![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. If the insurance part is true you need to get a real insurance policy. Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test pilot". That's putting it a bit strongly. As long as the CG issues are OK, the effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The structural issues won't come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to go-around at max gross with full flaps) and in any case, there's a large safety margin in there. The fact is that assuming you're not on the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It isn't legal, but it will be safe. 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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com... "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test pilot". That's putting it a bit strongly. No, it's putting it quite accurately. As long as the CG issues are OK, the effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during certification, the airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety of configurations by a *test pilot* to demonstrate the actual performance. Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the fact that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they know) configuration is a "test pilot". The structural issues won't come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to go-around at max gross with full flaps) Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum allowed value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value" isn't really so much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer is required to meet in order to avoid other things). It's true that max gross weight may be affected by things other than structural issues, but there is no way to know whether this is true without consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the theoretical over-gross pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least one common airplane for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing weight (which is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane). and in any case, there's a large safety margin in there. The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight operations. It's not so you can operate over the legal limits. Operate over the legal weight, and you've just abandoned your "large safety margin". The fact is that assuming you're not on the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It isn't legal, but it will be safe. It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the legal weight, which is the comment to which you replied. 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... That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we had better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many people disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way when it comes to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people disregard for rules. Each person winds up setting their own limits, rather than respecting the limits society claims to have made. And yes, in some cases, those limits go way beyond just speeding. Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but general disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative behavior. Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe either. If you have ever flown slightly gross weight, then you have already flown as a test pilot. First, the official weight and balance is probably decades old, and your aircraft most likely weighs several pounds more now. Second, people under-estimate their weight. Unless you have a weighing scale as people board, you can never be sure of the actual weight. Finally, the aircraft is far different from when it was tested during manufacture. A dirty airframe will reduce performance, and an old prop will not work as well as a brand new one. Most importantly, your engine definitely will not perform like a brand new engine. So, whether you like it or not, you have already been a test pilot. For this reason, I never fly an aircraft near its max gross. I have seen pilots diligently trying to unload weight until it is exactly equal to the max gross weight. "Peter Duniho" wrote in : "Mike Granby" wrote in message oups.com... "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test pilot". That's putting it a bit strongly. No, it's putting it quite accurately. As long as the CG issues are OK, the effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The effects of flight at any weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. And yet, during certification, the airplane is required to be *tested* at in a variety of configurations by a *test pilot* to demonstrate the actual performance. Just because one can predict the performance, that doesn't change the fact that a person flying an airplane in an untested (as far as they know) configuration is a "test pilot". The structural issues won't come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to go-around at max gross with full flaps) Very few single-engined airplanes have a stall speed at the maximum allowed value (noting, of course, that the "maximum allowed value" isn't really so much a hard limit, but rather one that a manufacturer is required to meet in order to avoid other things). It's true that max gross weight may be affected by things other than structural issues, but there is no way to know whether this is true without consulting the manufacturer (which I doubt the theoretical over-gross pilot is going to do), and I can think of at least one common airplane for which structural issues DO limit the maximum landing weight (which is lower than the maximum takeoff weight for that airplane). and in any case, there's a large safety margin in there. The reason for that safety margin is for normal, legal weight operations. It's not so you can operate over the legal limits. Operate over the legal weight, and you've just abandoned your "large safety margin". The fact is that assuming you're not on the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It isn't legal, but it will be safe. It *might* be safe. You are still a test pilot when flying over the legal weight, which is the comment to which you replied. 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... That's a matter of opinion, I guess. I personally believe that if we had better enforcement of the little laws, we wouldn't have so many people disregarding the more important ones. Looking the other way when it comes to speeding (and similar) simply teaches people disregard for rules. Each person winds up setting their own limits, rather than respecting the limits society claims to have made. And yes, in some cases, those limits go way beyond just speeding. Obviously each individual who speeds doesn't wind up a murderer, but general disregard for the rules does certainly lead to other negative behavior. Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1... Actually, I don't believe flying at max gross is necessarily safe either. I can certainly agree with that. There's safe, and there's legal. Safe is not always legal, and legal is not always safe. As a pilot, it is our duty (in my opinion) to take the more conservative of either limitation, except under duress (in which case it could still be argued the chosen action is still the most conservative action available at the moment). Pete |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At the same time, if an airplane can fly safely at MGW with an
underpowered engine and a dirty airframe, what prevents an airplane maintained to a higher standard from flying slightly above MGW? I am not suggesting that people try this, but except from a regulatory point of view, what is the real difference between these two scenarios? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "once you go over the max weight, you are essentially a test pilot". That's putting it a bit strongly. As long as the CG issues are OK, the effects of being reasonably over-weight are quite predictable in terms of stall speed, take-off requirements etc. The structural issues won't come into it as many aircraft have their max gross determined by other things (eg. stall speed low enough for Part 23, or the need to go-around at max gross with full flaps) and in any case, there's a large safety margin in there. The fact is that assuming you're not on the edge re DA or runway length, 5% overweight is going to be safe. It isn't legal, but it will be safe. 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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Apache Alternate Gross Weight | Jim Burns | Owning | 1 | July 6th 04 05:15 PM |
Buying an L-2 | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 13 | May 25th 04 04:03 AM |
F35 cost goes up. | Pat Carpenter | Military Aviation | 116 | April 11th 04 07:32 PM |
Empty/Gross weight Vs. Max. Pilot weight | Flyhighdave | Soaring | 13 | January 14th 04 04:20 AM |