fantom Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 This entire thread gives me heartburn. Only the NJ smiling dentine knows for sure What I know this that if any of you advise taking off overgross and someone takes that advise (or not) then pay the price, you'll probably be named in the lawsuit the attorney files for the heirs. Open discussion, my butt. Quote
goncaloareia Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 Speaking of liability, think of what every CFI on this board has to worry about - negligent instruction. Some CFIs carry insurance for it, some don't. Which is why I won't hand over the weight and balance docs of a 220 horsepower M20K to the owner of a 210 horsepower M20K. In insurance I deal with people quite often who get dragged into annoying situations by litigious people. I've got my own story of having to provide documentation for a court in order to defend someone that hired me to deliver an airplane. Parker, I will not endure on this discussion... your arguments may be valid (and your liability horror stories accepted of course) but that was not the point of this discussion in the first place... And finally, you can count me in for providing all the info/tips/docs that you or anyone else may need... Here in Europe liability matters are just too different from the US and these discussions would NEVER be accepted in court as indicting anyone... Cheers to all! Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 I told my claims rep at Chartis that handled my gear up last year, that I was in a discussion whether or not insurance could be denied due to operating over gross and wanted his advise if he had a free min. Parker, I believe you are right because remember that this is a response from the insurance company not a ruling in a court of law, so his advise is accurate from his prospective but the end result could be different with a jury....not that I want to go there. Were all big boys and girls and choose how to operate our aircraft. Again, I'm not advocating operating illegally. Claims adjuster: I will give you the "unofficial" cliff notes version as to how this scenario would be addressed. In short, YES, in the event an aircraft is proven to have been operating over gross weight AND the fact that the aircraft was being operated over weight is determined to be a contributing factor to the accident, the policy could be void. Not only is it a violation of the FAR's, it can be considered reckless operation of the aircraft. However, if the aircraft is overweight, and an engine failure leads to an aircraft accident, there is a high probability that Chartis would cover the loss. The weight of the aircraft has no bearing on an engine failure, as these events are most likely unrelated. The aircraft engine may have failed, however, the weight of the aircraft had no bearing on the engine failure, therefore, there is no connection between the two. The policy may cover the loss, even though the airman was in violation of an FAR. For example, last month I had an insured that experienced an engine failure while at altitude. Ultimately, it crashed, and the aircraft was beyond repair. Upon further review, his medical expired over a year ago. In this example, the loss was covered. Even though he violated an FAR, there was no connection between his lack of medical and the engine failure. In the insurance world, it is called causal connection. Not necessarily, unless there is a provision for that in the policy (and in some cases there may be). I have actually seen that wording in some policies, but it's not everywhere. Insurance is designed to protect you in the event of your negligence. Intentional acts to cause bodily injury or property damage are not covered, that is for sure. In short, aviation insurance companies are not looking for reasons to deny claims. But everyone has a duty to uphold their end of the contract. Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 What I know this that if any of you advise taking off overgross and someone takes that advise (or not) then pay the price, you'll probably be named in the lawsuit the attorney files for the heirs. Open discussion, my butt. Winner. I worked and studied too hard for all these ratings to have them taken away by someone else becoming a test pilot on my advice. I'm not a perfect commercial pilot or CFI, but I stay proficient and do my best to fly every flight safely. That includes those flights down to minimums on the approach. In other words, I'll take risks when they're within my skills. Stay proficient, my friends. Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 Here in Europe liability matters are just too different from the US and these discussions would NEVER be accepted in court as indicting anyone... Except in Europe they can make you criminally negligent. Go look at the Concorde crash. Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 This entire thread gives me heartburn. Only the NJ smiling dentine knows for sure What I know this that if any of you advise taking off overgross and someone takes that advise (or not) then pay the price, you'll probably be named in the lawsuit the attorney files for the heirs. Open discussion, my butt. They can name me in a lawsuit all they want....It isn't about flying over gross, its about how these planes handle when they get heavy. I do like the smiley faces though. I also think its dumb that my J isn't legal to operate at 2,741lbs, yet I'm pretty much am just complaining cause there's not much I can do about it. I have a 80K airplane and think its dumb that it can safley haul more but I'm not suppose to use it......just complaining thats it. 1 Quote
