Advice please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice please
Can someone give me some advice about this. A friend mine was involved in a plane crash and they told him to send the insurance claim report to the guy in his group who looks after the paperwork. When this guy saw the report he told my friend to alter some of the details about what happened, like the number of 90 day take off and landings he had done and things like that. They said he should send the same report to the AAIB. He was still ill at the time but now he is not sure that’s right could he be in trouble here?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your friend must be honest about the questions asked of him otherwise it will turn around and bite.
Having said that there is no need for him to forward information not asked for.
Pace
Having said that there is no need for him to forward information not asked for.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB generally are extremely helpful and nonjudgemental in their dealings with the people who report accidents to them.
Unless they've been lied to, in which case they get very unpleasant, and rightly so.
The captain MUST submit the report to AAIB, and MUST be absolutely truthful.
If somebody has submitted untrue information on his behalf, or he's been persuaded to submit untrue information, far and away his best policy is to contact the AAIB inspector directly and come clean.
The insurance company will inevitably read the AAIB report - so they clearly also need absolutely true information. However, don't volunteer to an insurance company anything they didn't ask for.
P
Unless they've been lied to, in which case they get very unpleasant, and rightly so.
The captain MUST submit the report to AAIB, and MUST be absolutely truthful.
If somebody has submitted untrue information on his behalf, or he's been persuaded to submit untrue information, far and away his best policy is to contact the AAIB inspector directly and come clean.
The insurance company will inevitably read the AAIB report - so they clearly also need absolutely true information. However, don't volunteer to an insurance company anything they didn't ask for.
P
Last edited by Pilotage; 31st Dec 2012 at 12:07.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot's log book will very likely be examined. One lie leads to another till knots are tied. Tell the truth, it will be far better than getting found lacking later. Neither AAIB nor Insurance companies are stupid. If your friend was solo at the time then 90 days is legal & means nothing.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your friend was solo at the time then 90 days is legal & means nothing.
My group's insurance company, for example, imposes a 90 day currency requirement. I could legally make a solo flight beyond this but the insurance company wouldn't pay up if I bent the plane.
Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket (the group and possibly other third parties involved will probably have a claim against him for damages either from his negligence in bending the plane, or breach of contract). If it was me I would tell the truth as it has a habbit of coming out in the wash, and I wouldn't want to risk prosecution. "Oh what a tangled web we weave", and all that...
Not a nice position to be in at all, and just goes to show the importance of making sure you are current both legally and from an insurance perspective.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket
(1) cough up for the damage from his own pocket
or
(2) cough up for the damage from his own pocket and be convicted and sentenced for fraud.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket
Unlikely. Assuming the fraud is detected, which most here seem to think probable, the choice is between:
(1) cough up for the damage from his own pocket
or
(2) cough up for the damage from his own pocket and be convicted and sentenced for fraud.
Steve1234, your friend is in the very difficult position of having to either commit insurance fraud, or cough up for the damage from his own pocket
Unlikely. Assuming the fraud is detected, which most here seem to think probable, the choice is between:
(1) cough up for the damage from his own pocket
or
(2) cough up for the damage from his own pocket and be convicted and sentenced for fraud.
I know from experience that car insurance companies send out investigators for 'total loss' claims, basically looking for excuses not to pay up. I imagine the same would apply to aviation insurance.
Not a great situation to be in!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks as if you know the answer to this but...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first set out to deceive"
So, you get away with something and no-one is hurt at the time. But for how many years are you going to worry about something let slip by someone else.
We may all sound like 'do-gooders' with these replies but I can assure you that many of us will have been in situations where, on reflection, we were foolish to have found ourselves and some of us would admit to a few sleepless nights because of it. (not me of course)
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first set out to deceive"
So, you get away with something and no-one is hurt at the time. But for how many years are you going to worry about something let slip by someone else.
We may all sound like 'do-gooders' with these replies but I can assure you that many of us will have been in situations where, on reflection, we were foolish to have found ourselves and some of us would admit to a few sleepless nights because of it. (not me of course)
Last edited by funfly; 2nd Jan 2013 at 15:54.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In a hole somewhere
Age: 46
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice please
Insurance fraud not good.
Be honest and submit docs to the insurer direct or if they need to go via someone else keep copies of what you submitted to them.
I would not involve myself in someone elses reasons for "bending the truth" ..... But thats just me
Be honest and submit docs to the insurer direct or if they need to go via someone else keep copies of what you submitted to them.
