Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

"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

"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

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"

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