Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
DrZoos

Insurance for L2

Recommended Posts

Not only that Nev, but as some are un aware of...if you sign it as airworthy your signing every single sceric of that aircraft as airworthy, not just the part you worked on... and Joe average comes in wants a 5 minute job done on his aircraft or the club wants an oil change....they dont really want to pay for you to check every aspect of that aircraft.... yet you take responsibility for it once you sign it off.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the impression that the proposal was suggested to include annual checks for "privately owned and operated" aircraft.

 

The concern seems to have changed to aircraft that require a L2 and initial inspections. Although all this is relevant, my objection was to having to pay someone to check my annual. This I certainly do not agree with!

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an awful thing this fear of litigation is. It is causing dreadful harm by stopping a lot of employment and business activity.

 

And I agree with Frank that I don't want to have to pay for inspections, and while I personally would do an inspection ( just a non-invasive check) for nothing, I would not be prepared to carry the legal risk for that aircraft from then on.

 

So hang in there DrZoos. Your argument about insurance for maintenance people is a good one.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an l2 you do not certify an aircraft airworthy, you can't you have no qualifications, none

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up and as I hope anyone who has had their RAAUS aircraft in my workshop would attest, I have no problem with the concept of owner maintenance for privately owned and operated aircraft. I always make time to help owners better understand how maintenance can be correctly completed and recorded in logbooks.

 

Some owners do this well, but others not so well (though not necessarily their fault).

 

Often it is not willful disregard for required maintenance, but rather a lack of mentoring or understanding of their responsibility as an aircraft owner.

 

I have had a person tell me that they transferred their aircraft from VH to RAAus so that they would not have to keep doing Annual inspections. The aircraft had only had the occasional oil change over a 4 year period and there were no logbook entries in this time. This was not a deliberate attempt by the owner to bypass their obligations, but rather indicates to me that somewhere along the way better education is needed for owners who plan to do their own maintenance.

 

I would therefore hope that any L1 induction and assessment requirements are aimed at plugging this education gap that exists and not seen as a threat to the concept of owner maintenance.

 

As for the L2 system, it would seem appropriate that when someone walks off the street and wants to learn to fly in a hired aircraft, that they can expect that the person performing the maintenance has been assessed as able to perform the work competently.

 

Unfortunately in a world full of litigation, some form of insurance is prudent if you are doing this work. It only takes one event to completely stuff up your finances. I know RAAUS investigated L2 group liability insurance some time ago, but it came to nothing. It is probably hard to provide a one size fits all approach as there are so many different modes of L2's operating anyway. Take your point however that for volunteer L2's the club who is benefitting from such services probably should consider extending their insurance cover to protect these volunteers. Lots of food for thought within this thread, both on topic and via some of the slight tangential discussions.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a maintenance release is a specific document under the CASA regime ... point me to the area of any of the CAOs RAAus aircraft fall under or the Tech Manual and then we can discuss ... until then L2s are not signing airworthiness in ANY of the documents we sign off. Not saying we have no liability for action but not for maintenance release and not for airworthiness

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry...maintenace release....ie airworthy...

You may note that RAAUS do not have a maintenance release like GA.

 

RAAus have a Maintenance Record form which, though I believe is not mandatory currently, I understand our Tech Manager is planning to make it so, or at least strongly encourage it's increased use.

 

As per the Tech Manual, the determination of Airworthiness of a RAAus aircraft remains solely with the owner at all times. A L2 simply states that they have performed a maintenance task or series of tasks per the appropriate maintenance data, but the decision regarding airworthiness remains with the owner. I use a modified version of the RAAus Maintenance Record form, which clearly sets this fact out for the owner.

 

The Maintenance Record form (which is similar in layout to the GA Maintenance Release) if used correctly is a great tool for the owner to assess and keep track of Airworthiness requirements for their aircraft.

 

I strongly recommend that all owners use this form or an equivalent which lets them track maintenance well.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FromTechnical manual section 4 Policy

 

6.1 If an aircraft was operated at any time as an owner-pilot type, then that aircraft may not be used for hire or reward until a Level Two Maintenance Authority holder has examined the aircraft, is satisfied that the aircraft is correctly maintained and in an airworthy condition, and records the examination in the aircraft log book.

