Part 135/121 operations during extreme temps

jtrain609

I'm a carnal, organic anagram.
Ok, we can agree to disagree.

One simple question though...are you saying every Part 91 flight that flies to/from an airport where "having the data" is impossible, such as a mountain airstrip with no weather reporting available, is operating illegally?
Here's what I'm saying; if you wouldn't do it with a fed sitting in the seat next to you, then you shouldn't do it. If you wouldn't say to the fed, "Aw shucks, Bob, it's only 2 degrees C, let's just go! It'll be fine!" Then you shouldn't do it.

Or hey, let me say it like this; if you wouldn't do it on a checkride, then you shouldn't do it. If you wouldn't say to the examiner, "Well, it's kind of hot out, so I ran the performance numbers, but it's a little too hot, but we'd be fine," then you shouldn't do it.

That's what I'm saying.
 

turbomax97

What can brown do for you?
IMO, it is irrelevant whether it's part 91,121, 135 etc. that you're operating under. If you're operating outside what the aircraft is certified for(read performance chart limitations) then you're a test pilot, period. There is no grey area, you're either within limitations or not..... real world or by the book shouldn't be an issue these days - the cowboy days should be done and over with. Remember, it's all fun and games until you bend some metal, it's just not worth it folks.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
On the other side of the spectrum, the company I worked for in Alaska set arbitrary numbers as a temperature cutoff. I think it was -48 for the pistons, -45 for the turbines. Something like thats.

As for 121 op's, the aircraft has temperature limitations, generally 40C (at least for my sexy Brazilian) . Also min temps, for various operations, battery, start etc...
It's an aircraft imposed limitation, not a company one.
40C really? That's not that hot. You sure it's not ISA + 40C?
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
IMO, it is irrelevant whether it's part 91,121, 135 etc. that you're operating under. If you're operating outside what the aircraft is certified for(read performance chart limitations) then you're a test pilot, period. There is no grey area, you're either within limitations or not..... real world or by the book shouldn't be an issue these days - the cowboy days should be done and over with. Remember, it's all fun and games until you bend some metal, it's just not worth it folks.
Oh screw that. Pure ridiculousness. If I'm sitting there in my cessna with a 8000 ft runway and it's 115 out, I'm not gonna say, well it's hot and I'm retarded so I'm going to stay here. There is some point where people should pull their head out of their ass and use some common sense.

I suppose since I've flown aircraft without performance charts I'm a test pilot in that case to. Thanks!!! I'll put that on my resume. I just have no clue what the airplane is going to do without charts. Every time I fly, it's just hold the F on, seat of the pants and dangerous because there just isn't enough paperwork to make the airplane fly right.

2500TT, ATP, TEST PILOT!!!!!!!!!!! Should get me a shuttle job.
 

Autothrust Blue

"I'll take your case."
40C really? That's not that hot. You sure it's not ISA + 40C?
I don't remember what the jungle jet was limited to, but the Bro is ISA + 35C (ISA +38C if you have mechanical attitude director indicators instead of the EADI). It's a flight instrument cooling thing, according to the schoolhouse.
 

UAL747400

Well-Known Member
The only problem I see here is that the temp is the temp. It's tangible. Everyone can see it and you're not going to get away with it if someone familiar with your airplane sees what you're doing. Is it illegal, yes. Is it unsafe? Probably not. Say you're in a 172 with a 9000 foot runway. The temp is 2 degrees above the max on the chart. Is THIS unsafe? Absolutely not! Pending if this is a limitation for components. If it just happens to be where the chart ends, fuggit.

Performance calculations are never accurate. Not one single pilot has ever had EXACT and PERFECT weight and balance for example. I mean, if we're gonna argue over the safety aspect of TWO friggen degrees, I'm going to argue that, for weight and balance, pilots should be weighing their clothes, their shoes, how much they think their going to sweat, how much they ate for the day, and how much they pooped. The pax too.

The legal aspect of the argument still stands. I agree with all points here. Safety wise, it just sounds silly.

Me, I prefer legal AND safe. So I would stay on the ground if I were outside the charts in most situations. I can think of a couple situations where I would be thinking "Oh $%^ that! I'm going!". I sense an argument coming with this last comment. :D
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
What about old aircraft that don't give you much of anything for performance? Like perhaps they only give you sea level standard day numbers? Am I a dangerous cowboy for operating that aircraft any time it's not 59* F at sea level?

The performance curve isn't changing that steeply, you could easily compute a fairly accurate extrapolation.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
What about old aircraft that don't give you much of anything for performance? Like perhaps they only give you sea level standard day numbers? Am I a dangerous cowboy for operating that aircraft any time it's not 59* F at sea level?

The performance curve isn't changing that steeply, you could easily compute a fairly accurate extrapolation.
Yes, a dangerous cowboy, but I hereby ordain you a test pilot to. Add it to your resume.

I guess when the new cessnas and pipers cant fly because the pilots are idiots, they can just go jump into an older airplane certified under regulations in which there was no performance data at all. Then they'll be just fine. Because remember, it's the paperwork that makes the airplane fly, and at no point should you ever apply common sense or past learned experiences.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
WEIGH YOUR POOP! It's the only way to know if the airplane will fly!!!
It's amazing experimentals don't fall out of the sky with their lack of performance charts. EAA is just a bunch of damn cowboys. We should shun them and everything they do, as they clearly are a detriment to aviation safety. Boycott Oshkosh! It's promoting aviation recklessness!
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
What about old aircraft that don't give you much of anything for performance? Like perhaps they only give you sea level standard day numbers? Am I a dangerous cowboy for operating that aircraft any time it's not 59* F at sea level?

The performance curve isn't changing that steeply, you could easily compute a fairly accurate extrapolation.
You simply do the best you can, making sure that the numbers you calculate are reasonably accurate, and will stand up to scrutiny.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
You simply do the best you can, making sure that the numbers you calculate are reasonably accurate, and will stand up to scrutiny.
NO! That's not safe at all. You cannot fly unless it's ISA. I'm calling the FSDO to tell them of your careless attitude.
 

UAL747400

Well-Known Member
I realize you guys are just messing around, but jrh's question is basically a paperwork issue in his aircraft type.
Agreed, we're just poking fun at the implied safety issue of it. I think the paper work question has been answered, so derailment is expected. Especially out of me. :p
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
I realize you guys are just messing around, but jrh's question is basically a paperwork issue in his aircraft type.
I know who he flies for. I'm trying to point out the utter ridiculousness(and detachment from reality) of the stance taken by some of the other posters in this thread.
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
Agreed, we're just poking fun at the implied safety issue of it. I think the paper work question has been answered, so derailment is expected. Especially out of me. :p
To be fair, the safety issue is an important one, especially when moving up in aircraft type.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
To be fair, the safety issue is an important one, especially when moving up in aircraft type.
Sure, but I'm pretty sure we're talking pt 91 here with pt 23 (and less) certified airplanes decades to half a century old. Specifically we are not talking about moving people/things for hire.
We already covered, and everyone knows 121/135 gets done by the book. With that much margin for error and accounting for the lowest common denominator we ensure a lot more safety. But it has been said that you treat 91 the same, which is just... I don't even have a word for it.
 
Top