Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Weight and Balance question
- Thread starter AX-O
- Start date
Ralph Inkster
Well Known Member
Hey Ax-o
Can you date & sign it & note amendments to it? That's what we need in Canada...
Can you date & sign it & note amendments to it? That's what we need in Canada...
I voted “No” becaue I really think you need to have the paperwork with traceability that is hard to duplicate in an EFIS - a dated and/or signed paper is harder to change than simply updating numbers in an EFIS - there is no traceability there.
However, in the real world, from an enforcement standpoint, it is always going to be up to whomever is doing a ramp check…. And your attitude in the “discussion”.
Paul
However, in the real world, from an enforcement standpoint, it is always going to be up to whomever is doing a ramp check…. And your attitude in the “discussion”.
Paul
Auburntsts
Well Known Member
I voted yes because I don’t know of any regulation that says you have to have a paper copy, at least for E-AB. IMO unless your OPLIMs state otherwise, as long as you have access to the data through any means you meet the intent of 91.9, 91.13, and 91.103 and are therefore legal. Having said that, legal isn’t synonymous with safe or practical. YMMV….
Last edited:
I love problems like this. From what I can tell, the W&B info is required to be defined in the Airplane Flight Manual (23.2620). EABs don't *have* AFMs. Nor do we have an Operating Handbook. 
We have Operating Limitations, but nothing in mine says anything about W&B (those were required to be provided for various loading conditions to my DAR at the time of inspection).
A/W and Registration are required by other sections in the FARs, and are explicitly called out (91.203). But not W&B.
So it looks like the actual acronym is either ARO or AR (if you don't lump Ops Lims under "Operating Handbook", which I wouldn't...two different things).
LOL!
We have Operating Limitations, but nothing in mine says anything about W&B (those were required to be provided for various loading conditions to my DAR at the time of inspection).A/W and Registration are required by other sections in the FARs, and are explicitly called out (91.203). But not W&B.
So it looks like the actual acronym is either ARO or AR (if you don't lump Ops Lims under "Operating Handbook", which I wouldn't...two different things).
LOL!
Went down this rabbit hole once. Nothing in the regs really saying we need a weight and balance specifically. However, it's not possible to meet 91.103 preflight actions without it.
So personally, yes I would think an EFIS w&b would be sufficient. However, I'm not the one making that decision, the ramp agent is. haha
So personally, yes I would think an EFIS w&b would be sufficient. However, I'm not the one making that decision, the ramp agent is. haha
rocketman1988
Well Known Member
So
So you need to have the empty weight, moment, and envelope available. For the RVs, forward, aft limits and the gross weight defines the envelope.
It would seem that if these values were available, the requirements have been met.
So you need to have the empty weight, moment, and envelope available. For the RVs, forward, aft limits and the gross weight defines the envelope.
It would seem that if these values were available, the requirements have been met.
What else is already there?
Think of all the other required markings for instruments etc that are already there. It’s acceptable to input all the numbers for airspeed markings (white arc, yellow arc ,red vne ) and all your other instruments. These markings live in your EFIS.
Does the W&B require a signature? If not, I don’t see why it can’t be in your EFIS just like all the other limitations that are already there. I Vote for the ramp check guy.
Think of all the other required markings for instruments etc that are already there. It’s acceptable to input all the numbers for airspeed markings (white arc, yellow arc ,red vne ) and all your other instruments. These markings live in your EFIS.
Does the W&B require a signature? If not, I don’t see why it can’t be in your EFIS just like all the other limitations that are already there. I Vote for the ramp check guy.
RV8JD
Well Known Member
Traceability.
When I was a DPE for gliders I was giving a Practical Test to a member of a club I wasn't too familiar with. As typical for a Practical Test, I asked the Applicant to compute a W&B for our flight using our actual weights. When he told me the results and showed me how he arrived at those, I noticed he had used the club's W&B 'cheat sheet' to compute the flight's weight and cg. I asked him to show me the last W&B paperwork that validated the Empty Weight and Empty CG of the sailplane shown in the 'cheat sheet'. He could not, and it was not in any of the club's records for the sailplane. I had no choice but to discontinue the Practical Test until a new W&B could be done. The club grumbled but agreed to have one done.
A couple of weeks later I went back to continue the Applicant's Practical Test. The new W&B showed the that Empty Weight of the sailplane was approximately 130 pounds (IIRC) heavier than the club's 'cheat sheet' said it was. Apparently the sailplane had been damaged and repaired and equipment added over the years since the original Empty Weight and CG numbers were put in the club's 'cheat sheet'. That really reduced the Useful Load of that particular sailplane. The club members were shocked by how much weight the sailplane had gained. But we were able to complete the Practical Test successfully (I was a lot lighter then!).
