Weight and Balance... This is an option?

[SunWuKong]

Yes maybe it will make sense, but could you first explain what you mean by "at gross"?
In aviation industry vocabulary has its importance. gross itself means nothing, because gross vary for the same flight (with fuel, oil burn...).
I prefer speaking about MTOW.

Just to save me one post: if for you "gross" means maximum takeoff weight, then no it doesn't make sense to takeoff at MTOW then expect for anything to happen concerning performances, it is not magic, it is aviation. If you are not sure to have a positive rate of climb at MTOW, then you have to reduce your takeoff weight until you are sure to meet the requirements. The passengers deserve it.

And the thing: "the POH single engine performance tables are not TC certified so I ignore them and take off max weight", it is not serious for an aviator.

Now if gross means something else for you (which is possible, gross weight vary with what you put in your airplane and what happens during flight like fuel burn...), then maybe we can agree.
Still we have to be a bit more serious when we speak about W&B, and avoid to use non-accurate vocabulary.

[mag check]

MTOW is not a term that is used in CAR 3 aircraft, but to avoid confusion, we can use it to keep things more clear.
You have to be careful when you start mixing the performance/safety that you WANT, and that you THINK should be there, with what is REQUIRED, but the fact is, that the vast majority of aircraft flying today have absolutly no legal requirement to meet the data presented in the POH, unless it is in the sections of the manual that are FAA/TC approved, which on older aircraft is a very small amount.
This is not to say that an aircraft such as a 'ho, or an Aztec, or a 421 etc. WON'T climb on one, it just means that it MIGHT not, given an adverse condition.
MTOW, or Gross, whichever term you want to use, the end result is the same. If you lose an engine on a CAR 3 certified aircraft, it MIGHT meet the performance charts in the POH, and if you are flying a FAR 23 certified aircraft, it almost certainly will.
The real point is; an engine failure at a critical time is no joke, and the stats show that even in a good performing twin, with favourable loading that things can go badly.
I'm sure there are a large number of people that would still be alive if the PIC had chopped power on the good engine rather than continue mushing along hoping for the plane to climb.

This however is a rather far jump from the original thread, so to get back on topic, unless the original post was a trick because of being employed to ferry aircraft with a permit to fly over gross and carry 2000 extra lbs of fuel, then I would suggest he quit.

[SunWuKong]

Let's solve the vocabulary part immediately, about gross weight:
Gross weight
The aircraft gross weight (also known as the All-Up Weight (AUW)) is the total aircraft weight at any moment during the flight or ground operation.

The aircraft gross weight decreases during flight due to fuel and oil consumption.

The aircraft gross weight may also vary during flight due to payload dropping or in-flight refuelling.

At the moment of brake release, the Gross Weight is equal to the Takeoff Weight.

During flight, the Gross Weight is referred to as the En-Route Weight or In-Flight Weight.
There is no more flexible and changing than gross weight. We have to be more specific than that.

This is not to say that an aircraft such as a 'ho, or an Aztec, or a 421 etc. WON'T climb on one, it just means that it MIGHT not, given an adverse condition.

I admit that I am puzzled when i read you trying to prove by any means possible that a multi-engine doesn't have to climb, and fail to understand your goal concerning the W&B, but the quote just above let me completely confused:because an adverse situation could occure, so we don't have to set our W&B in order to get a positive climb, is that your point?

And just to understand, once again, what kind of multi do you fly, and do you carry passenger in it?

[skiline69]

up to 19 and always over weight and already left company ,, thanks all anyone need a pilot who believes in standards?

why is it people justify that one aircraft might not climb while at weight on a single engine, justifies all a/c should do the same by over weighting?
this is what people are kind of saying in defense to overweighting right?

Umm I feel ego attacking PDM anyone?

[mag check]

why is it people justify that one aircraft might not climb while at weight on a single engine, justifies all a/c should do the same by over weighting?
this is what people are kind of saying in defense to overweighting right?

Not correct. There is no defence for flying overweight.
Aircraft are designed, and certified in accordance with the regs in place at that time. Whether they perform like the PIC (or industry)think they should is irrelevant.

[Big Pratt]

When an Air Canada or westjet flight leaves the gate and leaves behind cargo (ie is weight limited) do you really think it is within limits?

When's the last time you saw a plane full of individuals actually respecting the TC "standard" weights?



There's a reason why there is no push towards weight and CG confirmation by strain gauges on landing gear by the airlines.... it has been an option (mind you a VERY unpopular one) on aircraft for a long time.


You take standard weights, plane flies, and you keep your mouth shut is the SOP for the majors.

For now.


BP