FE Insurance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FE Insurance
Hi Guys,
Something Id just like to put out there to see if anyone has Ideas;
Lets say for example I'm conducting a PPL LST, something goes wrong and I (as an FI or FE) end up crashing.
Who is liable for this? Can I be sued? Can the school be sued?
I'm looking for personal protection Insurance being a Flight Examiner to ensure that if something happens to me on a test, that I'm not liable and cant be sued.
Also, If the applicant crashes and I ended up seriously injured, could this insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?
I have asked more than one National Aviation Authority on this subject and its very unclear. Nobody seems to know of anyone providing such Insurance,
Is there anyone out there that can help?
Something Id just like to put out there to see if anyone has Ideas;
Lets say for example I'm conducting a PPL LST, something goes wrong and I (as an FI or FE) end up crashing.
Who is liable for this? Can I be sued? Can the school be sued?
I'm looking for personal protection Insurance being a Flight Examiner to ensure that if something happens to me on a test, that I'm not liable and cant be sued.
Also, If the applicant crashes and I ended up seriously injured, could this insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?
I have asked more than one National Aviation Authority on this subject and its very unclear. Nobody seems to know of anyone providing such Insurance,
Is there anyone out there that can help?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is liable for this?
Whether you are "liable" would depend on the circumstances
and would be for lawyers to decide (unless you admit liability).
Can I be sued?
Can the school be sued?
that I'm not liable and cant be sued
It is the lawsuit itself which will determine liability, but even
successfully defending one can be an expensive pain.
Also, If the applicant crashes and I ended up seriously injured, could this
insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?
insurance cover my medical expenses and possibly a loss of licence?
something totally daft so that you think they are "liable" then you can
sue them (but remember THEY are a Student, YOU are an Instructor),
could be a difficult one to prove.
Generally Medical Accident Insurance, provided it covers the
'dangerous activity' of flying in non-commercial aircraft would cover you
for medical expenses - Loss of earnings would depend on what you were
actually insured for, and may be a separate policy.
Is there anyone out there that can help?
provided by Heritage Insurance Solutions (and doesn't cover you for all
the concerns you have listed). You need to be an AOPA member (possibly
an AOPA UK member) to apply for this insurance and, I think, only covers
instruction in the UK.
Under EASA as an FI/FE you will be attached to an ATO. In effect they are your employer and you will be protected under vicarious liability ( your employer assumes liability ) if you are conducting any examination while in their employment. However if for the purposes of the examination you are operating in a private capacity then you may not be covered under this liability and as such be at risk of being sued by the insurance company attempting to recover their losses from the hull loss in an accident in which you were PIC.
There is a Besso policy out there to cover some aspects of this liability but not for the hull loss.
This is discussed in the following thread;
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instruc...insurance.html
There is a Besso policy out there to cover some aspects of this liability but not for the hull loss.
This is discussed in the following thread;
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instruc...insurance.html
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a Besso policy out there
no requirement under EASA for an examiner to be attached to an ATO
the CAA of the Examiners they intend to use. This could be described as
"being attached to an ATO'.
This, however, IS NOT the same as being employed by an ATO.
if you are conducting any examination while in their employment
I do not think anyone should, or can, be employed by an ATO to conduct
examinations on that ATO's students (contravenes FCL.1005 (b))
risk of being sued by the insurance company attempting to recover
their losses from the hull loss in an accident in which you were PIC.
their losses from the hull loss in an accident in which you were PIC.
insured party so the insurance company could not sue you for this as they
would, effectively, be suing themselves.
If Hull Loss was an insured risk then, as PIC, you would, surely, be the
insured party so the insurance company could not sue you for this as they
would, effectively, be suing themselves.
insured party so the insurance company could not sue you for this as they
would, effectively, be suing themselves.
The problem is there is actually no insurance policy out there in the UK at the moment to protect against this for a private individual. It is the equivalent of malpractice insurance in the medical world and the Besso/Heritage policy does offer some protection covering the examiner/instructor for 3rd party liability, however it specifically states it will not protect against the loss of hull.
"Does this policy cover damage caused to the aircraft by the Instructor? NO"
The best way around this is to make sure an ATO will cover you under their liability insurance as an employee. Sadly there is a lack of insurance to cover private operators for this risk.
Last edited by Fostex; 14th Feb 2014 at 07:29.
Although other Examiners can be used; ATOs, in the UK, supply a list to
the CAA of the Examiners they intend to use. This could be described as
"being attached to an ATO'.
the CAA of the Examiners they intend to use. This could be described as
"being attached to an ATO'.
For all skill tests other than CPL and IR (see para 2.1.1 above), an e-mail needs to be sent to [email protected], and the e-mail must contain the information requested in para 2.2.1. Before undertaking the activity, the applicant must wait to receive a confirmation from the CAA that the proposed designated examiner is agreed. Once this e-mail confirmation has been received the test may proceed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange, when i renewed my PPL FE, i didn't fill in the school nomination section on the application as the CAA appendix guidance said not to fill in.
The application got rejected until that section was filled in and e-mailed back.
The application got rejected until that section was filled in and e-mailed back.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem here Whoppity is that despite you undoubtably being correct, your former masters at the CAA frequently do not agree with your interpretation and seem to apply a different set of rules.
I have also had applications sent back for my staff Examiner renewals that were marked as N/A with sponsoring organisation. In questioning I was told that the CAA expect all examiners to be sponsored by an ATO. When I pointed out that was not in the legislation I was pointed to another document that says the CAA is responsible for maintaining oversight and how they do this is up to them.
We quote legislation all day but if the CAA want to do things differently they will always find a loophole that helps them out.
We are also required to supply a list of examiners as well as instructors on our approval and the monthly skill test return needs to be in accordance with the listed examiners.
I have also had applications sent back for my staff Examiner renewals that were marked as N/A with sponsoring organisation. In questioning I was told that the CAA expect all examiners to be sponsored by an ATO. When I pointed out that was not in the legislation I was pointed to another document that says the CAA is responsible for maintaining oversight and how they do this is up to them.
We quote legislation all day but if the CAA want to do things differently they will always find a loophole that helps them out.
We are also required to supply a list of examiners as well as instructors on our approval and the monthly skill test return needs to be in accordance with the listed examiners.
The SRG 1128 Examiner Application form is an old JAA Form dated May 2006 and hopelessly out of date. Even under JAR there was no requirement for Examiners to be sponsored by FTOs.
I heard only this week from CAA Examiners that there is no requirement for an industry examiner to be sponsored by an ATO. The CAA now admits it has been gold plating and is attempting to rectify this issue. They are required to establish procedures for the allocation of examiners to tests and have covered that requirement by the notification system, nothing more is required.
One of the EU objectives is to establish a level playing field whereby all examiners have the same rights irrespective of whether they are sponsored (whatever that means) by atn ATO or not.
The CAA is slowly learning it cannot continue to run the old National system or make it up as they go along; they too have to toe the line and are subject to audit.
I heard only this week from CAA Examiners that there is no requirement for an industry examiner to be sponsored by an ATO. The CAA now admits it has been gold plating and is attempting to rectify this issue. They are required to establish procedures for the allocation of examiners to tests and have covered that requirement by the notification system, nothing more is required.
One of the EU objectives is to establish a level playing field whereby all examiners have the same rights irrespective of whether they are sponsored (whatever that means) by atn ATO or not.
The CAA is slowly learning it cannot continue to run the old National system or make it up as they go along; they too have to toe the line and are subject to audit.