Has anyone flown floats into Manly Hot Springs in AK?
I getting word from a non-pilot that I need to land in the slough. The word "slough" has me a bit concerned. I will be coming out of there heavy-ish in my M@#%& and was just wondering if this is the way to go or if the river would be a better option. Anyone have any experience with this?

I thought a slough was a slow animal, which is about as much help as I can give you regarding the hot springs. I am a little concerned about the pet name of your aircraft, however. If you're that unhappy with it, perhaps you should look at a 220hp M4 whew...good times.

The slough is fine, just don't be stupid weight-wise. I think there was a thread on here somewhere about that...... .

MTV

Another fine example of aircraft performance

Kirk; here's a photo from the FAA's web site showing the slough everyones talking about clearly labled. There's a straight stretch just out of sight down stream of the main airport that I've seen guys on floats using.

Phil

AntiCub wrote:Kirk; here's a photo from the FAA's web site showing the slough everyones talking about clearly labled. There's a straight stretch just out of sight down stream of the main airport that I've seen guys on floats using.

Phil

Thanks Phil...that helps put things into better perspective.
If it's wide enough, it looks like I could get in on that long straight stretch right off the end of the runway...or squeeze in under that bridge

Kirk,

Here is a friendly suggestion: I don't mean to be a jerk here, but......

You have admitted, now more than once, on this PUBLIC web site, that you are pretty much routinely exceeding legal gross weight in your flying operations, even to the point, in this string, that you actually presented an illegal weight and balance, number by number.

Heaven help you if you EVER have an accident, cause I guarantee you that the FAA will find these posts. In that case, any reasonable FAA or NTSB type would simply have to conclude that you are an egregious offender, and that would likely result in a license revocation.

As it should.

Look at it this way: There are young and impressionable people who read these posts. If you choose to be STUPID, please help yourself to increasing the accident statistics, but also PLEASE do not put this kind of bullshit on the web.

I teach aviation, and I teach it to young, impressionable kids. They read this crap you are putting out as well. From your attitude, a young impressionable kid might just think that "Hey, what the hell, my airplane can take off no sweat over gross weight". Sorta like the kid did a couple weeks ago in a rental airplane out of here.

Do all responsible aviators a favor, and at least do not insult us by bragging about your ILLEGAL activities on a public forum.

Thanks, rant over.

MTV

mtv wrote:I guarantee you that the FAA will find these posts. In that case, any reasonable FAA or NTSB type would simply have to conclude that you are an egregious offender, and that would likely result in a license revocation.

Now Mike.....

mtv wrote: You will find folks that argue that an owner (non A & P) can switch their airplanes from floats to wheels, and vice versa also. Good luck finding an inspector who'll go along with that. Have I done that? Absolutely, dozens of times.

But at the time, I didn't carry hull insurance either, and I was in a part of the world where the liklihood of an FAA type walking up whilst I was doing the deed was nil.

I was thinking about this today as I was tooling down the road. How many times in the past 37+ years of flying have I made a flight where ALL the I's were dotted and the T's were crossed so I wasn't violating some reg? Especially the early Part 135 years up in Barrow or Kotz where we stuffed airplanes so full and heavy a popcorn fart wouldn't fit. Or weather minimums with the "old" FSS guys when 1/8 mile and vv 100 would magically turn into 100 and one so we could get home.

I don't know what the statute of limitations are with the Feds on such things, but I know most of us would be in jail, and many of us should be dead. We've all, us old farts you and me both, been hot, heavy, and way behind the power curve many, many times. All I can say to the newer guys is push it, but check your six every now and then too.

Gump

Lets see, I've just been called stupid, irresponsible, my posts have been called bullshit and insulting to all the "legal" aviators on this site and I've have been condemed to be an accident statistic.

Sounds a lot like my last biannual flight review...

mtv wrote:Heaven help you if you EVER have an accident, cause I guarantee you that the FAA will find these posts.

Another reason to maximize your anonymity in any forum, by

1) Concealing your N-number as best you can (photoshop the photo)
2) Not using your full name
3) Wearing a ski mask in your photos

I really don't know how an FAA investigator could compile anything here as evidence supporting egregious intent, if he can't connect the real you to your internet persona in the first place. N-number is the biggest one. If you post your N# in your posts or signature, Google will find it.

Another bit to add to my FAQ I suppose.

We should be able to discuss candidly any flying related topics without fear of self incrimination, so do your best to insulate your identity from anonymous viewers. Another reason I should change my own username I suppose. Of course, a good measure of discretion always goes a long way.

I'm less afraid of the FAA than one of you guys tracking me down to kick my ass.

Z

Kirk,

The FAA in an enforcement action is NOT constrained by the judicial process. These actions are NOT conducted before a court of law, so rules of evidence do not apply. They can show the NTSB and their bosses anything they like, to support their contention that you are a bandit.

Secondly, information on this kind of forum can and HAS been used in civil suits. So, whoever might be in that airplane if there were an accident might have family. If that family finds these posts, you can bet YOUR attorney is going to have to struggle to get you out from under THAT cloud.

Gump, my reference to floats to wheels, as I noted would be questionable in some if not all districts. Where I was, it was considered acceptable, and in fact, while we were changing a plane over one day, an FAA Inspector came by to chat. She knew me, and knew I am not a mechanic. Would that happen here? Probably not. Point was sometimes hte rules can be a little vague and subject to interpretation.

Not so with maximum operating weight. There is no interpretation, no wiggle room there.

Have I ever operated an airplane in excess of legal gross weight? I can honestly say yes to that question. I did so under a waiver, issued by the FAA, and operating under a restricted airworthiness certificate. I would NEVER do so again. Those things were dogs at those weights, and they simply didn't fly the way they should or were designed to. And, I can honestly say I've not flown over gross weight since.

