Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

Mxsmanic wrote:


Interesting that insurance seems to be a stronger motivation than safety. The
reason such limits exist is to preserve safety, not to preserve insurance
coverage.

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

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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.

Interesting that insurance seems to be a stronger motivation than safety. The
reason such limits exist is to preserve safety, not to preserve insurance
coverage.

That's because he could probably make the flight safely, and
statistically he could land without significant harm to the passengers,
but if something got bent and the insurance company finds out he
knowingly operated outside of operating limitations they could deny his
claim.

Seems pretty freakin' obvious to me. Especially since people here are
indicated that it has happened.

-c

gatt writes:

That's because he could probably make the flight safely, and
statistically he could land without significant harm to the passengers,
but if something got bent and the insurance company finds out he
knowingly operated outside of operating limitations they could deny his
claim.

If he could probably make the flight safely, why is the limit below his
weight? At what point does "probably safely" become "probably unsafely," if
not at the official limit? Why should a pilot guess at whether or not
something is safe when a clearly documented limit defines what is known to be
safe?

dont let those fatties stop at a donut shopnb haha :|
After serious thinking 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

Tman,

What else should I be
aware of?


The insurance. If something happens, you'll probably not be covered.
That and a ramp check are your major risks.

That said, performancewise, you'll likely not have a problem. However,
you need to be very aware of runway lenghts and density altitudes.
Those are the biggies, not a knot more or less in stall speed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article tman inv@lid writes:
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.

"almost alway gotten away with it". What of those that didn't get away
with it?

Another poster quoted a couple of NTSB accident reports. Do you want to
be the star of another one, while the rest of us say "gee, he was stupid"?

You probably won't get nailed for a few pounds over gross, but when something
else goes wrong, then you will have less margin.

Remember, the 172 used to have a MTOW of 2300 pounds. When you tell yourself
that the number has been raised, consider that you are STARTING WITH THE RAISED
VALUE.


Perhaps it is time to talk to the instructor about a few hours dual in
a C-182. Perhaps he can throw in aeronautical decision making at the
same time.

Alan

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.

Wow thanks for all the help guys. I showed this post and thread to the
two potential pax.

Anyways, I think my weight problem is solved.

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!

tman 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.

Wow thanks for all the help guys. I showed this post and thread to the
two potential pax.

Anyways, I think my weight problem is solved.

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!


You're ****ting me. Just because you would have been overgrossed with four
passengers now you're flying by yourself? Two others wouldn't go?

Well, maybe it's for the best. Until you get an instrument rating, your chances
of flying cross country on any particular day are no better than 50-50.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Apr 18, 8:26*am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
You're ****ting me. *Just because you would have been overgrossed with four
passengers now you're flying by yourself? *Two others wouldn't go?
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


Yo Mortie,
Unless I miss the sarcasm, Why would you try and make a guy that made
a decision in favor of staying legal and leaning towards safety
question his decision? Not everyone is TopGun out there....

Doug