Have a couple of photos?
How about the paperwork for an N-reg.?
Guys – I have moved the oxygen generator discussion here as it is a very interesting topic on its own.
(it’s not something I can do easily 
)
Valerio’s oxygen generators are discussed there already. In fact I nearly bought the exact same unit which Valerio had in his SR22. I did my TB20 Annual at the same hangar at Biggin where his (or ex-his) SR22 was living for a while.
they both made it clear that the accident would have to be DIRECTLY related to the negligence/gross negligence.
I’d recommend that anyone wishing to rely on this gets advice from a lawyer in their own country
Here in the UK, I am not familiar with the law, but the general principle in insurance is that it is done on the basis of “utmost good faith” and this means the insurer can walk away from paying out even if the accident was not caused by the particular transgression.
If you think about it, it makes sense, because if it was otherwise then you could fly a plane 20% over MTOW, with an expired medical, with no CofA, expired Annual, a long list of stuff like that, and flying it into a CB, icing up and killing yourself. Your chosen mode of killing yourself will not be related to not having a medical, CofA, etc.
So why insurers do pay out on most claims?
On reason is they would get a bad name if they didn’t. There is competition in the market. Another reason is that it costs money to send out a loss adjuster to dig through all the stuff… so he tends to stick to the simple checks listed below and then does a deal… Another reason is that while something may be “obvious”, making a legal case is something else.
What I have been told by one UK loss adjuster is that they will generally not pay out if the flight was illegal before it got off the ground i.e.
Everything else (including flying say 20% over MTOW, or with empty tanks) is “negligence” which is covered by insurance. And flying over MTOW is very common. Not just with some types mentioned above but also most PPL training flights in C150/152s, etc.
What insurers tend to do if you piss them off is to pay out and then dramatically increase the “deductible” (known in the UK as “excess”). Following UK’s first SR22 chute pull the owner’s deductible went up from (from memory) 3k to 15k – evidently the insurer thought – whatever anybody else thought of it – that the chute pull wasted their money.
Then you are in a situation where if you try to change your insurer, you have to state on the application form that a previous insurer insisted on “special terms” and straight away you find yourself in a hole. And if you fail to declare the special terms, it’s back to the “utmost good faith” link above
Peter,
yes, no licence/medical of CofA – that’s really a different category than some overweight or forgetting to read a checklist. Look at car insurances. If negligence was a criteria every 1000th accident would be paid for because they are really almost ALL caused by gross negligence. For example a car insurer WILL pay for the car even if you drove 50 km/h too fast. If you did the same DRUNK, no chance.
I have a hard time believing that a chute pull could have these consequences. After all it’s the right action by the POH. And you bet it’s cheaper for the insurance to pay for the damaged plane than for four dead people. It should be the OTHEr way round: you don’t pull the chute in an engine out emergency and someone gets hurt in the landing, … it would be more logical that the insurance goes up in this case!
I have talked to my insurance company about all these possible scenarios before I decided to stay with my old insurance. I got the information in an eMAIL that they would pay in all these cases, like CAPS pull after engine failiure, and that it would cost me ZERO. They will even pay for a prop and the complete shockloading inspection if I decided to start the engine with the towbar on.
If you did the same DRUNK, no chance.
On a point of detail being drunk in the UK only invalidates your “fully comp” cover in the car (the hull insurance in aviation). The law forces the car insurer to pay out to injured 3rd parties, including any passengers. Not the case in aviation, I would think…
I have a hard time believing that a chute pull could have these consequences.
It’s true, and I know one member of that syndicate. I don’t know who the insurer was, but it wasn’t Haywards (I asked their top man directly).
Incidentally, I don’t believe the SR22 POH tells you to pul the chute if you feel suitably distressed or confused. It is a bit more specific than that.
They will even pay for a prop and the complete shockloading inspection if I decided to start the engine with the towbar on.
They would here too.
What they won’t pay for is what “worms” are found in the engine when it is opened up – in other words they will not pay for betterment. And it is this which makes some accidents de facto “not usefully insured” – even if the insurer pays out fully, the fact that the aircraft or the engine cannot be returned to service unless it is airworthy can make the whole thing uneconomical. For example many engines are internally corroded and if opened up for a shock load, they cannot be returned to service without many new parts including new cylinders.
Well, the POH say that CAPS is the recommended action if you are about to lose control of the airplane. And also in case of engine failure or a spin.
Yes, the aiviation insurance MUST pay the 3rd party, that’s the law. But of course, like in the car, they will com back to you and try to get their payment back from you were drunk, or similar.
Peter, I understand that. Otherwise there would be many shockloading incidents when the engines are near TBO ;-))
I was chatting to a chap the other day whose syndicate aircraft was seriously damaged by one of the members; not quite a write off but a decent sized claim. THe guy flying had allowed his licence to expire – it was one of the expiring JAR ones. The insurance paid out.
I don’t know the details but it was at a small airfield in East Anglia so definitely a UK insurer.
THe guy flying had allowed his licence to expire – it was one of the expiring JAR ones. The insurance paid out.
I am not suprised. I am sure a very large % – perhaps 50% – of UK pilots missed the first 5 year expiry date. No reminders were sent out by the CAA (I believe they started doing them later but I never saw one) and a 5 year expiry is a very hard thing to keep track of, especially as the pilot would in any case be flying every 2 years with an instructor. I know the instructor is supposed to check the 5 year date on that flight but many never did.
I missed my 5 year renewal cheque too. Completely forgot. Fortunately I was N-reg by then and flying on the FAA PPL, later CPL. It was only for the JAA IR that I had to re-acquire the UK PPL and due to the long delay had to do a flight with an examiner for that.
So the insurers are probably not 100% strict.
Peter,
I am told there was a Baron at Elstree a few years ago that had an incident, the pilots medical had expired and Haywards still met the claim.
This is one of the reasons that I insure with this company.
