Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

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

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

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

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

"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

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"

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

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

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.

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