When I was a DPE for gliders I was giving a Practical Test to a member of a club I wasn't too familiar with. As typical for a Practical Test, I asked the Applicant to compute a W&B for our flight using our actual weights. When he told me the results and showed me how he arrived at those, I noticed he had used the club's W&B 'cheat sheet' to compute the flight's weight and cg. I asked him to show me the last W&B paperwork that validated the Empty Weight and Empty CG of the sailplane shown in the 'cheat sheet'. He could not, and it was not in any of the club's records for the sailplane. I had no choice but to discontinue the Practical Test until a new W&B could be done. The club grumbled but agreed to have one done.
A couple of weeks later I went back to continue the Applicant's Practical Test. The new W&B showed the that Empty Weight of the sailplane was approximately 130 pounds (IIRC) heavier than the club's 'cheat sheet' said it was. Apparently the sailplane had been damaged and repaired and equipment added over the years since the original Empty Weight and CG numbers were put in the club's 'cheat sheet'. That really reduced the Useful Load of that particular sailplane. The club members were shocked by how much weight the sailplane had gained. But we were able to complete the Practical Test successfully (I was a lot lighter then!).
Last edited:
AX-O
Well Known Member
not able to sign it. I guess you could sign the glass screen.
RV8JD
Well Known Member
Also, an Equipment List is required as part of the W&B data.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...s/handbooks_manuals/aviation/FAA-H-8083-1.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...s/handbooks_manuals/aviation/FAA-H-8083-1.pdf
"The weight and balance report must include an equipment list showing weights and moment arms of all required and optional items of equipment included in the certificate empty weight."
Last edited:
Where? EABs are not required to have an AFM, and this is just BEW. Nobody that I know, when weighing their RV, created a list of every piece of equipment (seats, radios, O2 tank, fire extinguisher, etc., etc.) and their weights and moment arms. We just, you know, weigh them and compute BEW CG for use in computing W&B.
regarding date verification:
How would you verify in a ramp check to satisfy having “current” navigation charts on board? Digital charts on your EFIS is considered acceptable. Do they ask to see the download date of your electronic charts to ensure they are current?
Like every FAA regulation question, they are subject to interpretation by each FAA employee/representative.
How would you verify in a ramp check to satisfy having “current” navigation charts on board? Digital charts on your EFIS is considered acceptable. Do they ask to see the download date of your electronic charts to ensure they are current?
Like every FAA regulation question, they are subject to interpretation by each FAA employee/representative.
No equipment list is required for E-AB aircraft, but that is a reason that a dated paper copy should be part of the carried aboard aircraft documents.
Caveman
Well Known Member
Boy, what a worm hole...
I voted no. I was ramp checked nearly 12 years ago. The key is that your paperwork has t have a CURRENT W&B. If there is a date on it, they can examine your maintenance records and correlate when equipment was added and if the W&B was updated. Then again, with EAB maintenance records are a different ball of wax. There is a document that gives the FAA employee guidance in conducting a ramp check. It was FAA Order 8900.1. It was just superseded by 8900.1A, but as far as I can tell it is now only accessible by FAA employees. Hopefully someone will have better luck finding it and post a copy.
I started a thread relating my experience here: https://vansairforce.net/community/archive/index.php/t-55942.html
Easier to read version: https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=55942
Bear in mind the thread is dated. Joe Norris from the EAA and other very knowledgeable people weighed in. Get a fresh cup of copy first...
Joe
I voted no. I was ramp checked nearly 12 years ago. The key is that your paperwork has t have a CURRENT W&B. If there is a date on it, they can examine your maintenance records and correlate when equipment was added and if the W&B was updated. Then again, with EAB maintenance records are a different ball of wax. There is a document that gives the FAA employee guidance in conducting a ramp check. It was FAA Order 8900.1. It was just superseded by 8900.1A, but as far as I can tell it is now only accessible by FAA employees. Hopefully someone will have better luck finding it and post a copy.
I started a thread relating my experience here: https://vansairforce.net/community/archive/index.php/t-55942.html
Easier to read version: https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=55942
Bear in mind the thread is dated. Joe Norris from the EAA and other very knowledgeable people weighed in. Get a fresh cup of copy first...
Joe
Last edited:
Caveman
Well Known Member
Auburntsts
Well Known Member
I get that FAA personnel have a reputation for interpreting things their own way. However, in the end there still has to be a reference for any deviation or discrepancy to stand on. For those who voted no, for E-AB aircraf[t/B], could someone please cite the regulatory reference that directs having a paper copy onboard the aircraft? Again not saying not having a paper is smart or a recommended practice, just want to get to the baseline legal requirement.
