Weight & balance (again??)

[Ringway Flyer]

I've no doubt that this has been raised in the past, so if anyone wishes to refer me back to a previous thread, please do so. I have calculated the W&B for a PA28 Archer and established that with 4 up we will be about 200lbs over weight. The balance is ok. What are the legal implications of operating the aircraft like this? I am aware of the safety aspects and prepared to fly over weight in good conditions, but not if there are any doubts, i.e., cross winds, short fields, etc....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, it's illegal, the penalty would be up to the court. Plus you wouldn't be insured, of course, so in the event of an incident you'd probably lose your house and anything else you owned.

[Lowtimer]

The legal implications depend on what goes wrong. If anything at all goes wrong, with the flight, even something which wasn't directly related to the aircraft being overweight, you can expect to have some part of the book thrown at you during the subsequent investigation. What part of the book I'll leave to the lawyers. On a more practical note you would do well to consider the consequences of operating without insurance cover, because that's what you would in effect be doing.

[BEagle]

How much fuel have you assumed? Or baggage? 28 Imperial gallons less would knock about 200lb off the AUW - but you'd need to recheck the balance.

I don't know whether it's your own aeroplane, but any hirer getting a hint that you were planning to fly when nearly 10% overweight would probably slam the door in your face.

[The Nr Fairy]

I can't in all seriousness understand why you even had to raise the subject.

I was trying to think of more to write, but thought it superfluous.

[Ringway Flyer]

Thanks for confirming what I thought was the case. I've seen a few PA28s with 4 up and suspected that they were too heavy. When challenged, they gave the impression that it was ok when you'd burned off some fuel! Just hoping to get through the first potentially most dangerous part of the flight without any problems, I suppose...
With 4 people of 13 stones each, there would be only enough spare capacity for 12 gallons of fuel. Or with 2 13 stone front passengers and full fuel, one rear passenger of 10 stone or less.

[IO540]

Insurance does cover negligence so I think it would not be void just because the aircraft departs over MTOW. Also, passengers can and DO lie about their weight.

Any views from LAWYERS?

But to be practical I am sure the majority of PA28s flying with four people are in fact over MTOW. I used to fly an Archer and 4-up one would have so little fuel one could not go anywhere useful, with a real weather diversion reserve. With a longer runway, and an appropriately higher Vr, it works, up to a point.

Most 4-seaters cannot carry 4 average men (or, these days, four average women :O ) plus useful fuel. A decent tourer like a TB20 can but a PA28 can't.

['India-Mike]

Frankly, I'm getting a bit bewildered by all of this. On another thread, we've got a discussion about flight planning whilst drunk. Now we've got (I can only assume) a serious enquiry about operating beyond MTOW (BTW the PA 28's I'm familiar with have a balance envelope limited by mass, so how it can be stated that balance is ok but mass isn't is beyond me). What on Earth is going on out there in PPL land?

DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.

[Whopity]

The Maximum AUW is part of the aircraft certification. If you operate above the certified weight then the Certificate of Airworthines is invalid - Offence No1. If the C of A is invalid then the insurer would almost certainly say trhat you were outside the terms of the policy which of course is now mandatory - Offence no 2. Now depending upon the circumstances it could be considerd that you were endangering the aircraft, the passengers and people on the ground; that could ammount to two further offences.

[J.A.F.O.]

I refuse to fly outside limits which, being a heathily built chap, can be interesting however show me a flying school operating 150s or 152s that isn't overweight on 90% of dual sorties and I'll show you a liar.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I know one school which was quite keen on staying within weight on 100% of their 152 dual sorties. This is clearly something of a challenge, and essentially meant refuelling after every flight, which is a bit of a pain. So they got rid of them and bought 172s instead.

(Of course the 152s were perfectly safe overweight on a 2km tarmac runway, just not legal. The problem is, we were told, that they were certified for their original primary market, American farmers with 400 yards of grass strip, and it would have been impractical to recertify them for operation from proper airports.)

[High Wing Drifter]

Surely they must be operated over MTOW when ferried from the states? A special dispensation prehaps or are they crated over in a ship?

['India-Mike]

My club is (honestly) rigorous about max weight. Two PA38's - one empties at 1234lbs, the other at 1170lbs. The latter is operated like the former - 16 imp.gals max. Given 11.5st instructors (2 short-ar$!s, one beanpole and a female), means that the former goes out at close to MTOW normally, the latter with a significant margin. The latter is the machine of choice for Skills Tests. We simply don't muck about with this - the owners of the aircraft, the instructors, the Club. We're as one on this topic.

