PDA

View Full Version : rental in USA with existing validation


stolport
6th Jun 2007, 19:53
Hi

I have a CAA PPL and did some hour building in Florida in 2002.

If I wanted to go back do I need another revalidation certificate from the FAA - before/when I arrive?

Chilli Monster
6th Jun 2007, 20:13
Does your UK/Euro licence number match the licence number printed on your FAA "issued on the basis of" certificate? If so then no re-validation is required. However, I would suggest applying online to change your cardboard US licence for one of the new plastic ones.

Nipper2
6th Jun 2007, 20:57
Check the AOPA website regarding insurance. It appears that whatever you do, pay or sign you will be flying uninsured in the USA unless you are a US citizen.

NH2390
6th Jun 2007, 21:09
As above, but remember you still need a BFR within the last two years for your FAA certificate to be valid.

Chilli Monster
6th Jun 2007, 21:36
Nipper2 - first I've heard of that one. Do you have a reference?

Mike Cross
6th Jun 2007, 22:00
Details in the current issue of General Aviation.

Basically AOPA UK and AOPA US have been unable to get the US Insurance Industry to cover non-US Citizens flying as PIC under the Renters Insurance Policies sold by FBO's. It's a long standing issue apparantly. They'll happily sell you the policy but if you're not a US Citizen it won't pay out.

dublinpilot
7th Jun 2007, 12:48
Details in the current issue of General Aviation.


Apr 07? Can't see it in the online copy :confused:

S-Works
7th Jun 2007, 13:28
Where exactly does it quote this on the AOPA US website?

I am a UK citizen (resident alien) living in California and I have renters insurance with no problem and the questions asked at the time the policy was taken out/renewed never even ask for nationality.

My local FBO require Renters Insurance by all pilots and I have never heard of any instance of any problem when it comes to making any claim.

Because you are a resident......

This applies to visiting holiday-maker type pilots whoa re not US based.

S-Works
7th Jun 2007, 14:43
dunno, about the US website but there is an article on it in this months GA magazine (AOPA UK Magazine). It is something I have been aware off for some time as a member of the AOPA MWG.

Cusco
7th Jun 2007, 15:16
Page 8 of the June General Aviation Magazine:
Hasn't made it to the AOPA-Eur website yet.

I from personal experience feel Mr Robinson in UK AOPA is being unnecessarily alarmist.................
Safe (and insured) flying
Cusco;)

stolport
7th Jun 2007, 19:17
So if I wanted to rent an aircraft (I already have an FAA certificate from 2002 based on my CAA licence) I would need to send the Certificate of Authenticy to the CAA, wait for it to come back and then send it to the FAA, wait for the response with an updated licence and then just go to a US flight school and do an BFR?

Is this correct?

dublinpilot
8th Jun 2007, 08:32
As the FAA want people to replace their old paper certs with the new plastic certs, you will need to complete a Cert of Auth as part of that replacement process.


SoCap,

Am I correct in thinking that there is no complusion to change to the new plastic ones? I have a cardboard one and am happy to keep it to save going through the authentitication process again.

dp

S-Works
8th Jun 2007, 08:53
Nope. According to the FAA you have to move to the plastic card. The same is applying to engineers etc.
It's on the FAA website.

dublinpilot
8th Jun 2007, 12:30
Any idea how long we have before needing to replace them? The search is down on the FAA website, and following links is getting me nowhere useful :confused:

dublinpilot
8th Jun 2007, 17:18
For anyone else that is interested, I've just got off the phone with the FAA Airmens Certification Branch.

There currently is no requirement to replace the cardboard airmens certificate with the new plastic ones, and there is currently no future date by which you must replace your cardboard certificate.

The cardboard one is still valid indefinately, though that may change in the future. (Words like, MAY and CURRENTLY were used a lot in the conversation indicating that this is a current issue and subject to change in the future.)

Replacing the cardboard one with the new plastic ones does involve going though the whole verification of foreign licence procedure, even if you went through it already to get the cardboard one. This obviously involves a trip to a FSDO. However it does not require you to return the cardboard one, so you can continue to use that one until the plastic one is obtained.

I hope that is of some help to anyone else wondering about this issue ;)

dp

slim_slag
8th Jun 2007, 18:10
There was a Federal notice published at the beginning of this year asking for comments on a rule change to require everybody to get a plastic card, not sure what happened to it. Might have failed on cost grounds.

So the final word on renter's insurance is you don't have to be a citizen, you don't have to be a resident, you just need to use a US address?

