OVC002
You challenged "quantify the"serious legal and financial risk" and in this context I said that it was, perhaps, safe to drive 10% over the limit, but that it poses a serious legal risk. I also said that arbitrary limits set boundaries, so my point was about this, not about safety.
I also said "Because of the smaller amount of people flying than driving, prime facie evidence is not so easy to find, but the only safe option is to plan the flight in the PA28 to comply with the law. If exemptions are applied for and granted, then that is fine, but as an earlier poster said, blasting off on the spur of the moment is another matter."
Thus my point is about the legality of flying overweight and the impact on insurance of operating outside the normal certification of the aircraft.
I fear that you do not understand the concept of full disclosure, even though you think that you do. I'll give you a clue, if you upgrade the engine chip in your car to provide 10% more power, do you tell your insurers? If you modify it to be heavier than it's certified gross weight, do you keep quiet?
So by extension, if you plan to operate an aircraft 10% in excess of the MAUW in the POH, why do you think that you should not inform your insurers, to allow them to re-examine their risk exposure? This is what full disclosure means in this context.
As an illustration of this point, during the trial of Coronation Insurance & Eagle Star versus Taku Air Transport Ltd, the judge made the following comment "The load capacity of a particular airplane and the number of passengers to be carried is highly relevant information that is of critical importance to the insurer."
No doubt its a bit dark in OVC002 land, but maybe when you grow up to be SCT020, you'll see the light
