Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The rumor and facts of the "Alaska gross weight increase" are not the same.

  1. #1
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default The rumor and facts of the "Alaska gross weight increase" are not the same.

    Some folks think that they can legally fly at 115% gross weight in Alaska. Well sometimes... but not as part 91 general aviation. The regs are somewhat restrictive.


    § 91.323 Increased maximum certificated
    weights for certain airplanes
    operated in Alaska.


    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
    of the Federal Aviation Regulations,
    the Administrator will approve,
    as provided in this section, an increase
    in the maximum certificated weight of
    an airplane type certificated under
    Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7–A of the
    U.S. Department of Commerce dated
    January 1, 1931, as amended, or under
    VerDate Aug<04>2004 06:40 Feb 25, 2005 Jkt 205044 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\205044T.XXX 205044T
    244
    § 91.325 14 CFR Ch. I (1–1–05 Edition)
    the normal category of part 4a of the
    former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR
    part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated
    in the State of Alaska by—

    (1) A certificate holder conducting
    operations under part 121 or part 135 of
    this chapter; or


    (2) The U.S. Department of Interior
    in conducting its game and fish law enforcement
    activities or its management,
    fire detection, and fire suppression
    activities concerning public lands.
    (b) The maximum certificated weight
    approved under this section may not
    exceed—
    (1) 12,500 pounds;
    (2) 115 percent of the maximum
    weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;

    (3) The weight at which the airplane
    meets the positive maneuvering load
    factor requirement for the normal category
    specified in § 23.337 of this chapter;
    or

    (4) The weight at which the airplane
    meets the climb performance requirements
    under which it was type certificated.

    (c) In determining the maximum certificated
    weight, the Administrator
    considers the structural soundness of
    the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.

    (d) The maximum certificated weight
    determined under this section is added
    to the airplane’s operation limitations
    and is identified as the maximum
    weight authorized for operations within
    the State of Alaska.

    [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989;
    Amdt. 91–211, 54 FR 41211, Oct. 5, 1989, as
    amended by Amdt. 91–253, 62 FR 13253, Mar.
    19, 1997]
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    EXACTLY. But that's what I thought I said - - - - - Air Taxi (or Part 135) and the USDA folks. Though I wonder why those guys?

  3. #3
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    That was not in response to anything you said. Just a general respnse to something that I hear three or four times a year.

    My understanding is that they figured our average Alaskan temps and average field elevation resulted in a better density altitude and thus better performance. I think the USDA and Dept of Interior thing was semi-related to operating in restricted category while crop dusting. You usually land with much less weight than you leave with. So they were thinking of fire-retardant bombers and such for the USDA planes. Although I was recently told by some guys up at OAS in Anchorage that they no longer load to 115% as a new internal policy.
    No doubt some strong lobbying on the part of the Alaskan Air Carriers of old helped convince the Feds that 121 and 135 folks would be safer flying at 115% than Jack and Jill Cub Driver. Which of course you and I know is a big load of Baloney.

    I thought is was sorta interesting to link this thought to the external load deal as well. If you and I are hauling folks part 135 we can go 115%,,,, but if we strap a canoe to the floats of the C-185 or C-206 we are now in restricted category and cannot operate as part 135 for that flight. So no more 115% and no passengers. Even if the canoe is the only real weight we are hauling... Some of this stuff is bizarre.

    And what happens to your insurance??? Most policies say operations must be in standard category. So if we are taxiing up to the dock with a couple kayaks on your C-206 and we get rammed by a knuckle-head on a jet ski, our insurance is null and void.. What a twisted web..



    Well the frost is finally off the windshield, it was 25 degrees here last night and most of this morning.
    I gotta go turn the prop to make a few bucks. Only a few more days before the upper lakes freeze up. Be back tonight.
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Indeed so. Hope you get in a few more $$$ flights before the lakes in the hills begin to freeze . . . . .

    In several decades of overloads and external loads (from horns to boats to who knows what else . . . ?), I've never had a tower operator or any other FAA wallah stop to chat with me about it. And a lot of those loads came through Merrill Field and'or Lake Hood. Goofy, huh?

