Gross Weight

On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" wrote:

Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
insurance.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dave wrote:


No he didn't.


Operating over maximum weight is a major cause of aircraft accidents.
Don't do it. It is very dangerous.


Really? I find that rather surprising. Do you have any data to support
this assertion?

I certainly don't recommend operating over weight and wouldn't do it
intentionally myself, but in the scheme of illegal things to do in an
airplane, I suspect that being a little heavy is one of the more benign
offenses.


Matt




Actually, aka "Dave", did write what I
quoted above on 7/9/2005 at 5:58 PM.


Matt

Fred Choate wrote:
How much is too much over gross weight?

My 2001 8KCAB has a certificated maximum weight of 1800 lbs. The new
ones have gear legs one inch longer and are allowed 1950 lbs. in the
utility envelope (mine doesn't have a utility envelope). The new legs
are not stronger per se, but rather prevent a prop strike in the
required drop test. The rest of the airframe is identical. With me, a
'chute, and full tanks, my airplane comes in over weight at 1802 lbs.

In my airplane, I'd rather be 30 lbs over weight on takeoff than 5
gallons short of the field.


-Dave Russell
8KCAB/N2S-3

Howdy!

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:
On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" wrote:

Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
insurance.

No. That's not how it works. You claimed that insurance companies
*will* deny a claim if they find something "wrong" such as being
over gross. You have been asked to back up that claim (footnote
call) with just one citation of an actual incident. You don't get
to deflect that by insisting that someone else must show the
contrary first.

By trying to dodge the request, you suggest that you are bull****ting
us. If you weren't, why would you be avoiding the question? Or
is it actually the case that you are just making this up?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:57:36 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured.

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance. Rather,
it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing (warranting?)
that everything is in order. And if the insurance company can prove
that something was NOT in order, then ba-bing! it will disclaim any
responsibility.

I'm not even sure it's the case with automobile insurance, though to
be sure I've always gotten a fair shake from mine. People who insure
with the cut-rate companies (Giego, Allstate, Progressive) sometimes
have a different experience.


Automobile insurance has to cover the claim no matter what. (at least in
california) Its the law.
Airplane insurance is different. A buddy of mine was asked how many hours he
had he guessed at the number, he hit the gear up switch instead of the flap
switch in a 55 Barron I watched both props hit. The insurance company asked
to see the hours and he came up short. They did not cover the claim so he
went and saw a lawyler he basicaly said your screwed.
-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Generally, if it is not excluded, it is covered. So look in the
exclusions. Mine does not have an exclusion for over maximum weight. So
I am covered.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit on
the way to the airport?

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary number
than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by the
marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
specification rather than some engineering requirement.



Wrong.

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:

Do any of you "slippery slope" gentlemen ever exceed the speed limit
on
the way to the airport?

One could argue that the speed limit is a lot more of an arbitrary
number


than an aircraft's gross weight figures.

I believe you would lose that argument. Many a gross weight is set by
the
marketing department so the plane performs to a competition beating
specification rather than some engineering requirement.



Wrong.

Yea, whatever.

Peter Duniho wrote:
Let's say after landing at a remote airport, you stumbled upon an
organized-crime pot growing operation, along with a kidnap victim they kept.
Just as you are untying the victim, you are discovered. You and the victim
run to the plane, but just as you are getting ready to take off, having
narrowly escaped your pursuers, you realize that with your additional
passenger, you may be as much as 50 or 100 pounds overweight.

As I was reading this I was enjoying a nice mental image of "rescuing
the damsel in distress"... until I got to the part about "50 or 100
pounds overweight". Doh!

-R

NW_PILOT wrote:
Watch the Focking Rats That Hang Around Here!! You may get an unexpected
call from the Fed's!!!


I'd bet that asking a rhetorical question here is less likely to lead
to a call from the "Fed's" as posting a link to a video of yourself
breaking the rules.

-R