a64pilot wrote: Look at it this way. The weight and balance sheet in your airplane has 170 lb. people in it.

My empty W&B sheet for my 170B has 170lb people in it?

It seems like once again we're confusing the empty weight configuration W&B sheet with a per-flight W&B calculation. I don't refer to my per-flight W&B as a "sheet" but simply a pre-flight calculation to confirm that my aircraft's CG and gross weight are within limits, using the empty weight W&B sheet as a baseline configuration. Any walking sausage I put in the plane is totally dynamic and never shows up on paper.

I have been known to spew a lot of sheet while 3 beers down.

zane wrote:

a64pilot wrote: Look at it this way. The weight and balance sheet in your airplane has 170 lb. people in it.

My W&B sheet for my 170B has 170lb people in it?

I guess that right there is incentive for me to start that diet I've been putting off. Is that with or without clothes on?

Zane,
According to chapter 10 of AC 43.13-1B para 10-16 titled weight and balance computations, you mechanic in determining both your forward and rearward weight and balance check is supposed to use some pre determined weights, ex. 6 lbs. per US gl. for gas, 7.5 lbs per US gl for oil and 170 lbs ea. for crew and passengers.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... 009-10.pdf
This is a link to chapt. 9&10 of AC-43.13-1B

a64,

So, your FSDO guy said precisely what we've been saying here all along.

If you have to remove bolts and nuts/washers to remove a seat, this is NOT an operation that an owner is authorized to complete, without the supervision of an A & P.

In that case, once the seat is removed by the A & P, the A & P would have to prepare a new BASIC weight and balance empty weight for the airplane.

On the other hand, if the seat removal/installation is a "simple" procedure, according to the FAA, the pilot could remove the seat and simply deduct that weight from the basic weight.

You are mixing metaphors here. Passengers are NOT 170 pounds by FAA fiat for G.A. operations. They are whatever they weigh, and yes, that weight determination and calculation is up to the pilot.

By the way, even for airlines and commuters now, the FAA no longer dictates the 170 figure. It's gone up. Big surprise there,

MTV

BREAKING NEWS.

My official W&B sheet onboard the airplane and tacked to my equipment list in my logs is WRONG.

Not just the weight of wet carpet wrong. Way wrong.

The stupid IA at a local FBO who I paid way too much to have weigh the plane and generate a pretty computer-crunched W&B overlooked a units mistake, and as a result my empty moment is off by +10,000 in/lbs.

In the 50's Cessna was fond of using Index units in their POH W&B sample calcs. Apparently whoever was in charge of populating the database of the W&B software didn't understand the significance of index units vs inches, because in the arm(inches) column it's listed at 10.7. <- that's index units.

For the uninitiated, index units = (weight x arm)/1000 so it's obviously not a good analog for the mean station arm in inches from datum.

So what would our friendly FAA inspector say if I told him I corrected my weight and balance sheet after my IA blew it?

He'd say "You're busted, and so is the mechanic". The W & B must be SIGNED by an A & P or IA. Not a pilot.

Course, the question is, what have you been using for weight and balance data since the airplane was weighed? Oh, wait--that was probably yesterday, right ??

MTV

Zane,
Read Chapter ten on the last link I posted. You will find that that stupid IA was supposed to do a worst case W&B, both forward and backward. I rarely see it done, am unsure why it's not done, I do it and the aircraft we manufacture here it's done on, but I rarely see it done in the field. In this worst case scenario people weigh 170 lbs. AC43.13 is the mechanics primary reference, of course aircraft specific manuals take precedence, example your index units. Read chapt 10 and you will know as much as an IA on W&B.
In the first link I posted which is intended primarily for 121 and 135 guy's it states many things like how much people weigh. Interestingly there are differences between crew, male and female, and passengers, male and female. There is a blurb about this AC being applicable to part 91 if I'm not mistaken.
This AC had a couple of interesting things that I will try to remember. It had a statement about electronic equalelevents as being legal for W&B. I'll use that as the basis for my spread sheet on my EFB being legal, although I will of course carry my empty W&B sheet, I'm not that stupid. It also had a statement that a change of less than 1/2 of 1% of gross landing weight does not necessitate a recomputation of W&B. I interpret that as if I take something out that weighs in my case 12.5 lbs. or less, then I don't have to change my basic aircraft weight and recompute a CG. I'm thinking of the radio being removed for repair as an example.
Now, these are my interpretations, but in the past I have been successful with the FAA, by them believing that I have tried to be dilligent and am trying to follow the FAR's, but maybe I misunderstood something. They are happy because they have found something even if it's minor, which justifies their existence, they have corrected it, I have shown a willingness to learn and they go away happy.
How many checkrides have you taken where you weren't shown a different way to do something? It's the same thing.

