Insurance excess

[facthunter]

Instructors can't train on their own in RAAus. They have to operate in conjunction with an approved training Organisation. I also Have never Instructed VH outside an organisation. Another form of training is ICUS . In Command Under Instruction .You get this on line and even when you are carrying Pax. Junior Instructors don't send students solo till they have a certain  Level of experience. To be a CFI needs even more and you must do the PMI  exam..  I don't quite Know which statement you refer to specifically but the Instructor authorising you should take into account  your experience and recency  for the routine you are going to do and the weather conditions forecast. I have NEVER had radio contact prior arranged for any solo  aerial work.  I'm a great Believer in briefings before  flights. . The subject of Aircraft Insurance never came Up. I know Aircraft have been damaged ( fortunately None I've been involved with). I've never known of any person made to pay money for aircraft Damage.. The most worrying legal actions involve Members of  injured or Killed Pax families taking action against the Pilot as far as I'm Concerned. That's where the BIG figure$$$'s action is.. Be wary who you carry.  Nev

[BrendAn]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Instructors can't train on their own in RAAus. They have to operate in conjunction with an approved training Organisation. I also Have never Instructed VH outside an organisation. Another form of training is ICUS . In Command Under Instruction .You get this on line and even when you are carrying Pax. Junior Instructors don't send students solo till they have a certain  Level of experience. To be a CFI needs even more and you must do the PMI  exam..  I don't quite Know which statement you refer to specifically but the Instructor authorising you should take into account  your experience and recency  for the routine you are going to do and the weather conditions forecast. I have NEVER had radio contact prior arranged for any solo  aerial work.  I'm a great Believer in briefings before  flights. . The subject of Aircraft Insurance never came Up. I know Aircraft have been damaged ( fortunately None I've been involved with). I've never known of any person made to pay money for aircraft Damage.. The most worrying legal actions involve Members of  injured or Killed Pax families taking action against the Pilot as far as I'm Concerned. That's where the BIG figure$$$'s action is.. Be wary who you carry.  Nev

what i said about pic.  once the instructor sends you up solo you (the student) becomes pic. is that right. because there is no one else in the ac.

[facthunter]

That's how you LOG it in your Logbook. In Command. No If's or But's.  It doesn't mean you can just buzz off and do your own thing. THAT comes when you have your PPL (unrestricted)

[BrendAn]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

That's how you LOG it in your Logbook. In Command. No If's or But's.  It doesn't mean you can just buzz off and do your own thing. THAT comes when you have your PPL (unrestricted)

thanks, thats what i understood it to be.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

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.

No I would not agree. While it must be obvious, even to the non pilot, that the Instructor has greatly reduced his / her ability to intervene should the pilot get into serous difficulty, the fact remains,  that the Instructor is by design still PIC.

 

When the Instructor deems you sufficiently trained to go solo, this is for the most part an opinion (little empirical evidence) that takes in a multitude of factors regarding the students performance (which will continue to be closely monitored) however the student has not graduated. The first solo is but one of many test that the student may pass/fail, all under the (hopefully) watchful eye of the Instructor. It is also a great rick to the Instructor, who in most cases would seek to mitigate this by being as sure as can be, that the student is up to the task.

 

I have agreed , in part, that under the usual training regimes, it makes sense that a student  graduate to PIC with limited privileges. This would enable the student, subject to Instructor oversight, to practise solo stall in the training regime, many touch-&-goes, flapless approaches, glide approaches etc

 

All current pilots will recall the steady considered relaxing of the Instructors control.

 

When I did my first solo X Country -Started the day early at the flight school. Given two destinations well to the north. I had to do the whole whole flight plan, landings, including fuel, W&B, weather, alternates under the critical eye of my Instructor. Explain the rational for every decision. Took hours. It was a relief to take off on my round trip. Several hours later, I returned. Instructor grilled me on every section, radio calls, expected/actual weather, engine performance, fuel used, etc. my observations, including never to be forgotten  unexpectedly running into a "gaggle " of gliders at/above/below my cruise altitude,  near Narromine (non of whom responded to my panicked Area Frequency calls. I did not leave the flight school until late afternoon - I think it might have been a two hour flight that took 6-8 hrs of my Instructors direct involvement.  My point is my Instructor (the best!) was involved in ALL stages of my flight training.

 

I don't recall being given a limited PIC for the training area but may be I did.

 

The apparently simple question you have posed is - When is the student deemed sufficiently skilled/knowledgeable to be held accountable for his/her actions. The answer can only be when the Instructor is satisfied they posse an acceptable (minimal) risk to themselves, other pilots,  the public & the expensive asset called an aircraft.

From an insurance perspective, my contention is simple - when the Instructor signs them off as a PIC & the authorities issue a valid license/certificate. Then & only then can they be held whole responsible, in the event of an incident.