I would not involve myself in someone elses reasons for "bending the truth" ..... But thats just me
I deal with insurance companies for a living and they have all invested heavily in anti-fraud systems over the last few years. Your friend should not even consider altering 'the facts' or he could very easily become one of the examples that the insurance companies are looking to expose in order to discourage further fraud.
All claims are throughly investigated, so he should correct any inaccuracies immediately, before the real facts speak for themselves and he finds himself having to explain why he lied to the authorities.
All claims are throughly investigated, so he should correct any inaccuracies immediately, before the real facts speak for themselves and he finds himself having to explain why he lied to the authorities.
Steve - did you write this in an earlier post in December '12?
"Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?"
Apologies if it is wrong and I will edit/withdraw it
"Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?"
Apologies if it is wrong and I will edit/withdraw it
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So.... what are the chances of an insurance investigator, who by the nature of the beast are paid to find a way to avoid liability... not stumbling into this?
Now they will be looking at any claims in the system for a group operated plane and they will dig in places that "your friend" can't possibly falsify.
ATC records are kept for a while and the AAIB can ask awkward questions, and probably will, if the insurers find a hint of wrongdoing.
Have your friend ready to answer questions like, why is every take off and landing not supported by documents from the airfields concerned? payment of landing charges and records of take off and landing times might be hard to fake.
Where did he go on the flights in question, and why is there no en route ATC or FIS recording?
Do the engine and airframe service records support any "additional flights" that are claimed? If they do encroach on service intervals, do the records of the maintenance provider, if used, support this?
Is the pilot employed? Was he at work on the days he claims to have been flying... was the wx suitable... do fuel receipts support the extra use? All of that can be traced, and they only need to find one "error" to give them enough cause to dig deeper.
If the aircraft was not flown enough in the previous 90 days, then you need to invent flights, but if you claim flights that someone else did, in order to be "more current" then you are at risk of being exposed when the investigator asks to see the log books of all the other group members.
Are you all confident that you are all going to lie to the insurers and AAIB?
Even faced with a suggestion that "if we don't lie" they will not pay and we lose the aircraft and possibly have third party costs to meet, are you really sure that the innocent will lie to entangle themselves in your friend's plot?
I suspect that I'm not the only person who would like to know more... like did your friend submit the altered report yet?
Did the request to alter the report come by some means with evidence, like email?
What pprune id did Steve1234 use before this issue came up?
Now they will be looking at any claims in the system for a group operated plane and they will dig in places that "your friend" can't possibly falsify.
ATC records are kept for a while and the AAIB can ask awkward questions, and probably will, if the insurers find a hint of wrongdoing.
Have your friend ready to answer questions like, why is every take off and landing not supported by documents from the airfields concerned? payment of landing charges and records of take off and landing times might be hard to fake.
Where did he go on the flights in question, and why is there no en route ATC or FIS recording?
Do the engine and airframe service records support any "additional flights" that are claimed? If they do encroach on service intervals, do the records of the maintenance provider, if used, support this?
Is the pilot employed? Was he at work on the days he claims to have been flying... was the wx suitable... do fuel receipts support the extra use? All of that can be traced, and they only need to find one "error" to give them enough cause to dig deeper.
If the aircraft was not flown enough in the previous 90 days, then you need to invent flights, but if you claim flights that someone else did, in order to be "more current" then you are at risk of being exposed when the investigator asks to see the log books of all the other group members.
Are you all confident that you are all going to lie to the insurers and AAIB?
Even faced with a suggestion that "if we don't lie" they will not pay and we lose the aircraft and possibly have third party costs to meet, are you really sure that the innocent will lie to entangle themselves in your friend's plot?
I suspect that I'm not the only person who would like to know more... like did your friend submit the altered report yet?
Did the request to alter the report come by some means with evidence, like email?
What pprune id did Steve1234 use before this issue came up?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: now in Zomerset
Age: 62
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Police
His own ID -
Add to it that his own isp can be traced + his email address, and his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.
his comment was on 19/12/2012 07.04 under 90 day rule discussion, not able to copy link
His own ID -
Add to it that his own isp can be traced + his email address, and his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.
his comment was on 19/12/2012 07.04 under 90 day rule discussion, not able to copy link
Last edited by Trinity 09L; 3rd Jan 2013 at 11:08. Reason: update
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is part of the AAIB report into the accident leading to the case being heard at Leeds Crown Court this week.