mtv wrote:He'd say "You're busted, and so is the mechanic". The W & B must be SIGNED by an A & P or IA. Not a pilot.

Yeah, I was joking. The reason I posted was to demonstrate that even though the W&B has to be signed off by a certified mechanic, it doesn't mean it's correct.

a64pilot wrote:In this worst case scenario people weigh 170 lbs. AC43.13 is the mechanics primary reference, of course aircraft specific manuals take precedence, example your index units. Read chapt 10 and you will know as much as an IA on W&B.

I'd say that's a best case scenario for myself and the pilots I know.

I'd say the fault here is the type database in the W&B computer being incorrect. Then, the IA for not cross-checking it to the TCDS. If he was worth a shit he would have recognized a CG close to rear limits...afterall, it should be very similar to the ubiquitous 172, right? Does 10.7 "inches" sounds about right for the station arm of wing tanks to you? Ha!

I think it's just a case of rush em in, rush em out. NEXT.

mtv wrote:He'd say "You're busted, and so is the mechanic". The W & B must be SIGNED by an A & P or IA. Not a pilot.

MTV

MTV,
I'm not doubting that, I know it has always been the tradition, but I can't a reference that say's that and as a matter of fact neither can the FSDO. They don't seem to like those kind of questions either. Do you have a reference. I think I am going to call another FSDO next.

a64pilot wrote: I'm not doubting that, I know it has always been the tradition, but I can't a reference that say's that and as a matter of fact neither can the FSDO. They don't seem to like those kind of questions either. Do you have a reference. I think I am going to call another FSDO next. :

Not to stir the pot again... But this is the crap with the Feds that makes a guy nuts. FSDO A says this, FSDO B says that, and if you go to FSDO C, he'll say that both A and B are wrong and write everyone up.

If the rules for General Aviation are so complex that even the enforcers of those rules can't figure them out (kinda like tax codes???) then maybe that's a sign that something's wrong and things need to be fixed. Because once you have ambiguity and interpretation, you are at the mercy of whims. And when you have people with power over others, who can operate autonomously on their whims, you'll have abuse. When we little guys fight Big Brother and their whims, the odds are way stacked against us.

Bob Hoover's grounding is a good example of arbitrary and capricious.... Another was Bill Bainbridge's fiasco with B&C Products, which hurt a lot of us who thought we were legal with 337's on his stuff. FAI says this, ANC says that, Lower 48 drools all over themselves and who the hell knew what they said until they apologized to Bill.

http://www.avweb.com/news/atis/184248-1.html

If you want cooperation and for people to comply and follow the rules, make them simple and straight forward. None of this double-secret probation crap like in Animal House. Most pilots I know are rule following kinda guys and like structure and things lined up. This current system fails that. And A64 you're right... Feds DON"T like those kind of questions. It makes them accountable, and endangers their little kingdoms and power if they're exposed to the light.

Just my two cents worth....

Gump

If you want cooperation and for people to comply and follow the rules, make them simple and straight forward.

Amen!

