Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross [Archive]

Tman

April 17th 08, 10:53 AM

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

Vaughn Simon

April 17th 08, 11:32 AM

"tman" <inv@lid> wrote in message
...
> 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?

Like being a little pregnant. Ship the luggage.

Vaughn

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 17th 08, 12:33 PM

Jay Somerset

April 17th 08, 02:40 PM

I would be much more concerned with the BALANCE part of W&B. Yes, 100
pounds over gross is not wise, at it reduces your safety margin with
turbulence, and landing and takeoff distances.

But you really need to make sure that your CG is not out of the
allowable range -- with rear-seat pax and luggage, it could be pretty
far back. Also, you have specific weight limits in the rear luggage
area -- it's all in the POH.

So, but your heaviest passenger in the front seat, and the lightest
luggage in the rear area, and see where your CG lies.

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:53:07 -0400, tman <inv@lid> 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
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 02:55 PM

On Apr 17, 9:53*pm, tman <inv@lid> 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?
>

Not really. The slight excess is fuel which will be burnt off. before
landing time. Remember the structure is stressed to much higher G
than 1.015 and if you just slapped a bigger engine in the MTOW would
be increased to as much as 2500. What is dangerous is the position of
the COG and the reduced climb. Make sure you do a weight and COG calc.
for the trip. I can tell you that you should probably expect a more
tail heavy feel than you are used to which will promote a tendency to
rotate too early. Just raise your Vx by 5k and she'll be fine. Your
climb will be reduced to (say) about 400 fpm at 2000' (if I remember
correctly). Don't crash it or you will be in real trouble :-0

Cheers

Michael[_1_]

April 17th 08, 04:21 PM

On Apr 17, 5:53*am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> 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?

Many things. That's inherently the problem with operating outside the
certified limits. The certification limits provide you with certain
protections. By operating outside those limits, you give up some
protection. What do you give up? Well, that depends on what set the
limit.

Now there are two basic ways to approach this. First, you can
approach it the engineer way. That's how (modern) test pilots
approach this sort of problem. They operate outside the defined
limits all the time (it's in the job description) and most of them are
trained engineers anyway. They figure out what they are doing, what
they can expect out of the operation, decide whether the risk is
acceptable, plan for it, and fly the plan.

So how do you do this?

Start with the basics. What is the maximum available gross weight for
that make and model? Are there STC's that increase it? What sort of
gross weight limits are handed out on ferry permits?

Consider the effect on cg. The cg envelope generally narrows with
increasing weight.

Consider performance - what will climb be like? Cruise? How about go-
around with flaps? Perhaps you need to limit flaps on landing (in
case they don't retract)?

What about the g-loading? Normal category is 3.8, now you may have
less (or not - is that what limits gross weight on that plane?) - how
much turbulence can you expect?

Don't forget that for older planes, the W&B is mostly a work of
fiction anyway. The only real W&B is the kind you do with scales.
Most of them are done by subtracting the weight of equipment removed
(generally overestimated, because the cabling for avionics is mostly
left in) and adding weight installed (often underestimating because
fabbed cables and such are not included) and ignoring the
(significant) accumulation of dirt and grease.

Ultimately, what you are doing is substituting your judgment for
regulation. This has a lot in common with deciding that while the
speed limit is 55 here, in your judgment 60 is safe enough, even with
passengers in the car. If that's not something you would do, you
probably should not do this either.

Or there's another way. Hey, people do this all the time, seems to
work out OK, why not give it a shot? That's a lot how test pilots
used to operate way back when. A lot of them died that way, too.

>*Am I dangerous?

Of course you're dangerous. You're considering transporting your
passengers by light airplane rather than a car. That's demonstrably
more dangerous. The question is whether the risk is reasonable for
you and them.

Now I happen to know (having faced almost this situation and done the
above analysis) that the margins are acceptable for me - and were
acceptable even when I had something like 100 hours. But who the hell
am I? Maybe I have graduate degrees in engineering, an ATP, and an
A&P - not to mention several kinds of CFI. Then again, maybe I'm just
a guy who plays flight sim a lot. Only the people who have met me and
flown with me know for sure.

If you're going to operate outside the rules, you really should know
what safety margins, if any, you are giving up - and that means doing
your own analysis.

Michael

Robert M. Gary

April 17th 08, 04:27 PM

On Apr 17, 2:53*am, tman <inv@lid> 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.

The biggest problem with flying a little overgross is the same problem
with flying at high density altitude. The plane will perform different
and a pilot who isn't expecting this can run into serious problems.
The site picture over the nose will look a bit different. This is why
I always teach my students to climb out on airspeed. I know some CFIs
focus on the site pitch picture but that only works with consistant
weight, altitude, etc.
Many pilots have bitten the big one because they keep pulling the nose
up when climbing out of mountain airports until they stall it. They
keep trying to achieve the site picture their CFI taught them down in
the valley.

-robert, CFII

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 17th 08, 04:27 PM

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

gliderguynj

April 17th 08, 05:12 PM

On Apr 17, 5:53*am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> 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

There's safe, and there's legal. If you take passengers up over gross
as PIC....you've busted a rule or two. If you've posted about it here
and still do it.....

Why not take a few gallons of gas out of the equation and stop for a
refuel a bit sooner?

Doug

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 17th 08, 05:32 PM

gliderguynj wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:53 am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
>> 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
>
> There's safe, and there's legal. If you take passengers up over gross
> as PIC....you've busted a rule or two. If you've posted about it here
> and still do it.....

Then there's ethical...

Should you announce to the pax that the airplane is being operated
outside of the manufacturer's limits, with possible consequences explained?

I see one side of the coin where all pax are licensed pilots, the PIC
shows the W&B info to all involved, and all involved make individual
decisions to get in, or not, based on full awareness of possible
outcomes. Still not legal, but...

The other side is allowing unsuspecting and unknowing people, who
believe the PIC is fully trustworthy, to board a known out of limits
airplane.

No way, no how, am I ever going put one foot on the slippery slope of
the second case.

gliderguynj

April 17th 08, 05:39 PM

On Apr 17, 12:32*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Then there's ethical...

Well said Sir. The passenger is entrusting their life in your hands.
When I take a passenger up in a glider, I understand what a huge
responsibility that is. Reminds me of the Cokehead pilot that killed
that singer Brandy? flying to the Bahamas over gross and impaired on
drugs. He might have had the same reasoning...ah just a bit over
gross, so the climb out will be sluggish....

I think this is a good thread.

Doug

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 06:25 PM

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.

You shouldn't be scared, you should be confident. (And above all safe.)

In more cavalier flying days I have done this once or twice, right at or
slightly over gross, in a 172 on an ideal day. For the purpose of
discussion let's assume you're going to do it.

Where's your CG and how will it influence takeoff and climbout? What
happens if the engine quits on departure? How much extra runway do
you have, and what does your density altitude look like? An airplane
that is overgross might still perform better in straight climbout than
an undergross airplane on hot, humid day. If you've got 11,000 feet of
runway ahead of you with the elevation at near sea level, and no
obstacles to clear, and it's cold and dry, that will help. If you're
going to be going over mountains or it's turbulent, you need to know
what to expect.

My biggest concern here would be the "never had anybody in back" factor.
When you launch and land with four adults on board, even under gross
it's a different feel. If you've experienced that and you already know
what to expect with an airplane near max gross, you will be able to
recognize how the airplane is handling differently once you're over
gross. Without that previous experience it would be pretty tough to
tell whether you're experiencing a situation caused by being over-gross,
or something that feels normal with four adults on board. The
additional stress and distraction on the PIC could be more of a factor
than that placed on the airframe.

Finally, I personally -hate- feeling like I'm a half-ass pilot or that I
just put my pax at the edge of my envelope without their knowledge. If
they're all aware of it and they understand, that's one thing, but if
something happens you might end up feeling like a total heel, or worse.

If I were going to do this flight I would run around the pattern a few
times with pax in back so you get a feel for what's supposed to happen.

Keep your airspeeds up, keep your pitch and bank rates low, watch your
angle of attack (!!!), stay coordinated and fly like you're carrying a
load of nitroglycerin. Work your CG figures for both takeoff and
landing, and also empty in case you have to divert. If you're "scared"
you're more likely make mistakes.

Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. But I
have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.

-c

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 06:35 PM

On Apr 18, 5:25*am, gatt > wrote:

>
> Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. *But I
> have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.
>

This is ridiculous. How on earth do you think ferry flights work,
they can be way over MTOW but the wings don't rip off do they? A 172
it's not going to notice a measely 40lbs over MTOW unless the COG is
wrong.

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 06:39 PM

Tman

April 17th 08, 06:50 PM

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!

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 06:52 PM

WingFlaps wrote:

>> Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. But I
>> have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.
>>
>
> This is ridiculous. How on earth do you think ferry flights work,
> they can be way over MTOW but the wings don't rip off do they? A 172
> it's not going to notice a measely 40lbs over MTOW unless the COG is
> wrong.

Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.

Ferry pilots don't carry unwitting passengers in back when they're
overgross.

-c

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 06:54 PM

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 07:04 PM

On Apr 18, 5:52*am, gatt > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. *But I
> >> have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.
>
> > This is ridiculous. *How on earth do you think ferry flights work,
> > they can be way over MTOW but the wings don't rip off do they? A 172
> > it's not going to notice a measely 40lbs over MTOW unless the COG is
> > wrong.
>
> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>
> Ferry pilots don't carry unwitting passengers in back when they're
> overgross.
>

Look, lets try to put this in perspective. We are not talking about a
big weight. We are taling about a 1700# plane with a 40# excess
payload. Provided the COG is good, you would not probably notice 40
lbs over MTOW from MTOW. The G loading has only increased by less than
2%. That means that apart from a reduction in climb performance
handling will be OK. He's stated that the climb out is not an issue
and by the time he lands he'll be well under MTOW. As for carrying
unwitting passengers, I believe commercial operators do it more often
than they would admit to or even realize (given the average weight
increase of passengers)...

Cheers

Mxsmanic

April 17th 08, 07:15 PM

tman writes:

> Risky?

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-8-12-Overloaded-172.wmv

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 17th 08, 07:19 PM

tman wrote:
> 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!

That's because CG is particularly critical when you're heavy. That's one of the
reasons I used to prefer the PA-32 over the C-210 for my runs to the islands.
The PA-32s all have this huge baggage compartment aft of the engine but forward
of the passenger compartment. It allowed me to stuff it full of the heaviest
crap I had to carry. Then loading all the beef in the back would leave me with
a quite acceptable CG. 6 people, baggage, full fuel (didn't mean to do that)
and hot summer day. Slow climbing but I eventually waddled up to 8,000 feet and
had a completely normal flight from that point on.

OTOH, I once took four folks down to Florida in a modified C-172 that had 180 HP
and a constant speed prop. The lardasses in the back threw me into an aft CG
situation that was acceptable until I got 20 degrees of flaps down; then I
didn't have enough trim authority to get all the pressure off the yoke. I had
to muscle it in... a rather uncomfortable situation for a fingertip kind of
flier. Sure did flare easily though...

Somebody said something about you've never carried four passengers in a C-172?
If that's the case I take back what I said earlier about making the flight. You
definitely want to take a few rides around the local area with some folks in the
back... it's not the same as just 2 guys in the front.

The other thing to consider is the very limited baggage space of the C-172.
When you pack it, you want the load as forward as you can make it. As the arm
gets longer, it's amazing the effect of weight back there.

