Insurance article in Pilot magazine

[Aim Far]

There's an article about insurance in November's Pilot magazine which suggests that your plane is not insured if you let someone else fly it, because it is insured for named pilots only.

But the example it gives is 2 pilots on a day trip, with the owner flying the outbound leg to the destination and the other pilot flying on the way back. It suggests that if an accident happened on the second leg, the aircraft is not insured.

I'm not sure this is correct and I wondered if anyone else had experience on this point.

I checked this point with my broker (Haywards) before a trip with a pilot friend a couple of months ago and they confirmed that, as long as I was in the plane, the other pilot was flying under my authority and the plane was therefore covered.

What is the real deal here? Does the owner have to be P1 at all times? I must admit to liking sitting in the right hand seat in my own plane and letting someone else do the flying every now and then!

[ThePirateKing]

Surely it depends on your individual policy? Check the wording, or get something in writing direct from the underwriter.

TPK:ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

The policy schedule will either name the pilots covered by the insurance or list the qualificatiions and/or experience which must be possessed by pilots flying the insured aircraft.
If the latter, the schedule may provide for the aircraft to be covered while it is being flown by pilots employed by the insured (eg airlines' insurance policies) or approved by the insured.
If 'approved by', the policy will probably require a minimum experience.
eg "as approved by the insured and having x hundred hours fixed-wing flying experience."
The more complex the type, the greater the minimum experience likely to be required. eg "as approved by the insured and having 1000 hours fixed-wing flying experience, of which 500 hours to be in multi-engine aircraft."
In simple summary:
The 'named drivers' aspect is more detailed, but no different in principle, from motor insurance polices.
Unless a pilot is identifed in the policy as a named or additional insured, he is vulnerable to being sued by the insurers if they've paid out for damage caused by his negligence.
Always check your insurance position before flying someone else's aircraft.
If the hull isn't covered by insurance while you're flying, then agree with the owner in advance who pays if you negligently damage the aircraft.

Aviation insurance policies generally
There is one significant difference between motor and aviation policies which many GA owners don't appreciate even though it's in the policy.
An aviation insurance policy issued by the London aviation market will almost certainly contain a clause along these lines: "Compliance with all air navigation and airworthiness orders and requirements issues by any competent authority affecting the safe operation of the aircraft is a condition precedent to a claim under this poicy."
"Condition precedent" means insurers are entitled to (and are likely to) refuse to pay out under the policy if the insured has failed to comply with any air navigation or airworthiness order.
NB: Insurance law is harsh. This clause applies however technical or minor the breach, and regardless of whether the breach had anything whatsoever to do with the accident, loss or damage[/u].
In the UK, we fly under the most highly regulated regime in the world so there is plenty of scope for being in breach!

If we drive unlawfully, we are still covered by our motor insurance policy. Not so when we fly.
If we drive negligently, we're still covered by our insurance - even if we're convicted of careless or dangerous driving.
What if we fly negligently and either endanger our aircraft or actually cause damage? Then we fail to comply with the ANO.

I apologise for drifting away from the question originally posed, but this is an aspect of insurance policies and insurance law of which many people are unaware and have only discovered to their considerable cost.
If, as it almost certainly does, your policy contains that clause then you are bound by it. Fly lawfully!

Tudor Owen

http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/touchngo.gif

[Jodelman]

Straying even further from the topic........

Most car insurance have an exclusion - "using a car in any area used by aircraft or for servicing aircraft". All those based at strips should particularly take notice!

[FlyingForFun]

Aim Far,

I haven't read the article. Could you please clarify the details of the second leg which they describe. The non-owner pilot is clearly handling the controls from your description - but who is the Captain? Is it the non-owner pilot, with the owner acting as pax? Or is the owner the Captain, and the other pilot handling the controls under the Captain's authority?

And, for those who understand these things (Flying Lawyer?), would this make any difference in the eyes of the insurance company, e.g. if it's a named-pilot type of policy and the non-owner was not a named pilot?

