Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And also it depends on how many times you take a passenger!

95% of my flying is solo. How many of you guys add extra coverage for your pax?

Agree that $250K is not nearly enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's my rationale for not paying for hull insurance: Firstly, the plane is really just a toy and life would go on without it. Secondly, the cost of insurance is too much. In 20 accident-fr

IF you have thousands of Tailwheel hours without a mishap, they get relaxed a bit. Till you are relatively unproven they charge a lot They have to make the figures add up or they are not in business l

100% agree. I'm up to a new engine from the premiums I've saved.   A local aircraft had some insurance repairs. Lots of rumours about the repair facility making more damage to milk the pay

Posted Images

Just re read my Policy and I have $2mill combined pax and property coverage, on my QBE Policy. Aircraft is RAA registered.

 

Edited by Roscoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

I think it probably is OK for the average recreational pilot if it covers up to the full 10 million. But if I understand the wording as stated there is only $250k for passenger injury. Since that’s the most likely cause of a claim and claims for injury or death can be huge it doesn’t sound like it’s suitable to me. But I’m only going by what what’s been said . 
Currently the GA insurers and brokers are saying for a 4 seat aircraft you should have $20million cover. Based on past history of events I guess.

 

So I’d guess that for 2 seats yep $10mill sounds OK. But $250k doesn’t. 
..........................................

 

Is $250k enough -no way. Not even to cover lost lifelong income for a tradie. 


Is $10mill enough -  depends. 
 


 

 

Hi Jaba - Just remember:

 

  • It is in the interest of the insurgence company to "up the anti"/escalate your anxiety/insecurity ie they want you to pay  the highest possible premiums that they can squeeze out of you - it all means bigger profits for them. In the final assessment, it is your perception of risk (not theirs)  that you might/should want to insure for.
  • From a cost effective perspective you will probably never have enough insurance - there will always be that situation where it was not quit good enough.
  • I am not sure, but I think insurance is probably the only product/service you will pay (dearly) for, that neither you or the provider, want to get delivered/pay out on.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Jaba - Just remember:

 

  • It is in the interest of the insurgence company to "up the anti"/escalate your anxiety/insecurity ie they want you to pay  the highest possible premiums that they can squeeze out of you - it all means bigger profits for them. In the final assessment, it is your perception of risk (not theirs)  that you might/should want to insure for.
  • From a cost effective perspective you will probably never have enough insurance - there will always be that situation where it was not quit good enough.
  • I am not sure, but I think insurance is probably the only product/service you will pay (dearly) for, that neither you or the provider, want to get delivered/pay out on.

While you are correct to some degree  about the insurers wanting to up the ante,  the reasons they do are not just to increase profit but also are based on real previous case actuarial experience. 

Whats  really scary is how people who are not even involved with the crash are now able to sue for stress and psychological hurt. The parents of the girl in the crash mentioned are suing for $1.5M for psychological distress etc and they weren’t involved, weren’t even  in the country  and could not possibly have been consulted to give their informed consent for their adult daughter to go in the flight. But they are suing as well. 
Even though it’s something everyone hopes will not  be payed out, if it’s needed you really, really want to hope it’s going to be enough to cover the almost open ended claims that get awarded. 

I think you are right that there is always a small potential that any amount will never be enough, but as you go higher the risk of a claim going “blue sky”  ( ie being so high it outstrips your cover) get less  and less until it’s no longer sensible to pay premiums for it. 

However it’s also clear is that  if your insurance cover is blindingly obviously too low you are just wasting your money paying the premium. If you are told to pay $20M and your insurance only pays $250K or only pays $10M you are going to be bankrupt till you die of old age either way. 
The difference in premiums from $10M to $20M isn’t that much, surprisingly. 
 


