Insurance excess

[skippydiesel]

You seem to be focuses on this idea that the student will cover the cost of an accident (hull insurance). This is implausible.

 

The rest of this insurance "stuff" you are going on about is RAA 3rd party - assuming the student is a member he/she will have some cover from this but will not cover the aircraft for damage. This has little to nothing to do with airframe/aircraft insurance as such.

 

The aircraft & its insurance is the responsibility of the flight school/owner.

 

The flight school/owner may include a charge that compensates ,  for the cost of providing the insurance, along wit the rest of the aircraft & its running cost. If they are smart this would just be part of the hourly aircraft charge & not a separate cost to the student.

 

😈

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

You seem to be focuses on this idea that the student will cover the cost of an accident (hull insurance). This is implausible.

 

The rest of this insurance "stuff" you are going on about is RAA 3rd party - assuming the student is a member he/she will have some cover from this but will not cover the aircraft for damage. This has little to nothing to do with airframe/aircraft insurance as such.

 

The aircraft & its insurance is the responsibility of the flight school/owner.

 

The flight school/owner may include a charge that compensates ,  for the cost of providing the insurance, along wit the rest of the aircraft & its running cost. If they are smart this would just be part of the hourly aircraft charge & not a separate cost to the student.

 

😈

why are you so agressive. i got all my information today off people far more qualified than you and i  so i will believe them . thanks for the rabbits.

Edited Friday at 07:47 AM by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

16 hours ago, BrendAn said:

why are you so agressive. i got all my information today off people far more qualified than you and i  so i will believe them . thanks for the rabbits.

Aggressive????  Look up Aggressive. Then look up Assertive.

 

Your earlier correct statement "I would have thought the student would not be held responsible. "

 

The one & only way a student pilot could be held accountable for hull  and or third party damage, would be if the damage was caused by a deliberate (criminal) act. Even then, the insurers will likly "pay out" to the injured partie(s) while the student ends up in court.

 

The flight school  must carry insurance for their activities. Their activities are all about training pilots. The instructor is PIC. The student is not responsible for their flight failures, whatever the outcome, the PIC is.

 

Where is the understanding problem?

 

😈

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Aggressive????  Look up Aggressive. Then look up Assertive.

 

Your earlier correct statement "I would have thought the student would not be held responsible. "

 

The one & only way a student pilot could be held accountable for hull  and or third party damage, would be if the damage was caused by a deliberate (criminal) act. Even then, the insurers will likly "pay out" to the injured partie(s) while the student ends up in court.

 

The flight school  must carry insurance for their activities. Their activities are all about training pilots. The instructor is PIC. The student is not responsible for their flight failures, whatever the outcome, the PIC is.

 

Where is the understanding problem?

 

😈

You are completely misunderstanding what I said. I am busy ATM. Will explain what I  am talking about after.

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Aggressive????  Look up Aggressive. Then look up Assertive.

 

Your earlier correct statement "I would have thought the student would not be held responsible. "

 

The one & only way a student pilot could be held accountable for hull  and or third party damage, would be if the damage was caused by a deliberate (criminal) act. Even then, the insurers will likly "pay out" to the injured partie(s) while the student ends up in court.

 

The flight school  must carry insurance for their activities. Their activities are all about training pilots. The instructor is PIC. The student is not responsible for their flight failures, whatever the outcome, the PIC is.

 

Where is the understanding problem?

 

😈

now let's uncross the wires.   i rang all the correct people to make sure i understood where a student pilot stands because it never gets a mention.

 

1. the instructor  is always pic if in the aircraft. that makes him responsible for the insurance excess if there is a mishap.

 

2. as soon as the instructor gets out and the student becomes pic then student is responsible  for insurance excess.

 

3. of course the flight school must have insurance , that is not in question. this is all about who pays excess.

 

4. i think flying schools with huge excess should be made to tell the students before they fly.

 

[skippydiesel]

"2. as soon as the instructor gets out and the student becomes pic then student is responsible  for  excess."

 

I stand to be corrected -The student is at all times under the supervision of the Instructor/PIC this makes the Instructor responsible, even when the student is going/has gone solo but is yet to fly without supervision.

 

I got my PPL in GA, later seeing the light, converted to RAA, so not entirely sure of the whole RAA training system however in GA ,even when the student goes on his/her solo X country and X country to a complex airport (ATC) he/she is still just a student under the instructors/PIC supervision.