I'm not much for experimenting heavily (pardon the pun) when I have only limited
experience. Will the C-172 fly 50 or even 100 lbs overgrossed? I know it will.
I also know I wouldn't want an inexperienced pilot behind the controls when I
did it. And a cold day would be helpful.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 17th 08, 07:25 PM

gatt wrote:
> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>
> Ferry pilots don't carry unwitting passengers in back when they're
> overgross.

They might if they hadn't already loaded it to capacity with fuel. Ferrying
operations are a good example of flying overgrossed successfully.
Unfortunately, the cabin is usually stuffed with fuel bladders so there's no
room for passengers unless they want to ride outside in the smoking section.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

gliderguynj

April 17th 08, 07:43 PM

So how is the conversation going to go?...Listen, I've never flown
with passengers in the back before. The plane is also over the legal
limit, but I think the numbers aren't too bad. Unless of course you
really aren't the 200lb you claim and are more like 225lbs.... and
the luggage is heavier than we think. Maybe I should use a scale and
actually see what the weight being put in the plane really
is....Nah,,,,but anyway, I posted it online, and everyone said we
should be OK because those funny engineers put in a fudge factor, so
the numbers listed don't really need to be followed.....

It's not like Burt Rutan is flying his buddies to the Hilton Ranch...

With all due respect to the original poster, I'd really reconsider
this outing as planned....

Michael[_1_]

April 17th 08, 07:44 PM

On Apr 17, 1:54*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?

That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.

Michael

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 07:47 PM

WingFlaps wrote:

>> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
>> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
>> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>
> Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?

I don't see anything I've written anywhere above that suggests such a
thing.

-c

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 17th 08, 07:55 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
>
> This is ridiculous. How on earth do you think ferry flights work,
> they can be way over MTOW but the wings don't rip off do they? A 172
> it's not going to notice a measely 40lbs over MTOW unless the COG is
> wrong.

We all know about ferry flights, flown by a lone professional.
Professional ferry pilots don't ask anonymous Usenet posters how they
think the plane will fly, either.

Would you tell the passengers that the airplane is over it's
manufacturer specified takeoff weight limit, and allow them the free
will to get off? If you wouldn't do that...

If someone did get off, the problem is solved! <G>

I fly at max gross all the time, as my plane needs serious ballast to be
in CG with two big guys up front. I agree the wings won't fall off at
ferry flight weights. Think of how important a small spot of water or a
fouled plug, that might not have been a big deal within limits, becomes
when overweight. Think of how airplanes gain weight, and engines lose
performance as they age.

The unwitting passengers and the "if you have to ask as a pilot" part of
this equation that bugs me.

[email protected]

April 17th 08, 07:58 PM

On Apr 17, 11:52 am, gatt > wrote:

> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.

Knowingly taking off over gross invalidates any insurance.
Hurt or kill a passenger and see what the judge has to say about it.

Dan

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:03 PM

"tman" <inv@lid> wrote in message
...
> 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

Unless your working with a over gross authority and a special airworthyness
certificate then keep it legal and stay within gross limits.

Other wise cessna 172's fly good 30% over if you have a long run way and
healthy engine and good cool temps.

As for Speeds that a hit amd miss each airplane is diffrent when over gross.

Am I dangerous? if you have not been properly instructed on flying over
weight aircraft the answer is yes.

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:05 PM

"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
>I would be much more concerned with the BALANCE part of W&B. Yes, 100
> pounds over gross is not wise, at it reduces your safety margin with
> turbulence, and landing and takeoff distances.
>
> But you really need to make sure that your CG is not out of the
> allowable range -- with rear-seat pax and luggage, it could be pretty
> far back. Also, you have specific weight limits in the rear luggage
> area -- it's all in the POH.
>
> So, but your heaviest passenger in the front seat, and the lightest
> luggage in the rear area, and see where your CG lies.

Yawn!!!!

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:07 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 2:53 am, tman <inv@lid> 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.

The biggest problem with flying a little overgross is the same problem
with flying at high density altitude. The plane will perform different
and a pilot who isn't expecting this can run into serious problems.
The site picture over the nose will look a bit different. This is why
I always teach my students to climb out on airspeed. I know some CFIs
focus on the site pitch picture but that only works with consistant
weight, altitude, etc.
Many pilots have bitten the big one because they keep pulling the nose
up when climbing out of mountain airports until they stall it. They
keep trying to achieve the site picture their CFI taught them down in
the valley.

-robert, CFII

Agree Agree!!!!

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:20 PM

"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/ferrypilotforms/tankedpermit.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.

Robert M. Gary

April 17th 08, 08:23 PM

On Apr 17, 10:52*am, gatt > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:

> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.

The insurance company doesn't give a crap. Your not over gross by the
name you land anyway.

-Robert

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:24 PM

"gatt" > wrote in message
news:zKCdneYD7P5nGprVnZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d@integraonlin e...
> 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.
>
> You shouldn't be scared, you should be confident. (And above all safe.)
>
> In more cavalier flying days I have done this once or twice, right at or
> slightly over gross, in a 172 on an ideal day. For the purpose of
> discussion let's assume you're going to do it.
>
> Where's your CG and how will it influence takeoff and climbout? What
> happens if the engine quits on departure? How much extra runway do you
> have, and what does your density altitude look like? An airplane that
> is overgross might still perform better in straight climbout than an
> undergross airplane on hot, humid day. If you've got 11,000 feet of
> runway ahead of you with the elevation at near sea level, and no obstacles
> to clear, and it's cold and dry, that will help. If you're going to be
> going over mountains or it's turbulent, you need to know what to expect.
>
> My biggest concern here would be the "never had anybody in back" factor.
> When you launch and land with four adults on board, even under gross it's
> a different feel. If you've experienced that and you already know what to
> expect with an airplane near max gross, you will be able to recognize how
> the airplane is handling differently once you're over gross. Without that
> previous experience it would be pretty tough to tell whether you're
> experiencing a situation caused by being over-gross, or something that
> feels normal with four adults on board. The additional stress and
> distraction on the PIC could be more of a factor than that placed on the
> airframe.
>
> Finally, I personally -hate- feeling like I'm a half-ass pilot or that I
> just put my pax at the edge of my envelope without their knowledge. If
> they're all aware of it and they understand, that's one thing, but if
> something happens you might end up feeling like a total heel, or worse.
>
> If I were going to do this flight I would run around the pattern a few
> times with pax in back so you get a feel for what's supposed to happen.
>
> Keep your airspeeds up, keep your pitch and bank rates low, watch your
> angle of attack (!!!), stay coordinated and fly like you're carrying a
> load of nitroglycerin. Work your CG figures for both takeoff and landing,
> and also empty in case you have to divert. If you're "scared" you're more
> likely make mistakes.
>
> Having said all that, I don't think I'd make the flight myself. But I
> have before, in a 172 at maybe 40lbs over gross, and nothing broke.
>
> -c

Gatt,

read this on a piper but very similer on a 172.

http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypilotforms/tankedpermit.pdf
http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypilotforms/tankedpermit.pdf

Robert M. Gary

April 17th 08, 08:24 PM

On Apr 17, 11:15*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> tman writes:
> > Risky?
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-8-12-Overloaded...

That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
just trolling.

-Robert

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 17th 08, 08:27 PM

tman wrote:
> 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!

For your scenario, as long as the fuel burn doesn't alter the cg to a
dangerous area your main concern is the over gross condition.
I should note that you might well be flying an aircraft down the line
someday where the fuel burn COULD be a cg altering consideration. This
was why I had you do both W&B :-)

There are several ways to approach this situation and all of them are
relevant.
The prime condition for me would be the insurance condition. You should
consider that in the event of an accident...ANY accident, even one not
involving the over gross condition, the aircraft insurance could most
certainly become an issue post accident because of the over gross condition.

Your training and skill at handling an over gross airplane, even one
"just a tad over gross" should be a consideration.

As PIC, you are asking your Pax to fly with you in an aircraft that is
over gross at takeoff; something that you might wish to reconsider.

Bottom line for me advice wise is that for some pilots, the airplane
won't necessarily fall out of the sky at 40lbs over gross, but are you
one of these pilots, and secondly, have you considered the rest of the
above factors?
The decision as PIC is yours. Make it a wise one.
--
Dudley Henriques

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:29 PM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
>> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
>> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>>
>> Ferry pilots don't carry unwitting passengers in back when they're
>> overgross.
>
>
>
> They might if they hadn't already loaded it to capacity with fuel.
> Ferrying operations are a good example of flying overgrossed successfully.
> Unfortunately, the cabin is usually stuffed with fuel bladders so there's
> no room for passengers unless they want to ride outside in the smoking
> section.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
>
>
>

We as ferry pilots have to explain we are overgross and out contents to all
passengers if allowed by FAA, you know every now and then a client wishes to
ride along most are not pilots or just a private.

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 08:49 PM

Now this is Over Gross....

http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg

B A R R Y

April 17th 08, 08:52 PM

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:49:24 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote:

>Now this is Over Gross....
>
>http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>

You look like you're making a recycling run. <G>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 17th 08, 09:01 PM

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Now this is Over Gross....
>
> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>
>
Exposure suit?
How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
well and took a half hour to get into! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

gliderguynj

April 17th 08, 09:14 PM

At this point in the thread I'd be very curious to find out the actual
Real World weight of everything....as opposed to the original posters
assumption's.

Have the buddies get on a scale, with clothes and shoes on, watches,
wallets keys, a full stomach a few cups of coffee each.... Do the same
for the luggage. Don't forget to add all the extra headsets,
camera's, water bottles.....

It might be a useful example for all reading. I'd almost guarantee
it's far heavier than the numbers being used. I can't tell you how
many times people show up at the field for a ride and they say they
weigh 200 and they easily have 30 or 40 lbs on me and I'm 200!!!

doug

george

April 17th 08, 09:33 PM

On Apr 18, 6:44 am, Michael > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?
>
> That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
> to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
> having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.
>

Not here not ever. You get a rating you have to demonstrate at least
one MAUW circuit.
And the idea of crosscountry flying without weighing the pax is
foolish to say the least

george

April 17th 08, 09:35 PM

On Apr 18, 8:01 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> NW_Pilot wrote:
> > Now this is Over Gross....
>
> >http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>
> Exposure suit?
> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>
A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
Insulation and floatation built in

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 09:39 PM

NW_Pilot wrote:

> read this on a piper but very similer on a 172.
>
> http://aircraftdelivery.net/ferrypilotforms/tankedpermit.pdf

Fascinating!

"No person may be carried in this aicraft unless he/she is essential to
the flight and has been advised of the contents of this authorization
and of the airworthiness status of this aircraft."

I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross. I
turned down a commercial flight in February because the aircraft would
have been overgross on takeoff, just barely under by the time we got to
the target, and they wanted to do low-level performance-intensive flight
once we got there.

They called a local pilot out of Corvallis to do it, but he wouldn't
carry all three of 'em either.

-c

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 09:49 PM

On Apr 18, 6:47*am, gatt > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
> >> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
> >> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>
> > Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?
>
> I don't see anything I've written anywhere above that suggests such a
> thing.

So you do?