Operating beyond MTOW is not just about performance and handling. The designer will base airframe life on a usage spectrum; MTOW will be part of this spectrum. Going outside of MTOW may therefore have implications for airframe life.

[Chilli Monster]

Surely they must be operated over MTOW when ferried from the states? A special dispensation prehaps or are they crated over in a ship?


Ferry flights normally take place with a ferry tank fitted. Part of the certification of the aircraft with the tank fitted is a percentage increase in the MTOW which is only valid whilst the tank is fitted.

[J.A.F.O.]

IM

It's been many years and a couple of stone since I flew the, in my opinion, delightful Tomahawk. Could you remind me what is the max possible fuel and what is the MAUW.

Cheers

I'm glad to see that a lot of clubs and schools really are all above board on this, it really is good to see.

[Final 3 Greens]

All the calculated performances in the POH will be rendered null and void by flying overweight and 200lbs (nearly 8%) is not a trivial amount.

So, you'd like to be a test pilot would you? :confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Frankly, I'm getting a bit bewildered by all of this. On another thread, we've got a discussion about flight planning whilst drunk. Now we've got (I can only assume) a serious enquiry about operating beyond MTOW (BTW the PA 28's I'm familiar with have a balance envelope limited by mass, so how it can be stated that balance is ok but mass isn't is beyond me). What on Earth is going on out there in PPL land?

DON'T DO IT - EITHER OF THE ABOVE.
Personally I find both discussions rather healthy. I'd rather see pilots who ask searching questions about why the rules are what they are, and the consequences of breaking them, rather than unthinking obedience.

OK, obedience is good, but knowledgeable and intelligent obedience of the rules is far better.

G

[Lowtimer]

Insurance does cover negligence so I think it would not be void just because the aircraft departs over MTOW. Also, passengers can and DO lie about their weight.
Not one that can be relied upon. Whilst being overweight in blissful ignorance might amount to negligence, doing so knowingly would not escape so lightly. In any case a pilot's negligence may itself be considered culpable, either in law or by an insurance company who would have the option of paying out to third parties but seeking to recover all the payouts (and costs) from the negligent pilot.

[DRJAD]

Yes, that's exactly how I reason this one, too.

If I'm taking passengers I always do a meticulous W&B schedule. Because I do that I cannot claim that I am ignorant of the situation.

If it's marginal, calculate reduced fuel, and therefore reduced flight endurances, extra landings, alternates, etc.. If in this situation, I take a set of scales to my rendezvous point with my passengers, insist that they let me weight them, and separately, their baggage, and then recalculate.

I realise its time-consuming, and I am by no means immune from impatience. However, I am very cautious about this, and have to sacrifice time for fore-knowledge and the consequent ability to make an informed decision. (I have before now, made passengers leave items of baggage behind in the car, etc..) Perhaps I'm too cautious, and lacking in a spirit of adventure - but I'd rather keep within the stated operational limits, within the law, and in a safe mode when flying friends and relations about.

['India-Mike]

JAFO

PA38 MTOW 1670lbs. Fuel 26.5 Imp. Gals. of which 1.5 is unuseable. (POH quotes 32/30 in US gals).

[OVC002]

The self righteous certainty of so many posts regarding insurance claims never ceases to amaze (amuse).

As previously pointed out, 90% of C150 training sorties are overweight at take off. As this type of flight is also a regular user of insurance claim forms, there will no doubt be a great number of disgruntled aviators who have had their claims rejected.

No!.

I didn't think so.

AIUI a 10% increase in MAUW is automatically allowed upon application. Any assertion that overweight operation is intrinsically unsafe would therefore seem to contradict the view of the authorities.

Operating overweight does affect the performance numbers, and would seem to reduce the margins regarding structure, but it's not a hanging offence.

You might get collared by the CAA, and pay the price, but there are more dangerous, legal, practices that go unvillified.

[High Wing Drifter]

Personally I find both discussions rather healthy. I'd rather see pilots who ask searching questions about why the rules are what they are, and the consequences of breaking them, rather than unthinking obedience.
Well said Genghis, the "beyond there be dragons" approach maybe risk averse, but I guess it is also another manifestation of ignorance.

