Gross Weight

"Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
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!

What's the problem? There are dozens of ways that still works. A six-foot
goddess could add a lot of weight, while still being quite the "damsel".
If you're 50 pounds overweight, you might have only been 50 or 100 pounds
below max weight in the first place (depending on height, 150 pounds could
be a weight still well within societal norms of beauty, and certainly
weights between 100 and 150 are). Or, to be quite frank about it, you might
find that a person can be plump and yet still quite the damsel.

Personally, I favor the "six foot goddess" scenario, but please feel free to
choose your own.

Pete

But does an exclusion requiring the aircraft to be operated in accordance
with it's type certificate?

That will exclude overgross operations.

So will an exclusion requiring operation in accordance with the FARs...



"Doug" wrote in message
oups.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.

No such exclusions for those either.

It's up
to you how you teach, but I'm glad my CFI had a more realistic
attitude.........

Just remember - not everyone can really tell you what happens
realistically, and some people do try to be holier than the pope (or in
this case the FAA administrator). Not even the FAA inspectors really
take all this stuff to that kind of extreme until they want to get you.

I recall the morning of my initial CFI checkride. It was the first
(and only, out of a dozen) checkride I took not with a DE, but with a
real live FAA inspector. The had to ship him out from another FSDO,
because I chose to do my initial CFI in a glider (it was new and very
hard to ground), and we didn't have a glider-qualified inspector in our
FSDO. I requested one in August, and finally got one in November. Of
course, to be honest, this was 2001 so the little matter of 9/11 did
throw things into disarray.

We met at 8:00 AM. I can't say I wasn't extremely nervous. I knew FAA
inspectors breathed fire and ate babies for sport, and would pin you to
the wall for least little violation of FAR's. Over the course of the
oral I relaxed - clearly this wasn't that kind of inspector. Yes, he
expected me to know all sorts of stuff - but he clearly wasn't out to
get me, just there to make sure I really knew it.

Then he asked to see the aircraft documents. He checked to see that it
was in annual (and agreed that no 100-hour was necessary for us to fly)
and had the proper registration, airworthiness certificate, and flight
manual - and finally asked me to work a W&B.

"I weight 215 lbs" I said (anyone who has ever met me knows this is
bull****). "What do you weigh?"
"What do you think I weigh?" he asked, and didn't quite wink. OK... I
remembered that the L-23 we would fly had a useful load of right around
415 lbs. Of course this was a semi-aerobatic glider, with a max
loading over 5 gees, so I wasn't terribly worried about the wings
coming off. With the soft grass, I also wasn't worried about
overstressing the gear. The gentleman from the FAA easily looked like
he wighted 230-250 lbs, but I confidently said...
"Oh, right around 200 lbs."
"Yep, that's right" he said, and we both knew he was lying.
I checked to make sure I had the latest data, worked the convoluted
graphical W&B in the flight manual - and came up just about a pound
over gross. Oops. Of course he had watched me do it and explain what
I was doing.
"You know, maybe I made a bit of a mistake. I think you really weigh
about 198 lbs." I said with a straight face.
"I think you're right," he said, with an equally straight face. "I
just went to the bathroom."
So I reworked the W&B with him at 198 lbs and me at 215, and sure
enough we were just under - and well within the cg limits. (In fact,
we were well within cg limits even at our real weights).
And then we went out and we flew the glider. And by noon, I was a
certificated flight instructor with glider rating.

I always find it just a little bit amusing when people try to be holier
than the FAA. Even the people who make and enforce these rules know
they're not meant to be followed 100% of the time to the letter, any
more than traffic rules and speed limits. In those situations where
the operation is under scrutiny and can't just ignore the ones that
don't make sense (high visibility stuff like transoceanic, Part 135,
etc) the FAA issues waivers and whatever other sort of authorization
makes sense. For low visibility stuff like my initial CFI checkride,
we just winked and ignored it.

It's only when someone int he FAA wants to get you that the rules come
into play - and then they'll find a way to bust you in any case -
careless and reckless if nothing else.

Michael

Nice work if you can get it...........

The gentleman from the FAA easily looked like he
wighted 230-250 lbs, but I confidently said... "Oh,
right around 200 lbs." "Yep, that's right" he said,
and we both knew he was lying.

Almost precisely what happened on my private checkride. I told the DE
I'd put him down as 200lbs, and he glanced at the W&B, noticed it was
1lb shy of max gross, and said, yep, that's right, although we both new
different.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 06:29:38 in message
, Aluckyguess wrote:

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Fred,

"once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test
pilot".


As Bob pointed out, you are also illegal and not covered by insurance.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured. Just as you're
insured driving your car even if you've got 3x the legal alchohol limit in
your system...

KB

Not true. Car insurance is different, at least in the state of California.
There can be no exclusions the insurer has to pay, a plane is different,
they can and will void your claim if they can find a way.

AFAIK in the UK there would be two types of insurance involved in the
same policy. The part relating to claims by third parties would have to
stand because that insurance is not for you but for those 'third
parties' who suffer the consequences - even though you pay the premiums
to be legal..

Insurance companies may pay out for victims even if the actual driver
was not insured. That is often quoted as a reason for high premiums.

However if you leave you car outside your house or on the drive way with
the key in the ignition then you will probably get nothing if it is
stolen.
--
David CL Francis

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 04:48:52 in message
.com, Mike Granby
wrote:
As to the arguement that breaking one
rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
like saying speeding leads to murder...

I was once at a local discussion about crime when one person
'contributed' that speeding was the 'same as murder'. I started to have
a real go at him but the police terminated the discussion and changed
the subject!

It made me realise what weird views abound.
--
David CL Francis

T'is so. Aviation insurance operates under the old principles of contract
law, not the ones softened up for consumers.

There is a well-known case where a piece of a nose gear broke when a guy was
taxiing a twin, causing a double prop-strike. Insurance contract specified
he had to have 200 hours in type, or some-such number, and he had less.
Clearly time-in-type had nothing to do with failure of the gear, and his
negligence was not alleged. Insurer denied coverage, and was upheld on
appeal. I think you can find the details on AvWeb, under the legal section.

Aviation is a different world, in almost every respect.

Les

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
the accident, at least in many states. 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?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:54:10 GMT, David CL Francis
wrote in
::

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 04:48:52 in message
s.com, Mike Granby
wrote:
As to the arguement that breaking one
rule leads to breaking another, with respect, that is nonsense. That's
like saying speeding leads to murder...

I was once at a local discussion about crime when one person
'contributed' that speeding was the 'same as murder'. I started to have
a real go at him but the police terminated the discussion and changed
the subject!

It made me realise what weird views abound.


Each of us is endowed with a finite amount of innocence. There is
only one first cigarette, only one first copulation, only one first
deliberate act of law violation. To the extent that breaking a petty
law removes that innocence, it paves the way for further breaches of
laws.

So while speeding and murder are certainly not the same in their
degree of transgression, they are both members of the class labeled
breaches of law. For that reason, unreasonable laws (like the former
national 55 mph speed limit) rob law abiding citizens of their
innocence, and overcome one's natural aversion to wrong, thus
facilitating further legal transgressions.