Cheers

Ross

April 17th 08, 09:58 PM

gliderguynj wrote:
> At this point in the thread I'd be very curious to find out the actual
> Real World weight of everything....as opposed to the original posters
> assumption's.
>
> Have the buddies get on a scale, with clothes and shoes on, watches,
> wallets keys, a full stomach a few cups of coffee each.... Do the same
> for the luggage. Don't forget to add all the extra headsets,
> camera's, water bottles.....
>
> It might be a useful example for all reading. I'd almost guarantee
> it's far heavier than the numbers being used. I can't tell you how
> many times people show up at the field for a ride and they say they
> weigh 200 and they easily have 30 or 40 lbs on me and I'm 200!!!
>
> doug
>

I took a helicopter ride into the Grand Canyon last year and as we
signed up EACH person stood on a scale fully loaded (cameras, backpacks,
etc) and they captured your weight.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 10:00 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>> Tell it to the insurance company or your passengers if you prang the
>> landing because, say, you've never carried passengers in the back of a
>> C-172 before and, say, you hit a windshear on final.
>
> The insurance company doesn't give a crap. Your not over gross by the
> name you land anyway.

I take that to mean "by the time you land," but, that doesn't take into
consideration departure stalls, engine failure, obstacle clearance data
or all kinds of things we don't know about. You and I don't even know
in this case whether his aircraft is capable of establishing full power.

"The Safety Board determined that the probable cause of this accident
was : the pilot's improper planning/decision, and his failure to
maintain adequate airspeed during a climb over rising terrain, which
resulted in a stall and collision with terrain. Factors relating to the
accident were: failure of the pilot to ensure the airplane was within
its weight and balance limitations, high density altitude, and the
rising/mountainous terrain."

In another report at the same site:
"Witnesses described the airplane’s climb rate and speed as slow, and
they observed the airplane enter a roll and descent that was consistent
with a stall. Density altitude at the airport was 6,670 feet. The
airplane’s gross weight was calculated to be 84 pounds over the maximum
limit at the time of the impact.

"The Safety Board determined the probable cause of the accident to be
the pilot-in command’s improper decision to take off ... when the
airplane was overweight and when the density altitude was higher than he
was accustomed to, resulting in a stall caused by failure to maintain
airspeed. http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/jh980428.htm

I don't know about you guys, but, I never want my name to be associated
with "The Safety Board determined that the probable cause" and/or
"failure of the pilot to ensure the airplane was within its weight and
balance limitations."

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 10:03 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>
>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
> Exposure suit?
> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as well
> and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft then
you have a half day or so.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 17th 08, 10:14 PM

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>>
>>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>> Exposure suit?
>> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
>> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
>> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
>> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as well
>> and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft then
> you have a half day or so.
>
>
>
Interesting; about the same as the military suit. Looks well made, and
might be a tad more comfortable and easy to move about in :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 17th 08, 10:15 PM

george wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:01 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>> Exposure suit?
>> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
>> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
>> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
>> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
>> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>>
> A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
> Insulation and floatation built in
>
Oh that poop suit is a full wet suit all right. I'm only glad I'll never
have to get into one again :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps

April 17th 08, 10:15 PM

On Apr 18, 8:39*am, gatt > wrote:

>
> I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
> day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross. *

You people need to go on diets! The 172 should be a 3 seater with full
fuel (144l)...

Cheers

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 10:15 PM

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Now this is Over Gross....
>
> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg

"IIII am NYLON Maaaan!"

Clearly, you're safe, though, because there's duct tape on the fuselage.
:>

-c

Andrew Sarangan

April 17th 08, 10:20 PM

On Apr 17, 11:27 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:53 am, tman <inv@lid> 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.
>
> The biggest problem with flying a little overgross is the same problem
> with flying at high density altitude. The plane will perform different
> and a pilot who isn't expecting this can run into serious problems.
> The site picture over the nose will look a bit different. This is why
> I always teach my students to climb out on airspeed. I know some CFIs
> focus on the site pitch picture but that only works with consistant
> weight, altitude, etc.
> Many pilots have bitten the big one because they keep pulling the nose
> up when climbing out of mountain airports until they stall it. They
> keep trying to achieve the site picture their CFI taught them down in
> the valley.
>
> -robert, CFII

Consider this. When was the last time the airplane was weighed? Does
your engine performance exactly the same as when it was manufactured?
Do you get the same cruise speeds as published on the AFM?

Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or whatever
the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.

Chances are this airplane is a little heavier, and engine is little
weaker. Almost every rental airplane I have flown does not cruise as
the book says. Takeoff and landing performance has a lot to do with
pilot capability, but cruise performance is a good benchmark that does
not involve pilot capability.

If you have ever flown an airplane at max gross or close to it, then
you have flown it overgross. Legally the airplane may not be over
gross, but practically it is.

Not only do I recommend against flying overgross, I do not recommend
flying at gross either, unless you are the owner of that airplane and
are very familiar its performance.

Morgans[_2_]

April 17th 08, 11:03 PM

"george" > wrote

> A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
> Insulation and floatation built in

I don't know for sure what kind of suits they wear if the ship sinks on the TV
series, "Dangerous Catch" (I think they are dry suits) but they had a guy tell
about surviving in the water for well over 24 hours, in the Bearing Sea.

His partner was in the same situation, and she did not survive.

So I guess the moral of the story is that a survival suit can help you survive
in cold water for a pretty good time, hopefully until you are rescued alive.
--
Jim in NC

gatt[_3_]

April 17th 08, 11:34 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:39 am, gatt > wrote:
>
>> I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
>> day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross.
>
> You people need to go on diets! The 172 should be a 3 seater with full
> fuel (144l)...

Unfortunately, too true. Under the pilot's storm window on a B-17 is a
placard with the maximum crew weight: 1200 lbs. Let's see: 10 men in
uniform, bunny suits, flight suits, boots, gloves, mae west, parachute
and harness, body armor, flak helmet...

I went to a park on Sunday with my wife and noted that previous
generations would be absolutely stunned by the average American's
physical condition nowadays.

An old 96th BG waistgunner/armorer told me one time that they would
sneak in extra ammunition for the long raids, but if the pilots found
out they'd make 'em offload it. So they ditched the fire
extinguishers, waist and radio room windows and just about everything
else nonessential and replaced it with a steel plate on the floor of the
waist, and whatever extra ammo could be slipped onboard in the tail
without the pilots finding out. "Aft of CG limit" apparently meant
nothing to gunners.

(Also mentioned using their oxygen masks to keep cigarettes lit on the
way to Schweinfurt.)

-c

NW_Pilot

April 17th 08, 11:55 PM

> Almost every rental airplane I have flown does not cruise as
> the book says.

Nither do the new cessna right out of the factory! I have flown plenty :)
Now Cirrus Hell yea better than Book most the time!

JGalban via AviationKB.com

April 18th 08, 12:02 AM

wrote:
>
> Knowingly taking off over gross invalidates any insurance.

No. It doesn't invalidate mine, nor does it invalidate any of the policies
I've had in the last 18 yrs.

If insurance policies were invalidated by poor decision-making, they'd be
worthless.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

NW_Pilot

April 18th 08, 12:13 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>>> Exposure suit?
>>> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
>>> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
>>> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
>>> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
>>> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft
>> then you have a half day or so.
>>
>>
>>
> Interesting; about the same as the military suit. Looks well made, and
> might be a tad more comfortable and easy to move about in :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

For Best Comfort and Time in water 15 to 20 min it's Mustang.... but wow
$$$$$$$$$$ and custom tailored.

http://www.mustangsurvival.com/products/product.php?id=135

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 18th 08, 12:20 AM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> wrote:
>> Knowingly taking off over gross invalidates any insurance.
>
> No. It doesn't invalidate mine, nor does it invalidate any of the policies
> I've had in the last 18 yrs.
>
> If insurance policies were invalidated by poor decision-making, they'd be
> worthless.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
company instigates after the accident.
It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 18th 08, 12:28 AM

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>>>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>>>> Exposure suit?
>>>> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
>>>> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
>>>> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
>>>> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
>>>> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> About 5 to 10 min in the North Atlantic enough to maybe get in the raft
>>> then you have a half day or so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting; about the same as the military suit. Looks well made, and
>> might be a tad more comfortable and easy to move about in :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> For Best Comfort and Time in water 15 to 20 min it's Mustang.... but wow
> $$$$$$$$$$ and custom tailored.
>
> http://www.mustangsurvival.com/products/product.php?id=135
>
>
>

Looks like the same suit we had. Probably is if it's expensive. I
remember having mixed emotions about them. I absolutely hated wearing
the damn thing but I sort of had in the back of my mind a thought about
how long I'd last after ejecting into the bay without having it on. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

george

April 18th 08, 01:11 AM

On Apr 18, 9:15 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 8:01 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> NW_Pilot wrote:
> >>> Now this is Over Gross....
> >>>http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
> >> Exposure suit?
> >> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
> >> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
> >> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
> >> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
> >> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>
> > A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
> > Insulation and floatation built in
>
> Oh that poop suit is a full wet suit all right. I'm only glad I'll never
> have to get into one again :-))
>
One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!

Mxsmanic

April 18th 08, 01:16 AM

Ross writes:

> I took a helicopter ride into the Grand Canyon last year and as we
> signed up EACH person stood on a scale fully loaded (cameras, backpacks,
> etc) and they captured your weight.

Is this because it was a helicopter, or was it just the idiosyncrasy of the
operator? I've read that helicopters are much more sensitive to weight and
balance than fixed-wing aircraft.

Mxsmanic

April 18th 08, 01:18 AM

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> If insurance policies were invalidated by poor decision-making, they'd be
> worthless.

Not to people who make good decisions, who represent the kind of customers
that insurance companies want.

Drag-racing an ordinary automobile is a poor decision, and crashing during
such an activity may not be covered by insurance in consequence.

Of course, if you're dead, it doesn't matter.

Mxsmanic

April 18th 08, 01:21 AM

Robert M. Gary writes:

> That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
> just trolling.

The aircraft was overweight, and everyone on board died in the crash that
resulted from that.

I knew that people would argue with me just because I'm the one who made the
point. Thank goodness I don't have to fly with people like that in the
pilot's seat. That kind of "rules don't count" attitude is one of the danger
signs for pilot safety.

Mxsmanic

April 18th 08, 01:22 AM

george writes:

> One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
> Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
> In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!

Is there a lot of livestock beneath the ice?

Matt Whiting

April 18th 08, 01:36 AM

Matt Whiting

April 18th 08, 01:40 AM

WingFlaps wrote:

> Not really. The slight excess is fuel which will be burnt off. before
> landing time. Remember the structure is stressed to much higher G
> than 1.015 and if you just slapped a bigger engine in the MTOW would
> be increased to as much as 2500. What is dangerous is the position of
> the COG and the reduced climb. Make sure you do a weight and COG calc.
> for the trip. I can tell you that you should probably expect a more
> tail heavy feel than you are used to which will promote a tendency to
> rotate too early. Just raise your Vx by 5k and she'll be fine. Your
> climb will be reduced to (say) about 400 fpm at 2000' (if I remember
> correctly). Don't crash it or you will be in real trouble :-0

Actually, your tongue-in-cheek comment raises a good point. Operating
over gross may well void your insurance. So, question to the OP: do you
really want to make a flight with no insurance in force? Even a small
mishap that gets investigated may well result in your insurance company
abandoning you when you need them most. I'd read my policy carefully
before making this flight just to be sure.

Matt

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 18th 08, 01:45 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ross writes:
>
>> I took a helicopter ride into the Grand Canyon last year and as we
>> signed up EACH person stood on a scale fully loaded (cameras,
>> backpacks, etc) and they captured your weight.
>
> Is this because it was a helicopter, or was it just the idiosyncrasy
> of the operator? I've read that helicopters are much more sensitive
> to weight and balance than fixed-wing aircraft.