fantom Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 They can name me in a lawsuit all they want....It isn't about flying over gross, its about how these planes handle when they get heavy. I do like the smiley faces though. Glad you like the faces.... I'm all for bitchin, but overgross is a sticky subject, and I would NEVER fly even one ounce overgross Now, as for an 'open discussion' with a lawyer (goncaloareia) who hasn't offered any 'open' information about himself, his plane, his location, his age, in his signature or in his profile....that is both funny and gross! Quote
goncaloareia Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 Glad you like the faces.... I'm all for bitchin, but overgross is a sticky subject, and I would NEVER fly even one ounce overgross Now, as for an 'open discussion' with a lawyer (goncaloareia) who hasn't offered any 'open' information about himself, his plane, his location, his age, in his signature or in his profile....that is both funny and gross! Oh Man... lawyers really have a bad reputation don't they!!! ;-) My profile will be updated in 5 min!! Quote
goncaloareia Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 Oh Man... lawyers really have a bad reputation don't they!!! ;-) My profile will be updated in 5 min!! Done... Quote
carusoam Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 I noticed the D registration and was wondering how later in the day he became Portugese.... Either way, I've known most of the players in this conversation for years. There is only one really new guy. So, Welcome really new guy. This is one of the most open convesations people can have. Considering we are speaking across the globe about a safety topic. And probably doing it with a keyboard and possibly using English as a second language... Pilots, insurance guy, instructors, engineers, lawyers, Mooney Fans... Laws of physics are the same no matter what country they are practiced in... Great open conversation. Welcome to MooneySpace! Best regards, -a- Quote
goncaloareia Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 Thanks! Yes, Portuguese, born and raised! And yes, the "D" registration may look strange but inside Europe there's lot's of airplanes flying with registrations from another EU country. And you can also find hundreds of general aviation aircraft with "N" registration flying for years in Europe, mainly due to the easy (compared with the JAR-FCL / EASA regulations) requirements for instrument ratings. Quote
carusoam Posted February 7, 2013 Report Posted February 7, 2013 There is no linear relationship to weight and the ability to safely conduct a flight. It makes sense to fly within the published envelope. For those that fly outside the envelope, ie plane deliveries. There is equipment, training and documentation to allow for that. For the guy that wanted paperwork to fly the J at a higher limit, there is a process to collect the hardware, training and documentation if that is really desired. I would expect that the envelope of flight for an M20J is fully defined. So adding horsepower, a Missle, is possible. An IO390, interesting, but will it be enough? Could you sell the STC in Europe? Somebody added 30hp to the Ovation line and got an STC for it. Call it an O3 or a Screamin' Eagle.... Best regards, -a- Quote
carusoam Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 www.aecp.pt Couldn't access your website... -a- Quote
carusoam Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Has "fill to the tabs" lost it's meaning? Or Mooneys don't have really obvious "tabs" I'm going with "fill to the bottom of the collar or neck" -a- Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Well I for one was never talking about overgross being a good idea. In fact I already stated in this thread that I have never flown over gross and that is a fact. I have several times off loaded a good bit of fuel to make weight - which is a big nuisance - and even more often turned away friends from a trip and I usually put away my airplane after flying without filling to allow for better control over my weight choices on the next flight....I.e., I fill before I fly not after I fly. I was just talking - playing through - about what it would take to fly at a weight greater than what is published in the POH. That would be a POH change by STC. Then that new weight would be legal. That said, what is legal is not always wise. It is PIC responsibility to decide if runway and DA allow for a specific take off weight - as long as that weight is <= the weight published in the POH. Many of us remember our friend Patrick and several risky decisions made, some legal but unwise, but also including flying over weight. Quote
Ned Gravel Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Getting out of the weeds. We have all had some acquaintances come out to the airport to go for a flight with us. Doesn't matter if there are two or three, the combined weight of these fine folks will not allow us to put them all in the aircraft with ourselves and the full fuel tanks and take off in accordance with the published specification. Two hard points. The first is when you ask them for their weight (and one of them is a lady). Bad enough that this is not a polite question to ask a lady, but when the number comes back and we all learn that we are collectively over gross. How does she feel? The second is when you have to ask one of them to sit it out while the other(s) go with you (who goes is their choice of course) and then you will come back and the take the remaining person with you. I have had either (or both) of these situations often enough to know that it will not be easy, but it can be handled gently. In the end, they will all understand about not pushing the envelope their first time out. My 0.02. