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 June 10 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 June 10 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 June 10 by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

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.😁

BrendAn BrendAn - I thought we were having a civilised debate. Now you stoop to mis & out of context quoting. 

 

Who said anything about  "..can't fly.." My scenario was about the unlikly hiring of an aircraft to an UNLICNSED person.

 

My position is and always has been,  in opposition to yours, where you apparently feel that a student should be liable for the damage to/by an aircraft that he /she is flying, while under instruction.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the student is the responsibility of an Instructor. By definition, by law, by custom, this means that the Instructor is liable for any flying incident involving the student he/she is supervising. 

 

About three years ago, I did my tail wheel training, leading to an endorsement for the same. For the duration of my training,  I was a student.  I never once booked/hired an aircraft  BUT I did book a particular Instructor and made my preference for a certain aircraft known (they had several Citabria's not all quite the same). My Instructor was at all times the PIC - I just followed his instructions, until he recommended me for my TW endorsement. The payments made were for flight instruction, which of necessity involved the use of an aircraft.

 

You are now seeking to limit your position to that of the student going solo - calling him/her Pilot In Command. I have conceded only that the, now advanced student, may bear some increased responsibility  (I am not totally convinced of this) BUT IS NOT PILOT IN COMMAND, the Instructor is still the PIC, even when not in the aircraft.

 

You consistently mix up the manipulation of aircraft controls to manoeuvre an aircraft, with Command - they are not one in the same. Commend status, with its privileges and responsibilities, is only available to licensed pilots.

 

.😈

 

[BrendAn]

• Jan 13, 2016

• #1FROM AN AMERICAN PAGE

Hi there folks,

Few months ago while training for the Private Pilot Certificate I went through my solo stages of Solo Around the pattern several times, Solo to the practice area 3 times, and 3 Solo XCs.

On my first solo flight, when I landed my instructor was waiting for me at the ramp, we secured the plane and went into the Flight School Lounge.

As he was signing my logbook, the Owner of the school which is the Assist. Chief Flight Instructor, a man with thousands of hours and in Aviation since the 70s, He told my flight instructor I still couldn't Log PIC time because I wasn't rated in the Cessna 172 until I get my PPL.

My instructor and I believe that he was kind of insane saying that just because of the fact that every aircraft must have a PIC, and if I am flying SOLO, that should be me, not the instructor who is waiting for me on the ground.

What do you guys think about it? Are we right or is the Assist. Chief Flight Instructor right?

After getting my ticket, the first thing I did was getting a checkout in the C172S (i've been flying the P and M models during my training) And after landing this guy said I could not log PIC as I was receiving Flight Training... I thought that being the sole manipulator of the controls all the time, and having my certificate already would allow me to log PIC time even though I'm receiving training from a CFI.

[BrendAn]

When I solo, can I log the flight time as pilot in command (PIC) time?

Yes, you can. Changes to the federal aviation regulations that took effect on August 4, 1997, clarified this point. A person may log PIC time when they are the sole occupant of the aircraft, and this applies to student pilots as well. FAR 61.51(e)(4) says, "A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time when the student pilot (i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; (ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under [FAR] 61.87; and (iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating. So be sure to log all of your applicable solo time as PIC time."   FROM AOPA

[aro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Commend status, with its privileges and responsibilities, is only available to licensed pilots.

You keep quoting imaginary laws.

 

djpacro quoted the actual, real regulation that says that a student is pilot in command when flying solo. Like it or not, they are in command of the aircraft.

 

Or the definition from RAAus:

 

Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time

 

The instructor has made the judgement that they are ready for command when they send the pilot solo. The circumstances might be limited (whether first solo through to solo cross countries) but it is still command time.

 

But PIC isn't necessarily relevant for insurance purposes anyway. For insurance, what matters is the terms and conditions you signed up to. Which is why it's a good idea to check them before you hire/fly.

[skippydiesel]

Well there you go - Cant win every debate. I have enjoyed it though.

 

Some further thoughts for you;

 

I still am of the opinion that, while under the supervision of an Instructor (even when not in aircraft) the student can not be considered to be Pilot In Command (note the capitols).

 

Further- If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law, there remains a direct conflict between the role & responsibilities of an Instructor and his/her student who now considers themselves to be a PIC - you can not have two PIC's in charge of the same aircraft, at the same time.

It should be remembered that a PIC has the authority to overrule any direction that he /she feels is not in the best interest of the continued safe operation of the aircraft - does this mean that the student can, at their own discretion, now ignore the direction of the Instructor?