Why, you gonna sandbag your kitchen chair?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 18th 08, 01:46 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
>> just trolling.
>
> The aircraft was overweight, and everyone on board died in the crash
> that resulted from that.
>
> I knew that people would argue with me just because I'm the one who
> made the point.

No, people argue with you because you are an idiot.

Bertie

Matt Whiting

April 18th 08, 01:50 AM

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 18th 08, 01:56 AM

george wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:15 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 8:01 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> NW_Pilot wrote:
>>>>> Now this is Over Gross....
>>>>> http://www.ferrypilotservice.com/overgross.jpg
>>>> Exposure suit?
>>>> How effective is that thing? I had to wear one of those damn Navy Poopy
>>>> suits flying a T38 out of NATC Pax River. If I had to go into the
>>>> Chesapeake Bay in December, I think the damn thing gave me an extra 5
>>>> minutes before I froze to death. Severely restricted stick travel as
>>>> well and took a half hour to get into! :-))
>>> A full wetsuit would be a better bet.
>>> Insulation and floatation built in
>> Oh that poop suit is a full wet suit all right. I'm only glad I'll never
>> have to get into one again :-))
>>
> One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
> Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
> In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!
>

That's what you call a "cool job" :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 18th 08, 02:25 AM

NW_Pilot" <service(Spam)@aircraft"nospam"-me-ok-"spamer wrote:
> For Best Comfort and Time in water 15 to 20 min it's Mustang.... but wow
> $$$$$$$$$$ and custom tailored.
>
> http://www.mustangsurvival.com/products/product.php?id=135

Now I've worn both wet and dry suits for diving and the one thing they shared
was being incredibly hot... to the point of dehydration if you didn't get into
the water and cool down. Do these survival suits have any provision to keep you
from passing out from the heat while you are hopefully still in the air?

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Peter Dohm

April 18th 08, 02:42 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
news:U9OdnTKE2-HpTZrVnZ2dnUVZ_vyinZ2d@integraonline...
> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 8:39 am, gatt > wrote:
>>
>>> I think pretty much anybody who's ever flown a C-172 on a warm summer
>>> day, with more than one passenger, has pushed it near or over gross.
>>
>> You people need to go on diets! The 172 should be a 3 seater with full
>> fuel (144l)...
>
> Unfortunately, too true. Under the pilot's storm window on a B-17 is a
> placard with the maximum crew weight: 1200 lbs. Let's see: 10 men in
> uniform, bunny suits, flight suits, boots, gloves, mae west, parachute and
> harness, body armor, flak helmet...
>
> I went to a park on Sunday with my wife and noted that previous
> generations would be absolutely stunned by the average American's physical
> condition nowadays.
>
> An old 96th BG waistgunner/armorer told me one time that they would sneak
> in extra ammunition for the long raids, but if the pilots found out they'd
> make 'em offload it. So they ditched the fire extinguishers, waist and
> radio room windows and just about everything else nonessential and
> replaced it with a steel plate on the floor of the waist, and whatever
> extra ammo could be slipped onboard in the tail without the pilots finding
> out. "Aft of CG limit" apparently meant nothing to gunners.
>
> (Also mentioned using their oxygen masks to keep cigarettes lit on the way
> to Schweinfurt.)
>
> -c
>
I must admit that I failed to read the placards in the Aluminum Overcast,
but I doubt that anyone other than the ball gunner would have been under 120
pounds even back then--and I have my doubts about him as well.

Peter

Blanche

April 18th 08, 02:46 AM

Michael > wrote:
>On Apr 17, 1:54*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?
>
>That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
>to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
>having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.

Midway thru the PPL my CFI took me out on a hot afternoon with full
tanks and someone in the back (C172). All we did was pattern work to
"illustrate" weight, density altitude and me being miserable in a
greenhouse aircraft.

One of the best lessons of my life!

Blanche

April 18th 08, 02:53 AM

gliderguynj > wrote:
>At this point in the thread I'd be very curious to find out the actual
>Real World weight of everything....as opposed to the original posters
>assumption's.
>
>Have the buddies get on a scale, with clothes and shoes on, watches,
>wallets keys, a full stomach a few cups of coffee each.... Do the same
>for the luggage. Don't forget to add all the extra headsets,
>camera's, water bottles.....
>
>It might be a useful example for all reading. I'd almost guarantee
>it's far heavier than the numbers being used. I can't tell you how
>many times people show up at the field for a ride and they say they
>weigh 200 and they easily have 30 or 40 lbs on me and I'm 200!!!

I know when I do the W&B I automatically put in an extra 10# in the
baggage area and an extra 15# for the pax before I ask weights. I
don't trust anyone.

Peter Dohm

April 18th 08, 02:57 AM

"gliderguynj" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 12:32 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Then there's ethical...

Well said Sir. The passenger is entrusting their life in your hands.
When I take a passenger up in a glider, I understand what a huge
responsibility that is. Reminds me of the Cokehead pilot that killed
that singer Brandy? flying to the Bahamas over gross and impaired on
drugs. He might have had the same reasoning...ah just a bit over
gross, so the climb out will be sluggish....

I think this is a good thread.

Doug

If you're thinking of the same crash that I am, the aircraft was way, way,
way out of aft cg limits and would have killed them without regard to the
rest. And yes, there were more than enough other problems...

(The original question has been beaten to death as it is.)

Peter

WingFlaps

April 18th 08, 03:39 AM

On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
> properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or whatever
> the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
> logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
> found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
> like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
> power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.
>

Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?

Cheers

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 18th 08, 03:43 AM

WingFlaps > wrote in news:d33d5865-938c-4cae-acb3-
:

> On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>> Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
>> properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or
whatever
>> the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
>> logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
>> found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
>> like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
>> power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.
>>
>
> Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
> there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?

Coasely pitched props don't allow good static HP because the RPM doesn't
get up to where it needs to be to produce HP. That's what variable pitch
props are all about.

Bertie

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 18th 08, 04:34 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> Well said Sir. The passenger is entrusting their life in your hands.
> When I take a passenger up in a glider, I understand what a huge
> responsibility that is. Reminds me of the Cokehead pilot that killed
> that singer Brandy? flying to the Bahamas over gross and impaired on
> drugs. He might have had the same reasoning...ah just a bit over
> gross, so the climb out will be sluggish....
>
> If you're thinking of the same crash that I am, the aircraft was way, way,
> way out of aft cg limits and would have killed them without regard to the
> rest. And yes, there were more than enough other problems...

I used to fly in and out of that airport (Marsh Harbour, Abaco Island) several
times a year and remember the crash fairly well. The pilot's coke use wasn't a
factor although it surely didn't help. The basic problem was too much beef on
board (9 SOB on a C-402), along with a ton of other crap. The pilot tried to
talk them out of it but they pitched such a bitch he gave in. A few minutes
later they were all dead. And it was Aaliyah, not Brandy.

Ordinarily there was nothing wrong with that airport although density altitude
could always raise its ugly head. The runway was a good 5000 feet long by
either 100 or 150 feet wide and paved.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Frank Olson

April 18th 08, 05:02 AM

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.

george

April 18th 08, 05:24 AM

On Apr 18, 12:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > One of my students (years ago) spent a summer in Antarctic
> > Part of his job (research) was counting livestock under the ice.
> > In a 3/8 inch full wetsuit !!!!
>
> Is there a lot of livestock beneath the ice?

Are you volunteering?
But then you're an odd fish

clint

April 18th 08, 06:19 AM

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

WingFlaps

April 18th 08, 07:11 AM

On Apr 18, 2:43Â*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d33d5865-938c-4cae-acb3-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:20ï¿½am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> >> Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
> >> properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or
> whatever
> >> the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
> >> logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
> >> found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
> >> like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
> >> power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.
>
> > Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
> > there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?
>
> Coasely pitched props don't allow good static HP because the RPM doesn't
> get up to where it needs to be to produce HP. That's what variable pitch
> props are all about.
>

Yes, but my point is that cruise speed also tells you about HP on a
daily basis. As far as I know, there are only a very limited number of
approved props for each 172 variant. If you don't see the magic static
RPM as specified in the POH it's time to investigate not fly -right?

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 18th 08, 07:23 AM

On Apr 18, 4:02*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.- Hide quoted text -
>
>

There seems to be an incredible amount of ignorance about what MTOW
means for the airframe structure. There is _no way_ being 350 lbs over
can tear a wing off as you describe. The aircraft is supposed to reach
it's structural limit before such failure (e.g. 4.4g = thousands of
pounds over MTOW). If the accident happened as you say I'd look very
hard at the maintenence and airframe corrosion. The problem with
moderate overloading is not structural but rather poor climb
performance and COG. For example, slap some floats on many planes and
the MTOW is immediately increased. How can that be- same engine and
wings and yet the plane can suddenly fly a higher MTOW. If half the
poasters here were correct youd expect crashes all over the place.
Commercial airlines regularaly go over MTOW because they don't weigh
the passengers. Think about it please!

Cheers

Frank Olson

April 18th 08, 07:56 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:02 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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>
> There seems to be an incredible amount of ignorance about what MTOW
> means for the airframe structure. There is _no way_ being 350 lbs over
> can tear a wing off as you describe. The aircraft is supposed to reach
> it's structural limit before such failure (e.g. 4.4g = thousands of
> pounds over MTOW). If the accident happened as you say I'd look very
> hard at the maintenence and airframe corrosion. The problem with
> moderate overloading is not structural but rather poor climb
> performance and COG. For example, slap some floats on many planes and
> the MTOW is immediately increased. How can that be- same engine and
> wings and yet the plane can suddenly fly a higher MTOW. If half the
> poasters here were correct youd expect crashes all over the place.
> Commercial airlines regularaly go over MTOW because they don't weigh
> the passengers. Think about it please!
>
> Cheers
>

You are correct. Corrosion was a factor in the accident, but it was
only considered as "contributing". 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".

Heavy metal pilots know exactly what their aircraft weigh before they're
pushed back from the gate. It's not unusual for you to see them offload
a container or two on the longer over-water flights where fuel is a more
precious commodity. I don't doubt that many aircraft are flying close
to or above their MTOW. Common practice doesn't make it right, though.

Thomas Borchert

April 18th 08, 09:23 AM

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)

Alan[_6_]

April 18th 08, 09:40 AM

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

April 18th 08, 10:16 AM

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!

WingFlaps

April 18th 08, 11:22 AM

On Apr 18, 6:56*pm, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 4:02 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > There seems to be an incredible amount of ignorance about what MTOW
> > means for the airframe structure. There is _no way_ being 350 lbs over
> > can tear a wing off as you describe. The aircraft is supposed to reach
> > it's structural limit before such failure (e.g. 4.4g = thousands of
> > pounds over MTOW). If the accident happened as you say I'd look very
> > hard at the maintenence and airframe corrosion. The problem with
> > moderate overloading is not structural but rather poor climb
> > performance and COG. For example, slap some floats on many planes and
> > the MTOW is immediately increased. How can that be- same engine and
> > wings and yet the plane can suddenly fly a higher MTOW. If half the
> > poasters here were correct youd expect crashes all over the place.
> > Commercial airlines regularaly go over MTOW because they don't weigh
> > the passengers. Think about it please!
>
> > Cheers
>
> You are correct. *Corrosion was a factor in the accident, but it was
> only considered as "contributing". *

I hope you are suitably impressed at my insight.

>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?