 

And

 

  1. Aircraft Used for Hire/Reward. Only factory produced aircraft may be offered for hire and reward and flying training, other than CAO95.55 para 1.5 aircraft which can only be used for flying training of the builder or builders. Aircraft used for hire and reward are to be wholly maintained, and/or the maintenance authenticated by, an RA-Aus Level Two Maintenance Authority holder. Daily inspections may be completed by the pilot-in-command. Maintenance on the engine, propeller or flight controls should be checked by an independent person. At the completion of any maintenance on an aircraft, details of the work carried out must be immediately entered into the aircraft log book, the entry signed by the Level Two Maintenance Authority holder who is to include their name in block letters, RA-Aus number and the date of the entry. A solo check flight after scheduled maintenance in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule is mandatory before the aircraft is used for hire or reward. Successful completion of this check flight is to be recorded in the aircraft log book and signed for by the Level Two accredited person who conducted the technical work and the pilot who conducted the flight.
     

 

 

What clubs commonly call a maintenance release...

 

Dont forget the context of this thread was initially to do with Raa and clubs having no insurance for L2 doing work on club planes

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See Maintnace authenticationhttp://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/maintenance.html

 

Read the first and second paragraph...case in point

And that is not the CAO or the Tech Manual ... look at the defintion of Maintenance Authentication in the definitions in the RAAus TEch Manual and look at the statement of L2 and even the rest of the tech manual and you will NOT find any mention of the maintenance release ... as an L2 you are NOT doing what you intimate - its a statement of factual maintenance undertaken as listed in the logbook and not more

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasper good luck arguing that one in court....i cant think of anyone in any club, company or organisations n i deal with that isnt covered by insurance, let alone an aircraft maintainer doing so for a club charging money to complete strangers who trust there have been no mistakes or over sights....its a recipe for disaster to do so without insurance

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And equally on the quote from Section4 of tech manual its again not a formal maintenance release but a signature on a logbook of an inspection and that is not a maintenance release.

 

Club or otherwise I am seriously worried that people think it might be ... because when the poo hits the fan on an aircraft an unknowing solicitor hears airworthiness be maintenance release ... sues nearest signature on the logbook and an unknowing magistrate or county court judge is dealing with a heap of spurious arguments that just may get up and lead to further heartache and expense on the part of the L2 defending something that just never was.

 

Its a signature attesting to the facts as you recorded them in the logbook and the aircraft presented to you on the day and it is nothing more.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So assuming your right Kasper there is still the initial problem, why do we have raA maintainers working for raa clubs and they are the only person in the club that is not covered by insurance? If insurance is so critical which it is, why is it that RAA has not addressed this issue, since they are obviously well aware of it.

 

And is it just me or do we think that this ought to be addressed, given our aircraft that train n all our new members and the future of our sport rely on maintainers to do so without an uninsured risk to thier livelihood.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasper good luck arguing that one in court....i cant think of anyone in any club, company or organisations n i deal with that isnt covered by insurance, let alone an aircraft maintainer doing so for a club charging money to complete strangers who trust there have been no mistakes or over sights....its a recipe for disaster to do so without insurance

So when I sign in the log that I have undertaken a 50 hour scheduled service on a rotax 503 per the rotax maintenance schedule and list the parts changed and materials used you think I realistically am signing off that the tail repairs made the month before that I had nothing to do with and had no need to look at or list as being inspected/maintained is now something I am responsible for because I am the last in time signature in the log?

 

Sorry - not the way it is and never has been. I am responsible for what I state I did and my signature is attestation to the facts I list in the log and nothing more.

 

Equally I am signing an aircraft condition report giving my opinion on whats in front of me ... I am offering a satisfactory/not satisfactory on listed items ... not releasing the aircraft to flight and not certifiying anything other than my opinion as to condition on the day.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So assuming your right Kasper there is still the initial problem, why do we have raA maintainers working for raa clubs and they are the only person in the club that is not covered by insurance? If insurance is so critical which it is, why is it that RAA has not addressed this issue, since they are obviously well aware of it.

Because RAA structure the L2s as businesses ... and the issue site with them. Equally the RAAus pilot insurance is not complete coverage for a flight school so they have additional

 

With clubs its a problem for the club ... I am guessing the instructors in clubs get insurance coverage because they were loudest and most obviously potentially responsible for the safety of punter pilots ... as the airframes became more complex and the systems more complex to maintain the risk of the L2 being the root cause of an issue that ends up with legal risk increases ... clubs are basically catching up

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What clubs commonly call a maintenance release...

Anyone who calls it a Maintenance Release is mistaken. Check the forms on the RAAUS website. It is a Maintenance Record Form. The different name is very deliberate and that is why I go to great lengths to help people understand the responsibility that they carry as a RAAUS aircraft owner.

