Peter wrote:
It may be “normal” but I am sure most pilots don’t know about this legal principle, believing their insurance covers them for the insured value they purchased!
I don’t think that most pilots believe, their insurance covers whatever they do. No-one would e.g. expect that your coverage is still valid if you fly drunk. The difference between negligence and gross negligence is exactly that negligence is the things that can happen although you apply adequate care why gross negligence are things where everyone would say “how could you”.
Misinterpreting a weather chart is negligence – not getting weather information at all or commencing a VFR flight although one knew that weather is IMC is gross negligence.
Flying overweight because one forgot that there is some stuff left in the baggage compartment is negligence – flying overweight because one knew but didn’t care about MTOW is gross negligence.
Running out of fuel because there was some issue with fuel metering is negligence – running out of fuel because one never did a fuel calculation is gross negligence.
Of cause there are always cases on the edge – that’s what we have lasers for. In the grand scheme of things, however, I don’t expect that many pilots think “I don’t care to look at the oil because if the engine brakes due to low oil the insurance will pay anyways”.
Sure, but you picked easy cases, and presumably ones where the pilot left clear evidence that he didn’t give a damn.
Most cases in real life are not that clear.
For example why exactly D-ESPJ flew into the ground, will never be known.
And for the insurer to allege “gross negligence” (a legal position specific to Germany and 1 or 2 other countries) on the basis of a BEA accident report is really amazing, given that the BEA has made it pretty clear generally that, hey, flying is dangerous, people will crash, there is nothing to learn from this particular crash (words of the investigator, IIRC, to one of the people interviewed) and in general they are well known for not being too interested in examining factors which might show their own system in a bad light (only a French person is allowed to say that 
).
Also, on this basis, every CFIT is “gross negligence” in Germany, which makes a complete mockery of insurance.
I’m not sure what your problem is with the BEA. Guy flies into a mountain, there’s not much more to it than that. Why? Well they can only make an educated assement based on witness statements, radio communications, radar/gps tracking and if anything was found wrong with the aircraft which could possibly lead to the crash.
If you are talking about your 6500 transition altitude, well firstly if that played a role then the pilot was badly prepared in not knowing how to read the chart. But there is no evidence that he was actually using that chart. From the report, he was flying lower than the height of the mountain.
Indeed, some sequence of mistakes led to them flying too low – that is why they hit the ground.
But to declare this as “gross negligence” and not want to pay out on hull cover, is a bit of a stretch.
The reality is that over the years thousands of pilots have made some series of mistakes and hit something. Covering these is precisely why one buys insurance. Otherwise, any policy is potentially void simply because – in most GA crashes with no survivors – the exact sequence of events cannot be established, “therefore” the pilot was grossly negligent.
I would agree with you there.Only an insurance company can turn an accident caused by a series of perhaps small errors and maybe some bad decisions into gross negligence .
But, what is “gross negligence”? In Germany it is a legal term but I can’t see how it can be objectively established in most cases. There must be litigation, or at least argument, covering perhaps years, before the insurer gets fed up with it and pays out some percentage.
The only scenario where the “gross negligence” cases above could be what most people would regard as “proven”, post an all-fatal accident, would be where the pilot somehow made it known that he doesn’t bother with said procedures.
If e.g. I posted here that I never check W&B and then crashed on takeoff with four 120kg people and full tanks, that German insurer would prob99 not pay out IAW their law. A UK insurer probably still would, however. The only scenario where I reckon a UK insurer would not pay out would be if I posted that I am short of cash and want to write the plane off to get some
There will often be hearsay around a “club” that such and such was a cowboy, but that label gets attached to anybody who flies past the nearest crease in the map.
I’ve just been reading some stuff from the US. The most expensive accidents are predictably CFIT, IAP crashes, and in-flight breakups. The most costly overall are gear-up landings and gear collapses, and if an insurer is looking at labelling something “gross negligence” this is surely the most fertile area. Have any German pilots managed to collect on their hull cover for a gear-up landing? If so, I wonder how Perhaps, a live pilot who is highly motivated makes all the difference!
Peter wrote:
But, what is “gross negligence”? In Germany it is a legal term but I can’t see how it can be objectively established in most cases.
That is normal legal procedures – and while “gross negligence” is a German legal term, we find that in all legal environments: Murder (in contrast to other forms of homicide) requires intention which can also not be “objectively established” easily.
D-ESPJ is actually a good case for understanding the German concept of gross negligence: The core question is not, if the pilot made any mistakes, but “only” if he commenced the flight although he knew that the weather is not good enough (either hoping for a miracle or with the intention to perform part of the flight illegally).
And as with any legal procedure, if the parties can not agree in the end a judge has to decide wether the pilot just made some mistakes or showed gross negligence.
I don’t know the details of this accident and am too lazy know to look it up, but wasn’t the TAF for the destination either VMC or IMC but above minimums? Which makes his flight plan fully legal. And even if below minimums, he must have filed for an alternate with a TAF above minimums, which exonerates him.
The pilot intended to do a cloud break in Chambery and then to continue to fly VFR in VMC to Albertville.
It wouldn’t have been a problem if he filed and flew to Chambery – and he would still be alive. The question is from what point in time (and if at all) the pilot knew that the weather on the leg from Chambery to Albertville would not be VMC.
And here comes the German “gross negligence” question: If he had positive information that weather is not VMC but continued anyways trying to do a “hand made iPad IFR approach” it would have been gross negligence. If he was surprised by finding IMC conditions at some point in flight and was not able to turn around it is not.
It’s perfectly fine (and to be expected) that the insurance asks these questions – but I also would not be surprised if the court in the end decides the we can’t know and therefore the insurance has to pay.
The insurance paid just the 50%.
