![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:21 am, Dudley Henriques wrote: wrote: On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be aware of? Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. Dan I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? Cheers I have no idea. The general picture I get from the legal eagles is that if the accident was caused by a direct violation involving a pre-takeoff decision to fly the aircraft outside it's legal parameters such as a decision to take off over gross involving an accident on the takeoff when the aircraft was in fact over grossed, it's an open ball game for the lawyers because the decision was made to fly while the aircraft was on the ground. I didn't ask about the inflight scenaro, but I'm sure you can see that the situation might be different, as the main error for the stall/spin scenario is pilot error. The impression I get is that a decision made before the takeoff is a different ball game from a bad decision made in flight. -- Dudley Henriques |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 7:46*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
WingFlaps wrote: On Apr 22, 7:21 am, Dudley Henriques wrote: wrote: On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson wrote: tman wrote: Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back. Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage. When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. *Maybe 100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some inaccuracy with filling the tanks. *Now I'm scratching my head about just how risky this is. *I know (others) have pushed over gross in these planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten away with it. *I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that you would when solo. Risky? *Or just roundoff error on the weight? *Here are some other factors: This is the 160HP C172, standard. Departure runway is 5000'. No steep terrain to climb out of. Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways. Not particularly hot, humid, or high. *50 degrees at 1000 MSL for departure or any point of landing. I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase 1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66 knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways. I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. *What else should I be aware of? *Am I dangerous? T I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago. * I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. *The aircraft in question was a float equipped Helio Courier. *The right wing departed the airframe during an approach to landing. *A fisherman witnessed the whole thing. *It crashed into the trees. *Four people (including the 19 year old pilot) were killed. *We were able to determine that the aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the crash. *We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took off. *The company went out of business shortly thereafter. *Their insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck trying to find another provider. *Don't fly *any* aircraft over its gross weight limit. *The pilot was held personally responsible for the accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims. * * *Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation. * * * * * * * Dan I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations.. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? Cheers I have no idea. The general picture I get from the legal eagles is that if the accident was caused by a direct violation involving a pre-takeoff decision to fly the aircraft outside it's legal parameters such as a decision to take off over gross involving an accident on the takeoff when the aircraft was in fact over grossed, it's an open ball game for the lawyers because the decision was made to fly while the aircraft was on the ground. I didn't ask about the inflight scenaro, but I'm sure you can see that the situation might be different, as the main error for the stall/spin scenario is pilot error. The impression I get is that a decision made before the takeoff is a different ball game from a bad decision made in flight. I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... let's be honest, it's what lawyers do for a living -look for advantage through loopholes! Cheers |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act? I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard, stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were killed. I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight, killing 4. Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One, following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally. Where's the slippery slope? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:47:17 -0400, B A R R Y sayeth:
WingFlaps wrote: I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act? I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard, stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were killed. I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight, killing 4. Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One, following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally. You could argue that the baron pilot "deliberately" flew into the thunderstorm. Or he "deliberately" took off knowing there could be thunderstorms along his route. Where's the slippery slope? The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string of deliberate decisions made by the pilot. You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently, or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buttman wrote:
The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string of deliberate decisions made by the pilot. Understood. You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently, or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided. And that's totally different than knowingly and willfully violating a limitation or rule, and then suffering the results that the limitation or rule is designed to prevent. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 6:52*am, B A R R Y wrote:
Buttman wrote: The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string of deliberate decisions made by the pilot. Understood. You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently, or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided. And that's totally different than knowingly and willfully violating a limitation or rule, and then suffering the results that the limitation or rule is designed to prevent. You still are missing the point. In almost every case that series of actions somewhere violated a rule. This make the accident not an "act of God". Cheers |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "WingFlaps" wrote You still are missing the point. In almost every case that series of actions somewhere violated a rule. This make the accident not an "act of God". I see you point, and agree, to a point. If the pilot who flew into IMC was qualified to fly in IMC, and the plane was so equipped, then it is reasonable to fly in IMC, and to fly around thunder storms. It may not be wise, if the storms are too intense and close together, but it is allowable to do so. The pilot's judgment, thinking he could pull off those particular weather conditions could be at fault, but still not going against FARs. On the other hand, rolling an airplane not certified and equipped to do so, is clearly against the FARs, and it would be expected that insurance companies would attempt to go after the pilot, if he survived. Some situations could have a much less clear line in the sand, but in those cases, it would be harder for the lawyers to go after the pilot and win, so the insurance company may not choose to attempt to go after a judgment that they may lose. -- Jim in NC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Buttman" wrote in message
... On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:47:17 -0400, B A R R Y sayeth: WingFlaps wrote: I suspect that you are quite correct. I was intending to illustrate how the slippery slope gets opened up once strict adherence to the letter of the FAA regs. is made a criterion for insurance cover... How is comparing a stall/spin on departure, in the pattern, or in IMC, a slippery slope compared to a deliberate, willful act? I recently read an accident report about a guy who walked around the airport talking of rolling his Baron. On several occasions he had rocked the plane to extreme bank attitudes with other pilots aboard, stating that he "believed the plane could roll". One day, he went for the full Monty and the Baron broke up in flight. All aboard were killed. I also recently read an accident report where a similar Beech Baron flew into embedded T-storms in solid IMC, and also broke up in flight, killing 4. Both planes broke up in flight, for entirely different reasons. One, following a deliberate act by the pilot, the other, accidentally. You could argue that the baron pilot "deliberately" flew into the thunderstorm. Or he "deliberately" took off knowing there could be thunderstorms along his route. Where's the slippery slope? The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string of deliberate decisions made by the pilot. You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently, or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided. I beg your pardon!!!!!! The part about most accidents being the culmination of a chain of events is true. However, the extrapoltion that those events are deliberate is usually pure poppycock--the exceptions simply get much greater coverage. Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Where's the slippery slope? The slippery slope is in the fact that any accident is caused by a string of deliberate decisions made by the pilot. You can always argue that the pilot could have done /this/ differently, or /that/ differently and the accident could have been avoided. I beg your pardon!!!!!! The part about most accidents being the culmination of a chain of events is true. However, the extrapoltion that those events are deliberate is usually pure poppycock--the exceptions simply get much greater coverage. Peter If an insurance company can argue they don't owe anything because the pilot deliberately took off 30 pounds over max gross, then they can equally argue that they don't owe anything when a pilot deliberately launches into a thunderstorm filled area. Imagine what it would be like if you get into a automobile crash, and have the insurance company ignore your claim because the police determined you were going 57mph in a 55 zone. "Oops, you were exceeding limitations at the time of the accident, we aren't liable to pay out" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buttman wrote:
If an insurance company can argue they don't owe anything because the pilot deliberately took off 30 pounds over max gross, then they can equally argue that they don't owe anything when a pilot deliberately launches into a thunderstorm filled area. "Deliberate" is the salient factor here. If you inadvertently spin a 172 because you fail to keep the ball centered on departure, that's different than loading it up with your friends and deliberately spinning it despite the "SPINS PROHIBITED" placard on the panel. Imagine what it would be like if you get into a automobile crash, and have the insurance company ignore your claim because the police determined you were going 57mph in a 55 zone. Or 100mph, and you were drunk, and the families of your deceased passengers are suing you for a million each. The lawsuits against Jeff Ethell and Jack Erickson of the Tillamook Air Museum come to mind. They got in trouble because Jeff was approved to fly one of the P-38s, but he flew the other (one was an experimental, the other wasn't. I can't remember which but he crashed the one he wasn't approved to fly.) -c |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My wife getting scared | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 271 | October 11th 07 08:19 PM |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |