Well there in lies your answer. Lots of Canada isn't at sea level. Where I worked the school at the field is 3500'. The performance difference for the 172 was much preferred by customers, and given the customer base was split about even with recreational flyers and career oriented ones. I understand why people would pay more for the 172. If you don't, well I won't convince you.
Blue Bird in Hot Water
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
Well there has to be a limit somewhere, I mean just how high does someone have to live before you tell them flying just isn't for them?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I have also considered that possibility.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
What, exactly, would you say to a 400lb person who walks in the front door of a flying school and says they want to learn to fly?
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I would say "Right this way sir!" The 172 can be remarkably accommodating. Its what I like about it. Just like cats and boxes, if they fits, they sits.
Though in reality I don't expect to have to visit this problem. Haven't for the first decades of instructing, I think the chances are slim (pun intended) for the remaining. Though its been close. I think the largest fellow was an retired O-line guy who said he was 350. Guy was huge, hands so big you could drop a loonie through his wedding ring. I was more worried he was going to break the controls than the 172's capacity to heft him off the ground.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
If I didn't have an appropriate airplane, i would try to direct the customer to an FTU that did. I wouldn't tell a customer they cannot ever be a pilot simply because they don't fit into my cheap-ass fleet of C150s.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
What is the maximum weight seat belts are designed for?photofly wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:45 pmIf I didn't have an appropriate airplane, i would try to direct the customer to an FTU that did. I wouldn't tell a customer they cannot ever be a pilot simply because they don't fit into my cheap-ass fleet of C150s.
FAA rules seem to suggest 215 lbs. Nothing prevents manufacturers from making stronger seat belts, but it would be unlikely they could support 300lbs in a crash.
https://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part23-785-FAR.shtml (first paragraph, and paragraph m)
(a) Each seat/restraint system and the supporting structure must be designed to support occupants weighing at least 215 pounds when subjected to the maximum load factors corresponding to the specified flight and ground load conditions, as defined in the approved operating envelope of the airplane. In addition, these loads must be multiplied by a factor of 1.33 in determining the strength of all fittings and the attachment of—
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
A crash isn't a calibrated event. Some crashes may generate much higher loads than the design standard even with a body weighing less than 215lbs. In some eventualities even a weaker seatbelt could prevent or significantly reduce injury for a body weighting more than 215lbs. Seatbelt strength isn't a regulatory limit on the weight of an occupant in the same way as, for example, maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft might be.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
A random crash isn't calibrated, but the regulations say they need to withstand a load of 215lbs at 1.33 times the maximum load achieved in the flight envelope (paraphrased).photofly wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:56 pmA crash isn't a calibrated event. Some crashes may generate much higher loads than the design standard even with a body weighing less than 215lbs. In some eventualities even a weaker seatbelt could prevent or significantly reduce injury for a body weighting more than 215lbs. Seatbelt strength isn't a regulatory limit on the weight of an occupant in the same way as, for example, maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft might be.
That means, that the 300lbs person's seat belt can snap in turbulence that is otherwise safe to the airplane. I doubt that is what the manufacturer intended.
I can't find any regulation limiting pax weight, so I suspect you are right there is no written rule as such, but keeping this in mind, would it really be a good idea to put a 300lbs person in the seats?
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I think you need to rephrase the question. Are you saying nobody over 215lbs should sit in an airplane?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I only now found out about this design requirement, but yeah, it does make me wonder if it is that smart that people over 215lbs are sitting in those planes. Let alone a pilot over 300 lbs.
Realistically, I'm probably missing something else, maybe some seatbelt systems are rated for higher loads, but it does make me wonder.
Let me counter by asking you what the maximum weight would be you would put on a pilot or pax seat.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
Airliner seat strength requirements are described in 14 CFR 25.562, which requires the use of a 170lb crash test dummy. What's the maximum weight you'd put in an airline seat?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
There must be something else going on. If I get injured as a pax because a 250lbs guy behind me breaks his seatbelt during a rejected take off and hurts my back, and the airline knowingly put him in a seat only tested up to 170lbs, I think I would be able to find a lawyer to use this a significant leverage for a damage claim.
As an airline ceo I would be worried if this is the only information available.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I don’t think a rejected takeoff generates decelerations anywhere near the design failure seatbelt strength, but all aircraft strength standards are all predicated on some standard event and some standard load, and there’s no guarantee of not exceeding that load in a real event. You couldn’t make an aircraft that would manage every possible passenger load in any possible event and was still able to fly economically.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6605
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I'm pretty sure the insurance companies would have got after this if the seatbelt was not going to hold me. I'm not the only guy that likes pizza flying. Interesting to read the 215lb criteria though.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
By the way, “we follow industry/trade body/government recommendations” and “out aircraft are approved by national regulators” are both excellent defences in law.digits_ wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:36 pm. If I get injured as a pax because a 250lbs guy behind me breaks his seatbelt during a rejected take off and hurts my back, and the airline knowingly put him in a seat only tested up to 170lbs, I think I would be able to find a lawyer to use this a significant leverage for a damage claim.
As an airline ceo I would be worried if this is the only information available.
If a seatbelt that meets the standards fails in flight a claimant has to demonstrate that the standard for seat belts is inadequate, which is a very steep hill to climb.
Doing what everyone else does automatically gets you out of a lot of trouble, while being the odd one out or deciding to do things “your way” can leave you very very exposed.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
I have always found it worrisome that our aviation regulatory structure puts a limitation on just about everything we may fly in a plane, except the weight of an individual person. I once discussed this with TC, after being a commercial passenger on a Canadian airline, as was told by TC that: "We're just not going there, it's too political". So political correctness will prevail over safety! Now, if I could figure out how I demonstrate compliance to political correctness instead of safety, when issuing an STC!
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
Yes, exactly. If you were to put boxes instead of a seat, you'd have a max weight, max weight per square feet, distance of spacers required etc.PilotDAR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:18 am I have always found it worrisome that our aviation regulatory structure puts a limitation on just about everything we may fly in a plane, except the weight of an individual person. I once discussed this with TC, after being a commercial passenger on a Canadian airline, as was told by TC that: "We're just not going there, it's too political". So political correctness will prevail over safety! Now, if I could figure out how I demonstrate compliance to political correctness instead of safety, when issuing an STC!
But a mass of flesh can be any weight you like...
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Blue Bird in Hot Water
Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot but some students will continue no matter what the costs, usually the rich parent in some foreign country is paying for the flight training, So don't blaim the FTU, Sometimes a change of instructor is warranted, I've seen instructors take students on joy rides and not teach the student anything, Like flying to a different airport to have a coffee, Remember not all instructors are good instructors, So don't blaim the FTU, I've seen Chinese students take 200 hrs to acquire a PPL, Bluebird may have some instructors looking to build flight time and not interested in their students, but again Bluebird may have bad students who just won't quit although they should seek another career, and not be a pilot.
Don't let your wife talk you out of buying an airplane,