Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

F. Baum wrote:
On Apr 18, 12:58 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
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.
happens.

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...t-Policy.aspx- Hide quoted text -

First, this isnt the part of the policy that covers exlusions. Second,
AVEMCO does reserve the right to recover claims. They are world famous
for this and it is rumored in the industry that they spend more money
recovering claims than they do paying them. Just a silly rumor to be
sure but it is pretty scary. I had an AVEMCO policy years ago and my
attorney said it wasnt worth the paper it was printed on.
Frank


I haven't seen a real AVEMCO policy but the link I posted had plenty of
exclusions.

Exclusions Applying to All Coverages
(See Additional Exclusions to Coverages A, B, and C)

This Policy does not cover bodily injury, property damage or loss:

When your insured aircraft is:
outside the policy territory;
used for a commercial purpose;
used by an insured person to unlawfully traffic in, or carry, persons,
drugs, narcotics or other contraband;
operated in flight by a pilot who is not approved in Item 6 of the Data
Page;
operated by a student pilot carrying another occupant unless one of
these occupants is a Certified Flight Instructor on board for the
purpose of instructing or examining that student pilot;
owned in whole, or in part, by someone except you;
equipped for water takeoff and landing unless shown as such in Item 4 of
the Data Page;
Arising out of:
declared or undeclared war, civil war, riot or revolt;
the detonation of an atomic device or radioactive contamination from any
source.


Additional Exclusions Applying to Coverage A

This coverage does not apply to:

Bodily injury or property damage liability an insured person assumes by
contract or agreement. However, liability assumed under an airport
contract is covered, provided the liability arises out of the insured
person's storage or use of the insured aircraft on the airport;
Bodily injury or property damage when an insured person is insured under
nuclear energy liability insurance. This exclusion applies even if the
limits of that insurance are reached
Bodily injury and property damage arising out of:
noise or vibration
pollution or contamination unless caused by a loss
Bodily injury to:
an occupant unless Item 5 of the Data Page shows "including occupants";
an employee of an insured person when workers' compensation is available
or required to compensate the employee of the insured person against
whom the claim is made;
Property damage to an insured aircraft (including after its sale where
property damage coverage is extended for up to one year);
Damage to property:
owned by an insured person;
being carried in your insured aircraft. However, personal effects of
each occupant are covered up to $1,000;
rented to, or in the charge of, an insured person. However, rented
hangars and their contents are covered up to a maximum of $25,000 each
accident.



Additional Exclusions Applying to Coverage B

This coverage does not apply to loss to your insured aircraft:

While it is in flight unless Item 5 of the Data Page shows "including in
flight";
Caused by legal or illegal seizure or confiscation, or during detention
by any governmental body;
Which arises out of a taking, holding, secreting, repossession or sale by:
anyone to whom its care, custody, control or use has been given by an
insured person;
anyone making a claim for or against it under contract, agreement, or law;
Due and confined to breakdown. This exclusion does not apply to ensuing
loss, unless it is another such breakdown;
If the loss is to a turbine engine of your insured aircraft when it is
caused by:
an object that is part of an engine or its accessories;
heat resulting from the starting, operation or shutdown of an engine;
a breakdown, failure or malfunction of an engine component, accessory or
part;
an object, not a part of an engine or its accessories, unless the loss
was sudden and caused by a single recorded event that requires immediate
repair to meet the requirements of the engine manufacturer.


Additional Exclusions Applying to Insurance for Your Use of Non-Owned
Aircraft

This insurance does not apply to:

The non-owned aircraft owner, or the owner's agent or employees
The use of a non-owned aircraft which:
does not hold a "Standard" category airworthiness certificate;
is a rotorcraft, unless your insured aircraft is a rotorcraft;
is a turboprop aircraft, unless your insured aircraft is a turboprop
aircraft;
is a turbojet aircraft, unless your insured aircraft is a turbojet
aircraft;
has a seating capacity of more than 7 persons, or, if greater, the
seating capacity of your insured aircraft;
is used without its owner's consent.

WingFlaps wrote:


Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population
clinically obese and 30% overweight?

Cheers


Do you think that that 10% and 30% applies evenly though out the
population? I'd bet the higher socio-economic levels of the population,
which also just happen to be the people most likely to be flying have a
lower obesity rate.

On 21 Apr, 01:53, "F. Baum" wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:58*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Average pax weights have been revised upwards in recent years to
reflect the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup has become the new
Tobaco in this country. Add to this the fact that most airlines will
plan a balanced field on max alowable and not actual,

??
You mean they schedule on that or do actual performance on the day that
way?