 

 

Edited by Jaba-who
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh those guys earn ridiculous amounts. They have a government backed monopoly as well as a closed shop as well as the ability to prevent new people entering the trade. How they got or deserve this largess is a mystery to me. If electricians had the same deal then they would all be millionaires too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/10/2020 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

Gosh those guys earn ridiculous amounts. They have a government backed monopoly as well as a closed shop as well as the ability to prevent new people entering the trade. How they got or deserve this largess is a mystery to me. If electricians had the same deal then they would all be millionaires too.

Mostly not correct though Bruce.  The real ridiculous earners are singers, entertainers and movie stars.  If not a single one of them existed the world and everyone in it would not be an iota any worse off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

Mostly not correct though Bruce.  The real ridiculous earners are singers, entertainers and movie stars.  If not a single one of them existed the world and everyone in it would not be an iota any worse off. 

Many have observed that the least productive (actually deliver a material good) are the highest remunerated with the converse also being true. This is an overstatement but contains significant truth.

 

Your observation on entertainers (including sports people in my book) can also be extended to all those "professions" that deliver a service, which if removed would have little negative impact on society as a whole (ie an individual here or there may feel "pain" but society would move on without so much as a hiccup).

 

When viewed as dispassionately as possible, we (that is all of us) pay handsomely for some very peculiar services. Short list of, my suggested,  parasitic professions;

 

Religious of all persuasions

Politicians of all religions

Lawyers

Doctors

Insurers

Money traders

Media tycoons

Standing military

Entertainers

ETC

 

I put entertainers last because almost all of use enjoy the arts and sport to some degree. Where technically feasible, we would probably enjoy it just as much generated from/by our local population,  as an amateur service but it is in the nature of our species to want to rise to the top of our passion(enter competition) and thus is commerce born.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For every entertainer who makes it to the top, there are heaps who get nowhere. No one is "Forced" to pay entertainers. It's completely voluntary and often booked out. That's from someone who's never gone to any  but I believe in choice and a vital entertainment Industry. They express aspirations of the common people and thrive in healthy societies, but not in repressive ones.  Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved from GA to RA to keep my flying affordable and so I built my own aircraft which I do not insure.  I rarely take passengers but always point out the warning placard to them that they fly at their own risk. What sort of defence this would have in a lawsuit I have no idea but I suspect very little. Even if you get the passenger to sign a witnessed waiver before you take them flying can be challenged. Like Bruce if I'd put away the premiums I would have paid for hull and perhaps extra passenger liability insurance  I'd already have enough to pay for half of a new aircraft.

 

I fly for fun and assess the risks and if the weather is dodgy or I do not feel right in any way I just don't fly. If I am away from home there is never a good reason to return if those risks are there as well. Staying another night or another week or even getting a bus home & going back later are better options. I've done all those things in my GA days & won't be changing now and I won't be getting any insurance either.

Edited by kgwilson
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, facthunter said:

For every entertainer who makes it to the top, there are heaps who get nowhere. No one is "Forced" to pay entertainers. It's completely voluntary and often booked out. That's from someone who's never gone to any  but I believe in choice and a vital entertainment Industry. They express aspirations of the common people and thrive in healthy societies, but not in repressive ones.  Nev

Not true at all. Entertainers thrive extremely well in repressive societies as long as they toe and represent the oppressors position.
China being a major example. Dancers, actors and singers were on a rung only just below the politburo. But if they failed to endorse the party line they disappeared. 
 

No one is forced to pay most of the professions listed earlier either. And even  professions that are “essential” are often remunerated quite poorly for the essential components of their trade but make proportionately much more for elective non-necessary parts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

I moved from GA to RA to keep my flying affordable and so I built my own aircraft which I do not insure.  I rarely take passengers but always point out the warning placard to them that they fly at their own risk. What sort of defence this would have in a lawsuit I have no idea but I suspect very little. 

