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 yesterday 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 7 hours ago 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.