Update on Lockhart River
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blah Blah Creamy, typical waffle from all those entrenched years protecting government hey?
Money is one thing, lessons and lives are another, and more important than arguing over payouts. Not much has changed friends. Planes keep crashing, FNQ is still a mess in some areas. Lessons haven't been learned and the mischief continues.
People died at Lockhart and the very least they deserve is for heads to have rolled and partial accountability accepted by the Regulator. It didn't happen and won't happen. Unnecessary loss of life and no complete rest for the families victims until true, complete justice is served.
Money is one thing, lessons and lives are another, and more important than arguing over payouts. Not much has changed friends. Planes keep crashing, FNQ is still a mess in some areas. Lessons haven't been learned and the mischief continues.
People died at Lockhart and the very least they deserve is for heads to have rolled and partial accountability accepted by the Regulator. It didn't happen and won't happen. Unnecessary loss of life and no complete rest for the families victims until true, complete justice is served.
So, my explanation of how compulsory carriers’ liability insurance works, in response to an apparently reasonable question from another ppruner, means I have no concerns about the regulatory oversight of the operator in the Lockhart River accident?
Fool.
Fool.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff and a couple of the other wiser, older heads could and should provide more detail on insurance matters. It makes my head spin, had a long talk with a wise pelican one day about it. What I got is that we collectively have NFI, for instance if you knock over a chook shed in a forced landing, or go through a fence or pull down a power line. Think your covered, think again, your shout for a chook shed, fence or power line.
CP will correct me if wrong, the mandatory insurance is there to protect the passengers because the way aviation insurance policy is scripted, if you have 'breeched' a regulation (or whatever) the policy is null and void (nugatory even). So while Big top Insurance is desperately trying to wriggle out from under on a 'technical' breach, the 'victims' are not covered – so we have the mandatory no wriggle room policy, to protect the innocent.
It's a tough topic, worth a page of talk. Sure as eggs, I can't fathom it.
CP will correct me if wrong, the mandatory insurance is there to protect the passengers because the way aviation insurance policy is scripted, if you have 'breeched' a regulation (or whatever) the policy is null and void (nugatory even). So while Big top Insurance is desperately trying to wriggle out from under on a 'technical' breach, the 'victims' are not covered – so we have the mandatory no wriggle room policy, to protect the innocent.
It's a tough topic, worth a page of talk. Sure as eggs, I can't fathom it.
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Oct 2012 at 19:53. Reason: Sarcs disease
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reckon it's worth more than a couple pages in a largely unrelated thread.
Your chook shed scenario is wrong.
Your mandatory insurance supposition is wrong.
Others may have many more similiar misconceptions.
Awaiting CP to correct you (
)
TB
Your chook shed scenario is wrong.
Your mandatory insurance supposition is wrong.
Others may have many more similiar misconceptions.
Awaiting CP to correct you (
)TB
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tunabum
An insurance broker I deal with said to me, after a particular accident " unfortunately we do pay for stupidity"
An insurance broker I deal with said to me, after a particular accident " unfortunately we do pay for stupidity"
Last edited by blackhand; 21st Oct 2012 at 00:03.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well the broker may be using the royal "we" there (much like my doctor does when he asks me "how are we?"). The broker doesn't pay anything - the insurer does and ultimately passes it on to all its customers in higher premiums (which by the way the broker gets their share of in more commission!)
But yes humans make mistakes - sometimes stupid mistakes - and that is what insurance is there for. Unless those mistakes are also in breach of regulations and/or insurance policy exclusions/conditions in which case the insurer may not have to pay.
As Kharon says most people have NFI about insurance. Until the time comes to make a claim, they often find out that what they thought (ie: that insurance covers everything!) is not necessarily correct. Not many actually go to the trouble of reading the insurance policy in advance.
In case you haven't guessed yet - yes I work in insurance. Been in aviation insurance for over 30 years.........
TB
But yes humans make mistakes - sometimes stupid mistakes - and that is what insurance is there for. Unless those mistakes are also in breach of regulations and/or insurance policy exclusions/conditions in which case the insurer may not have to pay.
As Kharon says most people have NFI about insurance. Until the time comes to make a claim, they often find out that what they thought (ie: that insurance covers everything!) is not necessarily correct. Not many actually go to the trouble of reading the insurance policy in advance.
In case you haven't guessed yet - yes I work in insurance. Been in aviation insurance for over 30 years.........
TB
Last edited by TunaBum; 21st Oct 2012 at 21:44.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, we have all had to prove what our loved ones were worth and we have had to fight for years after the accident to receive compensation.
My damages were calculated by a Barrister (charging $450 per hour) at much more then the capped $500,000 and I still had to threaten court and appear on A Current Affair to be offered a settlement.
QBE and most Insurance companies are the lowest of the low. How dare they drag people who have already suffered enough through such an unbearable process. This is a no fault insurance. It should be immediately paid to the families of the victims. Predominantly the winners are the lawyers!
My damages were calculated by a Barrister (charging $450 per hour) at much more then the capped $500,000 and I still had to threaten court and appear on A Current Affair to be offered a settlement.
QBE and most Insurance companies are the lowest of the low. How dare they drag people who have already suffered enough through such an unbearable process. This is a no fault insurance. It should be immediately paid to the families of the victims. Predominantly the winners are the lawyers!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fidoda,
Sincere condolences for your loss.
One of the problems is that this is how it is viewed by the families left behind - ie: the compensation equates to what their ""loved ones were worth". Obviously this is not the case - how do you put any dollar limit on how much a husband (brother, son etc...) is worth? You simly can not - and if you could it would far exceed $500,000 every time.
The basis of the compensation is dependency. A 25 year old with a wife and four children to support would always reach the $500,000 limit. A 25 year old single man with no dependants would not likely reach $25,000.
A 60 year old with only a wife as dependant (all children having grown up and no longer dependant) may or may not reach the limit - depending upon his occupation at the time and how much was being earned.
So unfortunately there is usually an argument to determin the correct amount of compensation. Obviously it is extremely difficult under the circumstances for everyone to be negotiating about the value of these claims. Agree it would be much easier if there were set levels of compensation (as in workers compensation for instance) which could be paid without delay or argument (the lawyers wouldn't be happy)
. But this is not the system we have.
Lawyers - perhaps best I don't go there. Suffice to say I agree Fidoda that they are usually the winners. The unfortunate reality is that the longer these matters drag out the better for them.
TB
Sincere condolences for your loss.
we have all had to prove what our loved ones were worth
The basis of the compensation is dependency. A 25 year old with a wife and four children to support would always reach the $500,000 limit. A 25 year old single man with no dependants would not likely reach $25,000.
A 60 year old with only a wife as dependant (all children having grown up and no longer dependant) may or may not reach the limit - depending upon his occupation at the time and how much was being earned.
So unfortunately there is usually an argument to determin the correct amount of compensation. Obviously it is extremely difficult under the circumstances for everyone to be negotiating about the value of these claims. Agree it would be much easier if there were set levels of compensation (as in workers compensation for instance) which could be paid without delay or argument (the lawyers wouldn't be happy)
. But this is not the system we have.Lawyers - perhaps best I don't go there. Suffice to say I agree Fidoda that they are usually the winners. The unfortunate reality is that the longer these matters drag out the better for them.
TB
