Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

On Apr 18, 5:16*am, tman inv@lid wrote:
tman wrote:
I have some questions now not on weight but on wake turbulence
avoidance. *I'll be flying into the nearest local class C to meet my two
former pax that will be arriving on a RJ, then renting a car!

I guess they didn't want to actually get on that scale and fess up to
the truth! You made a wise choice and probably some friends for
life. As for your wake turbulence....remember it's your
responsibility under VFR conditions even at a towered aiport...Stay
above and land past...... Have a great trip, it's good to see reason
has prevailed. Once you are there, you can always take them up sans
luggage for a ride.

Doug

On Apr 18, 8:26*am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
wrote:
You're ****ting me. *Just because you would have been overgrossed with four
passengers now you're flying by yourself? *Two others wouldn't go?
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com


Yo Mortie,
Unless I miss the sarcasm, Why would you try and make a guy that made
a decision in favor of staying legal and leaning towards safety
question his decision? Not everyone is TopGun out there....

Doug

WingFlaps wrote in news:cb62baf1-cf48-423f-b9c5-
:

On Apr 18, 2:43Â*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote in news:d33d5865-938c-4cae-
acb3-
:



On Apr 18, 9:20�am, Andrew Sarangan wrote:


Even if the airplane is perfectly airworthy, and all maintenance
done
properly, you don't know if the engine is producing 160HP (or
whatever
the rated power for your airplane). There is no signature in the
logbook that certifies that the airplane engine has been tested
and
found to produce the specified power. I have flown rentals that
flew
like a 120HP Cessna instead of a 160 HP. RPM can't tell you the
true
power because every airplane uses a different pitch prop.

Well if the renter is slappin' on any old prop then you should not
go
there. How does a 120 HP 172 reach cruise airspeed at cruise RPM?

Coasely pitched props don't allow good static HP because the RPM
doesn't
get up to where it needs to be to produce HP. That's what variable
pitch
props are all about.


Yes, but my point is that cruise speed also tells you about HP on a
daily basis. As far as I know, there are only a very limited number of
approved props for each 172 variant. If you don't see the magic static
RPM as specified in the POH it's time to investigate not fly -right?

Oh, OK, yeah, that's right. But you can have an absolutely beat engine
and still get the revs in cruise for most airplanes. My father had an
old Mercedes I borrowed off him once. Went fine, but he lived in a very
flat area and I took it to a multi story parking lot and couldn't get it
up the ramp. I looked around it the next day and found the cam lobes
almost round!




Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote:


Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
company instigates after the accident.
It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.

I suppose anything could be litigated, but if your policy contract doesn't
have an exclusion for (in this case) taking off overweight, the insurance
company doesn't have a leg to stand on.

A flying buddy of mine is an insurance company lawyer and he gets a kick
out of hearing these nebulous "that will invalidate your insurance" stories.
They are very reluctant to refuse claims that are not excluded in the written
contract. Insurance regulators will go after them if they try.

Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
happens. Other than a few other minor exclusions, they've got my potential
stupidity covered. Whether I decide to takeoff overweight or fly VFR into
IMC, I'm confident that the insurance company will hold up its end of the
bargain. As I stated before, if they really did disallow claims for poor
decision making, their policies would be virtually worthless. A vast
percentage of aviation accidents and incidents involve some level of poor
decision making.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200804/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

I suppose anything could be litigated, but if your policy contract doesn't
have an exclusion for (in this case) taking off overweight, the insurance
company doesn't have a leg to stand on.
-- SNIP --

Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
happens.

I may have understood this wrong, but here goes...

Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.

I'm open to comments on if I understood this correctly.

B A R R Y wrote:


Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.

I think this is what the FSDO speaker was referring to:

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY%5CRGFAR.NSF/0/E62E5E8DEC3FD1BE85256687007193C5?OpenDocument

"Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart G--Operating Limitations and Information

Sec. 23.1519

Weight and center of gravity.

The weight and center of gravity limitations determined under Sec. 23.23
must be established as operating limitations."

B A R R Y wrote:
JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

I suppose anything could be litigated, but if your policy contract
doesn't
have an exclusion for (in this case) taking off overweight, the insurance
company doesn't have a leg to stand on.
-- SNIP --

Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something
stupid.
They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a
valid
airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the
accident
happens.