(This is a big difference from car insurance - in a car, whoever is in the seat with the controls is the "driver", and must be insured, but in an aircraft with dual controls it's possible for the handling pilot to not have any qualifications at all, but be acting under the authority of a qualifired, and presumably insured, pilot.)

FFF
---------------

[Flyin'Dutch']

FL,

Nice to see you back after what seems to have been ages!

FD

[Aim Far]

FFF

From memory (the magazine is at home), the article does not specify who is legally P1. The idea of the example was that the non-owner pilot is piloting the plane and making the decisions. Whether that makes him P1 depends what was agreed beforehand. I suppose I could argue that the non-owner is always under the "authority" of the owner in that, in my plane, if I say "I have control", I mean it! But I would have thought in most cases, the non-owner pilot probably wants to log as P1 so that is what the pilots will have agreed beforehand.

But that's why I wondered if that was the trick - ie the owner says he was P1 if there is an accident and not otherwise. Like you say, P1 does not have to be in the left seat or even touching the controls.

Goodness knows what happens if you are both flying on FAA tickets when both can be PIC.

Flying lawyer - thanks - time to go and check my insurance policy but I wonder why the author of the article decided to sound so definitive on the point?

[TheKentishFledgling]

Having just insured my aeroplane, what they told me was that you only pay for the "worst case" pilot, ie the most expensive. This will be based on experience, types flown etc.

If you wish to put another pilot on the policy, it won't cost any more if they're "more experienced" than you.

tKF

[Aim Far]

TkF

That's fine if you regularly fly with someone else; you can put that person on your insurance. But you can't put all your pilot friends on your insurance policy on the offchance they might be flying with you at some point.

[Flying Lawyer]

General principles: (The actual position depends upon the precise wording of the policy.)

If it’s a ‘Named Pilots’ policy, the author of the article is right. The aircraft is not insured when flown by a pilot who is not identified in the policy as a 'named' or an 'additional' insured. The insurers have only agreed to indemnify named pilots, and have priced the premium accordingly. They haven’t agreed to indemnify any Tom, Dick or Harry the insured allows to fly even if they do hold an appropriate licence.

If it’s an ‘Approved Pilots’ policy, provided the friend is approved by the insured (which he will be if they are flying together) and the friend’s experience fulfils any specified requirements re hours etc, then the aircraft is insured. However, although the aircraft is insured, if the friend negligently damages the aircraft he is not immune from being sued by the insurers to recover from him the amount they’ve paid the owner under the policy.

”I checked this point with my broker ………. “
If you’ve got an ‘Approved Pilots’ policy, then what you were told is correct provided either your policy doesn’t stipulate minimum experience or your friend fulfils the specified requirements.
Warning:
With very limited exceptions, a broker acts as the agent of the insured not the insurers. It’s curious because he earns his commission from the insurers, but that’s the law. So, if a broker gives erroneous advice (for example) about the extent of your cover, the insurers' liability is still only that which is stated in the policy not the broker’s understanding of the policy. You may have a separate action against your broker if you act to your detriment on his false advice, but that’s a different matter.

Pilot in Command
Except in the case of multi-crew aicraft (which is not the same as two pilots choosing to fly together in a single-crew aircraft), the issue is not who was pilot in command, but who was piloting the aircraft at the relevant time.

Dual controls
Yes, “it's possible for the handling pilot to not have any qualifications at all, but be acting under the authority of a qualified, and presumably insured, pilot.” However, the insurers are not going to pay up if the aircraft is damaged when the owner allows someone not named on the policy and/or without any qualifications to fly.
The position when an Instructor is teaching a student is obviously different.

[i]”The trick - ie the owner says he was P1 if there is an accident and not otherwise.”
That may well happen on occasions, but I can only comment on the likely legal position based upon the true facts.



Flyin'Dutch'
Thank you for the welcome back. I’ve had an exceptionally busy few months!


http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/touchngo.gif

[IO540]

It seems to me that this is a little like that very long thread about whether a non-PPL can legally touch the controls.

