Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Demonstrated X-wind in the POH - exact meaning?

There is an obsession about insurance on this forum that I don't see to a similar extent on US forums. It is just an observation. Here in the US, we worry more about what will the FAA do

That's probably just a prioritisation issue. The UK CAA rarely takes action against non-commerical operators/pilots unless they were:

a) putting third parties at significant risk

b) falsifying documentation or blatantly disregarding the need for it

or

c) pretending to be commercial operators

Given alexisvc's location in Germany - German law (and insurers) make a distinction between "negligence" (insured) and "gross negligence" (not insured).

Breaking a rule does not make any act grossly negligent. Gross negligence "requires" deliberate breaking of rules to a significant extent (i.e., if you exceed the speed limit on a motorway by 30 km/h or more, and this contributes to an accident, this constitutes gross negligence; but not any rule-breaking is automatically grossly negligent).

In traffic law, there is ample case law what is gross negligence and "simple" negligence.

An insurer could only wriggle out of a claim if they could prove gross negligence.

alexisvc, It would be interesting to know what those cases were where the insurer tried to wriggle out claiming negligence, and how the courts finally decided - are you happy to tell?

Biggin Hill

Peter, of course - in general they DO pay. But there have been cases ... ( I do not know who won in court, but will check). I do not agree with your "culture of fear" argument. I think that's a cliché and as such it is right as much as it is wrong.

After all in 18 years of Flying I have never had my licence checked and I never had a ramp check. Now ask US pilots! Or try to insure a Cirrus SR22, or any other high performamce plane, as a low time pilot in the US. Very hard to do, or very expensive. For me (although i am not a low time pilot) it was only a call and some negotiating and i got a pretty fair insurance.

What you are referring to is the USA as they once ... were.

We do hear a lot here about what occasionally astonishing stuff allegedly goes on in Germany, and maybe in Germany the insurers do deny all kinds of payouts?

Show me one example of where the insurer managed to avoid a payout in cases other than what NCYankee mentioned.

I know about 2 cases where the insurance tried to find a way out because of "negligence".

You'd have to provide more details and there is a big difference between "tried to find a way out" and "found a way out". It's only natural for an insurance company to assess options to avoid payout, I'd do the very same thing.

I'll get you the details next week, no time now.

NCYankee: There is an obsession about insurance on this forum...

Or maybe just personal (bad!) experience? Also I have been called before court as witness in two aviation cases already. Both without personal harm but significant damage to property and therefore endless litigations about money and compensation.

One of the basic legal principles here in Germany seems to be, that in order for an accident or incident to happen someone has to be negligent (negligence = making a mistake). For simple negligence the insurance has to pay 100% of the insured risk, for gross negligence it will be zero percent. The aim of all the litigation before court is to determine the amount of negligence that led to the accident by calling witnesses and experts. I guess that damaging an aircraft during landing in a crosswind significantly above the demonstrated limit will reduce your insurance payment by at least 50%.

alexis: After all in 18 years of Flying I have never had my licence checked and I never had a ramp check.

I had my last one on Friday (two days ago) at my home base... (but commercial operators attract those guys a lot more than private pilots).

Cobalt: Breaking a rule does not make any act grossly negligent. Gross negligence "requires" deliberate breaking of rules to a significant extent ...

Not long ago an insurance won it's case against a pilot here who had an accident in bad weather. They proved he was acting grossly negligent by not obtaining a weather briefing/forecast before the flight. To "normal" pilots like us this seems a rather smallish break of rules: not getting the weather before flying - who hasn't done that himself based on experience? But it cost this guy his insurance cover. BTW: Would he have obtained the weather and gone flying regardless then it would only have been simple negligence (i.e. an error in judgement) without consequences!

EDDS - Stuttgart

When you see that 2/3 of all GA accidents are weather related I find it perfectly okay to not pay. There is absolutely no justification for tht kind of stupid behaviour. After all the weather briefing for pilots is a LAW.

Achim: Show me one example of where the insurer managed to avoid a payout in cases other than what NCYankee mentioned.