 

As for insurance excess, the original topic;

 

I strongly suspect that, if it ever came to court,  coercing a student pilot into paying the excess for damage to/by an aircraft, is likly to fail in whole or part, depending on the experince of the student. It makes no sense at all that on the one hand the student is subject to the direction (control) of an Instructor & on the other hand is liable for damage - this is a contradiction that would see such a case fail.

 

That the insurance industry has come up with a sales gimmick (the excess option) does not make the gimmick legal or ethical, when it is applied to a learner/student. pilot.

 

Language evolves continuously, it would seem that command has come to mean control of and Command not  recognised as having its much greater meaning.

I believe that  Pilot in Command (PIC) still has legal meaning and ramifications that an unlicensed pilot can not be part of. 

PIC is analogous to Captain of a ship - does a marine cadet or even Officer in Charge, get to award themselves the title of Captain????😈

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Well there you go - Cant win every debate. I have enjoyed it though.

 

Some further thoughts for you;

 

I still am of the opinion that, while under the supervision of an Instructor (even when not in aircraft) the student can not be considered to be Pilot In Command (note the capitols).

 

Further- If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law, there remains a direct conflict between the role & responsibilities of an Instructor and his/her student who now considers themselves to be a PIC - you can not have two PIC's in charge of the same aircraft, at the same time.

It should be remembered that a PIC has the authority to overrule any direction that he /she feels is not in the best interest of the continued safe operation of the aircraft - does this mean that the student can, at their own discretion, now ignore the direction of the Instructor?

 

As for insurance excess, the original topic;

 

I strongly suspect that, if it ever came to court,  coercing a student pilot into paying the excess for damage to/by an aircraft, is likly to fail in whole or part, depending on the experince of the student. It makes no sense at all that on the one hand the student is subject to the direction (control) of an Instructor & on the other hand is liable for damage - this is a contradiction that would see such a case fail.

 

That the insurance industry has come up with a sales gimmick (the excess option) does not make the gimmick legal or ethical, when it is applied to a learner/student. pilot.

 

Language evolves continuously, it would seem that command has come to mean control of and Command not  recognised as having its much greater meaning.

I believe that  Pilot in Command (PIC) still has legal meaning and ramifications that an unlicensed pilot can not be part of. 

PIC is analogous to Captain of a ship - does a marine cadet or even Officer in Charge, get to award themselves the title of Captain????😈

You make it interesting anyway👍

[skippydiesel]

BrenDan

 

"When I solo, can I log the flight time as pilot in command (PIC) time?"

"FAR 61.51(e)(4) says, "A student ...................................................................."

 

My question  "If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law......" ????????????????? has not been answered

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi BrenDon,

 

This debate , from insurance excess to Pilot In Command, has intrigued and even troubled me somewhat.

 

I have taken the step to move from just BSing my way through the debate (using logic as I understand it) to consulting with RAA's.

 

You will be pleased to hear that they confirm The RAA's Operations Manual "Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time"

 

When asked, with reference to the above; does this authorise the student to exercise the privileges & responsibilities of a PIC, the answer was much less certain. It seem that the words "...not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time" is the qualifying/limiting instruction. This is merely so the student can log the flight time as PIC. RAA agreed its a grey area,  that the student is not PIC in the same sense as a licensed/certified pilot may be PIC.

 

The problem is the word Command - they agree that control might be a better/more accurate descriptive word for what the student is doing, however the terminology comes from /approved by CASA - who wants to go there?

 

As for the flight school that requires students to sign an agreement to pay insurance excess, on damages done to/by an aircraft under their control - RAA agrees with me. This is unacceptable. RAA wishes for any flight school conducting this practise to be referred to them or to contact them to discuss the matter.😈

 

[facthunter]

Any one left alive on a ship is in command, regardless of their qualifications.  Intuitive feelings don't carry any weight in Law.  How the FTF decides to share the risk is their Call. They are the ones who can lose their House. Same as when you hire a car. You can choose to cover the excess, OR be liable for it.  IF you don't like it go somewhere else. THAT's how it works.  RAA can't over rule you either. You are MANAGING the risk in the Normal way. That's your right.  Nev

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

BrenDan

 

"When I solo, can I log the flight time as pilot in command (PIC) time?"

"FAR 61.51(e)(4) says, "A student ...................................................................."

 

My question  "If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law......" ????????????????? has not been answered

 

 

pretty obvious. 1 says from an American page and the other says from aopa.

i tried to find an aussie page but  didn't have much luck. found some articles ,mostly waffle going around in circles. 

😁

Edited June 11 by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

While there is often a close relationship, quoting FAA regulations can only be viewed by a pilot in Australian, as "muddying the waters "

 

Any comment on my chat with RAA staff?

 

😈

Edited June 11 by skippydiesel