During the investigation it became apparent that, on one previous occasion, on 14 September 2007, the examiner had flown with the pilot at Breighton Airfield to demonstrate autorotations. The flight had been undertaken with one of the other pilots being trained under the RTF on HA-LFM, the two pilots flying for approximately one hour each, spending the other hour observing from the rear seat. The examiner stated that he had pointed out that these hours could not be included towards their flight training as the RTF had not been issued. These flights were included in the unofficial record maintained by the pilot.
He passed the pilot on all elements of the test, assessing him as well above average ability. The examiner stated that the pilot had, however, allowed the aircraft to weathercock during a spot turn, requiring him to repeat the exercise. The pilot had, however, been able to control the weathercocking without intervention and had repeated the exercise to a satisfactorary standard. The examiner stated that the pilot was ‘level headed and capable’ and he considered that he had flown to the same standard expected of a pilot undergoing a commercial Skills Test.
Subsequent analysis of radar data identified the Skills Test flight and indicated discrepancies between the route and the timings of the test and those recorded on the examination paperwork.
The absence, however, of documents that might be expected to exist, principally the aircraft technical log, instructor’s logbook and training notes, raised further concern about the standard of operation of the RTF and removed the opportunity to confirm which flights had actually been undertaken. The evidence that does exist indicates that the pilot did not complete sufficient training hours and it is unlikely that the full syllabus was completed adequately in this time. Inconsistencies were also identified concerning the Skills Test the pilot undertook and, as a result, the investigation could not reliably ascertain the pilot’s flying ability at the time of the accident.
The flights were all recorded as being flown on the same aircraft, HA‑L FM, and with the same instructor as named in the RTF application, totalling 25 hours dual instruction and 10 hours 6 minutes supervised solo flying. Of the solo time recorded, up to 6 hours 36 minutes was recorded as having been spent on navigation exercises.
A document subsequently provided by a member of the pilot’s family was presented as an apparent record of the pilot’s actual flying hours. The first flight date recorded on this document was 20 August 2007 and the last flight recorded was 12 December 2007. Between these dates the sheets recorded the pilot as having flown 25 hours 24 minutes dual instruction, and 8 hours 36 minutes solo. Of these hours, two hours were flown when undertaking the Skills Test and there is evidence that one hour was undertaken in a rear seat, flying as a passenger, whilst another pilot was receiving training. The document would thus indicate the pilot having undertaken 22 hours and 24 minutes dual training and 8 hours 36 minutes supervised solo flying between the dates recorded.
The pilot’s logbook recorded all the training flights as originating from Beverley Airfield, although there was no supporting evidence that this was the case. The aircraft was based at Breighton Airfield and the pilot would not have been able to log the transit time between Breighton and Beverley towards his flying training hours.
As the unofficial flight time record maintained by the pilot appears to have recorded the total flight times, rather than just training hours, had the training actually been conducted from Beverley Airfield then it follows that his actual training hours might have been less than the total recorded.
A document subsequently provided by a member of the pilot’s family was presented as an apparent record of the pilot’s actual flying hours. The first flight date recorded on this document was 20 August 2007 and the last flight recorded was 12 December 2007. Between these dates the sheets recorded the pilot as having flown 25 hours 24 minutes dual instruction, and 8 hours 36 minutes solo. Of these hours, two hours were flown when undertaking the Skills Test and there is evidence that one hour was undertaken in a rear seat, flying as a passenger, whilst another pilot was receiving training. The document would thus indicate the pilot having undertaken 22 hours and 24 minutes dual training and 8 hours 36 minutes supervised solo flying between the dates recorded.
The pilot’s logbook recorded all the training flights as originating from Beverley Airfield, although there was no supporting evidence that this was the case. The aircraft was based at Breighton Airfield and the pilot would not have been able to log the transit time between Breighton and Beverley towards his flying training hours.
As the unofficial flight time record maintained by the pilot appears to have recorded the total flight times, rather than just training hours, had the training actually been conducted from Beverley Airfield then it follows that his actual training hours might have been less than the total recorded.
The last entry in the pilot’s logbook was for a flight on 5 December 2007, this time from Breighton Airfield, with the same instructor who had conducted his PPL training on the Gazelle. The takeoff and landing times indicated the flight took place at night and lasted one hour, although it had been recorded claiming one hour of dual day flying and an additional 42 minutes of dual night flying.
