Citation Biggin Crash any news on why yet ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF, and I do clarify the IF the Insurance don't pay out the ramifications become huge.
For the Insurance guys not to pay out, they must have decided that something was against the terms of the cover, can anyone think of anything apart from illegal public transport?
There must be ambulance chasers waiting in the wings for this to be made public, as they say, "where there's blame there's a claim".
A few wealthy estates will be funding a huge law suit.
For the Insurance guys not to pay out, they must have decided that something was against the terms of the cover, can anyone think of anything apart from illegal public transport?
There must be ambulance chasers waiting in the wings for this to be made public, as they say, "where there's blame there's a claim".
A few wealthy estates will be funding a huge law suit.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long history of illegal public transport is what i hear.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>A long history of illegal public transport is what i hear. <
I am not an aviation Lawyer or an insurance expert so would only imagine that there would have to be some sort of known grosse negligence for insurers to refuse to pay?
Again "illegal public charter" does not in itself mean unsafe flight.
I know of some private operations which are flown and operated to much higher standards than any AOC. Again we all know a few AOC operations which are run to very poor standards and some which are closed down.
Many private jets which are well run and operated do perfectly legal leasing arrangements. Maybe some AOC operators resent this as it reduces their own market and all the shouting is more about that than safety issues.
As an example Pilot 1 could fly on an FAA ATP in a N reg jet fully legally and safely. A few weeks later the reg could be changed. Still the same Jet still the same pilot but now technically illegal. There is no change in safety only a painting of numbers.
To deem a flight as "illegal charter" so thats the cause of the accident! I am sure in itself would not be enough, unless some Grosse and known negligence contributed to the crash and this can happen with private or AOC aircraft.
Would love to have an opinion from someone in law or insurance on this one?
Pace
I am not an aviation Lawyer or an insurance expert so would only imagine that there would have to be some sort of known grosse negligence for insurers to refuse to pay?
Again "illegal public charter" does not in itself mean unsafe flight.
I know of some private operations which are flown and operated to much higher standards than any AOC. Again we all know a few AOC operations which are run to very poor standards and some which are closed down.
Many private jets which are well run and operated do perfectly legal leasing arrangements. Maybe some AOC operators resent this as it reduces their own market and all the shouting is more about that than safety issues.
As an example Pilot 1 could fly on an FAA ATP in a N reg jet fully legally and safely. A few weeks later the reg could be changed. Still the same Jet still the same pilot but now technically illegal. There is no change in safety only a painting of numbers.
To deem a flight as "illegal charter" so thats the cause of the accident! I am sure in itself would not be enough, unless some Grosse and known negligence contributed to the crash and this can happen with private or AOC aircraft.
Would love to have an opinion from someone in law or insurance on this one?
Pace
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, I think you are missing the point here. No one is casting doubt over safety of corporate operations, but illegal public transport is basically a flight that fall short of the Corporate requirements, yet is not performed under an AOC.
I think we all agree that insurance companies won't pay out if there is any doubt about the legality of the flight or any other circumstances. If the flight was operated outside the law of the land, namely the ANO, then the underwriters will have a case not to pay out.
All in all, it could be a bit messy for quite a while.
I think we all agree that insurance companies won't pay out if there is any doubt about the legality of the flight or any other circumstances. If the flight was operated outside the law of the land, namely the ANO, then the underwriters will have a case not to pay out.
All in all, it could be a bit messy for quite a while.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our insurance certificate states that cover is only for legal operations, if the insurance companies are offered a way out of millions of outgoings they are going to take it. I can't see the insurers saying "OK, we don't have to pay, but we think it may have been safe so write the cheque"
I'll dig out the actual wording when I'm in the office on monday.
I'll dig out the actual wording when I'm in the office on monday.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
For a non-EU registered aircraft to be legally chartered between two EU airports would require one of two agreements. A non-EU operator might be given fifth-freedom rights within the EU. An EU operator might be given permission to use an aircraft not registered in their country of AOC issue. Both of these do happen, but are very rare, especially in GA. They are far less common than illegal charters, especialy for AOCs issued by or aircraft registered to authorites that don't have a strong regulatory reputation.
No it doesn't. It doesn't consider the idea of an EU-registered aircraft, because unless there is a very large conspiracy the aircraft was not EU-registered, so any discussion of EU-registered aircraft would not be relevant.
