Insurance excess

[facthunter]

I commented 2 posts prior.  Nev

[BrendAn]

16 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

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?

 

😈

you are just getting annoying now. give it a rest.

[Thruster88]

24 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

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?

 

😈

RAAus should have immediately referred you to the regulator casa. The raaus fees are already high enough without adding to the cost of doing business by time wasting.

[facthunter]

CASA can't tell people to not Insure,  or how to deal with a RISK to their Livelihood. It's a necessary cost of doing business. Claimants also have a right  to proper compensation. Nev

[BrendAn]

skippy. i only brought this subject in the hope that students might be encouraged to ask question and read the ts and cs.

no other reason.

[skippydiesel]

15 hours ago, BrendAn said:

you are just getting annoying now. give it a rest.

BrebdAn BrendAn - You just cant stand having your position challenged. 

 

It reads like you are having a tantrum tusk tusk

 

If you don't want to continue, say nothing, rather than something that borders on the offensive 😈

[skippydiesel]

15 hours ago, BrendAn said:

skippy. i only brought this subject in the hope that students might be encouraged to ask question and read the ts and cs.

no other reason.

Once a topic has been "floated" on the Forum, the author (you in this instance) has no control of the debate, - protest all you will it wont change a thing.

 

I commend your raising this topic however it has evolved to include the  question;, why on earth would any flight school go down this doubtfully enforceable, possibly illegal and definitely unethical rout.😈

[aro]

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

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?

If they are solo, yes they can override the direction of the instructor if necessary for the safety of the aircraft, and there is an expectation that they will do that if required. They are in command of the aircraft. The instructor sets the circumstances where that happens, and gradually widens it as they gain experience.

 

The reason you have minimum solo time is to give the student experience in command.

[aro]

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

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.

Why does the insurance company pay when they were not even present? Because you have a contract saying they will pay.

 

What you say might be correct, if there is no contract and you try to sue them for negligence.

 

But there is almost certainly a contract (terms and conditions, and a signature accepting them) which spells it out. Then all that matters is who the contract says will pay.

[skippydiesel]

35 minutes ago, aro said:

If they are solo, yes they can override the direction of the instructor if necessary for the safety of the aircraft, and there is an expectation that they will do that if required. They are in command of the aircraft. The instructor sets the circumstances where that happens, and gradually widens it as they gain experience.

 

The reason you have minimum solo time is to give the student experience in command.

Hi aro,

 

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "command". In the context of person flying an aircraft they are certainly controlling the vehicle but unless they are Pilot In Command they are not commanding it. eg When two, or more, qualified pilots are on the flight deck, one will be PIC the other(s) will be subordinate. In some situations this may be changed by agreement.

 

In the scenario I posed above, I should not have used the word "can". - Of course, without the on board  presence of the Instructor, they can do as they wish. The word I should have used is should or permissible. 

 

As RAA stated - its a grey area. In my view (clearly at odds with CASA) the student is in control , not Command. The student is still very much under the supervision of a higher authority, the Instructor, so the word Command which has connotations of leadership, independent decision making, ultimate responsibility, etc etc is incorrect, when applied to a student. The student remains very much under the Command of the Instructor even though control has been relaxed to facilitate further learning & experince.

 

Stepping away from aviation for a moment - The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority in that military group. There will be sub Commanders responsible for smaller groups - a cadet /student is at the very bottom of the organisational/responsibility structure. They may practise Command activates (go solo) and may on graduating to Command a small section but as a learner never Command in reality.

 

PIC is analogous to the marine Captain - not all who control a boat are Captain. 

 

Back to aviation - CASA has been inconsistent with its use of PIC (muddying the waters) however as RAA pointed out, the ruling allowing command time to be logged,  is limited to the student context.😈

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, aro said:

Why does the insurance company pay when they were not even present? Because you have a contract saying they will pay. I have never questioned the obligation of the insurance company to pay.

 

What you say might be correct, if there is no contract and you try to sue them for negligence. ???

 

But there is almost certainly a contract (terms and conditions, and a signature accepting them) which spells it out. Then all that matters is who the contract says will pay. ?????

I am not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps you can rephrase.

😈

 

[facthunter]

This IS  getting pointless. You have a mental Block about the word "Command".. Pilots are only "Glorified BUS drivers" according to Bob Hawke.  Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

BrebdAn BrendAn - You just cant stand having your position challenged. 

 

It reads like you are having a tantrum tusk tusk

 

If you don't want to continue, say nothing, rather than something that borders on the offensive 😈

There is nothing to challenge. You are wrong and can't except it. 

Talk all the shit you want, just leave me out  of it . I will say no more as advised. Hope you get the correct meds soon.

[aro]

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I am not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps you can rephrase.

😈

 

You understand the idea that you have a contract with the insurance company saying that they will pay (according to various terms and conditions). Why do you think you can't have a contract with the student? It doesn't matter whether they are trained or not - it is the contract that matters.

[aro]

39 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

In my view (clearly at odds with CASA) the student is in control , not Command.

