FE Insurance

[Warrior2]

Hi Guys,

Something Id just like to put out there to see if anyone has Ideas;

Lets say for example I'm conducting a PPL LST, something goes wrong and I (as an FI or FE) end up crashing.

Who is liable for this? Can I be sued? Can the school be sued?

I'm looking for personal protection Insurance being a Flight Examiner to ensure that if something happens to me on a test, that I'm not liable and cant be sued.

Also, If the applicant crashes and I ended up seriously injured, could this insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?

I have asked more than one National Aviation Authority on this subject and its very unclear. Nobody seems to know of anyone providing such Insurance,

Is there anyone out there that can help?

[Level Attitude]

Who is liable for this?As PIC you are always responsible.
Whether you are "liable" would depend on the circumstances
and would be for lawyers to decide (unless you admit liability).
Can I be sued?Of course you can !
Can the school be sued?Of course they can !

that I'm not liable and cant be suedActual liability has nothing to do with whether anyone can sue you or not.
It is the lawsuit itself which will determine liability, but even
successfully defending one can be an expensive pain.

Also, If the applicant crashes and I ended up seriously injured, could this
insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?Interesting that, as PIC, you are blaming the student - If they did
something totally daft so that you think they are "liable" then you can
sue them (but remember THEY are a Student, YOU are an Instructor),
could be a difficult one to prove.

Generally Medical Accident Insurance, provided it covers the
'dangerous activity' of flying in non-commercial aircraft would cover you
for medical expenses - Loss of earnings would depend on what you were
actually insured for, and may be a separate policy.

Is there anyone out there that can help?The only Instructor/Examiner Liability Insurance I am aware of is that
provided by Heritage Insurance Solutions (and doesn't cover you for all
the concerns you have listed). You need to be an AOPA member (possibly
an AOPA UK member) to apply for this insurance and, I think, only covers
instruction in the UK.

[Fostex]

Under EASA as an FI/FE you will be attached to an ATO. In effect they are your employer and you will be protected under vicarious liability ( your employer assumes liability ) if you are conducting any examination while in their employment. However if for the purposes of the examination you are operating in a private capacity then you may not be covered under this liability and as such be at risk of being sued by the insurance company attempting to recover their losses from the hull loss in an accident in which you were PIC.

There is a Besso policy out there to cover some aspects of this liability but not for the hull loss.

This is discussed in the following thread;

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/252772-personal-indemnity-insurance.html

[Whopity]

Under EASA as an FI/FE you will be attached to an ATOThere is no requirement under EASA for an examiner to be attached to an ATO; They can be completely independent.

[Level Attitude]

There is a Besso policy out thereNow moved to Heritage Insurance

no requirement under EASA for an examiner to be attached to an ATOAlthough other Examiners can be used; ATOs, in the UK, supply a list to
the CAA of the Examiners they intend to use. This could be described as
"being attached to an ATO'.

This, however, IS NOT the same as being employed by an ATO.

if you are conducting any examination while in their employmentYou could be employed by an ATO as an Instructor (for example) but
I do not think anyone should, or can, be employed by an ATO to conduct
examinations on that ATO's students (contravenes FCL.1005 (b))

risk of being sued by the insurance company attempting to recover
their losses from the hull loss in an accident in which you were PIC.If Hull Loss was an insured risk then, as PIC, you would, surely, be the
insured party so the insurance company could not sue you for this as they
would, effectively, be suing themselves.

[Fostex]

If Hull Loss was an insured risk then, as PIC, you would, surely, be the
insured party so the insurance company could not sue you for this as they
would, effectively, be suing themselves. No, as an examiner you will be insured as PIC in the aircraft you are conducting the flight test in, and as such in an accident the insurance company will pay out for the loss of hull to the aircraft owner. However if there is even a small indication that the examiner was in any way to blame then the insurance company will attempt to sue the examiner for negligence to recover some of their payout for the hull loss. I know of at least one case in which this has occurred.

The problem is there is actually no insurance policy out there in the UK at the moment to protect against this for a private individual. It is the equivalent of malpractice insurance in the medical world and the Besso/Heritage policy does offer some protection covering the examiner/instructor for 3rd party liability, however it specifically states it will not protect against the loss of hull.

"Does this policy cover damage caused to the aircraft by the Instructor? NO"

The best way around this is to make sure an ATO will cover you under their liability insurance as an employee. Sadly there is a lack of insurance to cover private operators for this risk.

[Whopity]

Although other Examiners can be used; ATOs, in the UK, supply a list to
the CAA of the Examiners they intend to use. This could be described as
"being attached to an ATO'.There is no requirement for an ATO to supply a list of examiners. They may however do so as an alternative method of notification if they wish to nominate examiners who are used regularly. The primary system remains in accordance with IN 2012/156 as follows:For all skill tests other than CPL and IR (see para 2.1.1 above), an e-mail needs to be sent to [email protected], and the e-mail must contain the information requested in para 2.2.1. Before undertaking the activity, the applicant must wait to receive a confirmation from the CAA that the proposed designated examiner is agreed. Once this e-mail confirmation has been received the test may proceed.

[BigEndBob]

Strange, when i renewed my PPL FE, i didn't fill in the school nomination section on the application as the CAA appendix guidance said not to fill in.
The application got rejected until that section was filled in and e-mailed back.

[Whopity]

If they don't apply cross them out and put N/A or Not in accordance with... Seems to work!

[S-Works]

The problem here Whoppity is that despite you undoubtably being correct, your former masters at the CAA frequently do not agree with your interpretation and seem to apply a different set of rules.

I have also had applications sent back for my staff Examiner renewals that were marked as N/A with sponsoring organisation. In questioning I was told that the CAA expect all examiners to be sponsored by an ATO. When I pointed out that was not in the legislation I was pointed to another document that says the CAA is responsible for maintaining oversight and how they do this is up to them.

We quote legislation all day but if the CAA want to do things differently they will always find a loophole that helps them out.

We are also required to supply a list of examiners as well as instructors on our approval and the monthly skill test return needs to be in accordance with the listed examiners.

[Whopity]

The SRG 1128 Examiner Application form is an old JAA Form dated May 2006 and hopelessly out of date. Even under JAR there was no requirement for Examiners to be sponsored by FTOs.

I heard only this week from CAA Examiners that there is no requirement for an industry examiner to be sponsored by an ATO. The CAA now admits it has been gold plating and is attempting to rectify this issue. They are required to establish procedures for the allocation of examiners to tests and have covered that requirement by the notification system, nothing more is required.

One of the EU objectives is to establish a level playing field whereby all examiners have the same rights irrespective of whether they are sponsored (whatever that means) by atn ATO or not.

The CAA is slowly learning it cannot continue to run the old National system or make it up as they go along; they too have to toe the line and are subject to audit.