Cusco
8th Jun 2007, 18:40
Slim slag:

Safe flying.

Cusco;)

S-Works
8th Jun 2007, 20:30
I am not sure it is as simple as that..............

Cusco
8th Jun 2007, 21:44
Cusco:rolleyes:

slim_slag
9th Jun 2007, 10:51
The avemco policy covers aircraft of US or Canadian registry being flown by pilots with a US or Canadian certificate. So if the orginial (non cited) article says only US citizens are covered it's already been proven to be speaking b0ll0x.

Citizenship or residency are not mentioned.

Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook.

PompeyPaul
10th Jun 2007, 15:31
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook
Having been totally f*cked over by insurance companies before, I can categorically state the above to be completely untrue.

2close
10th Jun 2007, 17:53
The article is also on Page 34 of the June '07 edition of Pilot.

It states quite plainly that hour builders are not covered and even casts doubt on whether non-US citizens on approved courses are actually covered when flying PIC. At the risk of breaching copyright I will reproduce the article but I'm sure both Pilot and PPRuNe will forgive the minor transgression given its significance.

However, apart from it being quote (more or less) verbatim from Pilot I cannot make any statement regarding its accuracy.

"AOPA is seriously concerned that UK pilots renting aircraft in the US are flying uninsured even if they take out 'renter's insurance' policies provided by many flight schools and Fixed Base Operators.

Renter's insurance policies in America specifically exclude foreign nationals flying solo and all of AOPA UK's efforts down the years to have non-American pilots included on policies have come to nothing. Even AOPA US's own renter's insurance policy will not cover foreigners - their underwirters say that problems associated with dealing wiht foreign nationals make such cover unworkable.

Similarly, no underwriter with Looyd's will back a policy that covers British private pilots flying solo in America. Income from such policies would be small, while the potential liabilities from a single accident could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

AOPA UK Chief Executive Martin Robinson says, "Many British pilots who pay for renter's insurance in the US don' read the small print and they're unaware that they are flying without insurance.

Policies can cover foreigners if they are flying under instruction but not when they are flying solo. It's debatable whether British students engaged in solo flying as part of licence courses are covered, given that their instructor will not be physically present in the aircraft. Pilots under training (my addition: I take this to mean DUAL, i.e. with the instructor) shouldbe covered by the Club's insurance policy but it would be wise to ask to see a copy of this before flying and to read the small print.

Effectively, many a renter in the US will be accepting an open ended liability. Given the propensity of the Americans to resort to the courts in case of accidents and the tendency of US juries to award vast sums in damages a British pilot is accpeting a significant risk of which he or she should be aware before take-off.

FBOs abnd flight schools may be able to say that they sold renter's insurance policies while being unaware that the buyer was aforeign national but every pilot should read the small print and know what it means in practice.

For years AOPA UK has been trying to find a way around this problem but even with the support of AOPA US we have been unable to make progress. We are concerned that one day a British pilot will find out the hard way that a policy he or she has does not in fact provide any cover.

Caveat emptor (Me again: Buyer beware!)."

2close
10th Jun 2007, 17:56
Quote:
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook

Having been totally f*cked over by insurance companies before, I can categorically state the above to be completely untrue.


And having worked as an investigator for insurance companies I can agree with PompeyPaul 100%. Some companies will go to some lengths to avoid payment.

S-Works
10th Jun 2007, 20:15
Oh yes it is , bose dear boy, oh yes it is..................

Cusco

My dear BOY.... I think you are wrong and there is a lot of evidence to support it. Lets try to be less patronizing in future please, I am neither your dear or a boy.

As a member of the AOPA MWG this subject has been discussed on a number of occasions and both AOPA USA and AOPA Europe believe there is a significant issue around this.

slim_slag
10th Jun 2007, 22:14
Here is a link to a PDF which has the Avemco Non Owner's Rental Policy

https://www.avemco.com/insuranceproducts/Non-Owned%20Policy%20PDF.pdf

Renter's insurance policies in America specifically exclude foreign nationals flying solo

Can somebody point out where it says that because I cannot find it.

It does say We agree to provide insurance in return for your premium payment. which makes the insurance company most definitely 'on the hook' but they usually struggle and sometimes it takes a lawyer to land them.

