life insurance for aviators

[BrendAn]

16 minutes ago, BirdDog said:

My life insurance covers me for flying in my aircraft.

I actually have it stated - less than 100 hours annually, and I don't get anywhere near that.

 

 

thats excellent. 

[rgmwa]

On 08/05/2023 at 6:29 AM, turboplanner said:

The plaintiff claimed that if the fuel tank had been between the chassis rails instead of outside them, the fatality would not have occurred. From memory the Judge awarded the plaintiff $10 million with a punitive fine on Freightliner of $10 million. The fact that the space between the chassis rails is required by the prop shaft was not raised. 

In a second case a gas tanker rolled over, cracked and exploded. The lawyers for the plaintiffs came up with a tank design which had a smaller diameter over the fifth wheel allowing the main barrel to be lower ahead of the rear axles, and successfully argued that the lower net centre of gravity would have prevented the crash. No one pointed out that the smaller volume would have made the semi trailer non-viable, and also created a potential cracking point. Again, the awards were multi-million dollar compensation and pay out. 

 

How to they get away with that? Surely the manufacturer had an opportunity to point out these proposed `safer' design solutions that they should have implemented were not viable?

[BrendAn]

35 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

How to they get away with that? Surely the manufacturer had an opportunity to point out these proposed `safer' design solutions that they should have implemented were not viable?

all trucks have chassis mounted fuel tanks. i do not believe anyone would get awarded 10 million for that reason. 

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

How to they get away with that? Surely the manufacturer had an opportunity to point out these proposed `safer' design solutions that they should have implemented were not viable?

Not when it started, both those cases involved someone with the benefit of hindsight designing an alternative which would not have resulted in deaths. The penalties the Judges awarded were publicised around the world. Ralph Nader had started the movement against the industry attacking the Corvair design, but the industry quickly hit back and the legislation was made more reasonable.

[rgmwa]

6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Not when it started, both those cases involved someone with the benefit of hindsight designing an alternative which would not have resulted in deaths. The penalties the Judges awarded were publicised around the world. Ralph Nader had started the movement against the industry attacking the Corvair design, but the industry quickly hit back and the legislation was made more reasonable.

Designing an alternative that clearly doesn't work can hardly be claimed to be a safer design.  Didn't the manufacturer dispute the claim?

[turboplanner]

20 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

all trucks have chassis mounted fuel tanks. i do not believe anyone would get awarded 10 million for that reason. 

Well the fact was that a Judge did award $10 million punitive and $10 million compensation, and here 50 years later is another case where the position of the fuel tank behind the front wheels and under the cabin door along with other aspects is a key part of this later case: I haven't read the full context of the case or even checked what sort of case it is; I was looking for the Freightliner case from around 1970.  https://casetext.com/case/in-re-daimler-trucks-n-am-llc-6

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, rgmwa said:

Designing an alternative that clearly doesn't work can hardly be claimed to be a safer design.  Didn't the manufacturer dispute the claim?

Raph Nader started his campaign against the Corvair in about 1965, and Product liability started after that, and these were two of the first truck cases, so around 1970. I don't know what the manufacturer's did but it didn't help either of them, the judges found against both of them.

 

[turboplanner]

......."here 50 years later is another case where the position of the fuel tank behind the front wheels and under the cabin door along with other aspects is a key part of this later case"

 

Today we have mounting standards, tank construction standards, and a tank drop test to comply with, so we're somewhat protected.

[BrendAn]

14 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well the fact was that a Judge did award $10 million punitive and $10 million compensation, and here 50 years later is another case where the position of the fuel tank behind the front wheels and under the cabin door along with other aspects is a key part of this later case: I haven't read the full context of the case or even checked what sort of case it is; I was looking for the Freightliner case from around 1970.  https://casetext.com/case/in-re-daimler-trucks-n-am-llc-6

thats just wrong. where else can you put tanks on a truck. americans sue for anything.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

......."here 50 years later is another case where the position of the fuel tank behind the front wheels and under the cabin door along with other aspects is a key part of this later case"

 

Today we have mounting standards, tank construction standards, and a tank drop test to comply with, so we're somewhat protected.

my  isuzus have pretty well built tanks and my acco has a good tank but my man has a really thin wall tank on the left side, i ran over something a few months back and punched a hole in it. aftermarket 500 lt tank.  probably why roadtrains run steel tanks .

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

my  isuzus have pretty well built tanks and my acco has a good tank but my man has a really thin wall tank on the left side, i ran over something a few months back and punched a hole in it. aftermarket 500 lt tank.  probably why roadtrains run steel tanks .

