Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Demonstrated X-wind in the POH - exact meaning?

Returning to the original subject, safe strong crosswind landings require currency in strong crosswind landings. I'll fly at present with a crosswind I wouldn't consider if I hadn't landed in a moderate crosswind recently.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Peter, i think it's just the other way round. Not getting any weather briefing before is against the law, and comparable to drunk driving. Of course the insurance does have to pay for the damage done to others, by law, but (in case you survived) they will not buy you a new plane. They might even sue you and ask for reimbursement, and i have no problem with that. After all what do think how high the rates would be if every reckless, unlawful and stupid behaviour was insured?

An accident in a crosswind landing will never be seen as gross negligence. A take off with the fuel selcector on off might... after all it will not happen if you follow the prescribed procedures.

No insurance, uk or germany, will pay for your car if you crash it drunk. So why should they pay for your plane if don't get a weather briefing or overload it.

Oh, and one more thing: the gross negligence has to be the reason for the accident. The insurance cannot refuse paying for a gear up landing just because you have not obtained a weather briefing.

The CAA tried to prosecute the pilot for running out of fuel and failed, partly because his lawyer showed he was doing as trained...

The CAA and the insurance companies are two completely different things here. In Germany, the pilot involved in this incident would find himself on a black list of the "Deutscher Luftpool", the "reinsurance community" (sorry, my ICAO level in English is pretty good but unfortunately did not include the proper translation of this legal term...) of german aviation insurers. For a commercial pilot this would mean the end of his career. Commercial operators usually submit a list of pilots (PICs only) who fly their aircraft to the insurer and the premium will be fixed according to that list (number of pilots, experience, recent experience, experience on type, incident history). If there is a blacklisted pilot among those names, the aircraft will either not be (hull) insured at all or the premium will be very high, making such a pilot unemployable. I once flew with such a guy who avoided getting on the insurers list by signing a confidential, private agreement with them stating that the first 50,000DM (that was before the Euro and he has lost his medical in the meantime, otherwise I would not write about it here) of every damage caused would be on him. This is why we are far more scared of our insurers than we are of our authorities!

EDDS - Stuttgart

An accident in a crosswind landing will never be seen as gross negligence.

Not "never": In my case (commercial operation with clearly stated limitations) it will most certainly be considered as gross negligence!

Oh, and one more thing: the gross negligence has to be the reason for the accident. The insurance cannot refuse paying for a gear up landing just because you have not obtained a weather briefing.

That's correct. But if you have a crosswind landing accident in conditions that you would have known about if you had obtained your weather briefing then you have already lost your case against the insurer.

EDDS - Stuttgart

The CAA and the insurance companies are two completely different things here. The CAA and the insurance companies are two completely different things here.

They are completely separate here too, and I have no idea what the insurers did in the case of G-OMAR. My guess is they paid out on the total hull loss to the FTO from which the plane was rented, but the pilot got nothing because he ran out of fuel which is a fairly "basic problem" despite the fact that that FTO was teaching and practicing that sort of fuel management. The pilot is not insured anyway for anything he does while PIC.

Not getting any weather briefing before is against the law, and comparable to drunk driving

How about getting wx from the BBC? I know a pilot, several k hours, who cannot read tafs/metars. He flies on nice days (a homebuilt) and gets wx from the TV. Would he not get a payout?

My point is that unless you have a law stating what sources you should brief from, or (in case of mandatory charts) what brand of charts you should carry, it is difficult... and then most wx sources do not record that you briefed from them. So the pilot has only printouts as evidence and they can be knocked up post-event (Word, Photoshop, etc).

No insurance, uk or germany, will pay for your car if you crash it drunk

True, but the UK one will still pay out on 3rd party claims.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

My guess is they paid out on the total hull loss to the FTO...

They will do that here too, but they will then go after the pilot and/or his estate and try to get it back from him if their legal department sees a chance.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Yes, unless the pilot is named on the policy.

Not many renters here know this. They think they are insured!

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter, same in Germany-they have to pay 3rd party claims! But they might come back to you later!

The law only says that you have to get a weather briefing. I doubt that listening to the BBC would be enough though. ( If he can't read metars/tafs - he can learn it. do we want to be helpless children, or pilots? i mean can you expect that much from a pilot who us responsible for the lives of others?)

what next, of course i was talking about a xwind landing within the limits. But the: flying privately you do not have to follow the manufacturer's xwind limit, and therefore it would be hard to prove gross negligence.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top