Anything lees means that the student is to a greater/lesser degree, under the responsibility  umbrella of the Instructor.😈

[facthunter]

The big chance comes when the Pilot up front goes sick and you come to the rescue. Log it as "In Command".  You can. Nev

[facthunter]

What you have just Posted there Skippy is your OPINION..  Nev

[BurnieM]

This discussion appears to be about ‘what is a good idea/casa requirement when learning to fly’.

 

The actual question asked was ‘who has legal liability and therefore should pay’.

 

[facthunter]

TOO much Legal action and nobody Fly's. USA Nearly Killed Off  General Aviation with  excess litigation at one stage. Nev

[djpacro]

16 hours ago, BrendAn said:

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. ..... It is up to you to complete the flight in safe manner.

Yes.

I know of several incidents where a student took an aeroplane without being authorised by an instructor. One resulted in a bad crash at Moorabbin. Another took my aeroplane from a flight school to fly without authority, fortunately, no accident - but if there was, only one party was involved throughout to write a name on the insurance claim. Both were pilot in command, obviously.

[BrendAn]

13 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Yes.

I know of several incidents where a student took an aeroplane without being authorised by an instructor. One resulted in a bad crash at Moorabbin. Another took my aeroplane from a flight school to fly without authority, fortunately, no accident - but if there was, only one party was involved throughout to write a name on the insurance claim. Both were pilot in command, obviously.

I am talking about solo training. The student is pic because the instructor is not in the AC.

 

Regarding your comments above wouldn't that be a police matter as well. Theft of the aircraft, especially the one that crashed.

[skippydiesel]

48 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Yes.

I know of several incidents where a student took an aeroplane without being authorised by an instructor. One resulted in a bad crash at Moorabbin. Another took my aeroplane from a flight school to fly without authority, fortunately, no accident - but if there was, only one party was involved throughout to write a name on the insurance claim. Both were pilot in command, obviously.

"Both were pilot in command, obviously.'

There is nothing "obvious" about it and as far as I am concerned completely wrong. 

The two acts you describe were criminal.

That the people involved had some flight training does not confer PIC status.

If they had been a couple of car jackers wishing to upgrade, would you call them PIC's ? No of course not.

Air law is derived from The Law of the Sea. You steal a boat - does that make you captain??

 

Physical control of an aircraft does not translate into Pilot In Command.

 

PIC confers legal privileges & responsibilities. Physical control alone is just that - no legal status or responsibilities.😈

[clouddancer]

There is a difference in the RAAus syllabus about solo at a competency standard of 3, controlled conditions and direct supervision of the instructor, yes the time is logged by the student ss PIC, but the instructor is authorising the flight and supervising the student.

Once the RPC or RPL is issued, the pilot is authorising and responsible for the entire flight, unless under training for a nav endorsement, where they revert back to being a student being authorised to fly beyond 25 nm.

clear as mud?

[BrendAn]

6 minutes ago, clouddancer said:

There is a difference in the RAAus syllabus about solo at a competency standard of 3, controlled conditions and direct supervision of the instructor, yes the time is logged by the student ss PIC, but the instructor is authorising the flight and supervising the student.

Once the RPC or RPL is issued, the pilot is authorising and responsible for the entire flight, unless under training for a nav endorsement, where they revert back to being a student being authorised to fly beyond 25 nm.

clear as mud?

I started this thread purely to outline who is subject to being slugged with the insurance excess.  As I have been told by my Aero club. Raaus insurance broker and raaus , technically the pic is responsible no matter if they have gained RPC or not. It is up to the school or club to pursue them for the excess in the event of a claim. I also know this to be true because it happened last week to someone I know.

[djpacro]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Regarding your comments above wouldn't that be a police matter as well. Theft of the aircraft, especially the one that crashed.

They weren't regarded as police matters, rather failures of the flight schools' systems. No instructor authorisation. An example of insurance excess considerations. I agree, a departure from the rest of our discussion.

 

Quote

The student is pic because the instructor is not in the AC.

CASA's legal definition, per Part 61 (so not RAA) of a "pilot" means "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." When solo, the student is the pilot, the only person, the only pilot in the aeroplane. So, yes, the pilot in command.

 

In CASRs Part 61 and Parts 141/142 (which don't apply to RAA), an instructor has obligations in approving a solo flight by a student. Then off they go on their merry ways, nil obligation to supervise the flight. On completion of a flight the instructor would take an interest in what was undertaken for the training records of progress.

 

Instructors do like to sit on the bench outside with a radio and observe a first solo (and listen to radio calls). 

[skippydiesel]

djpacro

 

CASA's legal definition, per Part 61 (so not RAA) of a "pilot" means "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." When solo, the student is the pilot, the only person, the only pilot in the aeroplane. So, yes, the pilot in command.