[Final 3 Greens]

HWD

the "beyond there be dragons" approach maybe risk averse, but I guess it is also another manifestation of ignorance. It is also (a) the law in this instance and (b) the way that the PPL syllabus is taught.

I interpret Ghengis' comments as meaning that basic learning is okay, but advanced learning, motivated by a desire to understand more systemically/holistically is better.

Basic learning is not the same as ignorance, in this instance.

[DRJAD]

Well, I'm not advocating everyone do exactly what I do, which is rooted in my natural caution.

I do, however, suggest that obeying the law quite a good idea.

[TotalBeginner]

I also fly a PA28 Archer III

After gaining my PPL, I desperately wanted to take both of my parents up for a trip. I'm fairly heavy (114kg) and my parents are not exactly on the small side. After a weight and balance calculation I found that even with fuel up to the tabs, we would be 190lbs over weight. Unfortunately mum had to stay behind, but even with just the two of us we were only 10lbs underload. I must say that I definately would not have wanted to take the aircraft any heavier. At nearly MTOW, performance was lowsy. It was a warm, windless day and I think I can say in all Honesty that an extra 190lbs would have caused us to spend the next hour, red faced, in the adjacent field.

[wombat13]

Two contrasting stories and some advice for TotalBeginner.

In the briefing for my ST I did my W & B calculations (PA38) which showed we were in excess of 115%. Soon as the CAA examiner (NOT CFI) saw that I knew how to do it, he sent me off to fill the tanks.

Visiting Oz earlier this year I had a check flight, part of the prep' being I had to calculate W & B which was OK. On landing had to recalculate since I was now taking 3 hairy ars%d convict cousins up for a spin - showed we were 105%. They insisted I took oil drum on wheels over to aircraft and pump out exact fuel to bring within limits - which meant re-calculating route.....

And TotalBeginner - not even on an anonymous forum do you give out your mum's exact weight, unless of course you are 17, your mum was the same age when she had you and said weight is the right side of 120 lbs :ok:

[Lowtimer]

OVC002
Am I interpreting your statement correctly? I understand you to be suggesting that anyone can legally operate their aeroplane in the UK at MAUW + 10% simply by putting in a request, which will automatically be granted? Can you advise us of the procedure for that?
I am only aware of the waivers which may be applied for on over-water ferry operations on a specific one-flight-only basis, and granted on the requirement for fuel overloads, in the knowledge tha the flight will be over water if it goes down (and therefore not endangering the citizenry at large) and carrying the minimum of crew, no passengers.

[OVC002]

Having never operated an aircraft overweight in the UK, I am unfamiliar with the procedures.

I can't find the FAA guidance note, but if you go to :

http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/021/021c09.pdf

They quote the FAA as the authority.

As you can see, no application required just a notification, and even that doesn't need to be posted until after the flight has taken place.

As a point of interest, reasons other than ferrying are approved overgross. If you look at what is ops normal in the Ag sector you can see how ridiculous assertions of hell and damnation for going a little over really are. Day in, day out, at 60% overweight are approved with the bare minimum of formality, and 60% is a suggestion not a requirement.

[IO540]

Technically there should be no problem flying a plane that's 60% overweight - provided that one allows for the much greater Vr, much longer takeoff run, much greater Vref, much longer landing distance, and is a lot more careful throwing it around at cruise speed.

The bonus is that Va is a lot lower ;)

I'd suggest the pilot would need to be an expert.

If exceeding MTOW by 10% or so was fatal, EVERY flying school aircraft would by now be at the bottom of the Channel, complete with nearly all instructors. (And the crew would be lost because most flying over water don't carry a raft, but that's another debate).

Much better to get a decent tourer e.g. a TB20 and then one can carry four men (or four UK sized women) with enough fuel to get somewhere usable. A PA28 doesn't really work for 4-up, if one is going to stick to the rules.

[Lowtimer]

can't find the FAA guidance note, but if you go to :
Yeah, but even that (which I think reflects the very sparse population density of Australia) says:
"This may be for operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight for flight beyond its normal range over water, or over land areas where adequate landing facilities or the appropriate fuel is not available. The excess weight that may be authorised is limited to the additional fuel, fuel-carrying facilities, and navigation equipment necessary for the flight. Carriage of
passengers will not normally be permitted."

