Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
Interesting, isn't it ?
A couple of other considerations not specifically mentioned...
This was always a point of contention re PI for those of us who held ANR40 and then CAR35 appointments.
(c) getting PI is difficult enough for the larger companies practicing in aviation .. for the small or sole practitioner it is extremely difficult. What this proposal will mean is that consultants will structure themselves to be distanced from their assets and rely on that to protect their personal interests.
The CASA indemnity is limited anyway. The Reg 40/41 and 35/36 activity itself is review and approval of the data. The engineer first had to do the engineering work which would include provision of substantiating information in support of the application for approval of the design. That engineering work alone could be the subject of any claim for negligent advice, for example. If all CAR 35 approvals were done by CASA I wonder whether there would be any reduced liability for the engineers who do the design, engineering analysis and submit the reports which state that the design is hunky dory. Obviously, the CAR 35 signatory is in the front of the firing line but if the two activities are separated the shotgun approach by lawyers will still have the engineer as a target.
A problem with PI insurance is that individuals need to continue it for their whole life. If I did some engineering work in 1980 which results in a claim in 2020 I can't claim against the policy I might have held in 1980. "Once a policy has expired, so has all cover. However the policy may be extended to cover claims arising from liability incurred prior to the current policy period." Might be cheaper to have a one way ticket to a remote island with a chest of gold bars and a shovel.