And, so far as I can tell, nil required for that not-so-sleepy hollow, Ballina.
One of the many amusing aspects of this is how these kinds of ridiculous insurance requirements can ‘backfire’ on the clever suits that come up with them.
Imagine that a negligent bugsmasher pilot collides with an RPT aircraft on the tarmac at one of these aerodromes with USD35 million cover required. Lots of personal injury, death and property damage done. Alas, old mate in the bugsmasher only had AUD5 million in cover, contrary the terms of use of the aerodrome (of which terms he wasn’t made aware). A lot of people are writing big cheques and bearing big pain and loss for stuff that isn’t their fault. Those people could sue old mate’s estate for the delta between AUD5 million and the actual damage, but old mate’s estate is worth 1 (Australian) cracker.
Who else to chase for money? Well let’s think about it. If QAL had enforced QAL’s own insurance requirements, old mate wouldn’t have been using the aerodrome in the first place unless he had the required cover. If QAL had done its job, either the accident wouldn’t have happened because old mate wouldn’t have been there, or there would have been complete cover to respond to old mate’s liability arising from the accident. QAL’s partly at fault! QAL has insurance and deep pockets – well, at least deeper than old mate’s estate. So…
As I said above, insurance requirements are meaningless unless those who impose them enforce them. And they can 'backfire'. Enforcing USD35 million for anything 10,000KG MTOW or less? Tell 'em they're dreamin'.