Question for legal/insurance bods

[aluminium persuader]

Hi guys! I'm curious, and I wonder if anyone can shed any light on something for me: Robinson Helicopters have issued the following SN -

Safety Notice SN40
Jul 2006

Post-Crash Fires

There have been a number of cases where helicopter or light plane occupants have survived a crash only to be severely buned be fire following the accident. To reduce the risk of injury in a post-crash fire , it is strongly recommended that a fire-retardant Nomex flying-suit, gloves and hood or helmet be worn by all occupants.




Now, here's the question:

Given the above SN, if someone is flying a Robinson helo & the worst happens & they are not wearing a flying-suit or bone-dome and they suffered injuried which the wearing of such would have prevented or minimised, will any personal injury insurance claim or subsequent lawsuit be nullifed? Would it affect the aircraft insurance as a whole?

And here's a question for everyone else:

Are other light a/c manufacturers going to follow suit?

I know I've banged the flying-suit drum before, but could this be the start of a sea-change in a similar vein to the wearing/not wearing of seatbelts we had on the roads in the '70s?

ap:hmm:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, we do knowingly fly around in thin tin boxes surrounded by vast quantities of petrol securely retained by plastic bags - that wouldn't pass a safety audit in any other business, would it!!

[aluminium persuader]

My feelings exactly! I have a nice green suit & jacket & white leather gloves given me by Auntie Liz, but now I've taken the epaulettes off I feel embarrassed to wear it I do wear it sometimes but not as often as I should, particularly as I often fly with my family in the a/c in & out of small grass strips. :uhoh:

[tangovictor]

very shiny epaulettes, worn on high viz, jackets could cause spontanious combustion ;)

[IO540]

The key with insurance is whether all material facts were disclosed. (The insurer, not the insured, is who decides what constitutes a material fact, so it's a bit one-sided).

In this case I would draw the attention of your insurance company or broker to this piece of obvious a*se-covering rubbish (in writing) stating that in reality almost nobody complies with this, and get his acknowledgement at least (in writing).

[aluminium persuader]

As it stands it doesn't affect me - I don't throw my wings around my head/fly angry palm trees etc.

Was really asking if non-compliance with a Service Notice would have legal/insurance implications.

ap

[Jodelman]

The insurer, not the insured, is who decides what constitutes a material fact
Not exactly true. The courts are the final decision makers and there is a good deal of case law on this subject.

[IO540]

Well yes in the UK the House of Lords is the only final decider on anything :)

However I stand by my point that a full disclosure to the insurer is the best starting point. It will be awfully hard to refuse a payout if you have done that.

[Son of the Bottle]

Well yes in the UK the House of Lords is the only final decider on anything

If only that were true. It all comes down to the ECJ nowadays.:(

[aluminium persuader]

But if, for instance, you told your car insurance co you were going to ignore a safety notice from your car manufacturer, wouldn't they then refuse to insure you? Wouldn't an aviation insurer treat a refusal to comply with a service notice in the same manner?

[Justiciar]

This has to be seen in the context of the highly litigious environment in the US, where product liability actions are well developed. Having published this exercise in stating the obvious, they would be able to allege contributory negligence against any plaintiff who brought an action against them involving one of their products and who failed to follow the advice.

You would not need to disclose your non compliance to your insurers, in my view. However, it is worth looking at the small print of any policy. If you are required to operate the aircraft in accordance with manufacturers instructions and recommendations then I could see an insurer arguing the point if injuries have been made worse by non compliance with this bit of "advice".

[Jodelman]

However, it is worth looking at the small print of any policy.
Not much use doing that. The principle of "utmost good faith" applies whatever the policy says and ALL material facts should be disclosed.
Is this a material fact? Easiest way is to talk to your underwriter and get his opinion. You don't have to agree with him but at least it will show if you will have a problem if a claim arises.

[scooter boy]

I also received the Safety Bulletin. :rolleyes:

Not sure I would like to survive the type of post crash burns trauma that a Nomex suit will allegedly save one from. How can you possibly prove that the 30s or however long it gives you before it too burns into your flesh will save you. Might as well wear a St Christopher medallion.

SB
Taking my chances al fresco and smelling good.:cool:

[aluminium persuader]

I know what you're saying, Scoots, but this is a slightly different tack from the aesthetic argument. This is about whether the manufacturers/insurance companies are making a move towards making flying-suits "mandatory" in light a/c. As Justiciar says, it is a risk-limiting exercise on their part but if you think about the location & quantity of fuel & the location of the ignition source relative to yourself, the argument does carry a certain amount of sense!

ap

[Justiciar]

Not much use doing that. The principle of "utmost good faith" applies whatever the policy says

True enough, but we are not talking here about full discloser, which is relevant to whether the insurer takes the risk in the first place. Rather, we are talking about any specific limitation on a policy. For example, insurers might limit their liability to you as the pilot (not their third party liability) if you do not comply with any recommendation from the manufacturer of the aircraft you are flying. You would then void the policy in respect of any claim you might make.

Where this will lead is an interesting question. Most aircraft are sold on the basis of certail levels of creature comforts - carpets, leather seats etc. Flying is likely to become far less attractive for passengers in particular if they have to dress like F1 racers.

[aluminium persuader]

Dunno....

Always thought girls were quite sexy in a flying suit myself!

;)

ap