MTOW that mythical number

[Kyle Communications]

Yes I see the edit Howard....at least your one of the very few that pick it up....but I am used to it...it only started about 20 years ago when my last name started becoming popular as a first name

 

Mark Kyle

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I actually meant got the thread back on track, but yes apologies for using the wrong first name!

 

 

[ayavner]

I see what you did there

 

 

[Russ]

There are a number of bladder makers, most are GA certified. ( turtle pak, liquid solutions, just to name 2. )

 

Then there's all the imported ones.....again, most certified.

 

 

[robinsm]

So 90 lts just behind my seat in fibreglass tanks where I can see it and 20lts strapped onto the passenger seat in an approved restraint device in an approved sealed container may not be legal...???

 

 

[poteroo]

So 90 lts just behind my seat in fibreglass tanks where I can see it and 20lts strapped onto the passenger seat in an approved restraint device in an approved sealed container may not be legal...???

Almost certainly not. But then, you didn't crash 50nm short of Warburton Range did you? And how many 'officious bystanders' watched as you unloaded the empty 'special auxillary tanks' at Woop Woop International? Some times, you've gotta do what you've gotta do.

 

My very 1st Chief Pilot explained this to me in 1965. " If you carry extra fuel, but are over MTOW - a ramp check will probably 'forgive' you, but if you run out of fuel over the Owen Stanleys - you'll go down as pilot error ".

 

happy days,

 

 

[ben87r]

Or, you can depart at MTOW and track to a destination that is within a safe useable range of the aircraft!?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So back to the original question, there are people who think it reasonable to carry jerry cans, or to take off a bit over MTOW, because in their judgement that is safer than the alternative for that particular flight. I think those views are widespread,, but others will condemn such behaviour.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Really there is only one "correct" answer : One is legal and the other is not, you can argue whatever options you like but it doesn't change the correct answer.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Really there is only one "correct" answer : One is legal and the other is not, you can argue whatever options you like but it doesn't change the correct answer.

I agree. So if the behaviour is widespread, as I believe, then either the regulations are out of step with practical needs, or the apparent penalties are too small, or both. Perhaps ignorance of the rules figures there as well.

The "practical" people probably outnumber the "rule -followers" which says something about RAAus. A survey would be interesting if it could be kept anonymous.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So 90 lts just behind my seat in fibreglass tanks where I can see it and 20lts strapped onto the passenger seat in an approved restraint device in an approved sealed container may not be legal...???

Is there a CASA approved sealed container that is legal to carry inside the cabin?

 

 

[KRviator]

It doesn't need to be CAsA approved, but rather meet the requirements of the IATA DG regulations. It's been a while since I did my DG packaging & acceptance course, but to be legal for carriage by air, there should be a "UN" symbol, with a string of letters & numbers similar to:

[Guest Howard Hughes]

but to be legal for carriage by air, there should be a "UN" symbol, with a string of letters & numbers similar to:

Private operators can carry Dangerous Goods provided they comply with the ICAO Technical Instructions, there is slightly more to it than having the correct container.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

So 90 lts just behind my seat in fibreglass tanks where I can see it and 20lts strapped onto the passenger seat in an approved restraint device in an approved sealed container may not be legal...???

Is definitively 'not legal', the difference being one is certified for the purpose (and is required for flight) and the other is not.

 

I agree. So if the behaviour is widespread, as I believe, then either the regulations are out of step with practical needs, or the apparent penalties are too small, or both. Perhaps ignorance of the rules figures there as well.

Kaz might be able to elighten, but I don't think that ignorance is an excuse for not following the rules.

I think the fundamental problem stems from many RAA fliers being totally unaware that there is set of rules that they need to comply with, other than what is contained in the RAA manual.

 

 

[poteroo]

Or, you can depart at MTOW and track to a destination that is within a safe useable range of the aircraft!?

Or, rent, buy, or borrow an aircraft with a huge range. Plenty of those in RAAus. You just need to shrink the crew somewhat to allow full tanks to be carried at under MTOW. Simple, really.

 

 

[ben87r]

I think that might of been tounge in cheek but yep, you could do all of that if that's what's required. Or use the Aircraft you have for what it is capable of.

 

 

[poteroo]

I think that might of been tounge in cheek but yep, you could do all of that if that's what's required. Or use the Aircraft you have for what it is capable of.

Getting to be a circular argument here. Where we started was with pilots complaining about the lack of available load in LSA. Many of the 'new' LSA's start off with a reasonably 'light' BEW - until new owner Joe Bloggs decides to install a parallel suite of analog gauges, 3 x GPS, 2x COMS, an ADF, 2 ELB's, a set of Alaskan tundra tyres so he can land on river sandbars, and a 5-axis autopilot to ease the workload on 2 hr flights. Then the load problems begin! We learned back in the 90's that if you wanted a faster RV - don't load it up with junk! Build it light. happy days,

 

 

[ben87r]

I thought the thread started with a new pilots total disbelief at attitudes towards MTOW?

 

And the reason it's circuilar is because the same point stands each time. It is unsafe/illegal to depart over MTOW for any unapproved reason. It isn't a recommended weight.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I thought the initial post was about the lack of flight planning and disregard for W&B limits that dominates the RAA culture

 

 

[Geoff13]

Ok another question. How many people out there have read all the regs with regard to their pilot Certificate and airplane. And the obvious follow up question. How many people have understood everything they have regarding their responsibilities.

 

I will go first. I have certainly not yet read everything. The reason is because I am finding so much of it difficult to understand and so require lots of re reading and research to comprehend.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If you legislate everything, you end up making everyone a criminal. This gives the state great power over the individual.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I tried reading the manual's, BUT understood very little, too many lawer's writing the manuals so laypeople have to get it all explained to them!

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Quite a few of the trip stories in Sport Pilot, particularly a couple of years ago, described carrying extra fuel. It would be hard for the new pilot to know that this was illegal when so enthusiastically promoted by RAAus.

 

 

[poteroo]

Quite a few of the trip stories in Sport Pilot, particularly a couple of years ago, described carrying extra fuel. It would be hard for the new pilot to know that this was illegal when so enthusiastically promoted by RAAus.

Bit unfair to RAAus editor, who is publishing what's written by contributor. Editor isn't the fun police either. If we need to vet every contributed article and edit out anything remotely near an infringement of a CASR/ CAR/CAO/ - then heaven help freedom of expression. Isn't this where the issue over Section 18 and the Bolt case becomes important? Readers should always be aware that there is a general disclaimer for content in every flying magazine - which you have 'accepted' by virtue of purchasing it. happy days,

 

 

[robinsm]

The MTOW in an ultralight has to be pasted on full view inside the cab of the aircraft. If it aint there, the aircraft aintg legal, so sayeth the manual.