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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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