Two young gents from a school near here rented a very nice little Cessna 150 this summer, and ran it off the end of a long runway, and destroyed it. They were "only" 50 pounds over gross weight, near as we could figure. Fortunately, nobody got hurt, EXCEPT the guy who rents these airplanes. This one might have put him out of that business, which makes all of us that much the poorer and less aircraft available to everyone.

Again, if you choose to operate in excess of legal weights, go for it--I'm not your Mommy.

But, if you choose to brag about this kind of stuff on a public forum, I will consider you to be not the brightest bulb in the fixture, and I will point that out.

MTV

...now I need to figure out how to start life over, as a secret agent type. I googled my N number and got 4 pages!!! Wilbur

patrol guy wrote:...now I need to figure out how to start life over, as a secret agent type. I googled my N number and got 4 pages!!! Wilbur

Wow! I just tried that. Found out all sorts of stuff I didn't know about my plane.

But the interesting one was some one from Anchorage is using my N number for his user name on a Radio Control model forum. Since I bought it from the guy who flew it to Alaska I'm tempted to track him down. Wonder if he has a model of my plane? But then again, my N number is a rather auspicious date in aviation history...so maybe it's just coincidence.

Phil

Capt. Kirk wrote:Heading out for a Moose hunt with the Mrs. you can find the results of our hunt on Tuesday at www.ntsb.org

This was the best part, easily.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:Just food for thought, but I was reading a story about a fellow who overloaded his plane. As he burned off fuel the lighter weight in the wing tanks moved the CG back further. Things got progressively worse when he tried to slow down to land and the tail didn't have enough lift, the nose started to go up and he was stuck behind the power curve waiting to die. He made it but just reading it made the hair stand up on my neck.

Not doubting you, but it was an unusual plane. I think that 25 to 33% of the chord is about average for the CG of a straight wing. Usually the fuel tank centroid is behind that. Usually burning fuel brings the CG forward. Maybe that's why he got in trouble, because it was an unusual airplane.

]

Capt. Kirk"]Well, this will likely turn into a lengthy post so, if you care to, grab a cup of coffee and a bag of popcorn.

Is it ok if I have beer instead of coffee with my popcorn?

Mr. Yeager, Ms. Ride, et al, all did the things they did carefully, with a very distinct and well thought out plan, and engineering to back them up.

As to the Gross Weight waiver I operated under, and that 10 % thing you keep referring to, the part you fail to recognize is that utilization of that waiver required and dictated very specific and restrictive OPERATING LIMITATIONS, over and above what the manufacturer specified. THAT is not "just a paperwork" excersize, and as I noted, I never felt good about operating the airplanes at those weights.

As to my experience, yes, I spent many years moving stuff around in the back country, all kinds of stuff, and mostly off airport. I carried a simple SCALE to weigh the stuff that was going in the back, any time there was a question. Boy, that's a tough one to come up with.....

But, let me throw this out for you, oh highly experienced Alaskan aviator type: Go out and actually WATCH real no joke back country operators who've been around for a long time, and who are working tough and tight places. Those guys almost NEVER operate their airplanes in those kinds of places even close to gross weight, let alone OVER gross weight. You don't achieve reasonable bush performance with a heavy airplane, ANY heavy airplane. I've watched a number of guides taking in sheep hunters, with fuel cached in barrels close to the sheep camp, but on a big strip. Then, the Cub goes into the sheep strip with a client, a LITTLE bit of gear, and 6 or 7 gallons of gas, a 15 minute or so trip. Nobody operates heavy in this kind of environment.

What you're doing isn't flight test---not even close. All those people you mentioned at the beginning of your post would NEVER operate in a completely experimental category such as you describe, with no backups and no oversight and engineering input.

And, let's see: 50 pounds over in a 150 would be, what?? About 3 or 4 % over. Sound familiar?

Hope your hunting goes well, and that you don't appear in the NTSB database.

MTV

I'm not abdicating operating overgross, but different airplanes arrive at a gross weight limit for different reasons. Some arrive there because it is the weight at which the aircraft stalls at 61 kts. Some arrive there because it the weight at which the aircraft can just barely meet performance requirements (probably rate of climb). And some it's a structual limit.
A little overgross in a 152 will get you, because it's performance limited (I think).
Overgross a big engine Maule and it still has good performance, but you are exceeding it's structual limit. If you chose to structually overload an airplane, be aware of what you are doing. Stay off rough surfaces, keep G loading low, and have an agressive inspection program of critical components like lift struts, lower wing spars, landing gear and attach points etc. You WILL significantly reduce the life of your aircraft by overloading due to fatigue.

T.C.D.S. are a good place to start.

The lowly Scout has a gross weight of 2600 lbs when operated as restricted. Strict adherence to speed changes must be followed as well.

Its Also legal to have and operate with multiple airworthiness certificates.

Better not be operating at over 2150 without a spray boom and tank.

Just some over gross 8GCBC trivia for all the experts.

I don't know any Scout owners/operators that go over 2150 and we all know they can operate safely at 2600.

I just wish MTV would quit sugar coating it.

Scout,

That's another interesting little factoid: Restricted category ops.

Sometime, for grins, read the structural and performance limits required to meet the Restricted category certification standards, and compare them to the standard category. Pretty significant differences, which is why ALL spray planes operate restricted category.

a64 is correct--there are many reasons that a particular gross weight is selected by the manufacturer of a given aircraft. It is perhaps most often dictated by some performance criteria, and often its' something like engine cooling in climb, or other not obvious reasons. It really isn't often in this category of aircraft that the gross weight is limited by primary structure, but it may be.

And, most manufacturers won't tell you what the limtation is.

MTV