 

I would go so far as to say, a student can never be a PIC, until such time as they qualify as a licensed/certified pilot. To suggest otherwise is a complete contradiction of what is understood by being a PIC😈

Edited Saturday at 06:24 AM by skippydiesel

[Red]

22 hours ago, BrendAn said:

owning four trucks you get to know about insurance .

So why did you need to call someone to explain what 3rd party insurance actually covered?

 

[djpacro]

3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

now let's uncross the wires.   i rang all the correct people to make sure i understood where a student pilot stands because it never gets a mention.

 

1. the instructor  is always pic if in the aircraft. that makes him responsible for the insurance excess if there is a mishap.

 

2. as soon as the instructor gets out and the student becomes pic then student is responsible  for insurance excess.

 

3. of course the flight school must have insurance , that is not in question. this is all about who pays excess.

 

4. i think flying schools with huge excess should be made to tell the students before they fly.

 

My observations from working as an instructor at several CASA approved flight schools and one combined CASA/RAA is:

1. The instructor will never be responsible for the insurance excess, being the employee of the flight school.
2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident).
3. When I went to do some flying in a Gazelle to gain my RAA certificate I leant that the aircraft was not insured, it just had the RAA third party cover.
4. When a pilot signs that they have read the T&Cs before they go flying then they have confirmed that they have been told about the insurance excess. The excess for my airplane is $2500 - huge for some people but similar to hiring a car of very muich lower value.

[BrendAn]

23 minutes ago, Red said:

So why did you need to call someone to explain what 3rd party insurance actually covered?

 

Read the post and you might understand. 

[BrendAn]

19 minutes ago, djpacro said:

My observations from working as an instructor at several CASA approved flight schools and one combined CASA/RAA is:

1. The instructor will never be responsible for the insurance excess, being the employee of the flight school.
2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident).
3. When I went to do some flying in a Gazelle to gain my RAA certificate I leant that the aircraft was not insured, it just had the RAA third party cover.
4. When a pilot signs that they have read the T&Cs before they go flying then they have confirmed that they have been told about the insurance excess. The excess for my airplane is $2500 - huge for some people but similar to hiring a car of very muich lower value.

Point 1. I have been told the instructor definitely is liable for the excess if he is pic. I doubt any school would ask for it though. Instructors are hard to get.

 

Point 2. Is pretty much what I have learnt.

 

Point 3. There is no 3rd party cover for raa aircraft. The member liability policy is for the member and not aircraft. Although that may be what you are saying.  Raa members have 3rd party in any raa registered ac.

 

Point 4 . Correct. Same as hiring any vehicle or equipment.

[BrendAn]

Thanks to everyone who has replied this topic. 

It is something that can effect every student but never gets much thought .

I know I never gave it a thought until now.

[skippydiesel]

"2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident)."

 

I don't bet but I recon it would be a sure bet, that if it ever came to a court to decide,  an unlicensed student pilot is ALWAYS under supervision when conducting a training flight and by definition can not be a PIC.

 

Any other interpretation is attempting to have it both ways - Student without command privileges to be held to account for an incident, while under supervision of an instructor. No way on earth!

 

You can sign all the paper work you like, but you can not sign away your rights under law. The best the the flight school, conducting this practise, could ever hope for, is some small reduction in their own liability.

• A student can not fly an aircraft without supervision, no matter how physically distant that supervision may be.
• An instructor must authorise the flight. In so doing he/she is acknowledging their responsibility for the safe conduct of that flight by the student.
• The student can not legally hire the aircraft, to go solo, without the instructors authorisation. I would even question that the student is hiring the aircraft - arguably the instructor is hiring. That the payment is by the student is irrelevant.
• Ergo the instructor is the responsible pilot in command (PIC)

 

Who pays for insurance access will depend on factors such as, is the instructor an employee or self employed. What does the insurance actually cover. Who is the insured party, aircraft owner or flight school, How much & what type of damage has been incurred.

 

I cant see the student paying (assuming survival) at any time, unless its through some feeling of personal responsibly ie voluntary contribution.

 

In the event of it being demonstrated that the student did not fly as instructed eg keep to an agreed flight plan, there may be grounds for the student to be found culpable.

😈

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

"2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident)."