Which is pretty restrictive. And also requires that:
"...a flight manual supplement (FMS) for inclusion in the aircraft flight manual
must be provided. The FMS should contain necessary information appropriate to the operation, supplementing or replacing, as appropriate, the corresponding data in the basic manual. "
Neither of which sets of conditions are met by people deciding to fill all their tanks and all their seats and blasting off overweight on the spur of the moment.
IO540: I don't think anyone;s suggested that going 10% overweight needs be instantly fatal. What I've suggested is that you place yourself at serious legal and financial risk by doing so, at least in the UK.

[Final 3 Greens]

A PA28 doesn't really work for 4-up, if one is going to stick to the rules Try a -236.

[OVC002]

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.

What is the usual size of the fine/length of sentence handed out by the beak?

Does anyone have any actual experience regarding a rejected insurance claim? and if so, what reason was given?

Concrete information, as opposed to conjecture, seems hard to come by.

[IO540]

Concrete information, as opposed to conjecture, seems hard to come by.

The greatest truth in aviation, sadly.

The way to check out real cases relating to insurance is to telephone a real insurance broker. Obviously there won't be any on here posting details of payouts, accepted or refused.

If somebody got done by the CAA, they won't be advertising it on here either.

Flying Lawyer might be able to give useful info.

[Romeo Romeo]

What's the difference insurance-wise between flying an aeroplane overweight and driving over the speed limit?

Also, which is more risky for the pilot/driver and others who may be involved? The only weight related aeroplane crashes I have read about have really been weight/runway length crashes and excessive speed is a factor in many road deaths.

[Final 3 Greens]

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. Is it therefore safe to drive 10% over the drink drive limit?

Perhaps so, but arbitary limits exist to set boundaries. Try being stopped by the police when a car whilst 10% over the limit and see what legal and financial consequences occur.

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.

If you disagree with this line of thinking, perhaps you should look at the Ryanair thread on R&N concering the operation of a 737 outside SOPs and manufacturers limits. Read the views of the professionals on that and they are calling for the pilot to lose his licence per se. Safety is no accident.

[OVC002]

Now there's a point, because I accept the assertion that flying 10% overgross is safe, I must also be asserting that drunk driving is safe. By extension, you are asserting that I think 10% over any limit is OK. Hmmmmm.

I would suggest that your analogy is ill considered. There are any number of reasons why it does not pertain, not least because, as far as I know, there are no existing notification/application procedures for getting approval to drive drunk.

May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous.

I am not sure what the procedure would be to get approval for 10% overweight in a 737, but I'll bet it is not popping a notification in the post within 2 days of making the flight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Safety depends upon margins doesn't it.

Let's say you've got a typical light aircraft, MTOW around 2000lb, TODR around 600m, stall speed of 50kn, g-limit at 3.8g, Va of 97kn, initial climb rate around 500fpm at MTOW.

Add 10% weight (to 2,200lbf) and a back-of-envelope sum tells me that, you now have a TODR of 720m, a g-limit of 3.45, a stall speed which has increased by about 3 knots (and so have the initial climb and approach speeds), and a climb rate now of 450fpm.

All of this has to be accounted for,....

G

[OVC002]

These are the operational considerations that I was referring to.

The point regarding margins is the real one IMHO.

If someone was to post with some data describing the long term effects of constant overweight ops, and quantifying how structural safety margins are eroded over time, we could form a reasoned opinion about what is acceptable, or not, to each of us.

Just saying "don't do it", and making uninformed forecasts of how an insurance company will treat any subsequent claim would seem to be unhelpful.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Give me the basic parameters, much as I've shown above, and I'll work them out in rough terms for you.

And then I'll make my standard disclaimer - I only take responsibility for advice I was paid for, and anyhow regardless of the law the big issue is that the moment you deliberately step one ounce beyond the MAUW, or one knot above an airspeed limit - you are uninsured.

Incidentally, it isn't uninformed to say that you will be uninsured, I've seen it happen several times - somebody broke the rules, an insurance company showed that they could have avoided doing so - and consequently refused to pay out. The most recent I recall wasn't admittedly W&CG, it was somebody who bent somebody else's aeroplane when their CofE was a week out of date.

G

[OVC002]

Quantifying Vso, Va, TODR etc. at various weights is all useful stuff, but not what I am after.

The authorities consider 10% overweight safe enough that permission is granted without formality, other than notification. They hedge that permission with enough restriction to make it useful only for ferrying.