I may have understood this wrong, but here goes...

Years back, I went to a FSDO seminar that explained "airworthy". I
seem to remember that the FAA Airworthiness Certificate included the
operating limitations, including max gross weight. Operating outside of
the limitations voided the cert., so there's the insurance out.

I'm open to comments on if I understood this correctly.

It's only an out if there is wording in the policy that gives them the
out. Here's the AVEMCO wording and I can't find any where in there that
would give them an out.

http://www.avemco.com/Page/Insurance...ft-Policy.aspx

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Where this becomes an insurance issue is in the litigation the insurance
company instigates after the accident.
It's a classic setup for their trial attorney's.

I suppose anything could be litigated, but if your policy contract doesn't
have an exclusion for (in this case) taking off overweight, the insurance
company doesn't have a leg to stand on.

A flying buddy of mine is an insurance company lawyer and he gets a kick
out of hearing these nebulous "that will invalidate your insurance" stories.
They are very reluctant to refuse claims that are not excluded in the written
contract. Insurance regulators will go after them if they try.

Basically, insurance is there to cover your butt if you do something stupid.
They have limits on what level of stupidity they will cover, which are
spelled out in the exclusions section of the policy. My current policy
doesn't cover me if the plane is out of annual (not operating with a valid
airwothiness cert.), or if I happen to be commiting a crime when the accident
happens. Other than a few other minor exclusions, they've got my potential
stupidity covered. Whether I decide to takeoff overweight or fly VFR into
IMC, I'm confident that the insurance company will hold up its end of the
bargain. As I stated before, if they really did disallow claims for poor
decision making, their policies would be virtually worthless. A vast
percentage of aviation accidents and incidents involve some level of poor
decision making.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Unless things have changed drastically since I was dealing with
insurance matters vs airplanes, the issue insurance wise isn't poor
decision making but rather operating the aircraft CLEARLY OUTSIDE it's
documented operating limitations. In other words, if you fly over gross,
you are wide open if you have an accident WHILE the aircraft is being
operated over gross, for a potential fight with the insurance carrier.
I believe this is correct. Please feel free to check this out.
I'd be interested to know if this situation has changed.
The question is quite simple;
Is your insurance valid if you knowingly operate the insured aircraft in
violation of existing FAA regulations and the manufacturer's limitations
for gross weight? (Flying over gross without a waiver to do so I believe
meets both these parameters)
--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Unless things have changed drastically since I was dealing with
insurance matters vs airplanes, the issue insurance wise isn't poor
decision making but rather operating the aircraft CLEARLY OUTSIDE it's
documented operating limitations. In other words, if you fly over gross,
you are wide open if you have an accident WHILE the aircraft is being
operated over gross, for a potential fight with the insurance carrier.
I believe this is correct. Please feel free to check this out.
I'd be interested to know if this situation has changed.

This is what I asked my friend the insurance company lawyer. He tells me
that there has to be some language in the contract that excludes coverage for
operating outside operating limitations. The cannot make up exclusions after
the accident/incident. None of the policies I have says one word about
operating outside documented limitations. Anecdotally, I do know one
pilot that was tagged by the FAA for an incident while overweight. While the
FAA gave him 90 days to think about his error, the insurance company didn't
say boo.

The question is quite simple;
Is your insurance valid if you knowingly operate the insured aircraft in
violation of existing FAA regulations and the manufacturer's limitations
for gross weight? (Flying over gross without a waiver to do so I believe
meets both these parameters)

Well, the FAR part is obvious. If they denied claims for violating FARs,
they wouldn't have to pay 95% of claims. As for the rest, it's fairly
simple. If it's not in the contract, it's not grounds for denying a claim.

Interestingly, flying with a valid ferry permit generally invalidates
coverage. Specifically the requirement that the standard airworthiness cert.
be in effect. A ferry permit is a Special Airworthiness Cert. and does not
meet the standards in any policy I've had. Every plane I've ever ferried
required the insurance company to issue a specific waiver for the flight
under the permit, because the policy specifically states an exclusion for it.


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:


It's only an out if there is wording in the policy that gives them the
out. Here's the AVEMCO wording and I can't find any where in there that
would give them an out.

I think you're right.

We have AIG, but I've never read the policy. Once of these days, I
should have my partner dig it out. G