>
> 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.

Cheers

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 18th 08, 12:48 PM

gatt wrote:
>
>
> I take that to mean "by the time you land," but, that doesn't take into
> consideration departure stalls,

Speaking of departure stalls while heavy...

This was a friend of mine, based here in CT:
<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20010806X01608&key=1>
We lost him and five of his relatives.

This is fresh in my mind from last year:
<http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20070917X01402&key=1>
Along with four adult males, this plane had golf bags aboard, headed to
Cape Cod.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

April 18th 08, 01:26 PM

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

gatt[_3_]

April 18th 08, 03:21 PM

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!

Well, I know that must have been a bitter decision, but I think you made
the right one. Or, at least, you didn't make the wrong one, and that
makes you a better pilot.

By the way, if you plan on carrying passengers in the back, I learned
that it's a good idea to go ride in the back of somebody's 172 to feel
it from the passenger's perspective. They feel pitch changes a lot
more than you do because they're aft of the wing and CG, and when you're
flaring for landing they're seeing and feeling something different than
you are.

Have a great flight!
-c

gliderguynj

April 18th 08, 04:12 PM

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

gliderguynj

April 18th 08, 05:10 PM

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 18th 08, 06:02 PM

WingFlaps > wrote in news:cb62baf1-cf48-423f-b9c5-
:

> On Apr 18, 2:43Â*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d33d5865-938c-4cae-
acb3-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 9:20ï¿½am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance
done
>> >> properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or
>> whatever
>> >> the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
>> >> logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested
and
>> >> found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that
flew
>> >> like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the
true
>> >> power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.
>>
>> > Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not
go
>> > there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?
>>
>> Coasely pitched props don't allow good static HP because the RPM
doesn't
>> get up to where it needs to be to produce HP. That's what variable
pitch
>> props are all about.
>>
>
> Yes, but my point is that cruise speed also tells you about HP on a
> daily basis. As far as I know, there are only a very limited number of
> approved props for each 172 variant. If you don't see the magic static
> RPM as specified in the POH it's time to investigate not fly -right?

Oh, OK, yeah, that's right. But you can have an absolutely beat engine
and still get the revs in cruise for most airplanes. My father had an
old Mercedes I borrowed off him once. Went fine, but he lived in a very
flat area and I took it to a multi story parking lot and couldn't get it
up the ramp. I looked around it the next day and found the cam lobes
almost round!

Bertie

JGalban via AviationKB.com

April 18th 08, 07:23 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
>Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
>company instigates after the accident.
>It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.
>
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.

A flying buddy of mine is an insurance company lawyer and he gets a kick
out of hearing these nebulous "that will invalidate your insurance" stories.
They are very reluctant to refuse claims that are not excluded in the written
contract. Insurance regulators will go after them if they try.

Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
happens. Other than a few other minor exclusions, they've got my potential
stupidity covered. Whether I decide to takeoff overweight or fly VFR into
IMC, I'm confident that the insurance company will hold up its end of the
bargain. As I stated before, if they really did disallow claims for poor
decision making, their policies would be virtually worthless. A vast
percentage of aviation accidents and incidents involve some level of poor
decision making.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 18th 08, 07:33 PM

JGalban via AviationKB.com 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.
-- SNIP --
>
> Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
> They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
> spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
> doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
> airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
> happens.

I may have understood this wrong, but here goes...

Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.

I'm open to comments on if I understood this correctly.

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 18th 08, 07:39 PM

B A R R Y wrote:
>
>
> Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
> seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
> operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
> the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.

I think this is what the FSDO speaker was referring to:

<http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/E62E5E8DEC3FD1BE85256687007193C5?OpenDocument>

"Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart G--Operating Limitations and Information

Sec. 23.1519

Weight and center of gravity.

The weight and center of gravity limitations determined under Sec. 23.23
must be established as operating limitations."

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 18th 08, 07:58 PM

B A R R Y wrote:
> JGalban via AviationKB.com 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.
> -- SNIP --
>>
>> Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something
>> stupid.
>> They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
>> spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
>> doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a
>> valid
>> airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the
>> accident
>> happens.
>
> I may have understood this wrong, but here goes...
>
> Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
> seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
> operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
> the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.
>
> I'm open to comments on if I understood this correctly.

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/InsuranceProducts-OwnedAircraft-Policy.aspx

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 18th 08, 08:44 PM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
>> company instigates after the accident.
>> It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.
>>
> 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.
>
> A flying buddy of mine is an insurance company lawyer and he gets a kick
> out of hearing these nebulous "that will invalidate your insurance" stories.
> They are very reluctant to refuse claims that are not excluded in the written
> contract. Insurance regulators will go after them if they try.
>
> Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
> They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
> spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
> doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
> airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
> happens. Other than a few other minor exclusions, they've got my potential
> stupidity covered. Whether I decide to takeoff overweight or fly VFR into
> IMC, I'm confident that the insurance company will hold up its end of the
> bargain. As I stated before, if they really did disallow claims for poor
> decision making, their policies would be virtually worthless. A vast
> percentage of aviation accidents and incidents involve some level of poor
> decision making.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
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.
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)
--
Dudley Henriques

JGalban via AviationKB.com

April 18th 08, 09:26 PM

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)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

B A R R Y

April 18th 08, 09:35 PM

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>
>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.

I think you're right.

We have AIG, but I've never read the policy. Once of these days, I
should have my partner dig it out. <G>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 18th 08, 11:09 PM

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

Blueskies

April 19th 08, 02:44 AM

"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.

Blueskies

April 19th 08, 02:48 AM

"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/ferrypilotforms/tankedpermit.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...

clint

April 19th 08, 05:50 AM

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

Frank Olson

April 19th 08, 05:28 PM

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". :-)

F. Baum

April 19th 08, 06:03 PM

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/InsuranceProducts-OwnedAircraft-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

F. Baum

April 19th 08, 06:28 PM

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

WingFlaps

April 19th 08, 08:36 PM

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

WingFlaps

April 19th 08, 08:58 PM

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

NW_Pilot

April 20th 08, 12:21 AM

Subrogation!

John T

April 20th 08, 02:41 PM

"tman" <inv@lid> wrote in message

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

Why would you do that?

> Anyways, I think my weight problem is solved.

Did you consider offloading fuel? I routinely do that on long XC's in my
182. For practical purposes, flight legs should be less than 3 hours for
biological considerations, so having 5 or 6 hours' worth of fuel on board is
doing nothing but adding worthless weight to the plane.

Another good investment (if you own or rent very similar models) is a fuel
measuring stick calibrated for the model you fly. This gives you a much
better reading than the Mk1 EB.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

F. Baum

April 20th 08, 04:32 PM

On Apr 19, 1:58*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> 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.
>
Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual, and that there
is unused tolerance on most flights . We only use child weights when
nessesary. I dont know what your experience has been, but I will say
again that the numbers are pretty conservative and give a good margin
of safety.
Frank

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 20th 08, 04:58 PM

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:df63bc2f-bc09-43c7-8183-
:

> On Apr 19, 1:58*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
> reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
> Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
> plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual,

??
You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that
way?

Bertie

WingFlaps

April 20th 08, 05:04 PM

On Apr 21, 3:32*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:58*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:> 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.
>
> Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
> reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
> Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
> plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual, and that there
> is unused tolerance on most flights . We only use child weights when
> nessesary. I dont know what your experience has been, but I will say
> again that the numbers are pretty conservative and give a good margin
> of safety.

Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population
clinically obese and 30% overweight?

Cheers

Thomas Borchert

April 20th 08, 06:41 PM

Tman,

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

I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here, but wtf did you expect?
If you just wanted to hear "Sure, do it, you're the greatest", why not
talk to the mirror? You got a ton of good information - and now it is up
to you to incorporate that in your decision making process. All part of
being PIC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

gliderguynj

April 20th 08, 09:31 PM

On Apr 19, 12:50*am, clint > wrote:
> Fat pepsarent into fat facts!
> gliderguynj was thinking very hard :

Gliderguynj tries to think hard most of the time.....care to share
what you meant?

Doug

Frank Olson

April 20th 08, 09:45 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
> 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
>

No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various
airliners. My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150
hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing
747-200 many years ago.

WingFlaps

April 20th 08, 10:03 PM

On Apr 21, 8:45*am, Frank Olson
> wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > 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
>
> No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various
> airliners. *My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150
> hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing
> 747-200 many years ago.- Hide quoted text -
>

Did you weigh the passengers and their carry on?

Cheers

F. Baum

April 21st 08, 01:53 AM

On Apr 20, 9:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
> > reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
> > Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
> > plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual,
>
> ??
> You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that
> way?
>
> Bertie
BTB, All this stuff is figured within two hours of departure, after
the fuel load is determined. As far as I know bookings are only
restricted where there is a regular pattern of denied boardings.
FBaum

Frank Olson

April 21st 08, 06:18 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 21, 8:45 am, Frank Olson
> > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> 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
>> No, I don't... But I've spent a lot of time in cockpits of various
>> airliners. My only "claim" to flying "heavy metal" would be the 150
>> hours I've logged in a Boeing 737-100 and the 11 hours in a Boeing
>> 747-200 many years ago.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Did you weigh the passengers and their carry on?
>
> Cheers

No passengers. No carry-on. I did recall there was a nifty set of
readouts which showed the weight on each gear leg (on the 747). When
you tallied them up you got the TOW. It made calculating the the weight
and balance a snap. On some of the -400's (and the new Dreamliner),
that can be called up on one of the multi-function displays as well.
It's an expensive "option" and I understand a lot of the airlines don't
go for it.

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 21st 08, 02:39 PM

F. Baum wrote:
> 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/InsuranceProducts-OwnedAircraft-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

I haven't seen a real AVEMCO policy but the link I posted had plenty of
exclusions.

Exclusions Applying to All Coverages
(See Additional Exclusions to Coverages A, B, and C)

This Policy does not cover bodily injury, property damage or loss:

When your insured aircraft is:
outside the policy territory;
used for a commercial purpose;
used by an insured person to unlawfully traffic in, or carry, persons,
drugs, narcotics or other contraband;
operated in flight by a pilot who is not approved in Item 6 of the Data
Page;
operated by a student pilot carrying another occupant unless one of
these occupants is a Certified Flight Instructor on board for the
purpose of instructing or examining that student pilot;
owned in whole, or in part, by someone except you;
equipped for water takeoff and landing unless shown as such in Item 4 of
the Data Page;
Arising out of:
declared or undeclared war, civil war, riot or revolt;
the detonation of an atomic device or radioactive contamination from any
source.

Additional Exclusions Applying to Coverage A

This coverage does not apply to:

Bodily injury or property damage liability an insured person assumes by
contract or agreement. However, liability assumed under an airport
contract is covered, provided the liability arises out of the insured
person's storage or use of the insured aircraft on the airport;
Bodily injury or property damage when an insured person is insured under
nuclear energy liability insurance. This exclusion applies even if the
limits of that insurance are reached
Bodily injury and property damage arising out of:
noise or vibration
pollution or contamination unless caused by a loss
Bodily injury to:
an occupant unless Item 5 of the Data Page shows "including occupants";
an employee of an insured person when workers' compensation is available
or required to compensate the employee of the insured person against
whom the claim is made;
Property damage to an insured aircraft (including after its sale where
property damage coverage is extended for up to one year);
Damage to property:
owned by an insured person;
being carried in your insured aircraft. However, personal effects of
each occupant are covered up to $1,000;
rented to, or in the charge of, an insured person. However, rented
hangars and their contents are covered up to a maximum of $25,000 each
accident.

