Advice please

[steve1234]

Can someone give me some advice about this. A friend mine was involved in a plane crash and they told him to send the insurance claim report to the guy in his group who looks after the paperwork. When this guy saw the report he told my friend to alter some of the details about what happened, like the number of 90 day take off and landings he had done and things like that. They said he should send the same report to the AAIB. He was still ill at the time but now he is not sure that’s right could he be in trouble here?

[500 above]

That would be committing fraud. Insurance companies are not stupid, the truth will prevail upon an investigation.

[Pace]

Your friend must be honest about the questions asked of him otherwise it will turn around and bite.
Having said that there is no need for him to forward information not asked for.

Pace

[Pilotage]

AAIB generally are extremely helpful and nonjudgemental in their dealings with the people who report accidents to them.

Unless they've been lied to, in which case they get very unpleasant, and rightly so.

The captain MUST submit the report to AAIB, and MUST be absolutely truthful.

If somebody has submitted untrue information on his behalf, or he's been persuaded to submit untrue information, far and away his best policy is to contact the AAIB inspector directly and come clean.

The insurance company will inevitably read the AAIB report - so they clearly also need absolutely true information. However, don't volunteer to an insurance company anything they didn't ask for.

P

[Crash one]

Pilot's log book will very likely be examined. One lie leads to another till knots are tied. Tell the truth, it will be far better than getting found lacking later. Neither AAIB nor Insurance companies are stupid. If your friend was solo at the time then 90 days is legal & means nothing.

[taxistaxing]

If your friend was solo at the time then 90 days is legal & means nothing.


Reading between the lines, what's probably happened is he has flown when not current for insurance purposes. The group will be (rightly) concerned that the insurance company won't pay up.

My group's insurance company, for example, imposes a 90 day currency requirement. I could legally make a solo flight beyond this but the insurance company wouldn't pay up if I bent the plane.

Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket (the group and possibly other third parties involved will probably have a claim against him for damages either from his negligence in bending the plane, or breach of contract). If it was me I would tell the truth as it has a habbit of coming out in the wash, and I wouldn't want to risk prosecution. "Oh what a tangled web we weave", and all that...

Not a nice position to be in at all, and just goes to show the importance of making sure you are current both legally and from an insurance perspective.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket
Unlikely. Assuming the fraud is detected, which most here seem to think probable, the choice is between:

(1) cough up for the damage from his own pocket

or

(2) cough up for the damage from his own pocket and be convicted and sentenced for fraud.

[taxistaxing]

Quote:
Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket
Unlikely. Assuming the fraud is detected, which most here seem to think probable, the choice is between:

(1) cough up for the damage from his own pocket

or

(2) cough up for the damage from his own pocket and be convicted and sentenced for fraud.


Well the club will obviously be hoping that the fraud wouldn't be detected. Presumably they would falsify their records, tech logs etc. to tally with the pilot's log book and make him appear current. How likely that would be to work, I don't know!

I know from experience that car insurance companies send out investigators for 'total loss' claims, basically looking for excuses not to pay up. I imagine the same would apply to aviation insurance.

Not a great situation to be in!

[John R81]

And so the list of charges grows to include conspiricy to defraud.

[funfly]

Looks as if you know the answer to this but...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first set out to deceive" :=
So, you get away with something and no-one is hurt at the time. But for how many years are you going to worry about something let slip by someone else.

We may all sound like 'do-gooders' with these replies but I can assure you that many of us will have been in situations where, on reflection, we were foolish to have found ourselves and some of us would admit to a few sleepless nights because of it. (not me of course)

[Pilot.Lyons]

Insurance fraud not good.

Be honest and submit docs to the insurer direct or if they need to go via someone else keep copies of what you submitted to them.

I would not involve myself in someone elses reasons for "bending the truth" ..... But thats just me

[toptobottom]

I deal with insurance companies for a living and they have all invested heavily in anti-fraud systems over the last few years. Your friend should not even consider altering 'the facts' or he could very easily become one of the examples that the insurance companies are looking to expose in order to discourage further fraud.

