Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.....

"tman" inv@lid wrote in message news
.......
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...

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