Additional Exclusions Applying to Coverage B

This coverage does not apply to loss to your insured aircraft:

While it is in flight unless Item 5 of the Data Page shows "including in
flight";
Caused by legal or illegal seizure or confiscation, or during detention
by any governmental body;
Which arises out of a taking, holding, secreting, repossession or sale by:
anyone to whom its care, custody, control or use has been given by an
insured person;
anyone making a claim for or against it under contract, agreement, or law;
Due and confined to breakdown. This exclusion does not apply to ensuing
loss, unless it is another such breakdown;
If the loss is to a turbine engine of your insured aircraft when it is
caused by:
an object that is part of an engine or its accessories;
heat resulting from the starting, operation or shutdown of an engine;
a breakdown, failure or malfunction of an engine component, accessory or
part;
an object, not a part of an engine or its accessories, unless the loss
was sudden and caused by a single recorded event that requires immediate
repair to meet the requirements of the engine manufacturer.

Additional Exclusions Applying to Insurance for Your Use of Non-Owned
Aircraft

This insurance does not apply to:

The non-owned aircraft owner, or the owner's agent or employees
The use of a non-owned aircraft which:
does not hold a "Standard" category airworthiness certificate;
is a rotorcraft, unless your insured aircraft is a rotorcraft;
is a turboprop aircraft, unless your insured aircraft is a turboprop
aircraft;
is a turbojet aircraft, unless your insured aircraft is a turbojet
aircraft;
has a seating capacity of more than 7 persons, or, if greater, the
seating capacity of your insured aircraft;
is used without its owner's consent.

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 21st 08, 02:43 PM

WingFlaps wrote:

>
> Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population
> clinically obese and 30% overweight?
>
> Cheers
>

Do you think that that 10% and 30% applies evenly though out the
population? I'd bet the higher socio-economic levels of the population,
which also just happen to be the people most likely to be flying have a
lower obesity rate.

Bertie the Bunyip

April 21st 08, 03:44 PM

On 21 Apr, 01:53, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
> > > reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
> > > Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
> > > plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual,
>
> > ??
> > You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that
> > way?
>
> > Bertie
>
> BTB, All this stuff is figured within two hours of departure, after
> the fuel load is determined. As far as I know bookings are only
> restricted where there is a regular pattern of denied boardings.
> FBaum

Well, we finish up the load sheet and determine performance in the
last half hour at the earliest and always on actual weights. The
company may have a max estimate for the day, but prerfromace is left
entirely up to us. We get the weight and we ( the crew) decide what
flap, runway and flexible thrust setting to use on the spot. The
company has a good idea of what the limits are, of course.

bertie

gatt[_3_]

April 21st 08, 04:33 PM

>
> I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here, but wtf did you expect?
> If you just wanted to hear "Sure, do it, you're the greatest", why not
> talk to the mirror? You got a ton of good information - and now it is up
> to you to incorporate that in your decision making process. All part of
> being PIC.

Sounds like he did. Showing the thread to the PAX is the "keep your
passengers informed of the risks" advice chicken coming home to roost,
and he made the right choice. Which is to say, he could have probably
made the trip anyway, but, he made the decision that probably any
examiner would want to hear on a Private, Commercial or CFI checkride.

I think it's a bad idea to flak people for asking these sorts of
questions on this forum, especially when they take people's advice.

-c

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 21st 08, 07:19 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population
>> clinically obese and 30% overweight?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> Do you think that that 10% and 30% applies evenly though out the
> population? I'd bet the higher socio-economic levels of the population,
> which also just happen to be the people most likely to be flying have a
> lower obesity rate.

Not to mention that many women can be 50+ pounds under the average and
still be overweight.

[email protected]

April 21st 08, 07:30 PM

On Apr 17, 8:39 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 9:20 am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> > Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance done
> > properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or whatever
> > the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
> > logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested and
> > found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that flew
> > like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the true
> > power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.
>
> Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not go
> there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?
>
> Cheers

You can't just slap on any old propeller, legally. The Type
Certificate Data Sheet for any particular models lists the props that
may be used, and any other prop would require an STC. The TCDS also
gives the maximum and minimum static RPM for each model of propeller,
and if the engine can's get into that range it's either sick or the
prop's a dud. We do a full-power static runup on practically every
inspection. Take three seconds.
TCDS's are on the FAA's website.

Dan

[email protected]

April 21st 08, 07:34 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 21st 08, 08:14 PM

wrote:
> The TCDS also
> gives the maximum and minimum static RPM for each model of propeller,
> and if the engine can's get into that range it's either sick or the
> prop's a dud.

I HAVE to remember to do something about the use of the word "Dud"
around here!!!!
:-))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 21st 08, 08:21 PM

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! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 21st 08, 08:30 PM

wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson
>
>> 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.

> 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 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.

WingFlaps

April 21st 08, 08:36 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 21st 08, 08:46 PM

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

Mxsmanic

April 21st 08, 09:23 PM

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.

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 21st 08, 10:53 PM

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.

gatt[_3_]

April 21st 08, 11:09 PM

WingFlaps wrote:

>> 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?

That generally refers to deliberate spins.

I'm not aware of any production airplane that is certified for a crash.

-c

gatt[_3_]

April 21st 08, 11:11 PM

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

WingFlaps

April 21st 08, 11:37 PM

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

Tman

April 22nd 08, 01:16 AM

tman wrote:
>>
> 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.
>

You know. Sorry guys. I thought my sarcasm was obvious :). I didn't
show the thread to anyone!

Did this flight, and here's the story;

I did the calcs and started out over gross by about 30 lbs. That's with
a C172 filled to the tabs -- leaving exactly 1 hour of reserve, which is
less than I've ever flown with _by plan_ before anyways. 1 hour
doesn't scare me from the standpoint of not being enough, but I didn't
feel I knew the fuel burn quite accurately enough to get down much past
1 hour on paper. That's worry #1.

As I got more concerned in my questioning, I kept getting "more accurate
estimates" of the pax weights as the days rolled by, and luggage got
"heavier" too, and I was up to 100 lbs over gross, then said enough.
Guess the concern in my voice, "yeah, I do need to know pretty close",
made 'em step on the scale, quit fibbing, or both. That was it. Just
one pax, not both, was my directive.

Well, it turned out that this 5000' runway is circa 1500 feet MSL.
Forgot to check that bit -- just assumed close to MSL till the day of
the trip, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
it would. I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
performance, but the pilots too. Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.

With all those factors, and a more conservative fuel load, I was est 50
below gross. Well, I'll never forget leaving that 5000' runway that day
and staring at that mutha****in hill in front of me wondering if I was
going to clear it. The plane was a dog in those conditions, and it did
not appear I was going to clear it -- maybe I would have, a lot of this
was mental _in retrospect_. Had to fight every reflex to keep from
pulling back and further back on that yoke. Watch the airspeed, easy
does it. On the spot I concocted -- First, plan A to veer to the left
just a bit to avoid the terrain, and a plan B to drop 10 flaps and go
for Vx. Plan A did the trick. I probably would have cleared the
terrain just fine. Could I have made it 100lbs over gross? Almost
certainly. I would have done a short-field takeoff and best angle
climb, etc. Do I need that kind of risk and worry in my life? Heck no.
Well, another lesson learned.....

Blueskies

April 22nd 08, 01:36 AM

"tman" <inv@lid> wrote in message ...
>.......
> As I got more concerned in my questioning, I kept getting "more accurate
> estimates" of the pax weights as the days rolled by, and luggage got
> "heavier" too, and I was up to 100 lbs over gross, then said enough.
> Guess the concern in my voice, "yeah, I do need to know pretty close",
> made 'em step on the scale, quit fibbing, or both. That was it. Just
> one pax, not both, was my directive.
>
> Well, it turned out that this 5000' runway is circa 1500 feet MSL.
> Forgot to check that bit -- just assumed close to MSL till the day of
> the trip, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
> it would. I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
> performance, but the pilots too. Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
> Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.
>
> With all those factors, and a more conservative fuel load, I was est 50
> below gross. Well, I'll never forget leaving that 5000' runway that day
> and staring at that mutha****in hill in front of me wondering if I was
> going to clear it. The plane was a dog in those conditions, and it did
> not appear I was going to clear it -- maybe I would have, a lot of this
> was mental _in retrospect_. Had to fight every reflex to keep from
> pulling back and further back on that yoke. Watch the airspeed, easy
> does it. On the spot I concocted -- First, plan A to veer to the left
> just a bit to avoid the terrain, and a plan B to drop 10 flaps and go
> for Vx. Plan A did the trick. I probably would have cleared the
> terrain just fine. Could I have made it 100lbs over gross? Almost
> certainly. I would have done a short-field takeoff and best angle
> climb, etc. Do I need that kind of risk and worry in my life? Heck no.
> Well, another lesson learned.....
>

Since you had had an obstacle, you should have climbed at Vx until it was clear...

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 01:51 AM

tman wrote:
> tman wrote:

> With all those factors, and a more conservative fuel load, I was est 50
> below gross. Well, I'll never forget leaving that 5000' runway that day
> and staring at that mutha****in hill in front of me wondering if I was
> going to clear it. The plane was a dog in those conditions, and it did
> not appear I was going to clear it -- maybe I would have, a lot of this
> was mental _in retrospect_. Had to fight every reflex to keep from
> pulling back and further back on that yoke. Watch the airspeed, easy
> does it. On the spot I concocted -- First, plan A to veer to the left
> just a bit to avoid the terrain, and a plan B to drop 10 flaps and go
> for Vx. Plan A did the trick. I probably would have cleared the
> terrain just fine. Could I have made it 100lbs over gross? Almost
> certainly. I would have done a short-field takeoff and best angle
> climb, etc. Do I need that kind of risk and worry in my life? Heck no.
> Well, another lesson learned.....

Well done!

-c

JGalban via AviationKB.com

April 22nd 08, 02:30 AM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>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! :-)
>

Did he point you to the pertinent language in the policy? For now, I'm
sticking with the guy who represents the underwriters.

Someone was good enough to post Avemco's various exclusions above (which
are similar to my USAIG and Phoenix exclusions). If there is such an
exclusion for operating outside the limits, why isn't it there with the rest
of the exclusions?

This notion that there are secret exclusions has me baffled.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200804/1

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 02:49 AM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> 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! :-)
>>
>
> Did he point you to the pertinent language in the policy? For now, I'm
> sticking with the guy who represents the underwriters.
>
> Someone was good enough to post Avemco's various exclusions above (which
> are similar to my USAIG and Phoenix exclusions). If there is such an
> exclusion for operating outside the limits, why isn't it there with the rest
> of the exclusions?
>
> This notion that there are secret exclusions has me baffled.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
Actually he didn't. He addressed the issue generally based on his own
experience. I didn't press him really as we had other business to discuss.
I think what he was saying is that there are certain conditions that are
cut and dried by the exact reading of the policy, but that these
conditions assume certain factors in place.

if a pilot accepts a known condition BEFORE TAKEOFF that places the
aircraft in violation of FAA regulations, depending on the insurance
company and what is involved, a decision to litigate a claim might come
into play.
Whether or not the insurance company wins the litigation is another matter.
I should add that it was here he started laughing. I got the impression
he was salivating at the prospect of representing the insurance company,
and knowing this specific attorney's reputation as a trial lawyer, (long
time friend and associate) I wouldn't want to be on the opposing side
I'll tell you that much :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 05:49 AM

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

April 22nd 08, 05:51 AM

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?