That is a private flight, which was the other option I gave. I did not speculate on the likelihood of this.
The rumour I had heard was that money changed hands for this flight, covering all the costs with maybe some profit, i.e. it was a charter flight. Another rumour has now surfaced that the insurance will not be paid, which tends to support the first rumour, although of course one could be based on the other so it is by no means definitive.
On the subject of the insurance company, why should they pay out for a charter flight on a private insurance? If you told your car insurance company you were only going to drive for pleasure and commuting (a normal choice, the basis for my insurance) then crashed while driving for a job as a salesman would you expect to be paid out? You would be very disappointed, and gaina conviction for driving without insurance!
FLHamster
Indeed the company I work for has reported more than one organisation for illegal charters. The funniest could not actually be proved, so warning only to the offender. However the aircraft went tech, of course no contract so the "not-a-customer-really" ended up having to get himself home at his own expense. He admitted that total cost was greater than if he'd just come to us in the first place.
Why because it was not registered in the EU was it "very" unlikely to be a legitimate charter?
That implies that if it was registered in the EU it would be?
Dont really want to go down the legal and illegal charter arguement again check that previous thread but you can legitmately lease a private aircraft EU or Non EU and you can pay pilots to fly it for you.
A large proportion of business jets do that
A large proportion of business jets do that
The rumour I had heard was that money changed hands for this flight, covering all the costs with maybe some profit, i.e. it was a charter flight. Another rumour has now surfaced that the insurance will not be paid, which tends to support the first rumour, although of course one could be based on the other so it is by no means definitive.
On the subject of the insurance company, why should they pay out for a charter flight on a private insurance? If you told your car insurance company you were only going to drive for pleasure and commuting (a normal choice, the basis for my insurance) then crashed while driving for a job as a salesman would you expect to be paid out? You would be very disappointed, and gaina conviction for driving without insurance!
FLHamster
Indeed the company I work for has reported more than one organisation for illegal charters. The funniest could not actually be proved, so warning only to the offender. However the aircraft went tech, of course no contract so the "not-a-customer-really" ended up having to get himself home at his own expense. He admitted that total cost was greater than if he'd just come to us in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it particular amusing when an AOC holder uses a non AOC VP-C airplane crewed with 2 over 65 year old pilots to do their work, paid charter flights. I personally know of at least 3 such flights at a previous employer of mine.
However, the implications on insurance matters have nothing to do with the cause, which I´d like to know more about...
However, the implications on insurance matters have nothing to do with the cause, which I´d like to know more about...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Two small points to add.
Insurance Co Claims Managers' are assessed and rewarded on how much they save the underwriters, not by how much they pay out.
For Pace and others who fly early 500's
Generally, if the AAIB find evidence that points to something that needs addressing they let the affected know as soon as possible. The fact that you or your a/c owner have not been contacted via Cessna should (for the moment) be a comfort. Same as with the BA 777, no change in airworthiness or operations yet.
From a source who is reliable, look at how you operate; Perf A or other forms of handling?
Sir George Cayley
Insurance Co Claims Managers' are assessed and rewarded on how much they save the underwriters, not by how much they pay out.
For Pace and others who fly early 500's
Generally, if the AAIB find evidence that points to something that needs addressing they let the affected know as soon as possible. The fact that you or your a/c owner have not been contacted via Cessna should (for the moment) be a comfort. Same as with the BA 777, no change in airworthiness or operations yet.
From a source who is reliable, look at how you operate; Perf A or other forms of handling?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there would have to be some sort of known grosse negligence for insurers to refuse to pay?
I have it on excellent authority that if an aviation insurer refuses to pay out, this would be only if the the flight was illegal even before it left the ground. Examples might be: invalid CofA (which could itself be several reasons e.g. an N-reg not owned by a US citizen), invalid pilot(s) license(s), licenses invalid on the aircraft reg, etc. The insurers do seem to pay out on overweight departures though. I haven't got a clue why (it is alleged) they are not paying out in this case.
Anybody who procures (owns or rents etc) a plane, any reg, can pay a CPL to fly him around, and this is legal everywhere, with no AOC required.
