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

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?

"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

"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)

"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...

"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

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

"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

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?

"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...