For off road work we usually use different brackets and tanks - usually deigned for the specific application.

[BrendAn]

On 07/05/2023 at 4:07 PM, skippydiesel said:

Be "assured" if you live, death will surely follow.

 

As some have stated "Assurance Scheme's" were/are a way of saving/investing for a likely/certain event - all to often the investment did not occur, nor the return of premiums + in full/at all, when the claim was made. At best they are a way of helping people who have difficulty planning/saving,  at worst, they are a scam.

 

Insurance is a way of having sufficient funds ($$) to cover the costs associated with an unplanned/possible future event  eg car/aircraft crash.

 

If you are extraordinarily wealth, you probably don't need insurance, as you will have sufficient dosh to:

• A. employ the best lawyers, to avoid paying a claim against you
• B. sufficient ill gotten gains, to pay off any successful claim.
• NSW Gov. (being ridiculously wealthy) had/has a "managed fund" which pays out, to successful claims against the Gov

 

 

 

 

most transport companies with a large fleet are self insured because their premiums and excess become  so large after a few accidents its not viable to use an insurance company. i did work for the 3rd largest company in aus for a while and the boss told me they had thousands of accidents a year, the majority being low speed minor damage . i scraped a sill panel  on a hyundai i30. we thought it would be around $2000 for parts and labour. the claim turned into $14000. a complete ripoff between the insurance company and the panel shop which is owned by the insurance company.  all the larger panel shops are now owned by insurance companies, they win in every way. 

[spacesailor]

''  complete ripoff between the insurance company  '' .

I had the surprise of my life , when NRMA told me , '' they only use old secondhand parts on all vehicles that were older than 24 months old  '' .

Straight from then wreckers  !

 

and that was for a top quality well maintained vehicle .

spacesailor

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

''  complete ripoff between the insurance company  '' .

I had the surprise of my life , when NRMA told me , '' they only use old secondhand parts on all vehicles that were older than 24 months old  '' .

Straight from then wreckers  !

 

and that was for a top quality well maintained vehicle .

spacesailor

not only that. nrma own nationwide towing so they even make money towing your car to their repairer who will use their parts. good business model for them.

 

[old man emu]

In the parlance of Economics, it's called vertical integration. In common parlance it's called Up you, Jack.

[rgmwa]

NRMA recently took over SGIO in WA after moving across here a couple of years ago. Buying out the competition.

[skippydiesel]

19 hours ago, BirdDog said:

I think they look at it in a way that.... every hour in the air adds to the chances of an incident!  But I see your point.

Exposure (doing something more often) does increase the likely hood of an incident BUT the very same exposure, reduces the likelihood of an incident where skill & the maintenance thereof, is a factor (eg minimum of 3 take-off & landings within 90 days). 

[BrendAn]

had some good news yesterday. i rang about my life insurance policy again and told them to cancel it because i am not covered for any dangerous pastimes.

they went through the policy documents and discovered i am covered for all types of death. the last person who told me i wasn't covered was quoting limited life cover which is a very basic cover that only pays out if you die in your sleep pretty much and excludes anything you might enjoy doing. so now i have confirmation and a highlighted document showing that i am covered and do not need to look for other insurance.

[facthunter]

YOU don't get to spend it.  Nev

[BrendAn]

11 minutes ago, facthunter said:

YOU don't get to spend it.  Nev

That's true .

[onetrack]

That's a pretty good policy and a good company to cover you for anything - most insurance companies don't want to cover you for anything even remotely dangerous. I bet the premiums are pretty substantial, though.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Aviation loadings saved me from wasting money many years ago. I was told that I would have to pay more for gliding risks. When I asked for the actual figures, I was told that they had been worked out by those who were smarter than me.  In those days, I think that life insurance was a tax deduction.

 

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Aviation loadings saved me from wasting money many years ago. I was told that I would have to pay more for gliding risks. When I asked for the actual figures, I was told that they had been worked out by those who were smarter than me.  In those days, I think that life insurance was a tax deduction.

 

well if anything happens to me i want to leave my wife with something.  i have been paying this policy for years before i got interested in flying. i probably do pay too much but it gives me peace of mind. 

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

That's a pretty good policy and a good company to cover you for anything - most insurance companies don't want to cover you for anything even remotely dangerous. I bet the premiums are pretty substantial, though.

surprised me when they said i was covered. its not cheap, when you tick the box for diabetes type 2 they add 50 percent.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Is it a death -only policy brendan? What happens if you get turned into a vegetable?