At which point does it become unsafe, and how do we quantify it?.

It all seems a bit of an "angels on a pinhead" argument anyway. I say this simply because, as far as I can tell, MAUW in light aircraft is a function more of TO/LDR and Vso needing to be =< 61kts rather than structural considerations.

With regard to insurance, quoting a case where the insurer failed to pick up the tab because of an unqualified PIC, does not translate directly to the overweight case. My policies, at least, specifically require either me, or a qualified pilot, to be IC. In the event that an unqualified pilot was at the controls at the time of an incident, I would not expect them to pay. However, the only clauses which could be interpreted as pertaining to operating within the bounds of the ANO, POH etc. refer specifically to conducting the flight in a "safe" manner, and not in a narrowly drawn "legal" manner.

IMHO some data concerning insurance claims denied as a result of overweight operation would help.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not true. MAUW, g-limits, Va, Vs etc. are all interconnected, but related to the aircraft's design spec. Modify one, and it has a knock-on effect on all of them. This is true of any aeroplane, but a peculiarity of civil light aeroplanes is that there are max/min values which must be met (Vs and g-limits in particular).

I've come across a few aeroplanes where LDR/TODR are considerations also, but very few and none of them were common light aircraft.


As for insurance - try asking your insurance company how they'd feel about it!

G

[Lowtimer]

Are you sure your policy does not also require you to operate in accordance with the aeroplane's C or A or Permit to Fly, and within the law in other respects?

[Final 3 Greens]

May I suggest that if you are going to analogise you try using one that is analogous. Please engage brain before posting. The original poster was talking about flying with pax, which the ferry exemptions do not allow. therefore the analogy was analagous.

Also, do you understand the concept of full disclosure in the context of insurance policies?

[OVC002]

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.

[Final 3 Greens]

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 ;)

[BeechNut]

Well my insurance policy (in Canada) clearly states that the aircraft is to be operated within published limitations, laws, blablabla...and specifically mentions MGTOW and CofG envelope.

Best not to assume anything with insurance. Possibly, quite possibly, if you did a W&B calculation before flight that showed you were within limits and that you guesstimated weights because no scales were available and your female passengers lied about their weight, they MIGHT let you off the hook if the actual number turned out 10% on the high side. Or they might not. On the other hand if you leave no record behind to show you even *considered* W&B (like a filled-in, dated W&B form) and you were overweight, they have every legal right to refuse payment.

And if you were dumb enough to say "hell I always fly overweight because I know that I/the aircraft can manage it", and you WERE overweight at the time of the crash...well, my bird is insured for $52,000 hull and $1 million liability. I'd hate to have to shell out that kind of money, or have my inheritors shell out that kind of money.

Your insurance policy is a legally binding contract. If it says it won't pay if you're overweight, it's safe to assume, it won't pay if you're overweight.

Mike

[IO540]

F3G

I can of course see your point about disclosure, but motoring law isn't anything like aviation law.

Your car 3rd party cover is NOT voided by you modifying the engine, or by driving 10x over the alcohol limit, or by having no MOT, or by towing an illegal trailer attached via an illegal towbar. The RTA prevents the insurers walking away from those. Only the fully comp cover gets voided by those things.

Aviation insurance differs from "normal" insurance in other ways; for example you can under insure the value and they will pay out the insured value. Whereas in normal insurance they will scale the payout down by the ratio of the two values. I am not a broker but this is my recollection.

There are many differences between aviation practices and the sort of insurance familiar to Joe Public, and anyone interested is best to phone a real live broker and not ask here.

[OVC002]

Sorry to carry this thread on beyond its natural life but......


Full disclosure, is normally considered as stuff like, vehicle performance, previous claims history, pre-existing conditions etc.

Does anybody tell their insurer that they from time to time drive at 77mph on motorways? Are we seriously to believe that claims are rejected because the insured failed to disclose his habit of occasionally driving through traffic lights showing amber?


It's interesting you should refer to a case where the insurer had to go to the supreme court to get a result.

For those unfamiliar : A Taku DHC beaver crashed killing 5 Passengers. Taku had applied for insurance stating that the capacity of the aircraft was only 4. Not only that but they only owned up to one accident in the previous 12months, when actually having had 3( see full disclosure above). The contract of insurance specifically stated that any misrepresentation voided the contract. An additional exclusion clause specifically stated that if there were more passengers than stated seats any claim would be invalid.

