Gross Weight

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Faith by definition is irrational.

by what definition?

Uhm, any. Any that deserves the label "definition" in the sense
accepted by the majority of people.

that's circular.

From Websters (and ignoring definitions related to math - i.e., rational numbers)

Rational: 1 a: having reason or understanding b : relating to,
based on, or agreeable to reason.

Reason: a statement offered in explanation or justification ...
a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense.

Irrational: not rational. lacking usual or normal mental clarity
or coherence. not govern by or according to reason.

I guess you don't think Websters has the definitions correct.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob,

relating to,
based on, or agreeable to reason.


Well, any key aspects of religion (any, that is) that are?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Actually I did. What's all this about landing gear? Cessna gear can take
some ungodly high Gs and at 45 over gross the last thing you would need to
worry about is the gear.

The entire world is not Cessna. Many late-model Mooney's can't even be
landed at their legal maximum takeoff weight without risking damage to
the gear.

The inherent problem with opearting overgross is NOT that it can never
be done without cutting the safety margins below the accepted
standards. Often it can. But there are indeed times when even being 1
pound overgross does take you into test pilot territory - and other
times when 200 pounds is no big deal. The trick is knowing which is
which.

I'm not big on rules, but here's a pretty good guideline - unless you
know what limitation sets the gross weight for the operation you
intend, and how (or even if) you are reducing the safety margins by
operating overgross, you really shouldn't do it. And yes, that does
mean you need a knowledge of aircraft design and certification, as well
as aerodynamics, far in excess of what is required to pass ANY pilot
checkride.

Michael

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

First off, this is backwards (as the other poster remarked).

But second, I can provide such examples.

Pilot flew without current BFR. Didn't pay attention to storm, landed
downwing, wrecked aircraft but walked away. Insurance paid.

Glider pilot with rope break, no medical, and medications in his blood
(determined by toxicology) that would have precluded the issuance of a
medical. Spun in and died. Insurance paid.

Now - can you provide contrary examples?

Michael