 

 

Yep your suspicion is correct. 
You can get passengers essentially the legal reality is you can and should advise passengers of the factual state of the aircraft - its home made, it’s maintained to the best of your ability but you aren’t a qualified LAME and the rules say it doesn’t have to be maintained to the same standards as a commercial aircraft. ( All this being stated on the placard you point out is enough) and that you are a recreational pilot with limited experience compared to a commercial pilot. then have them sign an acknowledgement they have understood it. This is not and can never be construed as them signing away any right to seek redress if there’s an accident. It merely is for you to show the person understood the situation and consented to take the risk. 
That does carry some weight on its own. But the issue is that it may not be “on its own”.  
 

Consenting to take a risk is only valid IF everything you tell the passenger is as it actually is. If you do something negligent (or illegal) then that may negate the informed consent to take the risk. So say you tell the passenger the aircraft is carefully maintained but the accident is deemed to have been caused by an error you made in maintenance then you may  have been negligent and your passenger, had they been made aware of your negligence, would have chosen not to fly with you. 
Or if your piloting or decision making on the day was suspect then the passenger may say that you acted unsafely and had you advised them beforehand that you were going to act that way they would not have gone up with you. 
 

The likelihood of finding something negligent is actually very high and any good lawyer for the passenger would not take long to find something to call negligent. And people (even experts) have a tendency to find events that lead to a bad outcome as being negligent,  compared to the same event but which by good luck the outcome is good.
There’s been a number of medical studies where they showed various experts multiple scenarios with different outcomes but unknown to the subjects they were the same cases changed enough to hide that fact but with the same management pathway. Consistently across studies it’s been shown that bad outcomes were associated with an 80% likelihood of the experts finding negligence where if the outcome was good then almost the same 80% deemed the management to be within the normal standard of care. 
 

I’m same as you. Rarely fly with anyone else except my wife. Very occasionally go with another pilot who also flies home builds so they are fully aware of the risk and they’ve all retired too. So no future loss of income to contend with. 
Also I have resolved to Never fly with a high earning professional. Very occasionally fly with my wife’s teenage children and for first time in about a decade took some other friends kids on a one off ten minute flight a few weeks back.  
I do carry $10M third party insurance but resisted the insurer recommendation to lift it to $20M last premium. 
 

But I have to admit it’s way less stressful to just not take anyone flying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fly with zero insurance and set your affairs up in such a way as to be a hard target for lawyers I have it's not cheap but good luck litigating me.. The passengers have to take a level of responsibility explain the risk and make it their call. We have gone insane with litigation no one takes responsibility for their actions no one forces anyone to go for a ride.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, SplitS said:

Fly with zero insurance and set your affairs up in such a way as to be a hard target for lawyers I have it's not cheap but good luck litigating me.. The passengers have to take a level of responsibility explain the risk and make it their call. We have gone insane with litigation no one takes responsibility for their actions no one forces anyone to go for a ride.

And just bad luck for anyone on the ground that is injured or suffers property loss as a result of an accident/incident?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SplitS said:

Fly with zero insurance and set your affairs up in such a way as to be a hard target for lawyers I have it's not cheap but good luck litigating me.. The passengers have to take a level of responsibility explain the risk and make it their call. We have gone insane with litigation no one takes responsibility for their actions no one forces anyone to go for a ride.

I whole heartedly agree with "We have gone insane with litigation no one takes responsibility for their actions no one forces anyone to go for a ride."

 

I admire & support your philosophy, unfortunately I think you are living in a parallel universe, if you think that full disclosure, even signing a piece of paper to that effect, somehow removes your chance of being successfully sued.

In our world, its is impossible to sign away not only your own right to claim damages but most definitely the rights of third parties, such as dependents/relatives.

At best you may reduce any finding against you, by demonstrating that the injured/dead took the risk in full knowledge - assuming you are not found guilty of negligence (eg faulty mechanical work or departing into a risky weather system).

If negligence is proven, no amount of paperwork/witnesses in your defence, will prevent claims against you & your estate (unless the injured/dead was somehow a party to the negligence itself). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...