The lower court still held the insurance co to be liable to pay!!!

The higher court, in the majority, found for the insurer. Not because Taku intentionally lied in its application, i.e. deliberate non-disclosure, indeed the majority held that this was irrelevant , because, in this case, Colonial should have known Taku's claims record, but because there was a specific exclusion with regard to the number of passengers being limited to 4.



IMHO if there is a specific clause forbidding overweight ops it would be wrong, both legally and morally, to expect the insurer to pay any claim where the aircraft was so operated.

If the agreement calls for the aircraft to be operated in a safe manner then it would seem to be a stretch to insist that any claim would be repudiated in the event of an incident.

F3G

Any more un-analogous analogies, or case histories that seem to go a long way to rebutting your own points, and I shall begin to think that you are one green short of a full undercarriage

;)

[Final 3 Greens]

The lower court still held the insurance co to be liable to pay!!! The Court considered that the insurance company could have reasonably checked its own records.

The higher Court overturned the judgement (that it was by majority is irrelevant) and I refer you again to the comment that "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."

Therefore the lower Court decision is legally irrelevant, I wonder why you find the need to quote it?

Please note LOAD CAPACITY. You will note, if you check your Oxford Dictionary, that capacity is defined as the maximum amount that something can carry. Amount is defined as the number, value, size or extent, so whether it is the number of seats or the weight would seem to be irrelevant.

If you are intending to operate outside the parameters set in the POH, which is you may remember is part of the C of A, then you should disclose this to your insurers.

Of course, you can choose not to.

IO540I can of course see your point about disclosure, but motoring law isn't anything like aviation law. I agree, it is a subset of Maritime law.

[OVC002]

Oh dear, the corpse still twitches.

I will try again in more simple terms.

An appeal court judge decided the insurance company should pay.

The majority of the supreme court justices, whilst overturning that decision, made it clear that they did so because of a specific exclusion clause regarding the number of passengers to be carried ( this was the capacity being referred to, NOT the mauw). It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that in the absence of a specific exclusion, the appeal court would not have been overturned.

That it was a majority decision is of course relevant. It demonstrates that whilst an expert such as yourself can categorically state that if you don't tell the insurance company the slightest detail of both your history and operational intent, they can repudiate your claim, a number of supreme court justices disagree with you. IMHO they will be largely unconcerned by your dissent.

An appeal court judge went so far as to support liability after an operator lied on the proposal form, and operated in direct contravention of a specific exclusion, but you still maintain, with certainty, that any claim made whilst operating 10% overweight will be rejected.

I am still amazed that anyone can be so certain about these matters. The details of the case referred to by F3G, not me, would seem to reinforce that view.

The lights are on, but the undercarriage, sadly, is not down.

[Final 3 Greens]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_webSSL9.pdf

See section 2

Care to post your licence number, so that SRG can contact you to discuss your views with you?

No, didn't think so.

[OVC002]

This one is well past its sell by date.

I would be delighted to discuss my views with SRG. I don't think it would take long though.

a) The PIC must satisfy himself that the load may be safely carried.

b) Insurers "may" reject any claim after operating outside of the limits defined in the POH.



After we had congratulated ourselves for being in full agreement, we might spend the rest of the time discussing the dangers inherent in pilots who have an unquestioning acceptance of folklore, and an unshakeable belief that what is legal is safe.

[Final 3 Greens]

being in full agreement????

What about (c) Pilot must operate aircraft in compliance with POH weight and C&G limits or pilot is failing to comply with a legal requirement for the operation of the aircraft?

Of course, you do agree with this, don't you?

[BEagle]

I am frankly appalled at OVC002's seemingly cavalier attitude to limits. That sort of attitude has NO PLACE in aviation. Perhaps I will raise the topic with the CAA's GA safety department and suggest that they remind people about the dangers of exceeding limits in the next GASIL....

The MTOW is precisely that. If you need to apply for some waiver to operate above that weight, go ahead. If not, then observe the limit!.

But to state that "we all agree that operating 10% overweight is safe" is rubbish. I for one certainly don't!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nor do I, unless revised limitations are worked out, and adhered to.

However, let's be honest, the vast majority of PPLs (or for that matter, a very large proportion of commercial pilots and aeronautical engineers) have never been trained how to do this. Calculating flying limitations wasn't even on the syllabus when I was at ETPS.