Most of these cases (when there is no harm done to persons) get resolved outside court. The settlement reached between the two parties always includes a non-disclosure agreement. At least it did in "my" cases and some others I know about personally. Therefore unless there is a public verdict of a court not much valid information about insurance payments can be obtained. Almost everything that has not happened to you personally is hearsay!

EDDS - Stuttgart

I'd do the very same thing.

Maybe, but you would get a really bad name for it, in these internet days. Slagging off people and companies is a hugely popular pastime. And then you would lose the court case anyway...

Here in the UK, aviation insurers are generally very decent. My experience (2002 pothole prop strike, £20k) is one of a total 100% decency. That was Haywards - UK's biggest insurer. I am still with them now. They have recovered that payout now but it would have taken them ~ 6 years. They even paid a ripoff price for an EU-sourced prop with an EASA-1 form when it would have been 1/2 the price with an 8130-3 (but the latter would have taken some weeks longer to arrive).

One of the basic legal principles here in Germany seems to be, that in order for an accident or incident to happen someone has to be negligent (negligence = making a mistake). For simple negligence the insurance has to pay 100% of the insured risk, for gross negligence it will be zero percent. The aim of all the litigation before court is to determine the amount of negligence that led to the accident by calling witnesses and experts. I guess that damaging an aircraft during landing in a crosswind significantly above the demonstrated limit will reduce your insurance payment by at least 50%.

Not in the UK, AFAIK.

Not long ago an insurance won it's case against a pilot here who had an accident in bad weather. They proved he was acting grossly negligent by not obtaining a weather briefing/forecast before the flight. To "normal" pilots like us this seems a rather smallish break of rules: not getting the weather before flying - who hasn't done that himself based on experience? But it cost this guy his insurance cover. BTW: Would he have obtained the weather and gone flying regardless then it would only have been simple negligence (i.e. an error in judgement) without consequences!

Likewise, not in the UK. It is a very grey area... getting a wx briefing and then acting on it, exactly how? In an AOC operation, if the minima and other rules are met, you must fly (or you get the sack). If you break the rules, it's clear. But there are no clear rules like that in private GA, especially in VFR where there could be much argument about when one should turn back, etc.

Sure, some pilots do crazy stuff, but they are probably acting IAW their training, which was pretty crap. The chap I mentioned here previously who embedded his family in a mountain in France, should not have gone had he taken a look at meteox.com (a huge TSRA on his route) but how many pilots know these internet sources? Ex PPL training, exactly zero. Those who know are mostly pilot forum residents. I have met an American CPL/IR who was paid to fly a wealthy bloke around in a turboprop. He could not understand the Eurocontrol route planning system. Why? Simply because he was an individual who did not hang out on European pilot forums. The extensive operational knowledge we take for granted is not formally taught anywhere. So if an insurer tried this in the UK, any lawyer with more than half a brain would drop the PPL training books on the table and ask the insurer's lawyer to dig out the references... I would think the same would work in Germany, because PPL training is basically the same all over Europe.

One of the worst cases was G-OMAR (the AAIB report is on google of course) which was a really bad case of bad fuel management practiced by an FTO (which had, and has, a charter AOC!). The CAA tried to prosecute the pilot for running out of fuel and failed, partly because his lawyer showed he was doing as trained...

When you see that 2/3 of all GA accidents are weather related I find it perfectly okay to not pay

The families of the passengers might take a different view...

But my point is that not paying out on negligence would make a mockery of insurance.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I would agree that not looking at the weather reports and forecasts at all before setting out in marginal weather is grossly negligent. I have flown without consulting formal weather reports, but never cross country. Ever. I have made my fair share of bad weather calls, though.

I am not sure where to put Peter's example of a pilot who clearly never read, or at least did not use, the performance section of the POH of the aircraft he is to fly. I expect my students (PPL) to do a full calculation of fuel required using ALL relevant tables in the POH at least twice (QXC and mock skill test), but I know that it is frequent practice to just accept (1.1 x EET + 0.75) x standard fuel flow, which is a calculation method halfway backed up by the ops manual. So I can see PPL students qualify without knowing better, and for a C152 / PA28 this might be sufficient - but at MEP level???

Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top