add.

 

It's an interesting exercise at the start of a BFR, to ask for the Basic Empty Weight of the aircraft. Then ask for all the 'additional' items to be taken out of the aircraft, eg, tiedown kit, hammer, tool kits, spare wheels, water, bottles of oil, first aid kit, nav bag, etc....ie,... anything that was not included in the BEW. A little bit of addition and we discover that the real BEW is often 25kgs more than noted in the aircrafts' POH. So - try that test for starters.....Then we have the case of what constitutes your personal 'weight'. Technically, it's your weight sans clothing, but mostly we allow you jocks. Then redress in your jeans, jacket, and boots and reweigh yourself. Result is usually another 2-4 kgs. So, for 2 persons, there's another 6-8 kg of purely personal clothing.

 

Only after you've done the above checks does your Zero Fuel Weight have any accuracy. My experience says that there is often a 30-35 kg weight which is unaccounted for in pre-flight calculations.

 

This doesn't make the 600 kg maximum weight unusable. Let's face it - most people are tending toward over their optimum weight, and it may well be that the only way to 'fit' into a 600 kg LSA aircraft is to slim down the crew weights. Over the last 2 years, I've reduced my weight by 9 kgs, (10%), by simply following the 1 or 2 days 'fasting' eating plan - (sometimes called the 5:2 or Mosely plan). Costs nothing and it really works. It's also helped me drop my BSL's by over 0.8 units. Google it if you are interested.

 

happy days,

Again I agree totally. I was asked for my CofG calculations when I fronted for my Pilots Certificate test. I was asked again on one of my Navs to check that I had worked it out with empty tanks as well as full. I value those types of questions. I also agree personal weight needs to count for clothing as well and I allow 10 kgs for 2 people above the quoted weight. And obviously to me anyway is the fact that baggage includes all baggage in the aircraft not just the wife's handbag.

 

As for shedding those kgs, since I started this journey, I have shed 31 kgs which means that between the wife and I we have lost almost 45 kgs. That in itself has been a challenge but worth it on so many levels. The aircraft that I have settled on for my first one would have carried us at our starting weight fully clothed with her handbag and 70 litres in the 80 litre tank. We now have 40 kgs to spare at MTOW with full tanks so you won't get any arguments from me on that level either.

 

After my first TIF when I got home and goggled some weights and did my best guess at the pilots weight I was horrified to find that we were probably 10% over mtow. I quickly developed a series of questions to help me determine the safety culture of subsequent potential FTF's. I believe that left me in a very good position to decide where to go to learn. I certainly picked the Foxbat to learn in because of its carrying capacity. At my starting weight she was the only one that could safely carry me the instructor and full tanks.

 

 

[terryc]

I take notice of this subject as a matter of my personal interest, In tas because we are small in number and our groups are small in number as well, our influence on one another is greater. This comes from the cfi down not the other way around. I have not found one single person who didn't know mtow off the top of their head [remember it has to be placarded on the dash] nor have I ever found anyone flying over wieght. [ I have not be cheeky enough to suggest to someone we weigh the contents of their plane yet] If the cfi sets the standard others follow. I'll bet in Merv's little circle of of students, bfr returns, worshipers he does not need to constantly retrain them because they allow their standards given to them by their instructors to drop away between bfrs. It is my belief that a reminder from time to time of a pilots responsibilities is a far better tool than a mallet

 

 

[poteroo]

Another interesting question is that of air speeds. A lot of these fairly high cruise speed (100+ Kt) European designs have a very low max structural cruise speed. Some owners don't appear to understand the significance of design max structural cruise and manoeuvreing speeds when asked.

This came up on a thread about 3 months back. With our non-aerobatic aircraft, Va = Vs x sq.rt of +LF max. So with LF = 3.8 and Vs =45, your Va = 88 KIAS. It seems there's a lot of confusion between Vno (bottom of yellow/top of green),and Va. It needs to be considered that Vb, (turbulence penetration speed),is lower than Va. Several sets of numbers that I've had quoted to me claim very high Va - 'because our aircraft is built strongly and so can be flown fast through rough air' Really? happy days,

 

 

[dazza 38]

It is pretty hard to attack CASA when we have numb nuts out there like Geoff has mentioned in his original post. It makes a mockery of recreational aviation in general.

 

 

[Yenn]

I had to put a MTOW placard in the cockpit of my plane to get it re registered this year. I really don't know what is the sense of that as I do not know off the top of my head what the empty weight is. I do know that I can fly full fuel and be well within the Max weight and also within C of G limits at all fuel stages. That is what applies to my Corby Starlet, but my RV4 is a different matter. It depends upon passenger weight, fuel load and baggage load. A bit hard to exceed MTOW, but it is quite possible to get C of G out of limits.

 

We all have to know how to work out weight and balance to be proper pilots, plus a lot of other matters and from what I read on this forum I wonder how much a lot of pilots do know about the essentials. There should be weight and balance and other weight information in the handbook for the plane you fly, even if it is information you provided yourself as is my case as I built both planes.

