No more Student Pilot Licences
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as an ATO, you're a delegate of CASA. Therefore you are indemnified against any errors or omissions you may make by CASA. For example: If you renew an instrument rating for a pilot who then goes and kills himself and six pax in IMC and investigation determines that, for whatever reason, the pilot did not meet proficiency standards. The families of the passenger sue CASA, not you, for giving said pilot an approval to fly in those conditions, as you were simply acting as a delegate.
Now as a 'flight examiner' you act on your own and are therefore liable for such errors and omissions. You would be required to take out your own professional indemnity insurance, like a lawyer or dentist.
I did ask the CASA bloke at a seminar about this a few months back, but got no definitive answer other than CASA were 'aware' of it.
Now as a 'flight examiner' you act on your own and are therefore liable for such errors and omissions. You would be required to take out your own professional indemnity insurance, like a lawyer or dentist.
I did ask the CASA bloke at a seminar about this a few months back, but got no definitive answer other than CASA were 'aware' of it.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank heavens they are fixing the maint release nonsense.
my son has unrestricted gliding and ultralight licences but as yet can't sign a maint release on a VH reg aircraft because of his GFPT. stupid arrangement.
my son has unrestricted gliding and ultralight licences but as yet can't sign a maint release on a VH reg aircraft because of his GFPT. stupid arrangement.
I really hope the indemnity issue gets resolved soon!
Best of luck, for an ATO the quotes seem to vary from about $9000 per years to double that.
You will no longer be covered by CAAP Admin. 1, as was the case until now.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Oct 2013 at 14:25.
Has CASA ever been sued for the actions of an ATO? There was some paranoia expressed at the PDP I attended over this, but in my case I am just thinking of taking my chances. I am certainly NOT paying any hefty premiums.
Has CASA ever been sued for the actions of an ATO?
I operate in an unusual niche of consulting engineering. Its quite low risk, but there are not many guys doing this in Australia - probably a similar number of guys as there are ATO's. In my experience, if Insurers don't have an existing "pidgeon hole" to categorise your activity then you will have trouble getting anyone to quote - let alone secure insurance. When I was originally looking for insurance I ended up hearing a lot of dial tones. One of the problems that I see for insurance for ATO's is that there is no existing market. Today there is no need for anyone to hold such insurance. This changes overnight on Dec 3. Insurers will be issuing policies with no experience or history on which to base their risk assessments.
My personal professional indemnity is about $8k pa. I could see ATO's being twice this - at least for the first few years while an insurance record is established. This would put ATO's in a similar bracket with obstetricians.
My activity has a short "comet trail". A year or so after my work, the risk is virtually extinguished. An ATO's risk might go back many years - or decades. Take the current Hempel case. In the Flight Examiner environment you can see the courts going back to the person who issued his original commercial licence.
ATO's within part 142 schools are likely to be better off because the activity will be bundled in the totality of the schools operation. Independent ATO's are likely to be in trouble and in order to have insurance in place on December 4 my experience is that you would need to be submitting an application right now. Insurance companies are likely to take a number of weeks and come back with supplementary questions before issuing cover.
I might be wrong. I hope I am. But in my experience as soon as insurers hear the word aviation their attitude seems to change.
The government made a similar stuff up with doctors in hospitals somewhere about 1999 / 2000 (from memory). It resulted in a lot of doctors withdrawing services then and the government rushing through amended legislation. They seemed to have learned nothing in the intervening years.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with the ATO's (or whatever they'll be called now) having to seek their own professional indemnity insurance, we can now expect a huge increase in the cost of a flight test, MECIR renewal, BFR, etc. Thank you CASA! 
Folks,
The stupidity of this is that the CASA position is ideological, not a matter of cost.
As posted elsewhere, Bruce Byron admitted that adding industry delegates to CASA employee delegates did not raise the premiums.
CASA had the buying power.
Tootle pip!!
The stupidity of this is that the CASA position is ideological, not a matter of cost.
As posted elsewhere, Bruce Byron admitted that adding industry delegates to CASA employee delegates did not raise the premiums.
CASA had the buying power.
