Insurance excess

[facthunter]

Insurance Cover Costs put Riding schools out of Business..  Nev

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

When renting a car the insurance excess will be spelled out before the agreement is signed by the renter. If that hasn't happened with the student pilot then they would not be liable. 

its in the hire agreement.  remember we are only talking solo students not with an instructor.

[BrendAn]

4 hours ago, johnm said:

apart from the rock throwing (all directions) ............ thanks Brendan - somthing to note

 

.......... could be the answer - lets ask some flight schools and see what they say about how they treat any insurance excess - and post 

i have asked a flight school and raaus and the raaus insurance broker.

skippy is just going around in circles with red following him, thats why i got cranky.

i think schools need to clearly explain what excess the   (solo) student is liable for in the event of a mishap.

that is all i am suggesting, then the student can decide if it is worth the risk.

my aero club look at the incident and can decide to not ask for excess if they choose.

normal excess is 1250 to 5000 at this club.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

5 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

its in the hire agreement.  remember we are only talking solo students not with an instructor.

How does this work - student, who cant legally fly, hires aircraft. Student takes of without instructor he did not hire. Student writes off aircraft and him/herself. Who is responsible. Even vehicle hire companies wont hire to someone who cant show a valid license to drive. Flight School held responsible. End of Flight School.

 

This is all BS -

Pay for hire, yes but must have qualified pilot to hire ego MUST have qualified Instructor if expecting to sit in left seat and receive tuition.

How the school manages aircraft & Instructor hire is an internal matter for them - should not be put on student.

 

I say again - any Flight School that is entering into this practise is on shaky legal ground.😈

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

How does this work - student, who cant legally fly, hires aircraft. Student takes of without instructor he did not hire. Student writes off aircraft and him/herself. Who is responsible. Even vehicle hire companies wont hire to someone who cant show a valid license to drive. Flight School held responsible. End of Flight School.

 

This is all BS -

Pay for hire, yes but must have qualified pilot to hire ego MUST have qualified Instructor if expecting to sit in left seat and receive tuition.

How the school manages aircraft & Instructor hire is an internal matter for them - should not be put on student.

 

I say again - any Flight School that is entering into this practise is on shaky legal ground.😈

bs it maybe, but it is the truth.

[facthunter]

Is that an opinion or based on legal advice?  Nev

[BrendAn]

 Aero Club reserves the right to recover the excess in the Insurance Policy for Aero
Club’s aircraft or any other aircraft operated by the  Aero Club should the aircraft be damaged during
your hire period.

 

this is out of the club hire agreement with name omitted.

Edited 4 hours ago by BrendAn

[facthunter]

There's NOTHING remarkable about THAT.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

11 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

i have asked a flight school and raaus and the raaus insurance broker. - Either vested interest or no interest at all

skippy is just going around in circles with red following him, thats why i got cranky. No circles my friend - straight down the line all the way. You just don't like entertaining an opinion that varies from your own.

i think schools need to clearly explain what excess the   (solo) student is liable for in the event of a mishap. Explanation does not necessarily legitimise what is likly a SCAM practise 

that is all i am suggesting, then the student can decide if it is worth the risk. The student (by definition new to the industry) may not be in a position to make a good decision. May feel pressured to agree - its called coercion. 

my aero club look at the incident and can decide to not ask for excess if they choose. Discretion to SCAM or not to SCAM does not make the practise legitimate

normal excess is 1250 to 5000 at this club. The very fact that there is a sliding scale increases the stink - What is the criteria  for low-high payment? Who gets to decide? Are they truly impartial?

 

 

You are the one seeming to accept/make a case for what is basically a SCAM activity- That is the practise of demanding a STUDENT pilot take on part of the RESPONSABILITY and  insurance RISK for the aircraft/flight.

 

I on the other hand, have clearly articulated that the very concept of a STUDENT being held responsible, to any degree, for an incident , is contrary to the idea that an untrained person can be responsible, when under the supervision of a qualified Instructor.

 

Further - I have pointed out that the practise (if it exists) of having the student pay for the excess component of an insurance claim, is in effect DOUBLE DIPPING by the flight school. This in itself is likly illegal.

 

One day it will end up in court and I would bet, the flight school will come undone😈

[facthunter]

We are just  repeating the same old statements. The person going solo is also able to assess that he/she knows enough to do what he/she has been taught and not attempt what they know little (or nothing ) about. That applies to ANY flight at any time for Recreational Pilots.  You don't HAVE to fly. Nev

[BrendAn]

32 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

 

You are the one seeming to accept/make a case for what is basically a SCAM activity- That is the practise of demanding a STUDENT pilot take on part of the RESPONSABILITY and  insurance RISK for the aircraft/flight.

 

I on the other hand, have clearly articulated that the very concept of a STUDENT being held responsible, to any degree, for an incident , is contrary to the idea that an untrained person can be responsible, when under the supervision of a qualified Instructor.

 

Further - I have pointed out that the practise (if it exists) of having the student pay for the excess component of an insurance claim, is in effect DOUBLE DIPPING by the flight school. This in itself is likly illegal.

 

One day it will end up in court and I would bet, the flight school will come undone😈

we will have to agree to disagree.   i don't think there is a scam, just not enough clarity when student signs on with a school.

[skippydiesel]

27 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

we will have to agree to disagree.   i don't think there is a scam, just not enough clarity when student signs on with a school.

Yes we disagree - thats what makes for a good debate. My thanks. I have been vastly entertained as I recover from a heavy cold .

 

Extraordinary! You don't "think its a scam" even when I have clearly demonstrated that the flying school is increasing its profit margin, by opting for an insurance excess (legitimate) AND THEN stinging the poor student (questionably legality) for a investment that has essentially already payed of (double dipping).

"....just not enough clarity ..." Maaate! My guess clarity would bring scrutiny/questions that the SCAMERS wish to avoid.

In the unlikly event that this is a legitimate practise, its very very bad customer service. Not a good look. If the business needs to increase its profit margin, INCORPORATE ALL COSTS/FEES IN A SINGE HOURLY RATE. Instructor + aircraft for all students & BFR's . Aircraft Hire (WET/DRY) to qualified pilots. If other, non essential for safe flight, options (eg  inflight drink hostess etc) are available, that the pilot (not the student) wish to access, by all means offer these for an appropriate fee.😈

[onetrack]

Quote

How does this work - student, who cant legally fly, hires aircraft. Student takes of without instructor he did not hire. Student writes off aircraft and him/herself. Who is responsible. Even vehicle hire companies wont hire to someone who cant show a valid license to drive. Flight School held responsible. End of Flight School.

 

Who would hire an aircraft to someone without proof of being able to operate it, and make them produce proof they're licenced to do so? This is hypothetical BS. If the student takes the aircraft without permission, that is a criminal act.

[BrendAn]

21 minutes ago, onetrack said:

 

Who would hire an aircraft to someone without proof of being able to operate it, and make them produce proof they're licenced to do so? This is hypothetical BS. If the student takes the aircraft without permission, that is a criminal act.

skippy has it all ballsed up. they don't hire an aircraft to somone who can't fly it.

THIS IS ABOUT STUDENTS GOING SOLO WHICH IS PART OF THE SYLLABUS.

ONCE THE STUDENT IS SOLO HE IS PIC. SCHOOLS HOLD THE PIC LIABLE FOR INSURANCE EXCESS.

if i could find bigger capitals i would use them.😁

Edited 34 minutes ago by BrendAn