PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA
View Single Post
Old 16th June 2011 | 13:19
  #43 (permalink)  
IO540
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
someone straying VFR into Class A airspace is uninsured for the duration of that time when they are in the class A
No, that is negligence, and negligence is insured.

The scenario where insurers tend to not pay out (if the claim is big enough for them to examine it closely, i.e. 5 figures plus) is where the flight was illegal before it got off the ground

- no license
- no IR (on an IFR flight plan)
- no CofA
- no medical

The above are believed to be actual cases. The other stuff which keeps coming up in pilot forums e.g.

- outside of W&B
- airspace-mandated equipment (e.g. ADF) not carried
- mandatory equipment proved INOP before departure
- actual dodgy maintenance
- legally dodgy maintenance (forged paperwork, etc)

have never (to my limited knowledge) featured in GA non-payouts, but could if proof was obtained.

The more common stuff e.g.

- not enough fuel
- "impossible" weather for flying
- didn't check weather before flying
- no planning

is just negligence/stupidity/incompetence/pilot error, and that is insured; if it wasn't then insurers could avoid paying in the vast majority of accidents

The other aspect is that under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on establishing pilot/operator negligence, and I bet you that this will be a whole lot easier if the pilot gets previously lynched for not complying with some airspace rule.
IO540 is offline  
Reply