Tootle pip!!
How about if the examiner is doing the examining as the director of a Pty Ltd company and carries public liability insurance?
Sorry if the questions are naïve, I really haven't had a chance to study this in any depth yet.
Sorry if the questions are naïve, I really haven't had a chance to study this in any depth yet.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think public liability would cover it, but would director's insurance? It's supposed to protect directors from such things and also the bad deeds of their fellow directors.
Some of the boards I sit on have directors insurance to protect the organization if one of the directors does something illegal or puts the organization in jepody
Some of the boards I sit on have directors insurance to protect the organization if one of the directors does something illegal or puts the organization in jepody
Last edited by garrya100; 12th Oct 2013 at 04:38.
Folks,
The real answer is for all the ATOs to get together and approach the Minister, and let him know that aviation will grind to a halt unless this is reversed, making certain he understands it is NOT a cost issue, it is a semi-religious conviction withing a certain group in CASA ---- who want to see the industry squeezed to death.
To quote one of those involved: " There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military".
Tootle pip!!
The real answer is for all the ATOs to get together and approach the Minister, and let him know that aviation will grind to a halt unless this is reversed, making certain he understands it is NOT a cost issue, it is a semi-religious conviction withing a certain group in CASA ---- who want to see the industry squeezed to death.
To quote one of those involved: " There should only be two kinds of aviation, airlines and military".
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled, while I appreciate your comments and mostly agree with your views, here I fail to see the issue.
1. How many deaths/injuries have come about involving freshly issued license holders where the ATO would be considered liable?
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?
With all due respect, a lot of paranoia seen at the recent PDP and on this forum is due to a mindset purposely created by insurance companies who wish to sell policy. They preach that life is not safe without insurance and promote "worst case scenario". You folk believe them.
I am one ATO who will not consider any indemnity insurance, happy to take my chances.
1. How many deaths/injuries have come about involving freshly issued license holders where the ATO would be considered liable?
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?
With all due respect, a lot of paranoia seen at the recent PDP and on this forum is due to a mindset purposely created by insurance companies who wish to sell policy. They preach that life is not safe without insurance and promote "worst case scenario". You folk believe them.
I am one ATO who will not consider any indemnity insurance, happy to take my chances.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I deliver training in occupations that could be seen as dangerous, and could result in the death of the worker and/or innocent bystanders if something went wrong. A bit like flying instruction of it goes wrong.
When the new rules about competency came into my industry this started much discussion about liability and when the responsibility of the trainer finished, particularly when there is no requirement for recurrent training, and when at what point a trainees competency expired.
The end result was that the rules now accept that the trainee is only competent at the time of their test. At any other time it is the responsibility of the trainee to retain their competency. If the aviation industry follows the same guidelines (the rules for the training industry is standardized ), the only time an instructor is assuring the candidate is competent is at the completion of their test. His liability lapses after this time.
Here's hoping flight training follows the same rules.
When the new rules about competency came into my industry this started much discussion about liability and when the responsibility of the trainer finished, particularly when there is no requirement for recurrent training, and when at what point a trainees competency expired.
The end result was that the rules now accept that the trainee is only competent at the time of their test. At any other time it is the responsibility of the trainee to retain their competency. If the aviation industry follows the same guidelines (the rules for the training industry is standardized ), the only time an instructor is assuring the candidate is competent is at the completion of their test. His liability lapses after this time.
Here's hoping flight training follows the same rules.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if Bob has no assets in his name the facts are that if there is a claim against him he will take the liability to his grave, in other words you cannot duck the award of costs and orders to compensate by attempting to hide assets.
The liability sits with you until you discharge it, a really dangerous situation.
Not smart as your Children and grandchildren would find out as your estate is taken by the court to satisfy the liability !!!!!!!!!
The liability sits with you until you discharge it, a really dangerous situation.
Not smart as your Children and grandchildren would find out as your estate is taken by the court to satisfy the liability !!!!!!!!!
Aussie Bob
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?
2. By the time several years pass the license holder will have most likely completed additional training, additional tests and done a minimum of at least one AFR. Who would seriously think liability resides with the original testing officer?
