Cessna 182 at High Field Elevation DZ

[ChrisD 0]

I'm starting to receive PM (Private Messages) from some well meaning individuals from this post. I expected this...

I do not respond to PM's. What you have to say to me privately can be said publicly.

My point again is that loading an aircraft up to, near, and or over the published max is an unsafe practice, period.

Many have pointed out that at or near the "envelope" is legal.

What we are speaking about here is a mathematical line on a chart,...at a certain lbs you are ?Safe? and then add even 5 lbs to be on the other side of this calculated line and now we are not safe???

I am pointing out that the practice of operating at or near max is an unsafe practice that is financially driven.

C

This practice has become so prevelant in the skydiving community, that all too many accept this as normal, it is not normal nor is it safe.

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[DBCOOPER 1]

I'll say it publicly. You have not been educated on this subject. You have no clue.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

What we are speaking about here is a mathematical line on a chart,...at a certain lbs you are ?Safe? and then add even 5 lbs to be on the other side of this calculated line and now we are not safe???

That's exactly what that means. The manufacturer has tested and tested, and tested the aicraft in those configurations and certified exactly that.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

My point again is that loading an aircraft up to, near, and or over the published max is an unsafe practice, period.

I'll chime in as well, you're way off the mark here. The 'max' weight is not the weight at which the aircraft will barely fly, it the max weight at which the aircraft will perform within the published standards of the POH.

It's like this - let's say you need to carry a weight up a flight of stairs in 10 seconds. If you find that you can carry 50 lbs up the stairs in 10 seconds, that would be your 'max' weight. Could you make up the stairs with more weight, but maybe take linger than 10 seconds? Sure. Woudl you maybe be less steady on your feet with more than 50 lbs, especially if you were trying to get up there in 10 seconds? Sure. Would it be less safe for you with more than 50 lbs? Sure again.

Despite all that, it would still be 'safe' for you to carry anything up to 50 lbs. Same for airplanes. People fly over max weight all the time, and have no problems. If you get too far over, or at too high of an elevation, or have a mechanical or shitty pilot, you might have a problem, but most airplanes can physically fly over their max weight. Now that is an usafe process, but loading an aircraft within the published limits is not.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

My point again is that loading an aircraft up to, near, and or over the published max is an unsafe practice, period.

I'll chime in as well, you're way off the mark here. The 'max' weight is not the weight at which the aircraft will barely fly, it the max weight at which the aircraft will perform within the published standards of the POH.





Check out this STC to raise the max weight for 182p and q models.
http://www.182stc.com/

It gives 150 to 160lbs increase in max weight with no changes to the aircraft, just paperwork, all fully FAA approved. It must have been really dangerous to fly these aircraft "near" the old max weight.

• Quote

[RMURRAY 1]

so what is the conclusion? a 182P with the increased gross STC, wing extensions etc plus at least 285HP continuous or would 300HP continuous be best to haul 2 tandems to 9500 agl all day (from dzo's view)...

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/181623-1.html

[Skydive2 1]

Quote

I thought we were arguing about justifying horsepower upgrades? 28K 470 vs $70K 550? If powerplants are the same than yes...better to have the cheaper airframe obviously.

We are arguing that. The question is do you want a 28k 230hp engine or do you want to spend almost $50k more to have a 40ish extra horse power engine that, at the end of the day, does the exact same thing as the 28k engine, but is 2 minutes slower and burns approx 1.5 gallons less???

[Skydive2 1]

But I grew up with the old school mentality, buy it cheap, fly it till the mechanic wants too much to annual it, then buy another....

[neandertal 0]

Our TS and Pponk engines actually burn less fuel per load (more per hour) and they turn loads 4/6 min faster then my other 2 stock engines. They could fly a little faster but we DO NOT slam throttles full fwd. TS @ 2550 RPM (2700 max cont. RPM) and Pponk @ 2500 RPM (2600 max cont. RPM). Even flying with reduced power settings, they turn extra 4 loads over the stock ones at the end of a busy day.

No Drogue, no JUMP!!

[billvon 2,400]

>it the max weight at which the aircraft will perform within the published standards of the POH.

That may be true of brand new engines. Few aircraft I have ever flown "performed within the published standards of the POH" at maximum weight. A pilot who loads a light aircraft to its maximum weight, and then relies on published performance for safe operation, is not a very smart pilot.

>If you find that you can carry 50 lbs up the stairs in 10 seconds, that would be your
>'max' weight. Could you make up the stairs with more weight, but maybe take linger
>than 10 seconds? Sure.

Often the consequences of "lingering" are different when you are flying an aircraft than when you are walking up the stairs. I am sure that every pilot who has not cleared the trees on takeoff thought "I'm fine; I have some margin here. It will just climb a bit slower."