I fly a complex single which is insured with a few named pilots, plus "anyone authorised by [the ltd co that owns the plane]".

If I am PIC then I log P1.

If somebody else wants to fly the plane (and I do have a few people that rent it) they need a complex checkout with an instructor (to make them technically legal for a siomplex single, no more) a number of flights with me for due diligence (I am a Dir) to tell them about the stuff which is specific to the type (I have never found a local instructor familiar with the type and the avionics) and then they can be legally P1. If I am in the plane I am just a passenger for that flight. They log it P1, and they get invoiced for the flight. In practice I insist on a current IR anyway.

But they have to be legal to be P1 to start with, and with my insurance this means differences training only - there is no "100hrs" or such requirement. And I am with Haywards.

I suppose the problem arises when one flies something basic and common e.g. a C152. Many people that have a PPL have flown one of those at some time in the past so they can legally be P1 in it, and then insurance is the only issue.

Regarding the point FL makes about the insurer being able to go after anyone not named on the policy: I checked this with the broker some time ago. Named pilots are immune, as are (I am told) authorised pilots who have a letter from a Dir of the Ltd Co (me) saying they are authorised pilots.

Most PPL students, on e.g. a solo, for example are not named or specifically authorised pilots and they can be held liable for damage they cause. It doesn't happen often but that's what I've been told.

[Flying Lawyer]

Regarding the point FL makes about the insurer being able to go after anyone not named on the policy: I checked this with the broker some time ago. Named pilots are immune, as are (I am told) authorised pilots who have a letter from a Dir of the Ltd Co (me) saying they are authorised pilots. (a) Named pilots are immune.
(b) Your approved/authorised pilots will also be immune - if that's what your policy says.
(c) See what I've explained about the status of brokers and brokers' interpretation of your cover.

[MLS-12D]

ie the owner says he was P1 if there is an accident and not otherwise.In my experience, that scenario is unlikely to arise, since the non-flying pilot will be loath to claim responsibility for the accident (which would almost inevitably result in increased insurance premiums, and possible enforcement action). In any case, if I were the non-owner I wouldn't rely upon to the owner keeping his verbal commitment in such circumstances.

I need hardly add that the arrangement referred to would constitute a fraud upon underwriters and would likely void the entire policy if the truth subsequently emerged.

[FlyingForFun]

So let's say that the owner alllows his pax (a qualified and suitably experienced PPL) to handle the controls, and during this period an incident occurs which gives rise to a claim. Depending on the details of the policy, the pax may or may not have been insured - we'll assume that he is not insured.

The two now have a choice:

Option 1: they can state the facts, that is that the pax, who is not insured, was handling the controls. The insurance company reject the claim, and the pilot has to attempt to recover the cost of the damage from his pax. The chances are that the pax will not have the money available (pilots tend not to have thousands of pounds sitting in bank accounts in my experience - they've generally spent the money on flying!)

Option 2: they can act dishonestly, and agree between them that they should claim that the owner was actually handling the controls for the entire flight. Now, the insurance claim will be paid out (I can't imagine how the insurance company could even suspect that the insured was not at the controls, let alone prove it), and the only costs which have to be met by the pilot are the excess, and possibly a loss of any no-claims bonus. This is a far smaller amount, which the pilot may well be able to recover from his pax if they are friends (I know I would be happy to pay anything which I could afford if I damaged a friend's aircraft).

Although I could never condone it, it's easy to see why scenario 2 might occur...

FFF
------------

[Heliport]

Curious how insurance topics never generate much interest.

Most PPLs never give a thought to how much insurance cover they've got when they self-fly hire and don't know if they'll be covered or have to pay if they damage the aircraft.

Aircraft-owners usually know more, but they often have no idea how easy it is to be in breach of their policies and for insurance companies to use a get out clause to avoid paying out.

No need to worry?

Damage only? Anything from thousands to many thousands.

Injury accident? Add damages to compensate your passengers for their injuries + their loss of income while they are recovering.