You going to have to maintain the insurance policy for seven years after your last test was conducted the way things are standing.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't buy tattslotto tickets & when I bet on a horse it's usually the favourite. I think I read somewhere that half the cost of a new Cessna was product liability insurance, i.e. 250k on a C182. To cover the family sueing Cessna when the family of an incompetent pilot crashes. This was a while back so may have changed a little.
I would be wanting definitive legal advice that I wasn't personally liable if it was proven I acted reasonably before I was operating under such a system. Maybe it's time the aviation industry grew some nuts and refused to operate until law reflects the true liability.................lol, sorry, grew some nuts
that was funny!
I would be wanting definitive legal advice that I wasn't personally liable if it was proven I acted reasonably before I was operating under such a system. Maybe it's time the aviation industry grew some nuts and refused to operate until law reflects the true liability.................lol, sorry, grew some nuts
that was funny!
I can give you the names of some guys that wished the odds were as long as Aussie Bob hopes. Even if you are innocent it doesn't take long to burn through $100 k.
The risk of signing out PPL's might not be high, but the lawyers get a new persons to add into legal claims after December 4.
I've lost track of the Moorabbin / RVAC midair court case. But I could see the Flight examiners being joined in every one of those legal actions. Every time an ATSB raise questions about the pilot in a report it will be ammunition for a lawyer to look for the Flight Examiner who said the pilot was qualified to fly.
The odds might be long, but you are gambling with your house and the ability to continue to earn an income as a flight examiner. One Pelair or Hempel or Canley Vale or Moorabbin mid-air incident will be enough to wipe you out, even if you are innocent.
I'd be paying the PI insurance.
The risk of signing out PPL's might not be high, but the lawyers get a new persons to add into legal claims after December 4.
I've lost track of the Moorabbin / RVAC midair court case. But I could see the Flight examiners being joined in every one of those legal actions. Every time an ATSB raise questions about the pilot in a report it will be ammunition for a lawyer to look for the Flight Examiner who said the pilot was qualified to fly.
The odds might be long, but you are gambling with your house and the ability to continue to earn an income as a flight examiner. One Pelair or Hempel or Canley Vale or Moorabbin mid-air incident will be enough to wipe you out, even if you are innocent.
I'd be paying the PI insurance.
Last edited by Old Akro; 13th Oct 2013 at 02:53.
I would be wanting definitive legal advice that I wasn't personally liable if it was proven I acted reasonably before I was operating under such a system.
Because claims against instructors/ATOs so rarely happen, the kind of folklore that’s manifested in some of the confused and ill-informed nonsense in this thread can persist.
Delegates are independent of the delegator and, absent some statutory protection (commonly known as an ‘immunity from suit’ provisions) or agreement between the delegator and delegates, the delegates are ‘on their own’ so far as liability is concerned. (The situation has relatively recently been complicated by s 34AB(1)(c) of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act.)
Hence the wonderful piece of ambiguous nonsense that is CAAP ADMIN-1. The number of people who’ve carried on over the decades, believing that a fading piece of dog-eared napkin issued by an entity that no longer exists would provide guaranteed ‘cover’ for them if something went wrong, is laughable.
If you do stuff that could expose you to potential liability, do yourself a favour and get some advice from an expert about what to do about it. (You’ll know the experts: they have professional indemnity insurance.)
If you do stuff that could expose you to potential liability, do yourself a favour and get some advice from an expert about what to do about it. (You’ll know the experts: they have professional indemnity insurance.)
I dunno the answer but I did note in the recent PDP that at 53 years of age I was a youngster amongst my peers. There I met (again) the ATO who gave me my CPL plus the first FOI I ever dealt with, both with at least a decade more age than I. At this rate the industry is aging way way faster than new instructors are arriving. In a decade or less it will all be over.
So: Let's all shell out say 8K for insurance, pop $500.00 onto each and every test to pay for it and hasten the demise. Chuck in SIDS, declining student numbers, ever more onerous legislation blah blah blah and the party is over.
RPT and military, your right Leadie ...