CASA make the rules. CASA say they are in command and have authority and responsibility to make decisions for the safety of the aircraft.

 

42 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

CASA has been inconsistent with its use of PIC

CASA are clear. You are muddying the waters because you think the rules should be different.

[skippydiesel]

16 minutes ago, aro said:

You understand the idea that you have a contract with the insurance company saying that they will pay (according to various terms and conditions). Why do you think you can't have a contract with the student? It doesn't matter whether they are trained or not - it is the contract that matters.

Now I understand;

 

From the the original question/statement by  BrendAn,  I understood that the student is being required to sign a Flight School document, agreeing to pay the excess component, of any insurance claim, that may be made as a consequence of their use of a training aircraft. 

 

I am unaware of the student taking out their own insurance , other than what they get as a pilot member of RAA.

 

IF the Flight School is doing this - its an agreement with the school - not the insurance company.

 

I suggests you read the various posts that precede yours. It may save you going over points already explored.  Should you wish to continue, after doing this, I will be happy to debate further😈

 

[aro]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

From the the original question/statement by  BrendAn,  I understood that the student is being required to sign a Flight School document, agreeing to pay the excess component, of any insurance claim, that may be made as a consequence of their use of a training aircraft. 

Yes. If the student signs that document (probably incorporated into signing out the aircraft) they are bound by the terms and conditions. There isn't really an argument that they shouldn't be because they are a student.

 

Whether the terms and conditions are fair is a different argument. There are many contracts that we would argue are not fair.

[skippydiesel]

24 minutes ago, aro said:

CASA make the rules. CASA say they are in command and have authority and responsibility to make decisions for the safety of the aircraft.

As CASA has not accommodated the role/responsibilities of Instructor, in this particular ruling, I respectfully suggest  CASA is at best best introducing a grey area, at worst plain wrong.

CASA are clear. You are muddying the waters because you think the rules should be different.

Far from clear. This is not about a rule as such as poor terminology leading to misunderstanding.

The missus of terminology by authorities may be marginally less than the general poulation but it certainly exists. I believe this is an example.

CASA, like every Gov authority, are not inflatable - they make mistakes. Why should I or any other citizen not point them out? 

😈

[skippydiesel]

6 minutes ago, aro said:

Yes. If the student signs that document (probably incorporated into signing out the aircraft) they are bound by the terms and conditions. There isn't really an argument that they shouldn't be because they are a student.

 

Whether the terms and conditions are fair is a different argument. There are many contracts that we would argue are not fair.

As I said - read what has been writen earlier - I have made my position on this clear.

 

Its not about "fair" - Its about legality, custom and rational behaviour - read the earlier posts.😈

[aro]

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As CASA has not accommodated the role/responsibilities of Instructor, in this particular ruling, I respectfully suggest  CASA is at best best introducing a grey area

There's no grey area. You just think the law should be different. The instructor is not in the aircraft. The person flying the aircraft has final responsibility for its safety.

 

Let's take a scenario:

 

A student takes off on their first solo. While they're on downwind, another aircraft lands gear up and blocks the runway. The instructor looks at where the aircraft stopped, and tells the student over the radio they can land over the top of the disabled aircraft in the remaining runway. The student points out they have 3 hours fuel and plenty of daylight and would rather circle the airfield and see if the runway can be cleared.

 

Who is responsible for the decision of what to do?

 

Answer: the pilot in the aircraft. No question. They are pilot in command and responsible for the safety of the aircraft. They can take the instructors advice, but they make the final decision.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, aro said:

There's no grey area. You just think the law should be different. The instructor is not in the aircraft. The person flying the aircraft has final responsibility for its safety.

 

Let's take a scenario:

 

A student takes off on their first solo. While they're on downwind, another aircraft lands gear up and blocks the runway. The instructor looks at where the aircraft stopped, and tells the student over the radio they can land over the top of the disabled aircraft in the remaining runway. The student points out they have 3 hours fuel and plenty of daylight and would rather circle the airfield and see if the runway can be cleared.

 

Who is responsible for the decision of what to do?

 

Answer: the pilot in the aircraft. No question. They are pilot in command and responsible for the safety of the aircraft. They can take the instructors advice, but they make the final decision.

I beg to differ (of course).

 

In your scenario;

 

The matter has been discussed by the Instructor  & Student, a possibly satisfactory course of action arrived at.  I do agree that the Student has had significant input - as he/she should. They have never been expected to slavishly adhere to the Instructions. In fact to do so would be counter to the ultimate aim of the Instructor, that is to deliver a new hatched autonomous licensed pilot. In time, the student, now a licensed pilot will not be required to consult with the Instructor (PIC).

