Final 3 greens, it is of course very possible that I have missed some subtle nuance here, I often do, but surely both posts refer to safety, not legality.
My statement was:
"Now that we are all agreed that flying overweight in the order of 10%, whilst having some operational considerations, is perfectly safe, it would be sensible to quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" that apparently accrues therefrom. "
The analogy drawn was :
"Is it therefore safe to drive 10% over the drink drive limit?"
The statement that you were attempting to rebut concerned safety, but now you refer to, and rely upon, permissibility. Hmmmmm. Yet again you are introducing an inappropriate reference to substantiate your, still controversial, position.
I would therefore repeat "May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous", and if you wish to up the insult quotient then please take your own advice.
Also, I take it you have not yet managed to read your own insurance policy. Assuming you have one that is. I'm reasonably clued up with regard to "full disclosure". It has no relevance in this context.
Lowtimer, I've read my policy and it does not refer to CofA or PtF at any point. As I said previously it says that I have to fly in a safe manner with regard to the ANO. In the same way as your cars policy states you have to drive in a safe manner in accordance with the road traffic act.
Ghengis, I'm told MAUW of the Piper mirage was reduced because of the poor takeoff/landing numbers, and some heavy singles eg - Saratoga/TBM/PC12 are limited by Vso, not by structure. Do you feel that 10% overweight in those aircraft is intrinsically unsafe? I am actually interested in hearing the pros and cons.
I also surmise that you are unaware of any refused claims as a result of overweight ops.