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 05:52 AM

Nomen Nescio writes:

> They exist because some people, like you, are incapable of making
> rational judgements and need to be given a set of parameters that they
> are told they should NEVER exceed.

They exist because some people, like me, do not believe that they are
omniscient and more competent than the rest of the industry, and therefore use
documented limits to ensure safety.

> 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.

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 05:54 AM

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.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 05:57 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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 .

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 05:58 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> They exist because some people, like you, are incapable of making
>> rational judgements and need to be given a set of parameters that
>> they are told they should NEVER exceed.
>
> They exist because some people, like me, do not believe that they are
> omniscient and more competent than the rest of the industry, and
> therefore use documented limits to ensure safety.
>
>> 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.

Not for you, since you will never fly. Ever.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 06:00 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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?

Why do you want to know? You will never fly.

Ever.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 06:00 AM

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.

What's the difference? Nothing whatsoever to do with you.
Nothing.

Bertie

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 06:47 AM

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

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 06:48 AM

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 06:50 AM

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

Frank Olson

April 22nd 08, 06:56 AM

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.

Benjamin Dover

April 22nd 08, 08:15 AM

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?

Benjamin Dover

April 22nd 08, 08:19 AM

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.

Thomas Borchert

April 22nd 08, 09:57 AM

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)

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 12:45 PM

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.

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 12:46 PM

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.

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 12:47 PM

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?

Andy Hawkins

April 22nd 08, 01:54 PM

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> 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.

No, it just feels that way.

Andy

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 22nd 08, 02:25 PM

Frank Olson wrote:
> 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.

I have no doubt that an adjuster for any insurance company is looking
for an out and that the carrier is going to subro if they can. But they
have to have wording in the policy that gives them the out. Hence ,my
question to you "Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance
company the right to do that?"

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 05:16 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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.

If he flies overweight it's because the airline asked him to, fjukkktard.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 05:19 PM

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, it just feels that way.
>

Bwawhahwh!

Bertie

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 05:27 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots. You
don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
advice from a poser.

You don't fly and you've never flown. You play with yourself. Taking
advice from you would is dangerous.

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 05:36 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.

"...in addition, I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against
our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I
make an occasional cheese dip."
-Ignatius Reilly,'A Confederacy of Dunces'

Andy Hawkins

April 22nd 08, 06:49 PM

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, it just feels that way.
>>
>
> Bwawhahwh!

Well, if he's gonna set 'em up like that, someone's gotta hit 'em!

Andy

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 22nd 08, 06:56 PM

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, it just feels that way.
>>>
>>
>> Bwawhahwh!
>
> Well, if he's gonna set 'em up like that, someone's gotta hit 'em!
>

Exactly!

Bertie
>

Dave Doe

April 22nd 08, 07:31 PM

In article >,
says...
> 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.

How will you know? And why won't you fly with a woman pilot?

--
Duncan

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 07:43 PM

Dave Doe writes:

> How will you know?

From the NTSB report.

> And why won't you fly with a woman pilot?

I never said I wouldn't fly with a woman pilot. Indeed, women are far less
prone to the type of dangerous behavior under discussion here.

Mxsmanic

April 22nd 08, 07:45 PM

gatt writes:

> If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.

Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with their
own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.

> You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
> the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
> advice from a poser.

The rules are pretty clear, and anyone can understand them, pilot or not.
Even lawyers and insurance adjusters can understand them. It's not a secret
code.

buttman

April 22nd 08, 07:48 PM

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.

B A R R Y[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 07:52 PM

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.

Peter Dohm

April 22nd 08, 08:16 PM

"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

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 08:25 PM

On Apr 22, 11:46*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

You're a castrato?

Cheers

Peter Dohm

April 22nd 08, 08:26 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> How will you know?
>
> From the NTSB report.
>
In view of the discussion leading to it, that is really quite droll.

Peter

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 08:30 PM

On Apr 22, 11:47*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> 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?
>

OK, who decided to fly into IMC? Who is responsible and did the
disobey FAR's? Think about what a lawyer could argue...

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 08:35 PM

On Apr 23, 6:31*am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > 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.
>
> How will you know? *And why won't you fly with a woman pilot?

Too risky, don't go there! :-)

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 08:39 PM

On Apr 23, 6:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> > You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
> > the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
> > advice from a poser.
>
> The rules are pretty clear, and anyone can understand them, pilot or not.
> Even lawyers and insurance adjusters can understand them. *It's not a secret
> code.

They have secret decoder rings that translate what you read into
something else.

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 08:41 PM

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

george

April 22nd 08, 09:42 PM

On Apr 22, 11:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
your self esteem.
Instead of being a live in lard arse

george

April 22nd 08, 09:44 PM

On Apr 23, 7:25 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 11:46 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You're a castrato?
>
He had to be cut out for the job

gliderguynj

April 22nd 08, 10:12 PM

So to get back to the OP comments.....
He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.

And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!

doug

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 10:15 PM

gliderguynj wrote:
> So to get back to the OP comments.....
> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>
> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!
>
> doug

Group? I don't believe that was my position on this matter :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Morgans[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 10:38 PM

"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

April 22nd 08, 10:54 PM

>>
>>> 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"

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 11:17 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.
>
> Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with their
> own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.

Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
aircraft.

Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot. There are some here
who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and, ...funny...
they continue to make it quite clear that you're a clueless idiot also.

You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do. You
just sit in your chair and play with yourself. That's your extend of
understanding of weight, balance and the performance of an aircraft.

-C
CP-ASEL-IA

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 11:26 PM

gliderguynj wrote:
> So to get back to the OP comments.....
> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>
> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!

I guess I missed something. I thought he ended up being under max gross.

-c

Benjamin Dover

April 22nd 08, 11:37 PM

gatt > wrote in
news:k8qdnUincNZ5_pPVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> gatt writes:
>>
>>> If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.
>>
>> Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree
>> with their own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.
>
>
> Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
> here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
> aircraft.
>
> Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot. There are some
> here who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and,
> ...funny... they continue to make it quite clear that you're a
> clueless idiot also.
>
> You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do.
> You just sit in your chair and play with yourself. That's your extend
> of understanding of weight, balance and the performance of an
> aircraft.
>
>
> -C
> CP-ASEL-IA
>

Anthony SIMULATES playing with himself.

gatt[_3_]

April 22nd 08, 11:39 PM

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

WingFlaps

April 22nd 08, 11:44 PM

On Apr 23, 10:26*am, gatt > wrote:
> gliderguynj wrote:
> > So to get back to the OP comments.....
> > He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
> > higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
> > Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
> > treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>
> > And this group says Well Done? *Oh the Humanity!
>
> I guess I missed something. *I thought he ended up being under max gross..
>
You are correct, being under Max would be gross.
:-P
Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 22nd 08, 11:46 PM

gatt wrote:
> gliderguynj wrote:
>> So to get back to the OP comments.....
>> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
>> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
>> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
>> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>>
>> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!
>
> I guess I missed something. I thought he ended up being under max gross.
>
>
>
> -c
I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish
this anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the
pax???

--
Dudley Henriques

Peter Dohm

April 23rd 08, 12:36 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>> gliderguynj wrote:
>>> So to get back to the OP comments.....
>>> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
>>> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
>>> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
>>> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>>>
>>> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!
>>
>> I guess I missed something. I thought he ended up being under max gross.
>>
>>
>>
>> -c
> I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish this
> anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the pax???
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.

The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped when
planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the acceptable range
for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a normally rather than
lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized" learning experience.

So he got the correct reinforcement early on, which helped him to refused
the known overweight flight, and made the right decisions.

Peter

george

April 23rd 08, 01:15 AM

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 ?

gatt[_3_]

April 23rd 08, 01:48 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

>> I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish this
>> anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the pax???

> That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
> luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.
>
> The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped when
> planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the acceptable range
> for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a normally rather than
> lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized" learning experience.

Given the altitude, the hot weather and the trees it goes to show how
bad things could have gone if the airplane had been more overgross than
expected.

Pax are a dime a dozen, but, who wants to waste a perfectly-good Cessna?

;>

-c

buttman

April 23rd 08, 01:48 AM

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.

Blueskies

April 23rd 08, 02:27 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> 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)
>

C-172 checklist, tanks both for takeoff and landing....

Peter Dohm

April 23rd 08, 03:33 AM

"gatt" > wrote in message
news:jrudnQw6Ec_OGpPVnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@integraonlin e...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
>>> I got the same impression. God knows a few of us tried to accomplish
>>> this anyway. My read was that hr ended up not making the flight with the
>>> pax???
>
>> That was my read as well. He still had a front seater and some of the
>> luggage, which left him comfortably withing both weight and CG limits.
>>
>> The temperature on the day of the flight was higher that he had hoped
>> when planning a week ahead and apparently still well within the
>> acceptable range for the aircraft and airport; but, when combined with a
>> normally rather than lightly loaded aircraft, resulted in a "bite sized"
>> learning experience.
>
>
> Given the altitude, the hot weather and the trees it goes to show how bad
> things could have gone if the airplane had been more overgross than
> expected.
>
The point is that he ultimately rose to his responsibility, took command,
and off-loaded the necessary pax and stores. Admittedly, the advice given
early in the thread would have been very well advised--to fly with an
instructor at near maximum weight and near the aft CG limit. However,
personal belief (or supposition if you insist) about the high temperature is
that he had simply trained in a lightly loaded aircraft at cooler
temperatures and actually had a more than adiquate safety margin--it was
simply a different sight picture and he is now a little more experienced and
none the worse for wear.

My own experience was nearly the opposite. I trained mainly in a Cessna
150M, the weather was nearly always warm, and we were probably below gross
by about the weight of whatever trinkets (such as extra pencils) we forgot
to bring. I also had some time in each of the four seats of a Cessna
172--which was also nearly always maxed out. The first time I soloed a 172,
I was really amazed--it climbed like a homesick angel, was reluctant to come
back down, and seemed to nearly stop before the wheels would touch the
pavement on landing.
OK, I exagerate; but probably no worse that the OP's takeoff. :-)

>
> Pax are a dime a dozen, but, who wants to waste a perfectly-good Cessna?
>
> ;>
>
Now, there's a good place to restart the Piper vs Cessna debate! ;-)

>
> -c
>
Peter

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 05:59 AM

gatt writes:

> Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
> here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
> aircraft.

There are other differences. My judgement is not clouded by testosterone, for
example, nor do I suffer from insecurity or a bloated ego.

> Not everybody here is a bad or inexperienced pilot.

Agreed, but some of the loudest mouths are also some of the worst pilots, if
I'm to judge by the mistakes they make here.

> There are some here
> who are quite highly and demonstrably accomplished and, ...funny...
> they continue to make it quite clear that you're a clueless idiot also.

People who are highly accomplished don't need to resort to personal attacks.
Those who engage in personal attacks always have issues.

> You might as well try teaching sharks to fish. Flying is what we do.

Some people here don't do it very well. They dismiss risks that could easily
get them killed. I guess being studly is important enough to them that they
are willing to die for it.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:01 AM

george writes:

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

Unfortunately, take-off is over in 30 seconds.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:03 AM

WingFlaps writes:

> You're a castrato?

No. But I am controlled by intellect rather than hormones.