Fatal accident? You might not be around but, if you've got a wife and kids, they might be and it's they who could be ruined if your estate is sued by the estate(s) of your passenger(s).
Suppose for example the friend who's killed with you is 35, married with a couple of young kids and earns £70k a year. Any idea what sort of total sum of damages will be awarded to his family - against your estate?
Or maybe you'll have two passengers with you, both with families to support?

Even if your insurance company can't find a way of getting out of paying, will your cover be enough? Your estate might have to make up the shortfall.
Scaremongering?
The family of a famous GP driver and double world champion was financially ruined after paying out claims by the estates of the passengers killed with him.

[lady in red]

Also it must not be forgotten that most insurance policies do not cover the crewin the event of personal injury so if you as the pilot are injured during the crash, you could not only be sued by the pax for their injuries but be unable to recover any medical expenses etc foryour own...worth investing in a medical insurance policy and if it were available a third party liability policy (the latter would be especially useful to the instructor were it possible to get one...)

[IO540]

Is there such a thing as "crew" in a typical GA single-pilot aircraft?

They are all "passengers", I think.

There is a strange thing I read recently: passenger liability does require pilot negligence , whereas damage to anything on the ground is on strict liability.

Does anyone know what happened with Graham Hill, on the liability front? I've heard various things said about insurance issues as a result of such and such, but nothing seems to come up on a www search. It's worth learning from this, I think.

There is no doubt in my mind that nearly all injured or dead passengers will sue if they can get something, and will not support the pilot's story (or even lie outright) even if the story was explicitly agreed before the flight, if it helps their case, regardless of how good friends they are (were).

I've never had an aviation incident but some years ago got sacked from a business (where I was a Dir). As a founder I didn't ever have an employment contract, but the other 30 employees (with nearly all of whom I had an excellent relationship) did have them. I tried to obtain a copy of one of these (to establish implied conditions of employment) and guess what?? Everybody I contacted wasn't able to find their copy :yuk:

Nearly everybody will look after #1, first.

[Hairyplane]

Many of you will recall my letter to Pilot a while back in response to Nick Blooms ' I don't insure my aircraft' revelation.

Suffice it to say the flack he got from me and others resulted in double-quick cover.

I think that flying without insurance should be an arrestable offence and one that carries a flying ban on conviction ie. much the same as driving without cover.

All this will be put right soon - insurance cover will be mandatory - in 06 I think(??)

In the meantime, for those irresponsible pilots I say simply this - If you can't afford to insure, you can't afford to fly. Private ownership is beyond your reach. You have only achieved it by mortgaging your conscience, risking a miserable legal mess for your family to clear up and, more important - possibly devastating other families not once but twice.

In my case, with 4 aircraft, I asked my excellent broker how much it would cost to upgrade my insurance to 'any pilot with my consent'. (Before that it was all fairly complicated and to be honest, I started to lose track of who was insured on what so carried the docs with me always.)

Guess how much extra premium was required?

Zilch. Not a penny.

I guess they decided that, with a 27 year unblemished (touch everything made of tree) record, I aint going to entrust my precious planes to any Tom, Dick or Harriet. Indeed, as a rule of thumb I tend to offer them to pilots more skilled than I and as such, if anybody is going to break one of them, it is most likely to be me..!

If you are uncertain as to whether somebody flying your plane is insured or not, the odds are that they probably ain't...

A quick call to your broker beforehand is the obvious thing to do.

All the best

HP

[S-Works]

My policy allows any pilot authourised by me and any Instructor.

It is printed in black and white on the policy document and made absolutely no difference to the cost of the policy.

I agree completely with Hairyplane, flying without insurance is irresponsable and immoral. If you cant afford it then rent from people who are insured.

[Heliport]

People flying without insurance is an obvious problem.

The less obvious problems are:

(1) getting the insurer to accept a claim (because of the very wide 'get-out' clauses in GA aviation policies)

(2) the extent of cover under many policies.