What if the pilot is named on the policy? In the UK they can’t go after the named insured – otherwise the insurance would be worthless.
It’s not worthless because it protects you from damage caused by your own mistakes. But it won’t protect you from your own dumb decisions, for example knowingly doing something illegal. It’s an incentive to reasonable behavior.
Insurance as Peter says should cover you even for stupidity. Plenty of people set fire to their house by cooking. That is clearly negligence and why we all have insurance.
You should not do any damage if you are smart & careful, flying out of gliding range is a mistake and stupid thing to do in single engine 
Insurance companies have big interest to pay for “expensive (stupid/smart) mistakes” otherwise what is the point of having an insurance in the first place?
Yes exactly if the insurance doesn’t cover (what some call) negligence then it is worthless.
Especially if the assessment of “negligence” comes from an accident report, perhaps one from another country… perhaps one from a country where investigative procedures are not what you would expect in your home country.
This should be a lesson to all German pilots. Their hull cover is potentially not worth a great deal.
There is probably not a straight answer to this because it depends on your hours etc.
I don’t think there is any loading for RG.
You certainly don’t get a discount on a Cirrus because it has the chute.
Maybe French owners can comment?
In the end, insurance is not the biggest cost in flying by a long way and should not affect aircraft choice.
Maintenance costs a little bit more on an RG but other factors affect it far more e.g. whether you use a company or freelance, which company, do you as the owner participate in decisions, how well you look after the plane, etc.
Either way it pays to get a few different quotes, but take a good look at the fine print!
You can run a few quotes through Visicover to get an idea of the cost of different planes and how the different parameters (hangar, letting other pilots fly, etc) impact the cost.
I just had a look at my old insurance quotes on the PA44. The three items that affected the quotes most were.
1) amount of hull insurance
2) number of hours flown as PIC. The cost dropped dramatically over 250 hours
3) Use of the aircraft. eg it almost doubled if it was used for training
I have this German correspondence
Google translation; probably rather poor:
HDI Global SE
Aviation contract Cologne
Charles-de-Gaulle-Platz 1
50679 Cologne
in the matter mentioned above, I take our last call as well as my last Message related.
1.
The assumption acted with awareness that “the weather was getting worse”
is not sustainable even according to the findings of the investigating authority. The charge of gross negligence
can not be maintained in the result after assessment of the facts available here.
It does not matter whether it is demonstrable that according to your hypothesis
I didn’t get any more weather advice. Because collecting broadcast ATIS information
is naturally not documented. The possibility of using the second radio transceiver
(COM 2) also ensures that weather information is obtained while being maintained
the radio communication link with the so-called approach pilot. Missing radio contacts are in accordance with the
official publication (approach map of Albertville Airfield) for the area outside the round
not recommended.
It doesn’t matter either. whether a witness claims to have seen the aircraft orbit several times
before continuing the flight to the crash area. At least the expression would be one
Witnesses that the plane has circled several times to conclude that it is clear
was able to determine, therefore the weather conditions at this point would not have been so bad
2
could be that a continuation of the flight under visual flight conditions is completely excluded
would. Incidentally, the investigation and the mapping of the radar data also give a corresponding for
Multiple circles even in such an area where no continuation is possible according to visual flight conditions
would not have been again. After all, only the two pilots could see for themselves
which actual visibility conditions prevail and decide how the further flight course should be.
Finally, visual flight conditions must be assumed. Because already from the ground should
according to the witness, who may have identified the aircraft.
The decision about the shortest flight path is therefore to be regarded as superior without any doubt.
Certainly, in the context of a legal dispute, an exact time break will have to be made. To the
One should consider the time of the flight preparation. Then the time of termination of the
Flight according to instrument flight rules, the continuation of the flight after the end of the route section
to be considered according to instrument flight rules. Ultimately, there are still two temporal moments
consider, the decision to change the curve and the decision to climb, insofar as this
Facts should be taken from the investigation report.
Finally, it is important that at the time of completion of the route section according to instrument flight rules
it was possible to continue the flight under visual flight conditions. This follows from here
Consider this also from the investigation report. It can be seen from the report that in the
Point C indicated there, Mr. Wichmann announced that he would be able to continue flying under visual flight conditions ……….._
and ultimately the flight continued below 5,000 feet. This is complementary
It should be noted that the change of flight rules from IFR to VFR is common practice even in commercial passenger transport
is and was also part of the abandoned and accepted flight plan. In the end
it also does not follow from the investigation that the pilot in command is inadequate
Conditions to continue the flight should have been known or he would have expected it
can.
A conclusion that an accident could only have occurred because of the acceptance
An entry into worse weather conditions is not possible and also not permitted. Different
than when flying into instrument weather conditions by an aircraft operator who also does not have a
Instrument flight permit and an appropriate aircraft must take into account that
the pilot has extensive instrument flight experience and a corresponding one
Qualified as a professional pilot and that the aircraft was compulsory
was.
The weather conditions for the region in which the accident occurred included an approach or
the continuation under visual flight conditions does not rule out either. In particular, was below the height
from 5,000 feet there is always the possibility to fly according to visual flight rules. So the flight instructor
from Albertville also testified that under 5,000 feet the visibility, below the cloud layer,
good goods. ’
That the two witnesses, whose exact position is unknown, and their exact observation time
is not known at the location where un locally
