Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

"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

On Apr 23, 9:54 am, 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.

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

And airlines 'launch into thunderstorm filled areas' only they do it
at altitude

Are you still pretending to be a pilot ?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:15:08 -0700, george sayeth:

On Apr 23, 9:54 am, 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.

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

And airlines 'launch into thunderstorm filled areas' only they do it at
altitude

Are you still pretending to be a pilot ?

Are you still pretending you know how to read? I never said any of those
things are untrue.

Buttman wrote in news:fum11l$q5a$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:15:08 -0700, george sayeth:

On Apr 23, 9:54 am, 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.

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

And airlines 'launch into thunderstorm filled areas' only they do it
at
altitude

Are you still pretending to be a pilot ?

Are you still pretending you know how to read? I never said any of
those
things are untrue.


Liar!

Bertie

george writes:

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

Unfortunately, take-off is over in 30 seconds.

Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:

Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.

Unfortunately, take-off is over in 30 seconds.

Sure it is in a simulatated world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Sure it is in a simulatated world.

Or if you hit the ground just beyond the runway in the real world because you
took off overweight.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
writes:

Sure it is in a simulatated world.

Or if you hit the ground just beyond the runway in the real world
because you took off overweight.


You don't have the slightest idea of what being 100 lbs overweight will do
to an aircraft's performance, you ****ing idiot. If being 100 lbs
overweight was such a major disaster waiting to happen, why to the FARs
allow it in some instances? If you can't answer that, you just wasting
bandwidth and electrons posting your stupid drivel.