All claims are throughly investigated, so he should correct any inaccuracies immediately, before the real facts speak for themselves and he finds himself having to explain why he lied to the authorities.

[Trinity 09L]

Steve - did you write this in an earlier post in December '12?

"Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?"

Apologies if it is wrong and I will edit/withdraw it

[airpolice]

So.... what are the chances of an insurance investigator, who by the nature of the beast are paid to find a way to avoid liability... not stumbling into this?

Now they will be looking at any claims in the system for a group operated plane and they will dig in places that "your friend" can't possibly falsify.

ATC records are kept for a while and the AAIB can ask awkward questions, and probably will, if the insurers find a hint of wrongdoing.

Have your friend ready to answer questions like, why is every take off and landing not supported by documents from the airfields concerned? payment of landing charges and records of take off and landing times might be hard to fake.

Where did he go on the flights in question, and why is there no en route ATC or FIS recording?

Do the engine and airframe service records support any "additional flights" that are claimed? If they do encroach on service intervals, do the records of the maintenance provider, if used, support this?

Is the pilot employed? Was he at work on the days he claims to have been flying... was the wx suitable... do fuel receipts support the extra use? All of that can be traced, and they only need to find one "error" to give them enough cause to dig deeper.

If the aircraft was not flown enough in the previous 90 days, then you need to invent flights, but if you claim flights that someone else did, in order to be "more current" then you are at risk of being exposed when the investigator asks to see the log books of all the other group members.

Are you all confident that you are all going to lie to the insurers and AAIB?

Even faced with a suggestion that "if we don't lie" they will not pay and we lose the aircraft and possibly have third party costs to meet, are you really sure that the innocent will lie to entangle themselves in your friend's plot?

I suspect that I'm not the only person who would like to know more... like did your friend submit the altered report yet?

Did the request to alter the report come by some means with evidence, like email?

What pprune id did Steve1234 use before this issue came up?

[peter272]

Here's an extreme example.....

Flying instructor 'faked training log of millionaire pilot so he could gain licence just weeks before he and wife were killed in crash' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256204/Flying-instructor-faked-training-log-millionaire-pilot-gain-licence-just-weeks-wife-killed-crash.html)

[toptobottom]

Not so extreme; it's simply too easy to get caught out, so don't do it!
:ugh:

[Trinity 09L]

Air Police
His own ID - :ugh:
Add to it that his own isp can be traced + his email address, and his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.

his comment was on 19/12/2012 07.04 under 90 day rule discussion, not able to copy link :ooh:

[toptobottom]

Here (http://www.pprune.org/7584482-post95.html)you go :ok:

[airpolice]

This is part of the AAIB report into the accident leading to the case being heard at Leeds Crown Court this week.

The absence, however, of documents that might be expected to exist, principally the aircraft technical log, instructor’s logbook and training notes, raised further concern about the standard of operation of the RTF and removed the opportunity to confirm which flights had actually been undertaken. The evidence that does exist indicates that the pilot did not complete sufficient training hours and it is unlikely that the full syllabus was completed adequately in this time. Inconsistencies were also identified concerning the Skills Test the pilot undertook and, as a result, the investigation could not reliably ascertain the pilot’s flying ability at the time of the accident.



The flights were all recorded as being flown on the same aircraft, HA‑L FM, and with the same instructor as named in the RTF application, totalling 25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours 6 minutes supervised solo flying. Of the solo time recorded, up to 6 hours 36 minutes was recorded as having been spent on navigation exercises.