    Low and Slow!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East-central Alaska
    Posts
    35

    Default

    This regulation applies only to certain aircraft built in the 1920s, '30s & '40s. These aircraft were manufactured by Lockheed, Curtis, Stinson, Cessna, Douglas, DeHaviland, Ford, Fokker, North American and several others. Aircraft built after 1945 are not eligible for the 115% weight increase waiver. The regulation has not been revoked because aircraft that are eligble for the waiver are still flying.

    And no, Super Cubs, Pa12s, Beavers, and modern Cessnas are not eligble. Check with the nearest FSDO and a Princple Operations Inspector when in doubt about the FARs.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    When I fly over gross I usually don't notify the FSDO folks.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    When I fly over gross I usually don't notify the FSDO folks.
    Hear, hear . . . . .

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East-central Alaska
    Posts
    35

    Default

    I only meant that If you have an aircraft from that vintage, fly 121 or 135, and want a weight increase waiver, to check with your POI for the proper procedure for obtaining the waiver.

    We all have flown overgross at times more or less safely, just be aware that many factors come into play with reduce aircraft performance when doing so. And by all means fly safely!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floatplanepilot View Post
    This regulation applies only to certain aircraft built in the 1920s, '30s & '40s. These aircraft were manufactured by Lockheed, Curtis, Stinson, Cessna, Douglas, DeHaviland, Ford, Fokker, North American and several others. Aircraft built after 1945 are not eligible for the 115% weight increase waiver. The regulation has not been revoked because aircraft that are eligble for the waiver are still flying.

    And no, Super Cubs, Pa12s, Beavers, and modern Cessnas are not eligble. Check with the nearest FSDO and a Princple Operations Inspector when in doubt about the FARs.
    Since the old CAA regulations, 1964 edition, allowed the 115% for aircraft operated under normal catagory usage, wouldn't that load increase include aircraft built after the 40s, and under Dep't. of Commerce Bulletin 7-A, also?

    Do I recall that the 115% increase also falls to crop dusting? I'm confused about crop dusting in Alaska . . . . . or am I wrong again?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    East-central Alaska
    Posts
    35

    Default

    The old CAA regs pertained only to those pre-1945 aircraft and did not extend to those built later. There is no crop dusting performed in Alaska. There is one Thrush based out of Palmer that is used to haul fuel, and on occaision trout fry to lakes, but no crop dusting. I haven't found any record of a certificated crop dusting operation ever being licensed in Alaska.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floatplanepilot View Post
    The old CAA regs pertained only to those pre-1945 aircraft and did not extend to those built later. There is no crop dusting performed in Alaska. There is one Thrush based out of Palmer that is used to haul fuel, and on occaision trout fry to lakes, but no crop dusting. I haven't found any record of a certificated crop dusting operation ever being licensed in Alaska.
    Okay, I guess I've got it. The Department of Commerce Bulletin 7-A didn't travel forward with the rest of the CARs and so it no longer applies.

    Thanks, floatpilot.

  12. #12
    Member Float Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Posts
    4,218

    Default

    Griz
    That was Floatplanepilot not Float Pilot. I have been out flying or winterizing so I have not been able to research any more info nor run my mouth about this subject of which I actually know very little.

    Although I have owned two Cubs that used to come up here in the summer during the late 40s through the 50s to perform mosquito control spraying or dusting. They were listed as being ag-restricted with dual W&B
    Floatplane,Tailwheel and Firearms Instructor- Dragonfly Aero
    Experimental Hand-Loader, NRA Life Member
    http://site.dragonflyaero.com

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Float Pilot View Post
    Griz
    That was Floatplanepilot not Float Pilot. I have been out flying or winterizing so I have not been able to research any more info nor run my mouth about this subject of which I actually know very little.

    Although I have owned two Cubs that used to come up here in the summer during the late 40s through the 50s to perform mosquito control spraying or dusting. They were listed as being ag-restricted with dual W&B
    Oops! Now feel foot in mouth. Wish I'd taken my boots off first!

    Sorry,

    Mort

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •