Strip Owner Liability

[QDMQDMQDM]

Well, Justiciar and others (See the Dead Yak Pilot thread) may not think we live in a liability-prone world, but the PFA is now recommending all strip owners carry liability insurance in case a visitor cracks up. As a result a number of our Devon strip-owners are thinking of abandoning the regular fly-ins and excluding visitors entirely.

Positive development this, is it?

[dublinpilot]

That's terrible news.

[IO540]

As a one-time victim of undoubtedly negligent airfield maintenance, I would say this is a difficult area which could be argued both ways.

Nobody got sued in that case but the airfield was "asking for it".

If I had an airfield then I would take a stroll every so often, with a wheelbarrow, and fill in any potholes. I would also get a high power air rifle (needs an FAC but you will get one easily for that) and I would regularly shoot the rabbits. This is what countless thousands of horse-crazy women do around the UK (their husbands pay for it, and don't ask how I know) and this is for a horse which is usually worth far less than anything that flies, but you won't want it to break a leg because, believe it or not, a woman can be even more attached to her horse than a pilot to his plane :)

Let's face it, you wouldn't have a pothole in your own garden, because one day you will break an ankle in it.

So why do airfields let this go on?

It's because, historically, they have got away with it. The pilot claimed off his own insurance, and his insurer would rarely go after the airfield because claims below six figures are not worth pursuing.

What strip owners should do is buy a wheelbarrow (B&Q sell them for peanuts), a spade (they are currently on a special offer) and fill the holes in. This isn't rocket science. And not expect a pilot of a £20,000-£300,000 plane to claim off his own insurance when he goes down one of their potholes.

Insurance isn't the answer, as any pilot who has gown down more than a few potholes will know, through his premiums. The answer is to do some very basic maintenance.

Just another perspective on the matter ;)

[shortstripper]

As a one-time victim of undoubtedly negligent airfield maintenance, I would say this is a difficult area which could be argued both ways.


A licenced airfield is one thing, a private strip another. You should expect a licenced airfield to be kept in order and have evey right to sue if they negligently allowed the runway to be unfit without closing it (or a warning issued) ... but a PRIVATE strip??? The law is crazy over liability issues. If the farm here is burgled and the theiving git seriously injures himself on a barbed wire fence, he can theoretically sue :ugh:

If you are flying into a strip either invited or not, you should be prepared to take responsibilty. Most strip owners I know do take the trouble to keep their strips in order, but there are often times that the strip may be unuseable. In my case, the field is grazed by cattle and the strip electric fenced when not in use. It's also often waterlogged in the winter. I've rarely allowed anyone to fly in, but when I have it's been strict PPR and I've checked the strip immediately beforehand. If some fool flew in univited and stuffed up, then he/she should not bleat and threaten to sue, but in this age it wouldn't surprise me if they did :mad:

SS

[IO540]

If you fly in uninvited, I agree 100%. It's no different to picking a field at random and hoping it's OK. The owner should have no liability.

But if a strip is open to visitors, either open or with PPR, then the owner should not leave it in a dangerous condition. Potholes cannot be seen from the air. Some cannot even be seen from the ground; the only way is to walk the route before taxiing.

I think the "burglar injuring himself" is a redherring here, and is indeed an appalling travesty of justice in the cases where he was able to sue. A trespasser should be able to kill himself and it should be fair game. I think the reason why such people have been able to sue is because to have it otherwise would enable homeowners to set lethal traps for intruders, and that is illegal, and arguably (very arguably, I admit) wrong. But it is still wrong in principle, as I am sure most people would agree.

[jonkil]

What strip owners should do is buy a wheelbarrow (B&Q sell them for peanuts), a spade (they are currently on a special offer) and fill the holes in. This isn't rocket science.
Or just use our own strip and make it completely private... as many have done.

[gasax]

Its all about 'acting reasonably' within the law. I've had a strip for over 15 years, I used to have another strip which was PPR to anyone. There I used to fix rabbit holes and all the usual stuff. However as a condition of the lease, I also had to have 3rd party liability. The strip is in a coastal area and prone to rabbits. so everyone was briefed - stay within the marked areas - outside them and there is no guarantee.

So some character from a flying club taxis to the parking area, decides his C152 is far too heavy to push and loops around outside the marked area. On his way back to the strip he puts the nose wheel into a rabbit hole and shock loads the engine.

The group make an insurance claim, helpfully mentioning that I hold liability insurance. Their company tries to recover its costs. After a fair extensive exchange of letters, including the written insrtuctions sent to the group before they got PPR and some photos the company grudgingly decide not to go to court. Of course they did, because there was a maintenance and inspection scheme, there were markings and there were explicit instructions. In other words they had no case.

On my own strip I do not carry insurance and have no intention of doing so. People get PPR if I think the strip is in good condition and the people are up to using it (much more of a problem than the strip's condition).