 

I NEVER issue a maintenance release for a RAAus aircraft.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The form is buried in the RAAus website. I am aware that our Tech Manager is including a condition on (at least some) new aircraft CofA's that he issues that all flights be recorded on this form. In effect he is slowly implementing this as a mandatory form to use. I support this move, given the lack of adequate records and ability to track required maintenance that I observe from time to time.

 

maintenance-form.pdf

 

maintenance-form.pdf

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The form is buried in the RAAus website. I am aware that our Tech Manager is including a condition on (at least some) new aircraft CofA's that he issues that all flights be recorded on this form. In effect he is slowly implementing this as a mandatory form to use. I support this move, given the lack of adequate records and ability to track required maintenance that I observe from time to time.

Well thats a fun form isn't it? not actually part of the the Tech Manual (legal tech manual stops at 7.1.4© and this one appears to he (g)) so I can only assume its part of the much awaited and completely INVISIBLE new tech manual ... fun to be had there as the concept of stating that a "maintenance record" has a valid to date is very worrying ... that is SO quasi maintenance release as to be another area of GA like process creeping in ... and I hope its JUST the LSA 24 regn aircraft with CofAs that this applies to because if its non-CofA aircraft then its illogical and incompatible.

 

And if it IS LSA 24 regn aircraft you might find the COST of getting an L2 to do any work on those aircraft is going to skyrocket becasue as soon as an insurance underwriter takes a look at that there is very little daylight between an L2 and a LAME on liability AND if I am being asked to given an end date to any maintenance I am going to be inspecting the whole damn plane to cover my butt

 

This is a the way of GA and with it comes the costs

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a special case where a plane that is to be returned to school use has been owner maintained for a period. The aircraft does have to be signed out as being airworthy, or at least that it hasn't been rendered un airworthy by the period it wasn't maintained by an L2. This is a pretty big ask, and the equivalent situation in GA was considered fraught with difficulty as one would expect. It was actually considered a one way trip. Ie a plane that transfers to RAAus and is owner maintained can never be re listed as a GA plane. I don't know how you would solve this as it's like presenting an aircraft with NO log books. ( No service (or incomplete) service history. It's that not only do you not know what has not been done, that should have been done, you don't know what's been done WRONG. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That non Maintenance release looks like a maintenance release to me. You know what they say." If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and $#!ts like a duck" , it's a DUCK.. People who think weight threatens our sport should realise things like this are a bigger threat. It reduces the airworthy plane concept to a flight by flight thing. That's fine as long as you know what you are doing. There are schools out there who will give up if this goes through to it's final logical conclusion. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'll bite - All the above makes you wonder why bother having an L2 approval at all - it just get too hard, but maybe a cynic would say that's the intent.

 

I let mine lapse because of what I've seen & know happens after an L2 'signs off' for work done.

 

Some aircraft owners are their own worst enemy & of the RAAus too.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people realise what a rod they are making for their own back. All this paperwork is not what it's about. The responsibility should be on the individual who participates, not hive it off to someone to blame (and sue). Nev

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoos,

 

I dont want to get into the nitty gritty of the arguments about maintenance releases/forms I wonder if this way could work out for you.

 

1. Approach a good aviation insurance broker and get a quote for the appropriate insurance that you think necessary.

 

2. Approach the club and see if they would reimburse you the cost of this insurance if you did the maintenance work on the club aircraft. Point out to them that you are still donating the time/use of tools/skills etc. If they wont pay then perhaps let someone else take the risk.

 

This might work out ok and gives you a degree of control over the situation. I have never liked relying on other peoples insurance as you often don't know the cover limits, exclusions and excess limits that apply. By having your own insurance you have the control plus you also know that the policy has been paid and is current. Imagine the situation that the club folds, the aircraft are sold and then there is an issue with the new owner. The club may no longer exist and so you may have issues with making a claim.

 

The other aspect is the excess. For instance in many engineering professional indemnity policies they have high excesses ($50k+). While this may be OK for a company that has to then write this loss off a against other projects or a club that has a revenue stream from operating aircraft, you as an individual serving just one club as a volunteer may want a much lower excess.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The form is buried in the RAAus website. I am aware that our Tech Manager is including a condition on (at least some) new aircraft CofA's that he issues that all flights be recorded on this form. In effect he is slowly implementing this as a mandatory form to use. I support this move, given the lack of adequate records and ability to track required maintenance that I observe from time to time.

I've been using this form to highlight scheduled maintenance since 2010 every aircraft I service gets one. all aircraft must be maintained to a schedule, for home hilts you can chose one from CASA's list A or B, and this must be documented. For LSA's it's the manufacturers schedule.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...