One problem area is where some people on board have no connection with the chappie who procured the plane. Then it becomes a charter. But this is a grey area because loads of corporate jets do sometimes carry somebody not working for the company; it would be quite normal to e.g. collect a customer and take him somewhere to show him your latest project...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the expertice on insurance. I found it interesting that one contributor to this thread stated that insurance will pay out for an overweight takeoff? Surely an illegal flight?
To what level of illegality will they pay out? I am sure if you dig around enough there will be some scrap of information or lack of it which could techically deem a flight illegal AOC or Private.
If a flight that results in an accident can be found to be illegal does that mean no payout?
Lets take an AOC as private flights appear to be the focus for illegal flights in this thread.
An AOC operated aircraft crashes. The insurers discover that some piece of paperwork is missing or an element of maintenance or operation has been lacking.
The flight is now illegal. There is NO evidence that whatever was missing that technically made the flight illegal made any contribution to the accident. Do they not pay out in those circumstances?
There are and have been many instances of "legal" Air charter where something has not been done by the book and hence technically the flight could be deemed illegal.
I find it hard to fathom that technical illegality could stop a payment when it is proved that the reason for the crash had nothing to do whether the flight was techically legal or not but the cause of the crash was something that could have happened to an AOC or Private flight.
As in the example of overweight takeoffs which incidentely in a training Cessna 150 happen all the time the insurance will pay out although the flight was in all probability an illegal flight?
So an aircraft that takesoff into a flock of Birds, looses both engines and crashes but is then found to have not been legal AOC or private because it was 3 hrs over a maintenance check will NOT be covered by insurance?
Pace
To what level of illegality will they pay out? I am sure if you dig around enough there will be some scrap of information or lack of it which could techically deem a flight illegal AOC or Private.
If a flight that results in an accident can be found to be illegal does that mean no payout?
Lets take an AOC as private flights appear to be the focus for illegal flights in this thread.
An AOC operated aircraft crashes. The insurers discover that some piece of paperwork is missing or an element of maintenance or operation has been lacking.
The flight is now illegal. There is NO evidence that whatever was missing that technically made the flight illegal made any contribution to the accident. Do they not pay out in those circumstances?
There are and have been many instances of "legal" Air charter where something has not been done by the book and hence technically the flight could be deemed illegal.
I find it hard to fathom that technical illegality could stop a payment when it is proved that the reason for the crash had nothing to do whether the flight was techically legal or not but the cause of the crash was something that could have happened to an AOC or Private flight.
As in the example of overweight takeoffs which incidentely in a training Cessna 150 happen all the time the insurance will pay out although the flight was in all probability an illegal flight?
So an aircraft that takesoff into a flock of Birds, looses both engines and crashes but is then found to have not been legal AOC or private because it was 3 hrs over a maintenance check will NOT be covered by insurance?
Pace
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sir George.
Then you'll know as well as I do that insinuating that claims managers are encouraged to repudiate without cause is naughty and misleading. Not much different to the bloke in the pub perpetuating the myth that you have to exaggerate your claim because insurers will always beat you down anyway. Didn't work as a high street broker by any chance, did you?
This rumour does not just say "Insurance companies. Not them again
". It says "There was something seriously wrong with this flight" which is a HUGE allegation to make without proof. In here it's just a few pixels and the subject of our attention for a couple of minutes. Out in the real world the sniff of the rumour alone will have enormous implications. Lives will be affected, grieving relatives thrown into doubt, reputations ruined. If it later transpires that the rumour was unfounded well, meh. It's just a forum right? No mud will stick.
My point is not aimed solely at you but your comment came at a time when I was contemplating making this post anyway. People should think a bit more before they post some things.
Pace. Any specific answers would depend very much on the specific wording of the insurance policy which is why I say there is no point deliberating 'what ifs' here. There are too many variables and too much missing information for anyone here to make a meaningful comment.
The principle of insurance is fairly straightforward though. There will be several sections of the policy covering the hull, passengers and liability to third parties in much the same way a fully comprehensive motor policy covers a car. Now let's say Joe Bloggs had a crash as the result of doing something stupid like drink/driving. His insurers would refuse to pay for the damage to his car. They would then seek to establish whether his passengers knew he was over the limit and if they did would seek to minimise their liability (payout) by suggesting that the passengers were partially responsible for their injuries. In short they knew he'd been drinking so should never have got into the car.