There are a few very counter intutitive cases - but in most of them we get the headlines not the detail which 'justifies; them. If you hold insurance my experience is that people will try and claim, the last thing they usually want to admit to is the incompetence that damaged their aircraft. Robust defence is probably enough but the cost of the insurance is similar to that of an aircraft so it is pretty expensive.

Far better to simply act reasonably - check the strip, give clear instructions and accept no further liability.

[IO540]

Or just use our own strip and make it completely private... as many have done.

and break "just" your own landing gear? Somehow, I don't think so.

The only strip owner who lands on his strip which he knows has holes is going to know where they are and will be avoiding them.

gasax - agree entirely. Insurance is often pointless and just attracts claims.

[QDMQDMQDM]

From December 06 Devon Strut newsletter:

Liability insurance has reared its ugly head during this month of November. One of our farm strip flying clubs has to make the difficult decision whether to close the airfield to all visiting aircraft and cancel their 2007 fly-in. Why? Because, like at many of our local strips, a visit for a cup of tea and a natter have all been at the pilots own risk. Now, if some clever insurance company spots an opening for shifting the blame on to the landowner, hey-ho, where’s your policy Mr Farmer!! A quick call to PFA HQ elicited “Oh, I am surprised that strip owners have not got liability insurance, foolish beings!” So there lies a story. When I called around to our entire 14 fly-in venues this year I met with very mixed responses. Some strip owners are operating on restricted incomes and the added burden of several hundred pounds going to the very slight opening that some clever clogs may find will not warrant the added expense. Some strip owners do not have that many visitors but enjoy holding a fly-in once a year. Other owners do not welcome any visitors except for those at their once a year social chin-wag and fly-in. Now we are tasked with finding a satisfactory solution, otherwise flying to friends’ strips on a sunny afternoon will be terminated!

I have contacted the PFA and asked for Primary Liability cover for fly-ins. Reply: Too expensive! Great! Thanks for your help. I try another tack; Yes, Hall and Clarke will provide cover @ £100 for each event. That, times fourteen is cost prohibitive, so we provide some data with the hope we can claw the cost down. I have also contacted some other companies to ask for help. The committee of Grand Elders is working on the problem and Jim Gale is also working with the Flying Farmers Association to see what ideas they have. Pete White is also in touch with the Vintage Aircraft Club so we will attempt to make this a national campaign and rope in all the help possible.

[dublinpilot]

IO540,

I agree with you up to a point.

I agree that a strip owner, shouldn't invite someone if he knows there is a problem with the surface that needs attending. I agree that if they give people an open invitation to flyin unannounced, then they should make some effort to carry out regular inspections, perhaps weekly.

But what about a strip owner, who hasn't flown for 3 or 4 weeks....he gets a call from someone who's been in a number of times before asking if they can use the strip.

He says "Well, I don't mind you using it, but I haven't been down there in 3 or 4 weeks, so I don't know what the surface is like." The pilot agrees to "be careful" and accepts the risk themselves.

They then damage their aircraft on landing.

Should the strip owner really be responsible in that circumstance?

What about a strip owner that doesn't give people an open invitation to flyin unannounced, but doesn't get upset when someone drops in unannounced. Should they be liable if that person flying in unannounced again (because they didn't receive a hostile reaction last time) a couple of months later, and damages their aircraft due to a pot hole?

We're not talking about a public use airport here, but someone who has a private facility, but doesn't get upset if someone wants to use it at their own risk.

I agree too, that insurance can just attract claims. But when the PFA start to recommend people have it, there can start to develop an assumption that the strip owner will have the insurance. There can also be an attitude, that "well if they don't have it, they are stupid...even the PFA recommend it!"

A bit of a catch 22. I would sympathise with the strip owners on this one.

dp

[Lucy Lastic]

I've been in to some of the Devon Strut fly-ins. They are fantastic and it is good of the land-owners to allow us to use their fields. I understand that each of the events make money for local charities.

These strip owners make their land available at no cost for these fly-ins, and to ask them to pay £xxxx to bolster an insurance company's profits is leading to them saying "no thanks"

Surely it is not beyond the whit of the the PFA to arrange an insurance policy for these events on behalf of their Struts

[QDMQDMQDM]

The whole idea of liability for strip owners is mad. If you're stupid enough to fly into somebody's crappy field, masquerading as a place to land an aircraft, and it all goes wrong then tough luck, buddy. As I have said before: "Sh*t happens, live with it."

What has happened to the idea of personal responsibility and danger?

Bah, humbug.

[IO540]

dublinpilot

I agree - the distinction I would be looking for is whether the strip owner has made it clear that the condition of the surface is unknown.

Maybe strip flyers assume this as the default. Personally I wouldn't be happy to go to such a place - except on a mountain bike :) Even in a 30kt stall speed machine, a prang could kill you. Don't they know that? If they bend a prop, do they just bend it back and fly away?

The point is that it's very easy for the strip owner to make the strip safe enough.

[Lucy Lastic]

If I read QDM3 correctly, he is talking about strip owners who have arranged a pre-ordained event. They'd have mown the grass, shot the rabbits and might even have rolled the runway and taxiways in advance. Even better, they lay on catering and toilets for visitors.

The problem is not just flying visitors, but also twitchers who want to see the aircraft.

If the strip owner has done all that is reasonably required, I don't see why they should need to pay the insurance premium. As I recall, most, if not all of the events require a PPR and a briefing is given on the day. What more do incoming fliers want?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I agree - the distinction I would be looking for is whether the strip owner has made it clear that the condition of the surface is unknown.

IO540, you are missing the point, largely because you only go to these places on a bicycle. The default option is most definitely that a strip pilot presumes the condition of the surface is unknown, whatever the owner may or may not say.

You're muddying the waters of a very important issue here.

[stiknruda]

QDM3 - when would you like to visit my strip?

a) I feel that you are well enough acquainted with farm strips
b) mine is rather smooth with clear approaches but is not 6000' of tarmac:eek:
c) I know that having a cup of tea with you would be enjoyable!
d) winter can be quite damp and can muddy one's aeroplane so I suggest Spring next year
e) If i've £ucked up on items B and D above then I shall be liable!

[IO540]

QDM

The default option is most definitely that a strip pilot presumes the condition of the surface is unknown, whatever the owner may or may not say

Knowing nothing about strip flying I can only guess that this is the case for some and not for others, otherwise why should anybody ever claim for damage?

Flying is a serious business, and a pilot going to land on a runway is likely to assume that it is a runway, not any old field. Otherwise, why not land in the field next door? I guess that somebody has assumed exactly that, and broke something, and claimed.

There is also a thin line between what you perhaps call a "condition unknown" strip, and what somebody might call a grass airfield. Where would you draw the line? Forget what I fly; that's irrelevant.

[PompeyPaul]

Have seen it mentioned a few times.

Also if you are feeling generous what is th difference between QFE & QNE and what do they stand for ?

[QDMQDMQDM]

IO540:

Flying is a serious business, and a pilot going to land on a runway is likely to assume that it is a runway, not any old field. Otherwise, why not land in the field next door?

That's the point -- we do. Farm strips don't have runways, they have fields, bumpy fields, often with sheep in. Two weeks ago, I went to Lundy Island. 'We'll get the sheep off the strip,' they said. Did they hell! I made four passes to clear them off. 'Oh sorry,' they said in the pub. 'The farmer's off the island. That's why we couldn't clear the sheep and that's why we can't clear them for your take-off. Good luck!' I taxied around, cleared a hundred and fifty yards of sheep and took off. If I'd hit a sheep, should I have sued? What about the idiot who stalled his (customer's) 172 on take-off from Lundy last year or the year before because the runway direction wasn't clearly marked and he came over the hump in the direction of the parked aircraft. Should he sue? They've put up some marker poles now. And what about the potholes and bumps in the strip? It's bloody rough. They never warn you about them when you phone the pub for permission to land. What if you ding your nosewheel in one of them? Sue them for not warning you!

I watched a bloke try and get out of there once in a Kondor motorglider and he nearly didn't. If he hadn't, should his estate have sued Lundy Island, or the Devon Strut for not warning him this was an inappropriate aircraft?

Ferchrissake...

Knowing nothing about strip flying I can only guess that this is the case for some and not for others, otherwise why should anybody ever claim for damage?

Good question. They shouldn't. If you fly into someone's farm strip and you bend the aircraft or yourself, you should stand up and take the responsibility. Unless you're a complete jerk, that is.

stik:

QDM3 - when would you like to visit my strip?

a) I feel that you are well enough acquainted with farm strips
b) mine is rather smooth with clear approaches but is not 6000' of tarmac
c) I know that having a cup of tea with you would be enjoyable!
d) winter can be quite damp and can muddy one's aeroplane so I suggest Spring next year
e) If i've £ucked up on items B and D above then I shall be liable!

I spent 1 hour doing crosswind landings and PFLs today and then 1 hour cleaning the mud from the bottom, top, sides and windscreen of my aircraft, so mud holds no fear for me. However, be warned that if there is sheep or cattle dung on your strip and you have not warned me and it turns out to be particularly tenacious and if I were to be forced to rub and abrade a little too forcefully and if this were to damage the fabric of my machine in any way whatsoever, then I may be forced to seek appropriate redress in the courts.

Please forward a copy of your strip owner liability insurance certificate and policy schedule, including exclusions, and I will run it past my legal department before replying to your kind offer.

