Above Gross equals Unairworthy??

T

Tex_Mike

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
194
Location
Houston
Display Name
Display name:
Tex_MIKE
I was just looking the the GSA Auction site and they have several Cessna 206's up for sale. Each one has a special log book entry saying that the aircraft are unairworthy due to "suspected and unknown damage caused by being operated on multiple flights in excess of manufactures recommended gross take off weight.

I find it interesting that so many of these planes all had the same log book entry at the same time. I wonder if flying above gross is a normal procedure for the government (Department of Interior in this case) or did they just figure out their weight and balance mistakes.

I can understand how being over gross can damage an aircraft but this is the first time I have actually heard of it happening.

Man these place are cool. I would love to have a float plane like these.
 
Tex_Mike said:
I can understand how being over gross can damage an aircraft but this is the first time I have actually heard of it happening.
Click to expand...

I can understand how it may damage an aircraft but I don't think its likely.

The wings are able to support so much weight in the cargo area / pax area. From what I understand it is certified to safely support the max useful load (lets say 1500lbs) at 3.8G's. Or 5700lbs. Say it was regularly overloaded by 500 lbs. In normal flight it is rare to experience more than 2g's. The airplane would have to pull 2.8G's to hit that 5700lb mark when overloaded by 500 lbs.

In addition the extra weight of the airplane would make it stall at a higher airspeed, and cruise at a lower airspeed.
 
Last edited:
Yeah- the log book entries were all made at the same time. I suspect they made them just so that everything was above board when they sold them to the public. If they kept theme they would probably keep on flying them.
 
Its probably more common than you would think for people and company s to fly over gross, especially if they are hauling stuff frequently.
 
If it is a Cessna 206 Seaplane, it is highly unlikely they were operated much over gross. They are self limiting. Much over gross and they won't get on the step for takeoff.
 
Mike, these are all drug seizure aircraft. They're operated at 6,000 or so, because they are mules. Nobody cares about the a/c becuase the value of the load would buy 1,000 Cessna 206s.

The aircraft needs a structural inspection right down to the wingspar and to the gear "box" and an entry noting absence of damage....
 
I owned a Turbo 206 on Whipline 3730 amphib floats for 15 years . Weight and balance caclulations were done to determine whether you were more than or less than 500 lbs over gross. I always picked the time and place....short runway, small lake or hot day forget it.
 
Bigger picture, isn't it interesting that the modern version of a "barn find" of an aircraft is that it's been in a DEA hangar for years? Strange.
 
denverpilot said:
Bigger picture, isn't it interesting that the modern version of a "barn find" of an aircraft is that it's been in a DEA hangar for years? Strange.
Click to expand...
Hangar? Is that a euphemism for sitting outdoors in florida, partially disassembled and rotting ?
 
Tex_Mike said:
I was just looking the the GSA Auction site and they have several Cessna 206's up for sale. Each one has a special log book entry saying that the aircraft are unairworthy due to "suspected and unknown damage caused by being operated on multiple flights in excess of manufactures recommended gross take off weight.

I find it interesting that so many of these planes all had the same log book entry at the same time. I wonder if flying above gross is a normal procedure for the government (Department of Interior in this case) or did they just figure out their weight and balance mistakes.

I can understand how being over gross can damage an aircraft but this is the first time I have actually heard of it happening.

Man these place are cool. I would love to have a float plane like these.
Click to expand...


They were dumping a batch and that is how they condemn them and ditch the forward liability. If someone else wants to declare them airworthy, the onus is on them.
 
Unless you are a DAR you don't want anything to do with this. Never buy a seizure auction plane, not unless you know there's still stash they didn't find like cash rivetted between skins lol, because I promise that not matter what it is, by the time you are operating, you will have spent 3 times more than if you bought a nice one that an old man has been flying and kept hangared for the last 20 years. Unless you are in the related industry and are sharp, seizure stuff will always eat your lunch, especially planes and boats because they sit for years with next to no care.
 