 

 

[Geoff13]

And therein lies a further problem. Many of these airplanes when you look at all the photos simply don't have all the required stickers. I know that they must have been there once for rego but I don't know why they would be removed. As for BEW first question is always is it still for sale. If I get a yes with that then I go to Mtow please. If they cant answer that then there is no point going to the 3rd question which is BEW please. I ask those three before I even ask where it is located. Those three questions would cut out 90% of the aircraft that I looked at. At least 30% because they could not answer the questions and the remainder due to the weight being unworkable for my needs. Now the wife and I come in at 185 allowing for clothes say 200 for with the basic paperwork that we are required to carry and the obvious handbag. We are largeish but not particularly above the norm. Admittedly when I started that was not the case Their are not a lot of aircraft out there that can carry us and full fuel. It get even less when you start looking at anything other than LSA's. Like I said I have only found 3 in my preset price range that worked. And if you do the maths on most of, not all of, the LSA's, then you might be surprised. I go to airfields and look at people getting in and out of planes and just cringe some days. Remember after my research, I can quote the bew and mtow of a huge number of planes now and there fuel capacity. I have been doing this exercise on every plane I see for 6 months.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

It's not only RAAus Geoff. Look at GA crash reports and it is not uncommon for MTOW to have been exceeded. It may not have directly caused the crash but it is indicative of the mentality of the pilot and disregard for other rules of common sense. Parachute aircraft have been regular offenders. Be very careful of BEW if the aircraft is home built. I think the placard on the dash should be "useful load" not MTOW. Also be very carful of claims of cruise speeds. A comfortable, practical cruise speed if often 10 knots slower than claims by manufacturers and keen sellers.

 

I think that if RAAus aircraft were defined by BEW (say max 400 kg) and not MTOW then some aircraft could legally carry more and not be constrained by the artificial limit of 600 kg. My aircraft MTOW can be increased by 50 kg if I put it on floats. If it can fly at 650 kg with floats it should be allowed to fly at 650 kg without floats.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Happyflyer is that a Hanuman in your avatar and is that what you have? I know they get 50kg for floats and 22.5 for a BRS, which means they should be safe to the current mtow 544 plus the 50 plus 22.5. A total of 616.5kg. Now that would be a load capacity of just under 350 kgs.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I spoke to Darren Barnfield about this very issue about the 50kg for floats and or a Ballistic chute. If I fit a chute I still have to be at the 600kg not 622.5 kg so I used the float argument and he said it has to do with what the manufacturer says also the floats add lift...but I also said heaps of drag too....it was all a fuddy duddy answer and not that clear.

 

The only aircraft that can take the most load in real terms is a Savannah XL or S...most have a BEW of 300 to 310kg and are 600kg MTOW so thats 300kg or a bit less carrying capacity. I don't know of any other ultralight that can do that. Then again they are not 40K either more like 60k even for a homebuilt and a factory built is about 95k

 

My Sav is a bit heavy it is 321kg but I have bigger tyres a few more mods I did as well and I out way too much 2 pack undercoat on it should have been around 310kg. Now with the 600kg upgrade I can carry close to 280kg. That is me and a 90kg pax and almost full fuel thats 100 litres. if it is just me and the 140 litres I can take another 2 of 20litre fuel cans on the pax seat and my full 20kg of luggage AND still be 40kg under MTOW

 

I rebalanced my aircraft as it was within the specs but was nose heavy so I put the battery down the back and re did all the W&B at all different scenarios and I am well within the limits at 600kg and if you extend it out to heavier I am still well within the limits. With the Sav the more you load it the more the CG moves back

 

Mark

 

 

[Yenn]

This post seems to be about the legalities of flying, so here is a question. How legal is it to carru jerry cans of spare fuel in the cockpit?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Or even empty cans...

 

 

[Geoff13]

This post seems to be about the legalities of flying, so here is a question. How legal is it to carru jerry cans of spare fuel in the cockpit?

I haven't found anything forbidding it in writing yet, but that does not mean it isn't there. I would think security would be more important than contents, as many light airplanes have internal fuel tanks just behind the seats.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Think carrage of "Dangerous Goods".

 

 

[poteroo]

I think the placard on the dash should be "useful load" not MTOW

I'd be happier to see BEW plus MTOW. happy days,

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I haven't found anything forbidding it in writing yet, but that does not mean it isn't there. I would think security would be more important than contents, as many light airplanes have internal fuel tanks just behind the seats.

Then you might want to check out this http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_91038

For guidance on what actually constitutes dangerous goods, you will need to refer to the ICAO Technical Instructions.

 

I can assure you that flammable liquids (full jerry cans) and flammable gases (empty jerry cans) are both classified as dangerous goods. Having said that I have known operations that are legally allowed to carry them, but in a private capacity you will need still need to comply with the technical instructions' as required by the regulations.

 

As someone who regularly flies with DG's on board (legally permitted to do so) , I find it astounding that only commercial pilots are required to have DG any form of training. In my opinion a GA, or RAA type aircraft is far more likely to be exposed to a dangerous goods threat, the comments above a case in point.

 

Here's a simple one, given the propensity for iPads, GPS's, phones, etc... amongst the RAA fraternity, do you know how many LiON batteries you are allowed to have on board and/or what amperage is permissable?

 

Apologies for the thread drift!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It has been my understanding that collapsible jerry cans are probably safe but not ordinary ones. The big risk is carrying them when empty or nearly so.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

It has been my understanding that collapsible jerry cans are probably safe but not ordinary ones. The big risk is carrying them when empty or nearly so.

That may be so, but what do the rules say?

And how do you carry jerry cans in accordance with those rules?

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

How do ferry pilots get on then?...I have done heaps of radio work for ferry pilots they have some weird portable HF arrangements that I have organised for them...they tell me they have bladders they fit into the pax and luggage area to carry the fuel for the long ocean flights

 

Mark

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

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?

 

Did you see what I did there^^?