Last edited:
wawrzynskivp
Well Known Member
I somehow generate all kinds of antipathy when I comment on this discussion, but truth will out yes?....at least it is supposed to.
I have had this discussion with various levels of the FAA in order to better understand how I teach it at a Pt 141 flight school, to include many inspectors (ASIs) who perform ramp checks.
FAR 91.103 Compels you to 'become familiar' with 'all available information concerning that (your) flight.' A heady and arduous task indeed. If you have an AFM then part of that information is 'takeoff and landing distance data contained therein' if you don't have an AFM then 'other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.'
Far 91.9 lends a lot of ideas about whether an AFM should be in your aircraft, and ASIs are pretty evenly split on whether EAB need to have one. To make that messier: A detailed look at the FAA order for certification will show that there are some kinds of homebuilt that have to present an approved AFM prior to certification, and some do not. I leave that rabbit hole right there.
The acronym ARROW is tested and (true?). Even though domestic operations have long since dropped one of the Rs in part 91 ops, the acronym is still on the lips of the ASIs. Hence also the W. But this is not regulatory and the quoted question was regulatory reference.
The procedures for ASIs performing ramp inspections used to be in the public domain, but have migrated to an in-house system for the FAA employees. Those procedures when they were searchable did spell out all the elements of the ARROW acronym, and added to the basics of ARROW to also look for OpLims in the case of an EAB. But again those are FAA procedures and are non-regulatory.
Personal interest: FAR 91.103 does a good job trying to make sure you know whether your aircraft will be suitable for the mission's take off and landings. For those whose performance is found by flight to be inadequate for their encountered conditions it is not always specifically the weight and balance drill that would have been helpful. Sufficient takeoff distance, sufficient climb performance, and landing distance considerations all affected by the mission's Density Altitude, wind, and runway conditions would also all come under 'aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature' and are not normally solved with a W+B document electronic or otherwise.
To the OP: My vote is as many others have written: 'it depends on who you ask...' To Aburntsts: I have yet to find a specific regulatory requirement that stipulates how you comply with any other regulatory requirement that would lend to the required carriage of W+B in part 91 operations. The wording of 91.103 is to 'become familiar' and not 'carry,' but those are just words right?
Last edited:
Airworthiness and Registration are required by the FARs
Operating Handbook, Airplane Flight Manual, or (for EABs) the Operating Limitations are similarly specified as being required on-board (the precise FAR is left as an exercise to the reader).
But...where does it say that a current W&B computation or plot has to be carried on board? And where does *that*, if it exists, say it has to be a "document"?
At least where I work, we consider all sorts of things to be "documents"...electronic records, Word files, spreadsheets, databases, recordings... The idea that only paper artifacts can be "documents" is a very old-fashioned, pre-computing-era interpretation.
So just to muddy the waters even more
Although I've done W&Bs for numerous configurations (all sizes of passengers, various baggage loads, several levels of fuel...in a variety of combinations), here's what I use:
https://apprecs.com/ios/408836204/wnb-pro
So if I get ramp checked and asked for W&B, I maintain that this ought to suffice.
No paper needed.
To forestall the argument about the validity of the limits, arms, etc...AFAIK, verifying the technical input data to a W&B by digging through the build logs, etc., is not part of any ramp check.
Although I've done W&Bs for numerous configurations (all sizes of passengers, various baggage loads, several levels of fuel...in a variety of combinations), here's what I use:
https://apprecs.com/ios/408836204/wnb-pro
So if I get ramp checked and asked for W&B, I maintain that this ought to suffice.
No paper needed
.To forestall the argument about the validity of the limits, arms, etc...AFAIK, verifying the technical input data to a W&B by digging through the build logs, etc., is not part of any ramp check.
Me Too; +1
I agree, and use that program on my iPad. The actual W & B docs are in my maintenance records.
Merrill
So just to muddy the waters even more
Although I've done W&Bs for numerous configurations (all sizes of passengers, various baggage loads, several levels of fuel...in a variety of combinations), here's what I use:
https://apprecs.com/ios/408836204/wnb-pro
So if I get ramp checked and asked for W&B, I maintain that this ought to suffice.
No paper needed
To forestall the argument about the validity of the limits, arms, etc...AFAIK, verifying the technical input data to a W&B by digging through the build logs, etc., is not part of any ramp check.
I agree, and use that program on my iPad. The actual W & B docs are in my maintenance records.
Merrill