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Getting out of the weeds. We have all had some acquaintances come out to the airport to go for a flight with us. Doesn't matter if there are two or three, the combined weight of these fine folks will not allow us to put them all in the aircraft with ourselves and the full fuel tanks and take off in accordance with the published specification. Two hard points. The first is when you ask them for their weight (and one of them is a lady). Bad enough that this is not a polite question to ask a lady, but when the number comes back and we all learn that we are collectively over gross. How does she feel? The second is when you have to ask one of them to sit it out while the other(s) go with you (who goes is their choice of course) and then you will come back and the take the remaining person with you. I have had either (or both) of these situations often enough to know that it will not be easy, but it can be handled gently. In the end, they will all understand about not pushing the envelope their first time out. My 0.02. I think we pilots may be too sensitive about all this asking people their weight. I figure its like a doctor asking a lady her weight. We need to know - for theirs and our safety. I indeed have asked weight - and I say it is for weight and balance and I think they understand quite well. In fact, I bet they respect us more as pilots for paying attention to the details and I bet this gives them more confidence to enjoy flying with us. Quote
jetdriven Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Airlines use estimated weights. Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Airlines use estimated weights. Variance from the mean becomes much smaller with large random samples. I.e., with 200 folks on board, big and small, fat and thin, you still get a nice average value near the (properly and recently readjusted) FAA standard passenger weight. In a sample of just 3 folks - just one fat dude throws off the whole average. Quote
M016576 Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 So, along the original lines: does anyone know what sort or testing / flight profiles would have to be done to apply for a STC to up the early J's to 2900? I'd happily fly the profiles, collect the data and write the test report. Or is this a non-starter without factory approval. I'm all for flying the approved envelope: in a case like this where it appears that the early J could have 160lbs more gross weight, and the newer ones already are flying that gross weight with the same motor and wing, seems like a logical step to go for an STC to make it legal. Disclaimer- I don't fly outside the legal limits, and would never advocate flying outside those limits. Quote
carusoam Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Jobe's making sense. How many people or what years can be benefitted by raising the GW to 2900#? Factory support could be available. The reason it was not at the time, certainly doesn't apply today. It may be worth a call? Best regards, -a- Quote
carusoam Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Our guy at the vintage aircraft works and tool shop might have some ideas? -a- Quote
aviatoreb Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 So, along the original lines: does anyone know what sort or testing / flight profiles would have to be done to apply for a STC to up the early J's to 2900? I'd happily fly the profiles, collect the data and write the test report. Or is this a non-starter without factory approval. I'm all for flying the approved envelope: in a case like this where it appears that the early J could have 160lbs more gross weight, and the newer ones already are flying that gross weight with the same motor and wing, seems like a logical step to go for an STC to make it legal. Disclaimer- I don't fly outside the legal limits, and would never advocate flying outside those limits. You are just the guy to do it too. I presume some kind of experimental test fly certificate would be required to test fly the envelopes. I am not sure why factory help would be required as it is the FAA that needs to be convinced, not the factory. I suppose factories original flight numbers would expedite the process. Anyone have any idea how much it costs to push through a paper stc? Quote
carusoam Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 If there are any specific parts that need to be changed, is what I meant to include the factory. First, any parts requiring change would need to be identified. If it's the rumored tubing thickness... -a- Quote
aaronk25 Posted February 8, 2013 Report Posted February 8, 2013 Count me in for upto $1000 for a early j stc. Think about the resale value of these birds. Even if it was only a 2,900 total gross weight increase it makes my m20j with empty weight of 1,780 have a useful load of 1,120lbs!!!!!! This is even better than it sounds because at 9.2 gph lop and 150ish kts the super efficent J needs less gas than most planes which means a higher percentage of that 1,120lbs can be butts and bags. This means with 40 gallons of fuel on board, 3 hours cruise with 1 hour reserve, I can haul 2 220lbs adults and 2 150lbs adults and still have 140lbs of luggage. This would be a typical mission for me as its normally another couple coming with. It would be possible to take another couple on vacation with us! 3 hours of cruise is plenty when there is a full cockpit because its a little to up and personal to be taking a leak in the "little john". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.