 

I don't bet but I recon it would be a sure bet, that if it ever came to a court to decide,  an unlicensed student pilot is ALWAYS under supervision when conducting a training flight and by definition can not be a PIC.

 

Any other interpretation is attempting to have it both ways - Student without command privileges to be held to account for an incident, while under supervision of an instructor. No way on earth!

 

You can sign all the paper work you like, but you can not sign away your rights under law. The best the the flight school, conducting this practise, could ever hope for, is some small reduction in their own liability.

• A student can not fly an aircraft without supervision, no matter how physically distant that supervision may be.
• An instructor must authorise the flight. In so doing he/she is acknowledging their responsibility for the safe conduct of that flight by the student.
• The student can not legally hire the aircraft, to go solo, without the instructors authorisation. I would even question that the student is hiring the aircraft - arguably the instructor is hiring. That the payment is by the student is irrelevant.
• Ergo the instructor is the responsible pilot in command (PIC)

 

Who pays for insurance access will depend on factors such as, is the instructor an employee or self employed. What does the insurance actually cover. Who is the insured party, aircraft owner or flight school, How much & what type of damage has been incurred.

 

I cant see the student paying (assuming survival) at any time, unless its through some feeling of personal responsibly ie voluntary contribution.

 

In the event of it being demonstrated that the student did not fly as instructed eg keep to an agreed flight plan, there may be grounds for the student to be found culpable.

😈

if the student is flying solo they certainly do pay the excess.  i know of 2 that have. and the raa insurance broker told me this is correct. 

[Underwood]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

if the student is flying solo they certainly do pay the excess.  i know of 2 that have. and the raa insurance broker told me this is correct. 

This one of those 'maybe' matters rather than a certainty, Shirley?

Worth looking in to when training, I'll admit it was not on mind at all when I learnt

 

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, BrendAn said:

if the student is flying solo they certainly do pay the excess.  i know of 2 that have. and the raa insurance broker told me this is correct. 

Lets be clear here;

 

A. Are you saying that the flight school demanded an additional payment to cover  insurance "excess"?

OR

B. There were two, student instigated, incidents where the flight school demanded payment to cover the excess portion of the damage claim?

 

A. It would be understandable & acceptable that the flight school may seek additional payment (towards insurance) for a perceived increased risk. That it is a very bad customer relations to make this a separate charge is their stupidity - should be incorporated in the overall cost.

B. I would suggest this was an illegal demand, by the flight school, that would not stand up in court.😈

[facthunter]

LAWYERS are there to work out these matters. A flying school won't be around long if it doesn't cover it's costs. You rent a car and Prang it and you pay the  excess or Pay extra to cover it before hand.  when solo you are the PIC and you log it that way. Supervised solo is specific to the nature of THAT flight. You do what you were authorised (and trained) to do which will be broader as you progress.  Example Solo spinning when permitted  and your SOLO X- Country. . IF say the engine failed I wouldn't see making the excess payment warranted unless your handling caused the failure. Schools don't like having tailwheelers on Line and Insurance Companies want evidence of experience before they will Insure you. It's an Actuarial assessment. The More risk the greater the fee. The "Student Licence" is an ICAO recognised/conforming document.   Nev 

[onetrack]

19 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

.........

I would go so far as to say, a student can never be a PIC, until such time as they qualify as a licensed/certified pilot. To suggest otherwise is a complete contradiction of what is understood by being a PIC😈

A student must be the PIC, once the instructor steps out of the aircraft. How could an instructor regain control from a student committing errors, if he's on the ground? The instructor is reliant on the student following instructions and his training methods, once the instructor departs the aircraft. The insurance policy terms are supplied in the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), which is one of the most important documents you could ever read.

 

A good flying school would make sure the student is fully conversant with the terms and conditions of his training contract - and it is a contract, even if nothing is supplied by a legally-deficient school - and a good school would provide a copy of the insurance PDS, ensuring the student is fully aware of when he's liable, and under what circumstances.

 

The grey areas would start when a student trains under a "self-employed instructor" who is not a flying school employee - or where a student employs an instructor individually, and hires an aircraft to train in. These two situations would become an insurance minefield.

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Lets be clear here;

 

A. Are you saying that the flight school demanded an additional payment to cover  insurance "excess"?

OR

B. There were two, student instigated, incidents where the flight school demanded payment to cover the excess portion of the damage claim?