Henning said:
They were dumping a batch and that is how they condemn them and ditch the forward liability. If someone else wants to declare them airworthy, the onus is on them.
Click to expand...

What legal documents are required to make an aircraft like this airworthy? Is it as simple as a log entry? After all that is all it took to make them unairworthy.
 
Tex_Mike said:
What legal documents are required to make an aircraft like this airworthy? Is it as simple as a log entry? After all that is all it took to make them unairworthy.
Click to expand...
Conformity inspection. Now how you document that a piece of metal has not been though too many 200% Young's Modulus cycles totally beats me. Clearly the log entry is a way, as has been said, of ditching forward liability.

This is "auction by attorney" as opposed to "security by attorney". We have that, too.....
 
Last edited:
Tex_Mike said:
What legal documents are required to make an aircraft like this airworthy? Is it as simple as a log entry? After all that is all it took to make them unairworthy.
Click to expand...

With a declared over gross there will be a defined process in the aircraft Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. I don't recall if it is an IA process or DAR process to sign off.
 
Henning, IIRC (and this is distant...) a/c prior to 1975 in manufacture don't have such instructions......
 
bbchien said:
Henning, IIRC (and this is distant...) a/c prior to 1975 in manufacture don't have such instructions......
Click to expand...

There is a general instruction and procedure available I know, same as getting them back out of Restricted like all those old Stearman Ag plains when they got turned back into BT trim and wing. They were not particularly fun to fly with California High Lift, especially with a 1340...:nonod: I don't know if it was the nature of the beast or poor rigging, but that was about the most ignorant worst mannered plane I'd flown, that thing was work.

Anyway, the rules say you have to overhaul the airframe, but apparently there is an inspection/sign off process available because I watched 14 airframes go from Ag planes to BTs across 4 years a few at a time and they sure didn't get much more than patched up (well) and put back in WWII trim. With either 220s or 450s
 
bbchien said:
Conformity inspection. Now how you document that a piece of metal has not been though too many 200% Young's Modulus cycles totally beats me. Clearly the log entry is a way, as has been said, of ditching forward liability.

This is "auction by attorney" as opposed to "security by attorney". We have that, too.....
Click to expand...

Dr. all it really requires is an annual signed off as airworthy.

or ditch the logs, start new, with an annual AD compliance and away you fly.

the third option is to do a data tag swap, and call it a repair.
 
Henning said:
There is a general instruction and procedure available I know, same as getting them back out of Restricted like all those old Stearman Ag plains when they got turned back into BT trim and wing. They were not particularly fun to fly with California High Lift, especially with a 1340...:nonod: I don't know if it was the nature of the beast or poor rigging, but that was about the most ignorant worst mannered plane I'd flown, that thing was work.

Anyway, the rules say you have to overhaul the airframe, but apparently there is an inspection/sign off process available because I watched 14 airframes go from Ag planes to BTs across 4 years a few at a time and they sure didn't get much more than patched up (well) and put back in WWII trim. With either 220s or 450s
Click to expand...

I know of no instruction to that effect.

If there is an entry in the maintenance records that says it was flown over gross, all it requires is a return to service entry that says it is airworthy.

Verbiage of that statement may vary a lot.
 
With knowledge of such an entry in the logs, would your inspection change as a result?

Where would you expect to see evidence of damage if it had occurred due to overweight ops?



Tom-D said:
I know of no instruction to that effect.

If there is an entry in the maintenance records that says it was flown over gross, all it requires is a return to service entry that says it is airworthy.

Verbiage of that statement may vary a lot.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
With knowledge of such an entry in the logs, would your inspection change as a result?

Where would you expect to see evidence of damage if it had occurred due to overweight ops?
Click to expand...

I pretty much look for this stuff on every annual, change much? no not much.

Over weight ops will manifest its self as wrinkled wing skins deformed attach points of wing and horizontal, signs of strikes near the tail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top