The part they could not avoid would be any claims from third parties ie, the owner of the house he crashed into. He had no control whatsoever over Joe's actions so should not be made to suffer. Of course, after paying him they might then decide to chase Joe for reimbursement but that's another long winded post all of its own.
In short folks can we stop going off on half-@rsed tangents when the knock on effects of 'just wondering' in a public forum can be so serious?
Flinty
ACII, ACILA (Not so much failed as lost interest)
Ex-Lloyd's claims broker, claims investigator and loss adjuster of 14 years experience in UK and overseas markets. By God it was dull.
Then you'll know as well as I do that insinuating that claims managers are encouraged to repudiate without cause is naughty and misleading. Not much different to the bloke in the pub perpetuating the myth that you have to exaggerate your claim because insurers will always beat you down anyway. Didn't work as a high street broker by any chance, did you?
This rumour does not just say "Insurance companies. Not them again
". It says "There was something seriously wrong with this flight" which is a HUGE allegation to make without proof. In here it's just a few pixels and the subject of our attention for a couple of minutes. Out in the real world the sniff of the rumour alone will have enormous implications. Lives will be affected, grieving relatives thrown into doubt, reputations ruined. If it later transpires that the rumour was unfounded well, meh. It's just a forum right? No mud will stick.My point is not aimed solely at you but your comment came at a time when I was contemplating making this post anyway. People should think a bit more before they post some things.
Pace. Any specific answers would depend very much on the specific wording of the insurance policy which is why I say there is no point deliberating 'what ifs' here. There are too many variables and too much missing information for anyone here to make a meaningful comment.
The principle of insurance is fairly straightforward though. There will be several sections of the policy covering the hull, passengers and liability to third parties in much the same way a fully comprehensive motor policy covers a car. Now let's say Joe Bloggs had a crash as the result of doing something stupid like drink/driving. His insurers would refuse to pay for the damage to his car. They would then seek to establish whether his passengers knew he was over the limit and if they did would seek to minimise their liability (payout) by suggesting that the passengers were partially responsible for their injuries. In short they knew he'd been drinking so should never have got into the car.
The part they could not avoid would be any claims from third parties ie, the owner of the house he crashed into. He had no control whatsoever over Joe's actions so should not be made to suffer. Of course, after paying him they might then decide to chase Joe for reimbursement but that's another long winded post all of its own.
In short folks can we stop going off on half-@rsed tangents when the knock on effects of 'just wondering' in a public forum can be so serious?
Flinty
ACII, ACILA (Not so much failed as lost interest)
Ex-Lloyd's claims broker, claims investigator and loss adjuster of 14 years experience in UK and overseas markets. By God it was dull.
Last edited by Flintstone; 29th Jul 2008 at 23:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
Thanks for that information. I too hold that speculation is dangerous. For me and any pilot the cause whether mechanical, pilot error or a combination is all I am interested in so that we can avoid and learn.
Whether it was an illegal charter from that point of view is meaningless and irrelevant and would be in any conclusion it is only the cause that matters.
I am sure there are many who would love it to be illegal charter on a foreign state aircraft, badly run and operated because that then gives them ammunition to get rid of what they see as a thorn in their sides, but this has more to do with self preservation and protection than safety.
Pace
Thanks for that information. I too hold that speculation is dangerous. For me and any pilot the cause whether mechanical, pilot error or a combination is all I am interested in so that we can avoid and learn.
Whether it was an illegal charter from that point of view is meaningless and irrelevant and would be in any conclusion it is only the cause that matters.
I am sure there are many who would love it to be illegal charter on a foreign state aircraft, badly run and operated because that then gives them ammunition to get rid of what they see as a thorn in their sides, but this has more to do with self preservation and protection than safety.
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL 330
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another year gone...
Well here we are, another year gone and do we know any more about the Biggin Air Crash? Politiek aside it would seem sensible to give some detail of the causes for those of us who fly similar aircraft day to day. Apologies if this is now public knowledge already, and if so, please can somebody post a link on here
Ta
TPG
Ta
TPG
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish to thank AAIB for the detailed report
I know we have been bitching at the delay, but this report has very very deep detail, and full analysis of the accident.
Thank you AAIB.
However the background still remains unclear. "The status of the flight".
glf
Thank you AAIB.
However the background still remains unclear. "The status of the flight".
glf