The dangerous people are those with more testosterone than brains, be it due
to a high level of testosterone or a low level of brains. The problem is more
common in men because of higher levels of the hormone (without a
correspondingly higher level of brains), but it occasionally is a problem in
exceptionally stupid women as well.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:04 AM

gliderguynj writes:

> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>
> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!

Exactly.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:06 AM

george writes:

> Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
> for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
> your self esteem.

But if I did that, what excuse would the boys' club here use to dismiss my
postings then?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 23rd 08, 06:34 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gliderguynj writes:
>
>> He ended up with a PAX and Luggage heavier than assumed, an airport
>> higher than thought and a day 20F hotter than expected.
>> Assuming this most recent post wasn't sarcasm at length, we also were
>> treated to a nice description of how he almost didn't clear the trees.
>>
>> And this group says Well Done? Oh the Humanity!
>
> Exactly.
>

Again, since we only have your word and no further evidence that you are
human, it has nothing to do with you.

Bertie

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 06:35 AM

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.

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 06:35 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:

> > Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
> > for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
> > your self esteem.

> But if I did that, what excuse would the boys' club here use to dismiss my
> postings then?

Your self rightous, holier than thou arrogance?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 23rd 08, 06:35 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> You're a castrato?
>
> No. But I am controlled by intellect rather than hormones.

Nope, sorry. You're controlled by an idiocy directed by nothing.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 23rd 08, 06:36 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
>> for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
>> your self esteem.
>
> But if I did that, what excuse would the boys' club here use to
> dismiss my postings then?

They wouldn;t have one. And the word is "reason" not "excuse"

Bertie

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:39 AM

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

April 23rd 08, 06:44 AM

writes:

> Your self rightous, holier than thou arrogance?

I'm direct, not arrogant. Some angry young males interpret any lack of
complete submission to be "arrogance," at least when it occurs in other
people. I refuse to back down, and that irritates them no end. But that is
their problem, not mine.

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 06:45 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:

> > Take a poll, there, Chairborne. The difference between everybody else
> > here and you is that we have successfully and repeatedly flown actual
> > aircraft.

> There are other differences. My judgement is not clouded by testosterone, for
> example, nor do I suffer from insecurity or a bloated ego.

Yeah, right.

The six year old kid next door has better judement than you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 06:50 AM

writes:

> Yeah, right.

As usual.

Benjamin Dover

April 23rd 08, 07:46 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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.

Benjamin Dover

April 23rd 08, 07:48 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> No. But I am controlled by intellect rather than hormones.

Intellect requires the ability to know the difference between **** and
shinola. You don't. Ergo, your postings are your homones pushing you to
cry out for attention. You, Anthony, are totally controlled by your
hormones and you don't have enough intellect to know it.

Benjamin Dover

April 23rd 08, 07:49 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Your self rightous, holier than thou arrogance?
>
> I'm direct, not arrogant. Some angry young males interpret any lack
> of complete submission to be "arrogance," at least when it occurs in
> other people. I refuse to back down, and that irritates them no end.
> But that is their problem, not mine.
>

No, Anthony. You're just a ****ing idiot who doesn't know **** from
shinola.

Dave Doe

April 23rd 08, 09:37 AM

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > How will you know?
>
> From the NTSB report.

What NTSB report - you haven't boarded the flight yet.

Why do you misquote and change context so much?

Oh yeah, I can answer that one. No need for you to answer it. Let me
just spell that out clearer. Do NOT answer that question. That's the
second question above - let me quote it - "Why do you misquote and
change context so much?" - DO NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe

April 23rd 08, 09:38 AM

In article <a2ec3b3d-5285-4668-96d9-df04f0506686
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Apr 23, 6:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >
> > > You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to discuss
> > > the "rules" and the actual pilots here don't need to and should not take
> > > advice from a poser.
> >
> > The rules are pretty clear, and anyone can understand them, pilot or not.

Dave Doe

April 23rd 08, 09:44 AM

In article >,
says...
> 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.

How would that happen, given you are (see OP) 75 or 100 pound overweight
- COG is not mentioned, so assume we're inside the envelope (fwd/aft
envelope).

The military routinely operate 'overweight' - they can not achieve the
climb-out angle required by civilian flight.

How come they don't all just crash off the end of the RWY?

--
Duncan

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 08, 10:00 AM

Blueskies,

> C-172 checklist, tanks both for takeoff and landing....
>

So?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

WingFlaps

April 23rd 08, 11:05 AM

On Apr 23, 5:39*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.

I've flown a 172 more loaded that!

Cheers

WingFlaps

April 23rd 08, 11:07 AM

On Apr 23, 8:44*pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > 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.
>
> How would that happen, given you are (see OP) 75 or 100 pound overweight
> - COG is not mentioned, so assume we're inside the envelope (fwd/aft
> envelope).
>
> The military routinely operate 'overweight' - they can not achieve the
> climb-out angle required by civilian flight.
>
> How come they don't all just crash off the end of the RWY?
>

Starched flight suits -and lots of macho badges?

Cheers

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 01:23 PM

Dave Doe writes:

> How would that happen, given you are (see OP) 75 or 100 pound overweight
> - COG is not mentioned, so assume we're inside the envelope (fwd/aft
> envelope).

Not enough lift.

> The military routinely operate 'overweight' - they can not achieve the
> climb-out angle required by civilian flight.

The military takes risks that are not acceptable for civilian aircraft.

gliderguynj

April 23rd 08, 02:01 PM

On Apr 22, 5:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Group? I don't believe that was my position on this matter :-)
> --
> Dudley Henriques

No, you were another voice of reason....sorry for using such a broad
word as group,.... It should have been some among us....

Doug

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 23rd 08, 02:09 PM

gliderguynj wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:15 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Group? I don't believe that was my position on this matter :-)
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No, you were another voice of reason....sorry for using such a broad
> word as group,.... It should have been some among us....
>
> Doug
That works for me :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 23rd 08, 02:15 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
>> for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
>> your self esteem.
>
> But if I did that, what excuse would the boys' club here use to dismiss my
> postings then?

If you had any knowledge or at least the desire to gain knowledge maybe
we wouldn't.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 02:46 PM

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> If you had any knowledge or at least the desire to gain knowledge maybe
> we wouldn't.

Neither is relevant in the "logic" of the treehouse club.

Dave Doe

April 23rd 08, 03:22 PM

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > How would that happen, given you are (see OP) 75 or 100 pound overweight
> > - COG is not mentioned, so assume we're inside the envelope (fwd/aft
> > envelope).
>
> Not enough lift.

So it crashes on your simulator. That doesn't prove it sorry. Do you
have any other evidence?

>
> > The military routinely operate 'overweight' - they can not achieve the
> > climb-out angle required by civilian flight.
>
> The military takes risks that are not acceptable for civilian aircraft.

They take a higher risk - the way you word is is just plain wrong.

Back to topic please, why can the military put more weight on planes and
still fly, yet you claim that civilian planes can not - and that they
will crash. You're contradicting yourself. Your logic is flawed and
wrong.

OT question; why do you post here? Why don't you keep your posts to the
sim NG? What benefit do you get, or expect to get, posting here? You've
claimed sim flying is just like the real thing, why do you post in an NG
with real pilots in it when (so you claim) you can get everything you
need from the sim?

--
Duncan

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 04:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Your self rightous, holier than thou arrogance?

> I'm direct, not arrogant. Some angry young males interpret any lack of
> complete submission to be "arrogance," at least when it occurs in other
> people. I refuse to back down, and that irritates them no end. But that is
> their problem, not mine.

Yet more self rightous, holier than thou arrogance.

BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou arrogance
prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
hardly be called "young".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 04:15 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> > If you had any knowledge or at least the desire to gain knowledge maybe
> > we wouldn't.

> Neither is relevant in the "logic" of the treehouse club.

Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
that thinks you are a twit.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 04:37 PM

Dave Doe writes:

> So it crashes on your simulator.

Nobody said anything about a simulator.

> Do you have any other evidence?

I don't need evidence to prevent me from doing unsafe things.

> They take a higher risk - the way you word is is just plain wrong.

Yes, they take risks that are unacceptable for civilian aircraft.

> Back to topic please, why can the military put more weight on planes and
> still fly, yet you claim that civilian planes can not - and that they
> will crash. You're contradicting yourself. Your logic is flawed and
> wrong.

I didn't say they would crash. I merely assert that it is unsafe--and
stupid--to exceed aircraft weight limitations. It really amazes me that
anyone would defend this kind of stupidity. I guess that disagreeing with me
is more important than staying alive.

> OT question; why do you post here?

I'm interested in aviation.

> What benefit do you get, or expect to get, posting here?

Occasionally there is an interesting conversation, or I get a useful answer to
a question (or I provide one).

> You've claimed sim flying is just like the real thing ...

No, I haven't.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 04:38 PM

writes:

> BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou arrogance
> prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
> hardly be called "young".

People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 04:39 PM

writes:

> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
> that thinks you are a twit.

I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people in the
world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to show their true
colors.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

April 23rd 08, 04:46 PM

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou arrogance
>> prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
>> hardly be called "young".
>
> People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.

You are to be Congratulated!

With this absolutely astounding statement of astronomically historic and
infallible intellect, you have succeeded in completely negating the
entire concept of learning.

--
Dudley Henriques

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 23rd 08, 04:46 PM

wrote:

> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
> that thinks you are a twit.
>
>

That's because as a child he wasn't let into some kids treehouse club
because hsi social skills were no better then than they are now.

Maxwell[_2_]

April 23rd 08, 04:48 PM

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou
>> arrogance
>> prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
>> hardly be called "young".
>
> People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.

Does than mean you don't aspire to get better someday? Or just realize your
limitations?

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 04:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou arrogance
> > prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
> > hardly be called "young".

> People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.

A non sequitur to your original statement and yet more rationalization as
to why everyone but you is out of step.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

April 23rd 08, 04:55 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
> > that thinks you are a twit.

> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people in the
> world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to show their true
> colors.

Gee, isn't is sad that the every where Anthoney goes all the meanies
gang up on him through no fault of his own?

Poor, poor, picked on Athoney.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gig 601Xl Builder

April 23rd 08, 05:39 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.
>

Just because that is true in your case Anthony does not necessarily mean
it is a rule.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 07:03 PM

Dudley Henriques writes:

> You are to be Congratulated!
>
> With this absolutely astounding statement of astronomically historic and
> infallible intellect, you have succeeded in completely negating the
> entire concept of learning.

You're confusing acquired knowledge with intelligence. Intelligence is
relatively static throughout life, but acquired knowledge tends to steadily
increase.

Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge; it has no effect on
intelligence. However, aptitude--the capacity to learn--is largely a function
of intelligence. Smart people learn faster and more easily, all else being
equal. This is why smart people tend to know more than stupid people.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 07:04 PM

Maxwell writes:

> Does than mean you don't aspire to get better someday?

In terms of intelligence, there is little that can be done to increase it.
Disease states and disorders (e.g., brain injuries) can reduce intelligence,
though.

Mxsmanic

April 23rd 08, 07:05 PM

writes:

> Gee, isn't is sad that the every where Anthoney goes all the meanies
> gang up on him through no fault of his own?

That's not the sad part. The sad part is that there are so many mean people.
It seems that only the threat of punishment or retribution keeps many mean
people in line. When these threats are absent, they freely behave terribly
towards their fellow human beings.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

April 23rd 08, 07:37 PM

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

April 23rd 08, 07:41 PM

Buttman > wrote in news:fulmq5$ojg$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

>>>
>>>> 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"
>

God you're dumb.

Bertie