Enquiries into inconsistencies in the pilot’s logbook revealed that he had, in fact, commenced flying training on HA-LFM prior to 19 November 2007. The instructor stated there had been delays in getting the RTF issued and so he had begun training with two of the three trainee pilots prior to its issue, although he was unable to say exactly when that was. It had been decided that, in order to satisfy the requirements of the CAA, none of these training flights would be logged, but instead entries would be made in the pilot’s logbook indicating that all the training flights post-dated the granting of the RTF. The instructor was not able to produce training records or other supporting evidence to show which flights had actually been conducted by the pilot fatally injured in the accident. In addition, the owner of HA-LFM stated that there were no technical records kept for flights undertaken by the aircraft that might have provided a record of the flights undertaken. The only corroborating evidence available for any of the training flights logged by the pilot on HA-LFM was the cross-country flight certificate for a flight logged on the 29 November 2007.
The instructor, whilst unable to provide supporting evidence, stated that the pilot had nevertheless completed all the necessary flying training. He also stated that the pilot had completed all the ground school training required and had passed his technical exam with a mark of 100%. This ground school training had also included a brief on the effects of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness although there were no questions on this in the exam.
The instructor, whilst unable to provide supporting evidence, stated that the pilot had nevertheless completed all the necessary flying training. He also stated that the pilot had completed all the ground school training required and had passed his technical exam with a mark of 100%. This ground school training had also included a brief on the effects of a loss of tail rotor effectiveness although there were no questions on this in the exam.
An application was made on 12 December 2007 for the pilot to take the Skills Test in order to gain his PPL(H). This application stated that the pilot had flown a total of 45 hours 18 minutes on helicopters, 10 hours 6 minutes solo and 35 hours 12 minutes dual.
The form was certified by the RTF’s instructor that the pilot had completed the necessary training and that the instructor had checked the pilot’s logbook to ensure the entries met the flying experience requirements. The logbook, however, contained no record of exercises 23, 25 and 26 of the syllabus having been flown. When interviewed, the instructor stated these exercises had been completed but, in error, had not been recorded in the logbook.
The form was certified by the RTF’s instructor that the pilot had completed the necessary training and that the instructor had checked the pilot’s logbook to ensure the entries met the flying experience requirements. The logbook, however, contained no record of exercises 23, 25 and 26 of the syllabus having been flown. When interviewed, the instructor stated these exercises had been completed but, in error, had not been recorded in the logbook.
During the investigation it became apparent that, on one previous occasion, on 14 September 2007, the examiner had flown with the pilot at Breighton Airfield to demonstrate autorotations. The flight had been undertaken with one of the other pilots being trained under the RTF on HA-LFM, the two pilots flying for approximately one hour each, spending the other hour observing from the rear seat. The examiner stated that he had pointed out that these hours could not be included towards their flight training as the RTF had not been issued. These flights were included in the unofficial record maintained by the pilot.
He passed the pilot on all elements of the test, assessing him as well above average ability. The examiner stated that the pilot had, however, allowed the aircraft to weathercock during a spot turn, requiring him to repeat the exercise. The pilot had, however, been able to control the weathercocking without intervention and had repeated the exercise to a satisfactorary standard. The examiner stated that the pilot was ‘level headed and capable’ and he considered that he had flown to the same standard expected of a pilot undergoing a commercial Skills Test.
Subsequent analysis of radar data identified the Skills Test flight and indicated discrepancies between the route and the timings of the test and those recorded on the examination paperwork.
The examiner was known to the instructor and had been included in paperwork supporting the setting up of the RTF. It is also known that he had flown with the pilot on at least one occasion prior to his Skills Test. The current system, whereby examiners are selected, and paid for, by those being tested, creates the potential for a conflict of interest and examiners for such tests should be allocated by the CAA.
Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.
Safety Recommendation 2009-087
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority allocate examiners for the conduct of PPL Skills Tests.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a few aspertions being cast!
Not to defend the potentially illegal activities being discussed, but should a witch hunt really be starting on an anonymous internet forum?
Airpolice, care to elaborate on what you mean by the above? Comments like that might make people afraid to post, given your username!
EDIT: Apologies I see the above comment came from Trinity09L not air police.
But the same question applies really! All of our email addresses will be available to PPRUNE but they would not be required (or even permitted) to share them without a court order due to data protection.
Not to defend the potentially illegal activities being discussed, but should a witch hunt really be starting on an anonymous internet forum?
his comments here really made my working life not very difficult in the past, pm if me if you wish further.
EDIT: Apologies I see the above comment came from Trinity09L not air police.
But the same question applies really! All of our email addresses will be available to PPRUNE but they would not be required (or even permitted) to share them without a court order due to data protection.
Last edited by taxistaxing; 3rd Jan 2013 at 17:58.