A document subsequently provided by a member of the pilot’s family was presented as an apparent record of the pilot’s actual flying hours. The first flight date recorded on this document was 20 August 2007 and the last flight recorded was 12 December 2007. Between these dates the sheets recorded the pilot as having flown 25 hours 24 minutes dual instruction, and 8 hours 36 minutes solo. Of these hours, two hours were flown when undertaking the Skills Test and there is evidence that one hour was undertaken in a rear seat, flying as a passenger, whilst another pilot was receiving training. The document would thus indicate the pilot having undertaken 22 hours and 24 minutes dual training and 8 hours 36 minutes supervised solo flying between the dates recorded.
The pilot’s logbook recorded all the training flights as originating from Beverley Airfield, although there was no supporting evidence that this was the case. The aircraft was based at Breighton Airfield and the pilot would not have been able to log the transit time between Breighton and Beverley towards his flying training hours.

As the unofficial flight time record maintained by the pilot appears to have recorded the total flight times, rather than just training hours, had the training actually been conducted from Beverley Airfield then it follows that his actual training hours might have been less than the total recorded.





The last entry in the pilot’s logbook was for a flight on 5 December 2007, this time from Breighton Airfield, with the same instructor who had conducted his PPL training on the Gazelle. The takeoff and landing times indicated the flight took place at night and lasted one hour, although it had been recorded claiming one hour of dual day flying and an additional 42 minutes of dual night flying.


Enquiries into inconsistencies in the pilot’s logbook revealed that he had, in fact, commenced flying training on HA-LFM prior to 19 November 2007. The instructor stated there had been delays in getting the RTF issued and so he had begun training with two of the three trainee pilots prior to its issue, although he was unable to say exactly when that was. It had been decided that, in order to satisfy the requirements of the CAA, none of these training flights would be logged, but instead entries would be made in the pilot’s logbook indicating that all the training flights post-dated the granting of the RTF. The instructor was not able to produce training records or other supporting evidence to show which flights had actually been conducted by the pilot fatally injured in the accident. In addition, the owner of HA-LFM stated that there were no technical records kept for flights undertaken by the aircraft that might have provided a record of the flights undertaken. The only corroborating evidence available for any of the training flights logged by the pilot on HA-LFM was the cross-country flight certificate for a flight logged on the 29 November 2007.

The instructor, whilst unable to provide supporting evidence, stated that the pilot had nevertheless completed all the necessary flying training. He also stated that the pilot had completed all the ground school training required and had passed his technical exam with a mark of 100%. This ground school training had also included a brief on the effects of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness although there were no questions on this in the exam.


An application was made on 12 December 2007 for the pilot to take the Skills Test in order to gain his PPL(H). This application stated that the pilot had flown a total of 45 hours 18 minutes on helicopters, 10 hours 6 minutes solo and 35 hours 12 minutes dual.

The form was certified by the RTF’s instructor that the pilot had completed the necessary training and that the instructor had checked the pilot’s logbook to ensure the entries met the flying experience requirements. The logbook, however, contained no record of exercises 23, 25 and 26 of the syllabus having been flown. When interviewed, the instructor stated these exercises had been completed but, in error, had not been recorded in the logbook.



During the investigation it became apparent that, on one previous occasion, on 14 September 2007, the examiner had flown with the pilot at Breighton Airfield to demonstrate autorotations. The flight had been undertaken with one of the other pilots being trained under the RTF on HA-LFM, the two pilots flying for approximately one hour each, spending the other hour observing from the rear seat. The examiner stated that he had pointed out that these hours could not be included towards their flight training as the RTF had not been issued. These flights were included in the unofficial record maintained by the pilot.

He passed the pilot on all elements of the test, assessing him as well above average ability. The examiner stated that the pilot had, however, allowed the aircraft to weathercock during a spot turn, requiring him to repeat the exercise. The pilot had, however, been able to control the weathercocking without intervention and had repeated the exercise to a satisfactorary standard. The examiner stated that the pilot was ‘level headed and capable’ and he considered that he had flown to the same standard expected of a pilot undergoing a commercial Skills Test.

Subsequent analysis of radar data identified the Skills Test flight and indicated discrepancies between the route and the timings of the test and those recorded on the examination paperwork.


