Who pays for damage to aircraft during training?

[mkqq]

Hi,

I'm currently doing my PPL and I'm just wondering if I make a mistake during my training and cause damage to the aircraft as a result, who pays for the damage?

Let's say a tail-strike, or propeller strike, or clipping another aircraft when taxiing.

The instructor / school owner says I have to pay the insurance excess. Is this quite typical? I realize it may vary from country to country, or school to school.

[Officer Kite]

Quite surprised reading this really, my school say everything is insured and the insurance is included as part of the flight school fees. The only case where a student will have to cough up is if it can be proved they damaged the aircraft with intent.

[Piltdown Man]

Methinks it's time to change schools. Until you have a PPL there is a responsibility for your training organisation to ensure you are up to the task they have set you. If that means training sessions have to be cancelled due excess traffic, unusual ground movements, WIP or weather, then so be it. That is all part of running PPL training. Only if you intentionally set out to cause damage should you be liable.

[Global_Global]

Keeflyer gives the right answer: make sure what the excess is... It varies from school to school. Some have 0 but if it is intent or gross negligence they can still come after you

[Martin_123]

wow, never heard of this before.. in Ireland it's all included and we get our policies from UK.. I don't have any excess on my policy for my aircraft, neither anyone who I have discussed insurance with.. like it's not even on offer, you couldn't get it even if you wanted to..

[CrazyScientist]

At the school I rent from at EGGP, excess is £800 and is payable by qualified PPLs. In the case of training flights, the instructor coughs up IIRC. Seems unreasonable to have the student responsible for paying excess for damage incurred on a training flight (even if the student is on a solo sortie).

[planesandthings]

Makes sense for Qualified PPLs. But I certainly wouldn't want to work for a flying school that thinks it's acceptable to bill their employees the excess for a genuine mistake/late takeover rather than downright negligence, what flying instructor out there can genuinely say they've never misjudged something or never taken over late? Absurd and shameful treatment for the rate of pay instructors generally get.

[B2N2]

the insurance is included as part of the flight school fees

That still means you pay for it.
In the USA there is such a thing as renters insurance or non-owners insurance that pays the insurance deductible.
Only required for solo rental as when you are flying with an instructor (school employee) you should be fully covered.
This is why you shouldn't rent an aircraft and an instructor separately.

[hobbit1983]

Originally Posted by CrazyScientist

At the school I rent from at EGGP, excess is £800 and is payable by qualified PPLs. In the case of training flights, the instructor coughs up IIRC. Seems unreasonable to have the student responsible for paying excess for damage incurred on a training flight (even if the student is on a solo sortie).

If I was instructing there, I'd refuse to pay that, or leave.

[Ebbie 2003]

For what it's worth my experience is that the PIC pays the excess.

So when a student with an instructor in the airplane, the instructor is the PIC.

When I solo'd the most important thing was that I then bought renter insurance before that solo.

This protects one from something called subrogation - subrogation being where the insurance company pays out on the claim but then seeks to recover from the pilot. So break someone's $30,000 1974 152 and get not only to pay for that but some lawyer's $50, 60, 70,000 + fees too.

Never ever solo a rented airplane without renter insurance or sight of (plus a copy) a subrogation waiver - and know what the excess is and if you pay it. People rent my airplane here and never ask (since we are the exotic Caribbean it is huge - the premium is $12,000 and the excess is higher than that!)

[CrazyScientist]

It's been a while since I read the manual so there's a possibility I am mistaken in my recollection, but I am pretty sure the hefty excess bit is accurate and it would seem more likely that the instructor would pay any excess rather than the student. Having said that it's also possible it could be waived/reduced for a training flight, I honestly can't be 100% certain as it was that long ago and was a bit of information that didn't apply to me anyway.

[Piltdown Man]

If ever I take instruction again in for private flying I'll make sure I'm not liable for any damage. I'll walk if I am. And only a sh!tty, scrotty training establishment would make their instructors liable. So I'd avoid them like the plague as well.

PM

[dsc810]

It would seem logical that in the event of a prang:

1. Training flights the excess should be paid by the school.
2. Non training flights ie simply club/school aircraft hire by qualified pilots the excess should be met by the hirer - in other words just like car hire though you can pay extra in car hire to have the excess insured as well - whether you can in aircraft hire I've no idea.

The grey area seems to be the student pilot flying solo while under the supervision/authorization of the instructor. and even more grey when the instructor might be self employed and you would need to look as the exact terms of the aircraft insurance policy, who is it taken out against plus the instructors contract.

I've only seen it where the club/school paid the excess from a training flight with an instructor when there was an accident. there was in this case no hint of any gross negligence or intent involved - just an instructor who failed to take over in time.

[xrayalpha]

In the microlight world, it was often the case that "you bend it, you mend it", or you buy your own aircraft (which most micro lighters intended to do anyway) before solo.

Partly, that was because it was impossible to get hull insurance for flights risks for weightshift microlights in some parts of the country.

I have never felt happy with "bend it, mend it", since if a student was to bend one of our machines, in my opinion there might be a good case to be made that the instructor must have some fault: either they failed to teach the student properly, or they failed to assess the conditions. And I would rather avoid expensive lawyers!

But even so, accidents also just do happen. People with instructor qualifications have been known to crash when they were the only person on board!

I believe a very large deposit, buy your own aircraft for solo flight, or bend it mend it, is still quite common in the autogyro world.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Students do odd things. My only accident involved a student who raised the gear instead of the flaps on a touch and go landing. I was half a second too slow to stop them.

I always emphasized to not move fast and double check critical controls, but this student, who had doing very well, reverted to their C 172 days where everyone just slapped the lever up.

I was PIC so I take full responsibility for the accident, but I think it is unrealistic to expect an instructor to save the day under every possible situation. They should absolutely stop anything where injury could occur, but, to say metal will never ever get bent in training is a pretty high bar, that is why you have insurance.

[B2N2]

Exactly and the instructor is ( should be) covered by the schools insurance as ( hopefully) he/she is a full time employee and not working under some 'self employed contractor' construction.
Buyer beware.