Bertie

BTB, All this stuff is figured within two hours of departure, after
the fuel load is determined. As far as I know bookings are only
restricted where there is a regular pattern of denied boardings.
FBaum

Well, we finish up the load sheet and determine performance in the
last half hour at the earliest and always on actual weights. The
company may have a max estimate for the day, but prerfromace is left
entirely up to us. We get the weight and we ( the crew) decide what
flap, runway and flexible thrust setting to use on the spot. The
company has a good idea of what the limits are, of course.


bertie

I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here, but wtf did you expect?
If you just wanted to hear "Sure, do it, you're the greatest", why not
talk to the mirror? You got a ton of good information - and now it is up
to you to incorporate that in your decision making process. All part of
being PIC.


Sounds like he did. Showing the thread to the PAX is the "keep your
passengers informed of the risks" advice chicken coming home to roost,
and he made the right choice. Which is to say, he could have probably
made the trip anyway, but, he made the decision that probably any
examiner would want to hear on a Private, Commercial or CFI checkride.

I think it's a bad idea to flak people for asking these sorts of
questions on this forum, especially when they take people's advice.



-c

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:


Do you think 190 lbs/adult is conservative with 10% of the population
clinically obese and 30% overweight?

Cheers


Do you think that that 10% and 30% applies evenly though out the
population? I'd bet the higher socio-economic levels of the population,
which also just happen to be the people most likely to be flying have a
lower obesity rate.

Not to mention that many women can be 50+ pounds under the average and
still be overweight.

On Apr 17, 8:39 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
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?

Cheers

You can't just slap on any old propeller, legally. The Type
Certificate Data Sheet for any particular models lists the props that
may be used, and any other prop would require an STC. The TCDS also
gives the maximum and minimum static RPM for each model of propeller,
and if the engine can's get into that range it's either sick or the
prop's a dud. We do a full-power static runup on practically every
inspection. Take three seconds.
TCDS's are on the FAA's website.

Dan

On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson
wrote:
tman wrote:
Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.

When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe
100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some
inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about
just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these
planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten
away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will
perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that
you would when solo.

Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors:

This is the 160HP C172, standard.
Departure runway is 5000'.
No steep terrain to climb out of.
Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways.
Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for
departure or any point of landing.

I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase
1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66
knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways.

I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over
gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be
aware of? Am I dangerous?

T

I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago.
I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time
operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and
bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in
question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed
the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the
whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19
year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the
aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the
crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took
off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their
insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at
inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck
trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its
gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the
accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims.

Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is
shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to
believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to
the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's
limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation.

Dan

wrote:
The TCDS also
gives the maximum and minimum static RPM for each model of propeller,
and if the engine can's get into that range it's either sick or the
prop's a dud.

I HAVE to remember to do something about the use of the word "Dud"
around here!!!!
:-))))))))))))


--
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson
wrote:
tman wrote:
Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.
When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe
100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some
inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about
just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these
planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten
away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will
perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that
you would when solo.
Risky? Or just roundoff error on the weight? Here are some other factors:
This is the 160HP C172, standard.
Departure runway is 5000'.
No steep terrain to climb out of.
Plenty of alternates along with the way with 3000 runways.
Not particularly hot, humid, or high. 50 degrees at 1000 MSL for
departure or any point of landing.
I'm figuring I'm 3% over gross, causing most of my V speeds to increase
1.5%, so say -- instead of flying short final at 65 knots, I'd fly at 66
knots... OK wait I can't hold airspeed to +/- 1 knot on most days anyways.
I'm thinking through many of the factors, and it is only a "little" over
gross, only on the first hour or so of the trip. What else should I be
aware of? Am I dangerous?
T
I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago.
I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time
operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and
bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits. The aircraft in
question was a float equipped Helio Courier. The right wing departed
the airframe during an approach to landing. A fisherman witnessed the
whole thing. It crashed into the trees. Four people (including the 19
year old pilot) were killed. We were able to determine that the
aircraft was 350 pounds over it's gross weight limit at the time of the
crash. We calculated it was about 500 hundred ponds OG when it took
off. The company went out of business shortly thereafter. Their
insurance contract was cancelled "ab initio" (a Lloyd's term for "at
inception" or "from the beginning") and once that happens good luck
trying to find another provider. Don't fly *any* aircraft over its
gross weight limit. The pilot was held personally responsible for the
accident and had he survived, would have faced a number of liability claims.

Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is
shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to
believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to
the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's
limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation.

Dan

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! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson

I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago.
I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time
operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and
bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits.


Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is
shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to
believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to
the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's
limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation.

Dan


I missed Frank's original post but I have to ask. Was there wording in
the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that? There
seem to be some policies out there that don't have such an exclusion.