Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

On Apr 22, 4:49*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
Interesting that someone to whom personal safety flying aircraft is of
no importance at all would care.

Sometimes I have to fly as a passenger in real aircraft. *I'd prefer to have a
competent pilot.

I'm sure you could advise the pilot on how it should be done.

Cheers

On Apr 22, 4:57*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Interesting that someone to whom personal safety flying aircraft is
of no importance at all would care.

Sometimes I have to fly as a passenger in real aircraft.

No you don't.

*I'd prefer

to have a competent pilot.

You wouldn't know one if he bit you .

He probably already did.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 22, 4:57*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
innews:lirq04ledkm7n52r2h8iohgmq1ipo92
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Interesting that someone to whom personal safety flying aircraft
is of no importance at all would care.

Sometimes I have to fly as a passenger in real aircraft.

No you don't.

*I'd prefer

to have a competent pilot.

You wouldn't know one if he bit you .

He probably already did.



Oh ****! La Rage!


Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

I missed Frank's original post but I have to ask. Was there wording in
the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that? There
seem to be some policies out there that don't have such an exclusion.

You have to read your specific policy to make sure. Most insurance
companies would consider deliberately operating an aircraft outside of
regs (or while impaired by alcohol or drugs) to be pretty good cause to
deny liability. What does your auto insurance policy have to say about
street racing, or DUI? Aviation insurance is no different and if you
honestly believe that an adjuster in the employ of the underwriter isn't
going to be looking for "an out", then you're smokin' something
"home-grown" in BC and seein' "rose coloured skies" without the tinted
specs. :-)

The deductibles on most aviation polices are a tad higher too. On some
of the helicopter claims I processed, you were looking at a 30% (of hull
value) for "Rotors in Motion" versus $5000.00 for "static" claims.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

That's also the reason for at least half the laws in the US.
Standards are set for the bottom of the curve....not the top.

An attitude like this is an accident waiting to happen.

Ah. That explains your existence. An accident! What was it? A busted
rubber?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

Well done!

Staying below the weight limit would be better done. Bending the
rules and surviving is scarcely commendable when you could have simply
obeyed the rules instead.

You've never flown in conditions where the FARs allow you to depart
overweight? If you haven't, then STFU, you moron.

Tman,

That's with
a C172 filled to the tabs -- leaving exactly 1 hour of reserve,


One little trick I use in all aircraft, even those with a "BOTH"
setting on the tank selector: I don't set it there. I conciously fly
from either the left or the right tank, switching regularly to avoid
imbalance. The reason do it: When the tanks get emptier, I can keep a
known amount of fuel in one side while flying the other down to (near)
empty. Much better than having everything empty at the same rate, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

WingFlaps writes:

I'm sure you could advise the pilot on how it should be done.

If he chooses to fly overweight I'll suggest to the airline that he find a new
career.

Nomen Nescio writes:

Your attitude has sure taken you far in life.

I agree. Skipping the testosterone, pride, and arrogance makes for a longer
life expectancy.

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?