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

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/

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.

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 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.

First off, this is backwards (as the other poster remarked).

But second, I can provide such examples.

Pilot flew without current BFR. Didn't pay attention to storm, landed
downwing, wrecked aircraft but walked away. Insurance paid.

Glider pilot with rope break, no medical, and medications in his blood
(determined by toxicology) that would have precluded the issuance of a
medical. Spun in and died. Insurance paid.

Now - can you provide contrary examples?

Michael