Gump,
One of the things, I've learned over the years is to question "politely" authority. There seems to be a lot of "tribal" knowledge out there and sometimes it's outdated or someones opinion becomes gospel because it's always been that way. I try not to get in a battle on these kind of things because frankly the battle isn't worth it. If the FSDO inspector say's Aunt Martha has to sign it, then I get Aunt Martha to sign it.
I expect though that I have started a controversy up there and I will get a call where they have found some kind of catch all reg. that they can use to cover anything. When I get that call, I will compliment them on their thoroughness and tell them how much I appreciate it. Some people will interpret that as if I'm kowtowing to them, I interpret it as not poking the rattle snake with a stick.

a64pilot wrote: I expect though that I have started a controversy up there and I will get a call where they have found some kind of catch all reg. that they can use to cover anything. When I get that call...

They forgot about you the moment Jerry got back from his donut run.

so to get back to the original problem. Has anyone solved the back seat problem. We all know about the feds. I got a littled miffed back there a few posts ago and i figured I'd let you guys work it out. I still haven't burned that additional W&B for the seat removal. Is it or is it not required.

It's required.

Thank you A 64. Hope none of us has to show it to anyone.

If you have to remove bolts and nuts/washers to remove a seat, this is NOT an operation that an owner is authorized to complete, without the supervision of an A & P.





And yet, under the very same section of the FAR's, you are allowed to change a tire. You're blowing smoke. Again.

I guess I am a little amazed that an AP is required to remove two bolts and a eight pound ( approximately ) seat, while I can remove an oil filter, torque, and rewire it without an AP.

Seems like screwing up the oil change would have a far greater consequence than anything I could do with the seat removal.

BM,
In asking why a pilot couldn't do the weight and balance after removing the seat in a Maule, the inspector I spoke to tried dodgeing the bullet by saying the pilot couldn't make the return to service entry in the book because he wasn't allowed to remove the seat. When I pointed out the removal proscess was two quick release pins, he still didn't want to admit a pilot would be allowed to pull those pins.
We had a saying in the ARMY. "Don't allow logic to interfere with the military decision making proscess".

Bonanzaman,

I'm just telling you what you may find if this comes up with the FAA. The FAA says a pilot can R and R small parts not requiring complex operations to complete.

Here's a good PP program on preventive maintenance: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/fie ... 34,1,Slide 1

The point you guys are failing to recognize is the "diversity of opinion" on what constitutes a "complex operation" within the FAA.

You can also get into nasty little loops: removal of a piece of installed equipment (even 8 pounds is considered important) requires a revision of the basic W & B. Pilots aren't permitted to create and sign such a document. So, is it the removal of the seat that needs a mechanic's signature, or the W & B, or both? Who knows, and the problem I keep pointing out is that you guys keep looking for logic in the FAA's interpretation of the FAR's.

The other point that you really need to consider is that there is a LARGE body of information contained in FAA General Counsel interpretations, NTSB findings, Administrative Law Judge determinations, etc, which further interpret the FARs themselves. So, reading the FAR's and interpreting them in your own context, may or may not work, and the FAA person who you think is "interpreting" an FAR just flat wrong, may in fact be basing his or her interpretation on a decision by an administrative law judge or a Chief Legal Cousel's interpretation.

A really good resource for some of this stuff is a book that Jeppesen publishes, called "The Federal Aviation Regulations Explained". It contains a lot of that huge body of interpretative law and many of the decisions.

Here's an example: I am training a private pilot towards a complex aircraft endorsement (or tailwheel endorsement, etc). That person is rated for a single engine land aircraft, but does not possess an endorsement for the complex aircraft, and no, he didn't log time before 199whatever in a complex aircraft. So, he has to have an endorsement to serve as PIC in this aircraft, right?

Wrong. All the flight time that this person performs as the sole manipulator of the controls of this complex aircraft while I am training him prior to performing the endorsement, he MAY LOG as PIC time. That is based on an FAA Chief Legal COunsel's determination. The theory being, logging time as PIC is permitted by pilots if they are rated for the aircraft, which is a category and class issue, not an endorsement thing.

So, they could not serve as PIC in solo flight, because they aren't endorsed to fly the airplane. But, they can log PIC time if accompanied by an instructor who is appropriately endorsed.

Find THAT one in the FAR itself, folks.......

Oh, yeah--and I've won two lunches on that one. Thanks, Jeppesen.

MTV
MTV