 

The fact remains the Instructor is PIC & there can not be two PIC's. That the Instructor is not physically in the aircraft is not relevant, except to say that the student is on a journey of increasing independence. As the journey/training progresses, so the confidence of the Instructor, in the students capacity to make appropriate decisions increases. When judged up to it, the student will be first released into the training area. In time will go on a solo X country - clearly they are close to achieving their unrestricted pilots license/certificate and decisions made at this time will have near the weight of a qualified pilot. Should there be an incident,  the standard achieved by the student & the circumstances (eg was the student following the agreed flight plan), will of course mitigate the blame levelled at the Instructor. Once qualified the new pilot may become PIC in the FULL sense/meaning of the word, within the aviation context.

 

Carrying your scenario  a little further;  Who would be to blame if the the Instructor said "Land AS Instructed" and the student refused. Later crashing due to fuel  exhaustion, weather, etc?  The answer my friend is simple - The Instructor would carry by the far the greater proportion of the blame. Why? because legally & culturally the Instructor is the responsible entity in this relationship. Again this makes the instructor PIC.

 

"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"

 

These are the words and I believe they are wrong and should be changed to reflect the true situaton, which is student pilot in control, under the direction of the Instructor who remains PIC at all times

 

😈

[aro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

The fact remains the Instructor is PIC & there can not be two PIC's. That the Instructor is not physically in the aircraft is not relevant

It is relevant - the instructor cannot be PIC if they are not in the aircraft! It is in the definition of PIC, quoted previously in this thread from both CASA and RAAus (and FAA) - you just don't like it. "Command" refers to command of the aircraft, not people.

 

I did my first solo in an aircraft without a radio not that long ago (1990s). When the rules were developed, that would have been common. They're not going to change the definition of PIC just because sometimes the student is within sight of the instructor and radio is available. There are many more situations where the instructor isn't in a position to be any use. Solo circuits, where they are not going to stand out in the weather for an hour to watch you. Area solo and solo cross countries where you are well away from where the instructor could be able to "command" anything.

[skippydiesel]

41 minutes ago, aro said:

It is relevant - the instructor cannot be PIC if they are not in the aircraft! 

Do you accept that the Instructor is;

• the senior pilot, to the student?
• has Command authority over the student? The student must follow the Instructors direction? Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval?

It is in the definition of PIC, quoted previously in this thread from both CASA and RAAus (and FAA) - you just don't like it. I have not seen a definition for PIC in this debate, only a ruling specifically, for a student going solo.

"Command" refers to command of the aircraft, not people. Maaaate! You don't know your own language - "Command" is a far more powerful word than control; meaning in this context, manipulation of controls to achieve safe flight. It is a legal designation similar to that of Captain of a marine craft.  It gives control of people as well as the aircraft. The power to make decisions on behalf of all on board . To approve flight plans. Is responsible for the safety of the asset (aircraft) and pax (probably missed some points). A PIC can deny access, request a Pax be arrested.

 

I did my first solo in an aircraft without a radio not that long ago (1990s). When the rules were developed, that would have been common. They're not going to change the definition of PIC just because sometimes the student is within sight of the instructor and radio is available. There are many more situations where the instructor isn't in a position to be any use. Solo circuits, where they are not going to stand out in the weather for an hour to watch you. Area solo and solo cross countries where you are well away from where the instructor could be able to "command" anything.

Command , in its self does not require the Instructor be in a position to physically or even via radio control the student, only that he/she has line authority over the student.

Somewhere along the line you have missed the point, the student can not legally fly (no matter how skilled), without the permission of the Instructor (PIC).

The Instructor has the power to recomend that no license /certificate should be awarded  ie ground you - who is the Pilot In Command?????

If the Instructor has done a good job, judged the student progress well AND the student sticks to the agreed flight plan - can operate the control's to mainatine safe flight, has sufficient experince to react to an untoward situation,  he/ she will be authorised to go solo. This does not change his/her relationship with the Instructor who remains the Commander however remote they may be. To me this is self evident.

😈

[aro]

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Do you accept that the Instructor is;

• the senior pilot, to the student?
• has Command authority over the student? The student must follow the Instructors direction? Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval?

You have some quasi-military ideas going on here. The instructor is usually more experienced, but senior is the wrong word.

"The student must follow the Instructors direction?" No. When they are in the aircraft, the instructor as PIC has the authority that they have over any other passenger, to ensure the safety of the aircraft. Other than that there is no "must" about following directions.

"Can not legally fly without the Instructors approval"

The instructor needs to authorize the flight. That is different to command, e.g. the instructor cannot command the student to take off.

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Command , in its self does not require the Instructor be in a position to physically or even via radio control the student, only that he/she has line authority over the student.

Somewhere along the line you have missed the point, the student can not legally fly (no matter how skilled), without the permission of the Instructor (PIC).

Line authority? No such thing in a civilian flying school. More complex in the military, where a student might be higher rank than the instructor so the student does have line authority, and line authority and PIC must obviously be 2 different things.

 

34 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

"Command" is a far more powerful word than control;

You are pulling in every possible meaning of command, rather than what it means in this specific context.

[skippydiesel]

Aro - Friend you are just wrong about almost every point.

 

Pilot In Command is not just some way of saying a person is flying an aircraft - it has legal meaning, ramifications and  authority. Check into it before you respond.

 

😈