YBCG is not on its lonesome with those insurance requirements, though USD35 million for a bugsmasher or balloon is the highest I've seen so far.
But the most significant implication I see is that the people who come up with these requirements are cut off from a thing called 'reality'. If, in reality, the requirements were a reasonable mitigation mechanism for the actual risk, and if a corresponding insurance product were actually available to meet the requirements including cover for the indemnities and releases given by aircraft operators, the requirements would actually be enforced.
That's because insurance requirements are meaningless unless they are enforced by, for example, requiring production of certificates of currency of the required insurance before the airport is used. In the case of YBCG, one of the requirements is that the terms of the policy of insurance have to be approved by the airport operator first. So even assuming I can find a broker who won't collapse with laughter when I ask for USD35 million cover, I have to get them to send me the proposed terms of their insurance cover so I can send those to YBCG for approval. And what happens if YBCG objects to some of the terms and does not approve them? A couple of years of negotiation? At least that would give me time to sell some of my children's organs to come up with the premium.
If I do USD35 million damage to YBCG with my C152 and I don't have the insurance, who pays for the USD35million damage? I don't have USD35 million stashed in my mattress.
This disconnection from reality manifests itself in other behaviours of some aerodrome operators.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Apr 2022 at 02:25.