If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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...ation/200804/1 |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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? |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My wife getting scared | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 271 | October 11th 07 08:19 PM |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |