skippydiesel

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.😈

😈

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😈

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

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.😈

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.😈

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 😈

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? 😈

No mention of the susceptibility of unpressurised aircraft to adverse weather. In particular the discomfort of passengers in the air and delayed on the ground. Might have been omitted for the film but saw no effort to meet W & B😈

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.😈

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

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????😈

Hi Neil, The PTT is a very simple spring loaded switch that only makes electrical contact when you press & hold it. If its failed, after many years of service, it is likly beyond economic repair. As Smokey said - just research what your local electronic store (JayCar in Australia) has to offer. They likly have many diffrent sizes & styles to choose from. Measure the dimensions of the old switch and use this to narrow your search.

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. .😈

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.😈

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😈

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.😈

Why? The insurance cover selected by the school should be what they deem appropriate for their business/function. No further charge to the student is necessary.😈

A far better but still lacking analogy would be ; A learner driver hiring an instructor - doubt that any excess is either mentioned or demanded The student is not hiring an aircraft. He/she is hiring a training service, which include an Instructor who is responsible for both aircraft & student As always, I doubt the legal basis for asking a student pilot to be liable for any part of the aircraft insurance. Further Even if legal - its a very poor customer relation policy - far better to incorporate ALL insurance cost in the hourly tuition fee.😈

FYI - Just in case you assume that Rotax/Ducati VR + Capacitor system are all fitted with a red operating light; my last & current aircraft do not have this feature 😈

"I think its more down to the changing fuel chemistry in the last 20 years, especially the ethanol introduction." Not a chemist, however I draw your attention to my experince; A 1999 model 912ULS, run almost exclusively on ULP 98 RON. The OM floats were still in use, when the 20 + year old aircraft & engine passed from my hands. I speculate that they are still in service today. This would suggest that any petroleum changes, in that time, did not adversely effect these floats. My 2019 model 912ULS once already😈

Your initial response, clearly indicated you had not read my post You could try reading it (in full) and should you be motivated by my musings , you may like to respond accordingly.😈

Ahh! - your point???

What's wrong with "story"? Check out the various meanings of the word. AND Unless mistaken - no one has mentioned who benefits from the excess option - I just did.😈

On thing puzzles me in the insurance excess story; Unless I am much mistaken the choice to have an excess, thereby reducing the premium, is entirely at the request of the insured. By having an excess the insured takes on some of the risk. Its conceivable that a flight school might chose to have no excess or something between this and the maximum (whatever that is). So the choice is the insured (flight school) not the customer (student). The student has no input to accept a degree of risk or not and yet in your story is held accountable - how is that? By opting for the excess ($?) the flight school has reduced its operating costs - likly increasing its profit margin. Scenarios; A. The student unlikly to benefit directly from the reduced operating costs or the increased profits. B. The flight school passes on the reduced operating costs = more competitive in attracting students = more profit Any excess payment by the student is enhancing the flight schools bottom line - profit! I don't believe the demand for the student to pay excess, that he/she did not negotiate, has any legal merit and in the end is a SCAM to increase profit margin.😈