Here is the policy for the renters insurance sold by AOPA

http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf

Where are the exclusions?

david viewing
11th Jun 2007, 13:55
Renter's Insurance
I'm glad that AOPA (UK) is taking an interest in this subject because AOPA (US) just stopped answering my emails once I pressed the point that I was a foreigner living in foreign land who was seeking insurance to fly in the US. (I am referring to the association, not the insurance broker).

It seems that Insurers may be willing to take your money and turn a blind eye, even in the case of using the FBO address, so long as you don't labour the point that you don't actually live there. If you do labour the point, they will just stop responding to your enquiries.

I wonder if this behaviour, which seems consistent between brokers, is the result of some insurance industry convention. After, there's a similar practice over car insurance which prevents your UK insurer covering you in the US, even though they will cover you in exotic countries elsewhere. Perhaps the word 'cartel' comes into it?
As to flying uninsured in the US, well that's the deal. In addition, you have to assume that the FBO's hull insurance is an unknown quantity because even if he claims to have it, you have no realistic way to find out if he's paid the premium. Funny thing is, I wouldn't dream of renting a car there without the LDW and SLI.
Realistically your chances of injuring a 3rd party are pretty small provided you don't carry passengers. But you might have to buy the FBO a new plane.

S-Works
11th Jun 2007, 17:54
:) Bose...

slim_slag
12th Jun 2007, 09:02
Deleted to protect the innocent :)

S-Works
12th Jun 2007, 09:47
I am not getting into a spat with you on this. Read the entire thread and who poisted what. I merely commented on what others posted as an extract from AOPA. AOPA US and UK are concerned and this issue has been ongoing for sometime. If you have an issue with my opinion then put your request in writing to them and seek clarification.

I am certainlky concerned enough about the facts that I have at hand to consider my options. If you are prepared to follow your own very clearly stated belief then you are free to do so. I merely think encouraging others to follow you without clear clarification is ill advised.

slim_slag
12th Jun 2007, 12:42
I am not going to get 'clear clarification' on US insurance policy from a UK based organisation of debatable ability even within it's own sphere of influence. The clearest clarification provided on this thread are links to two actual insurancy policy documents, and a report of a phone conversation held with a US insurance company.

I am also not 'encouraging others to follow', I am presenting an argument with documentary evidence to back this up. Most people on here are smart enough to read both sides of the debate and make their own minds up. Hopefully my use of decent evidence makes my case stronger.

You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims. Such are bulletin boards of course. If you have known about this for some time from your claimed involvement on some group then why hasn't this come out before? Surely it's AOPAs job to look after the interests of its members, and warning them that they are uninsured while in the USA would appear to be something important to publicise as soon as possible.

Funnily enough I am also quite happy to be proven incorrect, it doesn't bother me one bit, but there is nothing of substance which comes close to doing so. That article demonstrates to me a lack of understanding of how the US flying industry works. Hardly surprising, I wouldn't expect AOPA in the US to understand how it works in the UK. I certainly wouldn't write to AOPA (US) to find out whether a UK issued insurance policy was valid. What a funny thing to expect. So, has anybody got anything that can demonstrate it is actually me that is talking nonsense?

S-Works
12th Jun 2007, 12:55
Er! AOPA HAVE told the membership there is a problem........ Thats where this comes from. Read the AOPA magazine and the website.

The AOPA Members Working Group represents the AOPA membership, we review what is happening that can effect our membership and highlight it.

AOPA UK and US feel there is an issue. I am not arguing for or against I am pointing out what is be circulated by AOPA to it's membership. They are issuing a warning that they do not think you are covered. AOPA US and UK are working on this together. AOPA UK is a franchise of the US and very active communication does occur.

I have made no "claims" I have referred to what is clearly in print. I have referred to discussions made available to the AOPA MWG.

You have read the policy and have issued your expert opinion on it. AOPA and the lawyers have read it and issued there opinion which is in print in the AOPA magazine. It is the choice of the reader who they chose to believe.

You are looking for a fight for a reason I am not quite sure on but I would suggest your energies are better directed elsewhere.

In the meantime I am happy to sit and await the outcome from AOPA.

slim_slag
13th Jun 2007, 15:06
Often flying schools will offer a 'waiver' for lets say $5 an hour. If you pay it they promise not to come after you for the excess/deductable and will claim the balance from their insurance. It's not an insurance policy per se, but acts like one as far as the client is concerned. If only covers you for the hull loss, you are not covered if you cause damage to a third party in the same way an avemco policy would.

If there is a insurance policy available by the hour which covers third party liability then I have not heard of it. This thread has certainly become a bit messy.