The examiner was known to the instructor and had been included in paperwork supporting the setting up of the RTF. It is also known that he had flown with the pilot on at least one occasion prior to his Skills Test. The current system, whereby examiners are selected, and paid for, by those being tested, creates the potential for a conflict of interest and examiners for such tests should be allocated by the CAA.

Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.

[taxistaxing]

Quite a few aspertions being cast!

Not to defend the potentially illegal activities being discussed, but should a witch hunt really be starting on an anonymous internet forum?


his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.


Airpolice, care to elaborate on what you mean by the above? Comments like that might make people afraid to post, given your username!

EDIT: Apologies I see the above comment came from Trinity09L not air police.

But the same question applies really! All of our email addresses will be available to PPRUNE but they would not be required (or even permitted) to share them without a court order due to data protection.

[airpolice]

Quite a few aspertions being cast!

Not to defend the potentially illegal activities being discussed, but should a witch hunt really be starting on an anonymous internet forum?

Quote:
his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.
Airpolice, care to elaborate on what you mean by the above? Comments like that might make people afraid to post, given your username!


Tax, read it again and let me know if you need clarification from me. I'm just helping busy readers avoid having to trawl all of the AAIB report.

I am not an insurance investigator, nor do I work for the CAA.

All of my flying, as a Pilot, is recreational.

I am interested in this case, and the sub culture that the original post highlights, as it may well affect all of us.

If we can't trust Instructors and Examiners to be honest, how can we really have confidence in ourselves as pilots?

We may feel that we are fine, and a CAA authorised examiner saying so, well.... that ought to confirm it. This case however, would suggest that's not what's been happening every time.


In the AAIB report, we read that the Instructor had made false entries to meet the CAA requirements.

The track of the Skills tests is not a match for the Examiner's account of it.

What unfounded aspersions is it that you think are being cast?

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Aerospatiale%20Westland%20SA%20341G%20Gazelle,%20YU-HEW%2011-09.pdf

[taxistaxing]

Yes sorry I just edited my first post. Comment I was asking about came from Trinity, not from you!

Apologies again :ugh:.

[airpolice]

Most of us are not hard to find, without a court order.

I'm not looking for a witch hunt, I'm looking for a hint as to whether or not this kind of thing is rife.

The more AAIB reports I read, the more I think that either flying with the wrong documentation causes you to crash, or an awful lot of people are flying without their paperwork in order.

I'm curious about Steve1234 because he may well have asked other questions that would shed some light on his experiences with "his friend's" group.

[Trinity 09L]

Taxistaxing & Air police - and Steve1234
I noticed that Steve had one earlier question which I copied & has been correctly pasted now, and it connected - surprisingly to his "advice please" request. No trawling required, only common interest on a new poster here similar to what occurs all the time.
I am fully aware of the need for court orders etc but alas I fear that S.1234 has opended a can of worms by publishing in this instance.
If any of the above wish to pm I will explain my profile which started in 2000 (and no one needs to be worried). I am proud to be associated, through pprune, with the memorial now in position at Staines (upon Thames).

[taxistaxing]

Trinity,


Add to it that his own isp can be traced + his email address, and his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.



I just wondered what you meant by the above?

This is an anonymous internet forum where we all post about our exploits. Reading about isps and email addresses being traced, and someone's posts making your working life "not very difficult", is somewhat sinister :yuk: .

Espescially when your profile lists your occupation as an "uncivil servant".

[airpolice]

Hardly a surprise:

BBC News - Fatal helicopter flight instructor Ian King found guilty (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20962710)

Steve1234, how's it looking for your friend and the altered report?

[toptobottom]

BBC News - Fatal helicopter flight instructor Ian King found guilty (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20962710)

More on this in the rotorheads forum (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/310413-crash-near-harrogate-uk.html).

[Trinity 09L]

Airpolice - they maybe rewriting the report :ugh:, (taxi etc I sent you a pm)

[steve1234]

Still going on