FlyingDutch kindly let me visit his strip at Daventry and, so far, no legal action is pending, although I note that he did ask me to land one way for noise abatement purposes, which I did, and as a result I did find myself with rather a larger tailwind than I bargained for. He hadn't told me whether his was a 15kt or 25kt windsock! Luckily for him, things turned out OK. This time...

I'll PM you and definitely come over sometime. You have been warned.

Lucy:

If I read QDM3 correctly, he is talking about strip owners who have arranged a pre-ordained event. They'd have mown the grass, shot the rabbits and might even have rolled the runway and taxiways in advance. Even better, they lay on catering and toilets for visitors.

We're looking at all strip owners becoming disinclined to allow any visitors in. As it is, if I want to go somewhere in England, I look up Lockyear's, ask around or ask here and find a local strip and more often than not get permission to use that instead of an airfield with yellow vests. Will I still be doing that in 10 years? Not so sure.

[IO540]

You didn't deal with my last Q, QDM ;)

As regards suing over a too-short runway, there is a thing called "pilot operating handbook". I know few pilots have ever seen theirs, but if one took say a PA28-161 at MTOW to Lundy then I don't think one could sue the owner of the place.

[rogcal]

Just a thought and I might be way off the mark but could the publishers of Lockyears Farm Strip Guide include a statement covering the liability of strip owners in their guide.

I would go as far to say that I would allow my strip to be included in the guide (something I'd previously never considered) if a statement was made to the effect that the strip is not inspected regularly and livestock, ruts, potholes, electric fences etc, are present and no liabilty will be accepted by the strip owner for any damage/injury howsoever caused to visiting aircraft, their crew and passengers or something like that.

On second thoughts, I'll continue to park a tractor at one end and graze the goats in them middle.

Anyone know of a manufacturer of hi-viz coats for goats (that's just in case some idiot claims not to have seen them).:)

[pistongone]

I walked from the boulders on the hill to the stone wall with a gps and it was 470m. We pushed the plane right back into the boulders and cleared the wall comfortably in a decent 172, 2 men and 2 women on board! Wind was just about neutral. But there are a lot of rushes and slightly boggy stuff to be aware of!
Must agree though, its good fun and the approach is nice and bumpy as you go in over the cliff edge!
Who fancy's a fly in to Lundy?

[robin]

There are issues with some airfields and these are usually well-publicised.

The series of accidents at Netherthorpe show that some pilots are very casual with their w&b and take-off/landing calcs.

Strip flying is a skill that needs to be kept in practice, and not all aircraft or pilots are up to dealing with the more challenging strips. I try to visit as many as I can, but there are one or two I'd never go to in my aircraft. At times even Compton Abbas is a challenge.

[possel]

Have seen it mentioned a few times.

Also if you are feeling generous what is th difference between QFE & QNE and what do they stand for ?

Prior Permission Required

QFE - barometric pressure setting to give height above airfield (Field Elevation)
QNH - barometric pressure setting to give height above sea level (nominally Newlyn Harbour)

It changes by about 30ft per mb so if you are at Lydd the difference is negligible.

[IO540]

Lundy is shown in the normally accurate Navbox as 400m grass.

[S-Works]

Nice to see you made it out of our place in one piece today, IO! If I had known you were going to walk the runway I would have sent you out with a broom!!

Nice to see you, hope the tea was not to bad!

[IO540]

The tea was fine, thank you Bose-X :)

I kicked away as many stones as I could find and got away from the rest OK; no nicks in the prop this time.

I put the heater on full blast the moment I was in the air!! Perhaps the perpetual sub-zero OAT is what prevents the NIMBYs up your way from closing all those airfields they way they have done down where I live. They are all stuck in their little houses, shivering, feet up against the coal fire :) :)

[pistongone]

It does say 400 yards in the book, but if you push your plane back into the boulders you get the extra distance. Its like a displaced threshold, and as WR said it depends on your interpretation of "rough"! Also the wall at the east side is less than 4' high, so i expect they make overly generous allowances for that. Lastly, if it was a bit marginal, you can jink it up over the wall without worrying of a stall as you are straight out over a 300' cliff:eek: :eek:
As i said before, i would definitely be up for a meet on Lundy! :ok: Who's coming:)
I have heard that B+B is available on the island, although i hven't tried it!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Just a thought and I might be way off the mark but could the publishers of Lockyears Farm Strip Guide include a statement covering the liability of strip owners in their guide.

Disclaimers don't stop people suing for negligence or courts finding in their favour.

If someone had a mishap in a PA28-161 at any weight, or even had a mishap in a Piper Cub, I can't see how they could sue the Landmark Trust. It's a risky place to visit and you take your chance. Just like most such strips.

I agree with you. The worry is that in the current climate they easily could.