Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Unless things have changed drastically since I was dealing with
insurance matters vs airplanes, the issue insurance wise isn't poor
decision making but rather operating the aircraft CLEARLY OUTSIDE it's
documented operating limitations. In other words, if you fly over gross,
you are wide open if you have an accident WHILE the aircraft is being
operated over gross, for a potential fight with the insurance carrier.
I believe this is correct. Please feel free to check this out.
I'd be interested to know if this situation has changed.

This is what I asked my friend the insurance company lawyer. He tells me
that there has to be some language in the contract that excludes coverage for
operating outside operating limitations. The cannot make up exclusions after
the accident/incident. None of the policies I have says one word about
operating outside documented limitations. Anecdotally, I do know one
pilot that was tagged by the FAA for an incident while overweight. While the
FAA gave him 90 days to think about his error, the insurance company didn't
say boo.

The question is quite simple;
Is your insurance valid if you knowingly operate the insured aircraft in
violation of existing FAA regulations and the manufacturer's limitations
for gross weight? (Flying over gross without a waiver to do so I believe
meets both these parameters)

Well, the FAR part is obvious. If they denied claims for violating FARs,
they wouldn't have to pay 95% of claims. As for the rest, it's fairly
simple. If it's not in the contract, it's not grounds for denying a claim.

Interestingly, flying with a valid ferry permit generally invalidates
coverage. Specifically the requirement that the standard airworthiness cert.
be in effect. A ferry permit is a Special Airworthiness Cert. and does not
meet the standards in any policy I've had. Every plane I've ever ferried
required the insurance company to issue a specific waiver for the flight
under the permit, because the policy specifically states an exclusion for it.


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Interesting. Changed indeed!

--
Dudley Henriques

"tman" inv@lid wrote in message ...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Tell you what; instead of my "advising you" on what to do specifically with this flight, let me suggest to you that
you run a weight and balance for this aircraft at full tanks, THEN run the same pax and baggage loading figuring 1/4
tanks, just to see what this does to the cg.

I did. CG is pretty much center of the acceptable range.
C172 410lbs in the front seats, 170lbs in the back, 30lbs in the baggage area, fuel to tabs -- CG is "good". Same
situation, empty fuel. CG good too.

A lot of ppl are talking about CG issues. Hey maybe I better check my math before I fly this thing!


Typical for a 172... Most are forward of the forward CG with full tanks, 2 standard folks up front, and nothing at all
in the back seats or baggage area.

"NW_Pilot" wrote in message
. ..

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ...
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 never advise a pilot to load any airplane over gross.
I will tell you that the big killer in these situations is the cg location, especially the aft cg.
Tell you what; instead of my "advising you" on what to do specifically with this flight, let me suggest to you that
you run a weight and balance for this aircraft at full tanks, THEN run the same pax and baggage loading figuring 1/4
tanks, just to see what this does to the cg.


--
Dudley Henriques

Making a Tail Skidder out of a 172 even a 182 when the pilot gets out is fun!!!! 30% over gross Extreme Aft CG Utterly
Priceless and FUN!!! But all in a days work.

Here is a sample for a PA28...
http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypil...nkedpermit.pdf

Will scan in a 172 and 182 when I have time...

Don't fly over Gross unless approved to do so and have been instructed on techniques you can end up a wet stain on the
ground.



I remember a C-177 loaded to the gills, bound for HNL from OXR, and they were about 500' up by the time they crossed the
shoreline...

Fat pepsarent into fat facts!
gliderguynj was thinking very hard :
On Apr 18, 5:16*am, tman inv@lid wrote:
tman wrote:
I have some questions now not on weight but on wake turbulence
avoidance. *I'll be flying into the nearest local class C to meet my two
former pax that will be arriving on a RJ, then renting a car!

I guess they didn't want to actually get on that scale and fess up to
the truth! You made a wise choice and probably some friends for
life. As for your wake turbulence....remember it's your
responsibility under VFR conditions even at a towered aiport...Stay
above and land past...... Have a great trip, it's good to see reason
has prevailed. Once you are there, you can always take them up sans
luggage for a ride.

Doug

WingFlaps wrote:

I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight.

I comend you on your perspicacity.



You're dealing with two different
things here. If you read your insurance contract it has strict
provisions when it comes to the way you operate your aircraft.
Operating it with no C of A, or in such a manner that could violate the
C of A, leaves the provider recourse to a whole host of legal actions
(up to and including cancellation of your contract). And then there's
"subrogation".

The C of A on my aircraft is non terminating. What does that mean?

There are several things about your C of A that you should know about,
not the least of which are the conditions upon which it is issued.



Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're
pushed back from the gate.

There we disagree. They may know cargo and baggage and fuel but not
meat.

Then you obviously don't fly "heavy metal". :-)

On Apr 18, 12:58*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
* I suppose anything could be litigated, but if your policy contract
doesn't
have an exclusion for (in this case) taking off overweight, the insurance
company doesn't have a leg to stand on. *
happens. *


It's only an out if there is wording in the policy that gives them the
out. *Here's the AVEMCO wording and I can't find any where in there that
would give them an out.

http://www.avemco.com/Page/Insurance...t-Policy.aspx- Hide quoted text -

First, this isnt the part of the policy that covers exlusions. Second,
AVEMCO does reserve the right to recover claims. They are world famous
for this and it is rumored in the industry that they spend more money
recovering claims than they do paying them. Just a silly rumor to be
sure but it is pretty scary. I had an AVEMCO policy years ago and my
attorney said it wasnt worth the paper it was printed on.
Frank

On Apr 18, 12:23*am, WingFlaps wrote:
Commercial airlines regularaly go over MTOW because they don't weigh
the passengers. Think about it please!

WF, who do you fly for ? Airlines use average wieghts for pax and
bags . These are conservative . I find the "Regularly over MTOW"
statement to be interesting. Do you fly for a LCC ?
FB

On Apr 20, 4:28*am, Frank Olson
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight.

I comend you on your perspicacity.



You're dealing with two different
things here. *If you read your insurance contract it has strict
provisions when it comes to the way you operate your aircraft.
Operating it with no C of A, or in such a manner that could violate the
C of A, leaves the provider recourse to a whole host of legal actions
(up to and including cancellation of your contract). *And then there's
"subrogation".

The C of A on my aircraft is non terminating. What does that mean?

There are several things about your C of A that you should know about,
not the least of which are the conditions upon which it is issued.



Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're
pushed back from the gate.

There we disagree. They may know cargo and baggage and fuel but not
meat.

Then you obviously don't fly "heavy metal". *:-)

And neither do you!

Cheers

On Apr 20, 5:28*am, "F. Baum" wrote:

Airlines use average wieghts for pax and
bags . These are conservative .

Not any more. The only thing limiting PAX weight is how many lard
asses can get stuffed into the same row.

Cheers

Subrogation!