Single pilot IFR, widespread fog, low fuel, do you bust MDA/DH?

You're right, of course. But, if you don't crash...
Not arguing right or wrong on the issue, as the psychology of why people operate like they do (or did) up here is, to say the least, a long and interesting study. But I guess the cold hard reality is people did it (and probably still do, though I of course don't know any of them personally).

One thing we must not forget as well is that this business and our certificates are governed under administrative law. Administrative law=/=criminal law. Under administrative law, all that's needed for a conviction is an abundance of evidence. In essence, once a case is brought against you, you're guilty until you yourself prove your own innocence. I don't remember when, but a SWA pilot got his license suspended for landing when RVR was reported below minimums. The thing is, it was only foggy over the station. The entire field was clear and a million. What got this pilot in the clear were signed affidavits from other pilots holding short while he was landing as well as from the controllers. The process took a LONG time to get sorted out. Just something to keep in mind.

Ok, but Mike, you seem to be missing *my* point.

Maybe I went about presenting this in the wrong way.

Forget about feds and legalities for a minute. Ask yourself, "Do *I* even know if I'm flying overweight or not?" I'd argue that many pilots don't. Sure, we know when we're close, but in all honesty, whether you're exactly on MGTOW or 150 pounds over, I think would be very difficult to tell, without putting the aircraft on a scale. I fly 402s eighty hours and 80+ takeoffs/landings per month, and I can't tell the difference between operating at 7200 and 7400 pounds.

I said what I said about fed's not knowing to counter the "but it's not legal" argument. I'm not advocating for pilots to go around doing whatever it takes to cover their tracks after busting regs. Some pilots simply get really wound up about having their numbers line up exactly, and I'm saying, relax, if you as the pilot aren't going to know the difference, the feds won't either. You and I both agree that it's not legal to have a MGTOW of X pounds, yet take off with X+100 listed on the dispatch. That would be ridiculous. But that's a paperwork issue.

My point all along maybe should have been, when in doubt, err on the side of extra gas. When I read UAL's original post, honestly, the thought that struck me was, "Why is this guy figuring his numbers down to a tenth of an hour when he just talked about how inaccurate his gauges are, coupled with needing to rely on the previous pilot?" To me, it seemed like a recipe for bad things to happen.

I think it's interesting you're hitting this point hard, when the thread originally started as a discussion about going below minimums, which, in my opinion, is a far more deadly scenario. To me, going below minimums is an absolutely last resort sort of action. Now, if I can keep myself out of that corner by throwing an extra 5 or 10 gallons/side on, just in case...you know what I'm going to do.

I don't consider this a "cowboy" move, it's just a tip that might be helpful to some pilots, under some circumstances. Take it or leave it.

I just didn't see any reason to do any deck stacking on that day with the information I had available at the time. Even enroute, the info(to me) still looked good. It was only well after landing that it became clear that the weathermen weren't on their A game that day.

I'm over sensationalizing the "relying on the other pilot" a bit. A quick check of flightaware, adding 20 minutes for poops and giggles and erring on the side that the guy didn't lean is where I get my numbers. The only thing I figured out down to the 10th was the flight times. 2.5 hours of fuel sounds pretty vague doesn't it?

You guys scoffing at the FAA standard passenger and baggage weights should do a little research. These numbers were just adjusted less than 10 years ago, as a result of the crash of the BE1900 in CLT. Take a look at Advisory Circular 120-27E for the details. The quick version is that the standard passenger weights are determined by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a peer reviewed study conducted in a clinical setting to determine the average weight of Americans. The weights in the survey have been going up consistently over the past few decades as obesity has become more common. Whenever the weight goes up by 2% or more, the FAA adjusts the standard weights. Right now, the standard FAA weights fit perfectly with what every study indicates is the average weight of Americans.

As far as average bag weights, these weights were determined following the BE1900 crash by having operators of 10-19 seat airplanes actually weight the bags of every passenger over a period of several months. The averages were calculated using the results of that study.

FAA standard weights are very accurate. It's far more likely that my B717 with 117 passengers on board has a more accurate weight and balance than the guy flying a C402 who is actually asking his passengers their weights. His passengers are lying, and my passengers don't have the chance to lie. Their weights are determined by scientific study.

Aside from the zombie apocalypse and needing to load your hijacked learjet with all your shot guns and flame throwers, I agree.

I know I'm disregarding important things, like WHY i only have 30 minutes of fuel, but if im down that low in IMC, no, I will not be going around. The plane is landing as far as im concerned.

Oh yeah, not saying you didn't carry adequate fuel. Just giving you something to think about for flights in the future.

Interesting. I'd always assumed it was something like this, but never heard the exact background.

Just curious, is there any need to compensate by region? Do all the fatties coming out of Huntsville, Alabama make a difference compared to all the hippy granola eaters coming out of Durango, Colorado?

Again, interesting. Do you think this still holds true now that passengers are used to packing more in their carryons to avoid checked bag fees?

Another just curious question--any idea how they compute weights for sports charters? I'd imagine a football team an would throw off the averages, but don't know what the procedures are.

I would be really surprised if average weight varied much by market served. Remember, for every "local" on that flight to Huntsville, there are probably two business men from some other locale. It all averages out.

Well, if you fly on SWA, then "bags fly free." Sorry, shameless plug for my new corporate overlords.

I haven't noticed much of a difference in cargo compartment weights since we started charging for bags. For the most part, I think passengers are just continuing to check the bags and just paying the fees (and then bitching about it incessantly later, even though they only paid $95 to go from LAX to ATL). Our ancillary revenues seem to bear that out as well, since we're making about $300 million a year just from these ancillary fees.

I'm sure other airlines may have different procedures, but I know that we have a separate W&B form that has to be used for special charters that involve unusual weights. We use actual weights, not standard weights, for these flights.

Excluding Alaska(91.323) and most ferry flights(offshore) then?

I find it funny how and airplane's geographical location makes it capable of carrying more weight.

I don't think being 15% over matters in the slightest. It was just such a need to continue to conduct normal operations up there, that someone paid enough money to the right person to get it put in. That's what I'd bet on. And from what I've seen, they get pretty liberal with the 15%.

Denalt