 

I thing you are taking liberties with the CASA definition & the English language - "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." does not automatically confer Pilot In Command status

The word Command, in the context of legal operation of an aircraft, describes much more than "..authorised to manipulate the flight controls..."😈

 

 

[Blueadventures]

This would be an excellent topic in 'Sport Pilot" with some scenario examples.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

djpacro

 

CASA's legal definition, per Part 61 (so not RAA) of a "pilot" means "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." When solo, the student is the pilot, the only person, the only pilot in the aeroplane. So, yes, the pilot in command.

 

I thing you are taking liberties with the CASA definition & the English language - "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." does not automatically confer Pilot In Command status

The word Command, in the context of legal operation of an aircraft, describes much more than "..authorised to manipulate the flight controls..."😈

 

 

I don't understand how you can't accept the pic is the person in the aircraft on their own no matter what stage of training. It can't be anything else.

[skippydiesel]

26 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

I started this thread purely to outline who is subject to being slugged with the insurance excess.  As I have been told by my Aero club. Raaus insurance broker and raaus , technically the pic is responsible no matter if they have gained RPC or not. It is up to the school or club to pursue them for the excess in the event of a claim. I also know this to be true because it happened last week to someone I know.

 

My thanks - this is a great topic & learning exercise.

 

I believe your Aero Club has no legal foundation for charging a student the excess.

As for the RAA's broker - They have nothing to say about this. Their sole interest is selling insurance for a fee that will generate a profit. They have no status or interest in the "excess" and who pays it, as it is excluded from any pay-out that may be lodged.

Insurers only interest in the legal status of the pilot, is if this can in some way reduce the pay-out.😈

 

 

[djpacro]

18 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

djpacro

 

I thing you are taking liberties with the CASA definition & the English language - "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." does not automatically confer Pilot In Command status

True, a pilot must be authorised by someone to be PIC.

 

The thing about the definition of PIC is that it can onlty be a pilot in the aeroplane during that flight. So, for a solo student flight, it is obvious that the student is authorised to be the PIC, as there are no other options.

[facthunter]

Skip, You are just repeating what YOUR BELIEF is. To stay in business, the Organisation decides to Insure things. The next thing is how that cost is applied and who should PAY what. IF you (The Client) don't like the deal then go elsewhere..  Nev

[facthunter]

CASA definition of the PIC is not that great or useful. In multi crew cockpits it's PF and PNF when defining duties.   The co-pilot will fly some legs but when push comes to shove the PIC doesn't change. 

 One ship, One Captain.   The conduct of a flight is not just Moving flight Controls. It's about management of the whole process. .  When the Co Pilot fly's the Leg He/She DOESN'T log it as "in command".  Nev

[skippydiesel]

"The thing about the definition of PIC is that it can onlty be a pilot in the aeroplane during that flight. So, for a solo student flight, it is obvious that the student is authorised to be the PIC, as there are no other options."

 

At the risk of enhancing my reputation for pedantry;

The student pilot does not meet the requirements for Command.  "manipulation" yes, subject to the limited authorisation and supervision of the Instructor. Limited in that the student must follow the Instructors direction, which does not go beyond the agreed flight plan.

 

To Command you must satisfy the authorities that you meet the standard to do so. It is clear that the student does not meet this standard.

 

Command confers rights, privileges and responsibilities that, for the most part, the student does not have.

 

Similarly the student has rights, chief amongst them is that they are not expected to demonstrate the skills/knowledge of the fully qualified. This in tern reduces their responsibility for any incident that may occur while being trained.

 

You are at liberty to use the words pilot in command for anyone (including the thief) who manipulates the controls of an aircarft in flight,  however this is sloppy language that does not appropriately describe the legal status of the non licensed pilot.

 

Analogies come at the risk of (often deliberate) misinterpretation:

A learner driver is not responsible for any incident (unless wilful intent proven) while under instruction.

You do not drive a farm tractor, you operate it as part of an integrated system. It is not a car/truck - words matter.😈

[facthunter]

You are just "muddying the waters" with all those other Irrelevant comparisons.

  Let's say a crew are incapacitated in flight. They both ate a similar chicken Meal for lunch. They are both in a bad way.

  The chief Flight attendant asks are there any people with flying experience on board.  A passenger calls  and it turns out he has some hours a while back on Cessna's so HE ends up in the seat up front. The ATC fellow asks Who is flying the plane? It's HIM as he's the Only one who is available.  No one is going to say your Licence doesn't cover this Plane and it's not current either and he has no medical.  Working with ATC and other sources on the ground, situations like this have had successful outcomes.  Sometimes the BOOK goes out the window and compromise works. Nev

[djpacro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

At the risk of enhancing my reputation for pedantry;

The student pilot does not meet the requirements for Command. .......

To Command you must satisfy the authorities that you meet the standard to do so. ......

Easily resolved, just ask CASA https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us