 

A. It would be understandable & acceptable that the flight school may seek additional payment (towards insurance) for a perceived increased risk. That it is a very bad customer relations to make this a separate charge is their stupidity - should be incorporated in the overall cost.

B. I would suggest this was an illegal demand, by the flight school, that would not stand up in court.😈

a. i said nothing like that.

 

b.correct. had to pay insurance excess.

 

. the topic is insurance excess and who pays. 

 

 

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

A student must be the PIC, once the instructor steps out of the aircraft. How could an instructor regain control from a student committing errors, if he's on the ground? The instructor is reliant on the student following instructions and his training methods, once the instructor departs the aircraft. The insurance policy terms are supplied in the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), which is one of the most important documents you could ever read.

 

A good flying school would make sure the student is fully conversant with the terms and conditions of his training contract - and it is a contract, even if nothing is supplied by a legally-deficient school - and a good school would provide a copy of the insurance PDS, ensuring the student is fully aware of when he's liable, and under what circumstances.

 

The grey areas would start when a student trains under a "self-employed instructor" who is not a flying school employee - or where a student employs an instructor individually, and hires an aircraft to train in. These two situations would become an insurance minefield.

this is what skippy can't get past. the student is pic on his own.  also the last 2 hours of rpc are called un supervised solo, practice exiting and entering circuits.

[BrendAn]

21 hours ago, Red said:

So why did you need to call someone to explain what 3rd party insurance actually covered?

 

red what i was unsure about was whether the raa members third party covered aircraft that are not your own. because it could be considered third party if you don't own it.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

A student must be the PIC, once the instructor steps out of the aircraft. How could an instructor regain control from a student committing errors,....................................................................................................

....................................................................................

The grey areas would start when a student trains under a "self-employed instructor" who is not a flying school employee - or where a student employs an instructor individually, and hires an aircraft to train in. These two situations would become an insurance minefield.

"A student must be the PIC" -

By definition a student can not be PIC. I will accept that a Restricted (Training Area) License/Certificate does confer some PIC privileges & responsibilities - see below 

 

"How could an instructor regain control from a student committing errors, if he's on the ground?" -

 

Thank you for this. The instructor must be confident that the student will not only be able to take-off/land safely, will also follow the predetermined/discussed/documented plan.

For first solo/circuits, the instructor will be able to communicate, via transceiver, with the student. Ergo the Instructor is in charge/responsible.

This will not be so when the student does his/her first X country however by this time the student may have received a restricted PPL, RAL/RAA Certificate conferring some PIC privileges within the training area. The dynamics of who can hire an aircraft & be responsible for any incident/damage changes at the elevation of the student to a PIC, to something like what you are suggesting. However there is still a responsibility by the school/instructor, regarding any incident that occur while the student is on his/her X County. This responsibility may be mitigated by a whole range of possible scenarios eg Student enters controlled airspace without correct procedures  - claims inadequate training. School able to show that student received adequate training - no penalty. Student enters IMC and is killed - School & may be Instructor likly held wholly or at least significantly responsible - significant penalty

 

"A good flying school would make sure the student is fully conversant with the terms and conditions of his training contract - and it is a contract, even if nothing is supplied by a legally-deficient school - and a good school would provide a copy of the insurance PDS, ensuring the student is fully aware of when he's liable, and under what circumstances."

 

Fair enough WHEN the student has a License/Certificate.

As previously stated in Australia you can not sign away the your rights or the responsibilities of the service provider. In the case of an unlicensed certified student these would be greater than for a restricted Licence./Certificate holder. 

It is common for service providers to proffer a form, for the customer to sign, stating that the customer will not hold the service provider culpable for any incident that may befall them (ie waving all their rights)- COMPETE WAST OF PAPER.

Most business/clubs will have a document, introducing the aspiring member/customer/student to the organisations structure, code of conduct etc - signing this is just saying you agree to conform/abide by what is stated  (it gives legal ground for dismissal in the event that the Club feels you have transgressed)- it doe not remove the rights & obligations under law.

 

"The grey areas would start when a student trains under a "self-employed instructor" who is not a flying school employee - or where a student employs an instructor individually, and hires an aircraft to train in." -

 

Naaa!. The responsibilities will be the same for a employed/self employed instructor. Employed - His/her lability may change, in that the school will be held partially/totally responsible depending on a number of factors. Self Employed - He/she will "carry the whole can".