And even then, you have to be a good enough pilot to stay within those new limits - and that doesn't apply to most PPLs either. When an aeroplane was certified, part of what we did was ensure that the flying characteristics were such that inadvertently exceeding the envelope was very hard - but that was only assessed within the cleared envelope, and may not be possible in an unofficially enlarged weight and CG envelope.

In short, it's not big and not clever. If you need to carry more load, get a bigger aeroplane!


In my book, safe trumps legal every time. However, in this instance, it's both unsafe AND illegal - and thus a no-brainer. The fact that you are probably uninsured as well just re-enforces the point really.

G

[DRJAD]

OVC002 wrote: " ... an unshakeable belief that what is legal is safe."

I do not believe I know anyone who believes that. Flying in compliance with the law is not necessarily to say that it is safe; it is merely legal.

To fly legally, though, is to remove one set of stress factors from oneself, allowing concentration on other issues, like safety. This is to say nothing of civil and societal responsibility.

Operating anywhere near MAUW, and being sure of staying below it, obviously requires a W&B schedule to be completed. I suggest that training regimes are such that the act of completing the W&B schedule inclines the pilot to address the issue of safety. If it also inclines the pilot to consider structural and loading issues, etc., then that is good.

[OVC002]

Aargh,

Timothy was so right. This is so unproductive.

But.

I have never advocated, nor do I have a "cavalier attitude" about, operating outside the law, or the limits of the POH.

If the authorities believe that 10% overweight is safe, why is it not safe? Still waiting for the answer.

We are all gagging for the next installment of GASIL, in fact, any patronising advice telling us to keep a good look out, or avoid relying on GPS is welcome. Why don't you have a quick chat with the CAA's safety department and issue a note reminding everyone that they should really get a licence before they go flying.

I am pretty sure that in GA, w&b regs are observed more in the breach than in the observance. But not by me.

When was the last time :

1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"

Pompous numbnuts should go elsewhwere, don't you think

[Final 3 Greens]

When was the last time :

1) You did a w&b calc
2) You saw anybody do a w&b calc
3) You heard a FI say "as long as it's up to the tabs it's fine"

1) the last time I was PIC
2) the last time I was PIC
3) Never, my FI taught me W&B before I went solo and expected me to confirm that (a) the ac was in limits and (b) whether it was normal or utility before each sortie

I have always flown aircraft (mainly PA28, but also C15x/172/PA32/B121) which were capable of getting outside limits quite easily.

And I don't think that legal is necessarily safe either - I once rejected a take off in a PA28-140 due to unexpectedly poor acceleration, when I KNEW that we were 50 odd lbs under gross. I still feel good about that decision. If the authorities believe that 10% overweight is safe, why is it not safe? Still waiting for the answer. They don't for normal operations, so it isn't for normal operations.

[OVC002]

Sorry for the tardy reply, been on a trip.

As I was flying back, it occurred that the aircraft I was flying had a variant with a gross weight of over 2.3T. In Europe they are usually certificated, without any modification, to a MAUW of 1.999T.

Is it unsafe to fly this type of aircraft 10% overweight?

Somebody who knows how to do these things should set up a poll :

Q. Do you do a written W&B before every flight?

The result would be interesting.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Q. Do you do a written W&B before every flight?OK, I'll start.

No, because I know from previous calculations that up to three adults and full tanks, with two of the adults in the front if there are at least two, leaves a reasonable W margin and is within B. I wouldn't put two of the three in the back, however, or put four people in, or put anything at all in the luggage compartment, without doing a W&B.

I'll now be told both:

(a) that this is appalling airmanship, and:
(b) that nobody else does either.

[Final 3 Greens]

Gertrude

If it is the same aircraft and you have already calculated that you have a safety margin, with a certain load and distribution, then, unless something changes, I don't see why this is bad airmanship.

[MikeJeff]

Not having an opinion here.. obviously I do.. not sharing it because one camp or the other will disagree.

While I do applaud FTG and Genghis etc, I'd like to see their views on "90% of C152s at flying schools depart overweight".

Also a question. Is the PA28-161 not certified to 2325lbs in the UK, but 2440lbs in the US?

[Final 3 Greens]

Mike

I don't have an opinion on whether 90% of Cessnas depart overweight, as I don't have the data.

I can only say that they never have when I was flying one, although we did get to or close to MAUW on most occasions.... and I don't recall ever departing on full tanks.