 

"........hires an aircraft to train in". -

 

I doubt that any aircraft hire business, will hire an aircraft to an unlicensed pilot - An instructor would have to sign off on it - making him/her responsible.

 

In all matters, relating to insurance claims/legal responsibility, there is what I called the chain... The chain is the list of parties that may have had responsibility/input to the incident. From the chain there will be judged degrees of culpability from 0% -100%. The more links, the likelihood that no one will bear the total cost (100%)

 

😈

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:42 AM by skippydiesel

[aro]

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As previously stated in Australia you can not sign away the your rights or the responsibilities of the service provider.

The first step is what does the contract you have signed/accepted say? In theory, the student could be liable for everything regardless of who is PIC. An example where that might be likely is if the student owns the aircraft.

 

You might have rights you can't sign away (consult a lawyer on that one), but to enforce them might require suing the instructor. As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, aro said:

The first step is what does the contract you have signed/accepted say? In theory, the student could be liable for everything regardless of who is PIC. An example where that might be likely is if the student owns the aircraft.

 

You might have rights you can't sign away (consult a lawyer on that one), but to enforce them might require suing the instructor. As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that.

I take your point about the student owning the aircraft however this is not going to be cut & dried eg The student (or intersted parties if dead) may contest the competence of the student to solo. Instructor/school would have to provide evidence contradicting this assertion. The Instructor would have to be convinced of the aircrafts airworthiness, etc, etc

 

"(consult a lawyer on that one)" - I did! Not for this scenario however the judgement that you can not sign away your rights or the responsibility of the service provider, remains applicable to all such situations. I think such a signed contract, for a perceived high risk activity, might reduce any penalty - the injured, in full knowledge (?), having agreed to participation in the said activity.

However if the injured were able to demonstrate, say negligence causing/contributing to, the contract may have little if any bearing (assuming that the contract did not state that the service provider is negligent ie student saw the paragraph stating Instructor negligent at all times, aircraft unsafe due to lack of servicing/etc, etc).

 

"require suing the instructor" - May be. Some states have stronger Work Place & Safety Regulator than others - the WPSR may sue or some such other intersted authority CASA?.

 

"As far as who is initially responsible for paying for damage, you can very easily create a contract that specifies that."

 

As stated earlier, a student (I am accepting that a limited license may modify this, to what extent will depend on a range of factors) with no restricted  license/certificate, can not wave his/her rights. They will be under the supervision/responsibility of an Instructor at all times, who may or not share responsibility with an employer, if one exists.

 

The matter will get very cloudy when the Instructor is a subcontractor/casual employee - definitely court/lawyer fodder.

 

Knowing what I know now - As, an ab initio pilot (student), I would be very leery about a flight school/Instructor, who sought to abdicate their responsibility to keep me safe at all times,  within the context of flight training (As I understand it the risks for a pilot at this stage are very low)

 

😈

Edited Sunday at 06:00 AM by skippydiesel

[BrendAn]

Knowing what I know now - As, an ab initio pilot (student), I would be very leery about a flight school/Instructor, who sought to abdicate their to keep me safe at all times,  within the context of flight training (As I understand it the risks for a pilot at this stage are very low.

.....................................................

Would you not agree that when the instructor deems you competent to solo and  gets out of the aircraft he is shifting the responsibility of your safety to you because as the only person in the AC you become pic. An instructor can only do so much from the ground with a handheld. It is up to you to complete the flight in safe manner.

Edited Sunday at 06:06 AM by BrendAn

[BrendAn]

On 07/06/2025 at 4:38 PM, djpacro said:

My observations from working as an instructor at several CASA approved flight schools and one combined CASA/RAA is:

1. The instructor will never be responsible for the insurance excess, being the employee of the flight school.
2. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident).
3. When I went to do some flying in a Gazelle to gain my RAA certificate I leant that the aircraft was not insured, it just had the RAA third party cover.
4. When a pilot signs that they have read the T&Cs before they go flying then they have confirmed that they have been told about the insurance excess. The excess for my airplane is $2500 - huge for some people but similar to hiring a car of very muich lower value.

i would like to know from you and nev. both instructors. is my last comment correct about solo flights.