T28 wrote:
The only differences are procedural – lack of discovery, no punitive damages, very low compensation for pain and suffering, no jury trial.
Well, I think that exactly those differences decrease the personal risk massively.
Silvaire wrote:
I sure hope I never “grow up” when it comes to enjoying life, doing things myself, taking beneficial risks, not succumbing to fear….
As always there must be a balance.
I’ve known people who, with taking that attitude, have put their families in massive problems while they themselves have not lived to share the consequence of their failing. IMHO, it is the duty of everyone to protect those around them from such things and this involves risk assessment on a very regular basis.
It is one thing if you expose yourself to a certain risk, but it is not ok to expose those near you without their consent or knowing about it. It is very much not ok, if wife and kids are thrown into poverty when their flying husband has neglected to figure out that his actions may cost them their livelyhood once he has gone. e.g. by having insufficient insurance to cover the damage done and make their families not only loose their provider but face them with multi million law suits, because they were stingy with insurances or felt they are invincible.
What about not selling a plane but a “project”? Even if it completely done, then it would be still the end user who is legally completing the assembly.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It is one thing if you expose yourself to a certain risk, but it is not ok to expose those near you without their consent or knowing about it. It is very much not ok, if wife and kids are thrown into poverty when their flying husband has neglected to figure out that his actions may cost them their livelyhood once he has gone. e.g. by having insufficient insurance to cover the damage done and make their families not only loose their provider but face them with multi million law suits, because they were stingy with insurances or felt they are invincible.
Risk = consequence x probability
If you focus on severe consequence and ignore what is very likely a low probability of occurrence, you generally end up with a worse outcome in the end, for example being reliant on other people who managed their risk more effectively.
Risk = consequence x probability. If you focus on severe consequence and ignore what is very likely a low probability of occurrence, you generally end up with a worse outcome in the end, for example being reliant on other people who managed their risk more effectively.
An approach also known as “picking pennies in front of the steamroller”, because as the risk insurance seller your premium is fixed and your downside is illimited.
I’ve made one (1) insurance claim in my life, for a water leak in one of my rental properties. About $400 collected over my lifetime versus about $5000 a year for decades in combined premiums.
I’m glad I didn’t buy more insurance over the years from the low grade flunkies that populate that industry, but on the other hand if you are a low grade flunky, taking advantage of the risk averse is clearly a great way to make money.
Silvaire wrote:
If you focus on severe consequence and ignore what is very likely a low probability of occurrence, you generally end up with a worse outcome in the end, for example being reliant on other people who managed their risk more effectively.
It’s not were “you” end up.
I knew a very experienced builder and pilot who crashed into a downtown block of flats with a newly built airplane. His 3rd party insurance was insufficient to cover the damage caused, as he crashed into a block of flats and was killed in the accident. His family was faced with multi million damages and now lives of social security as all their assets went during the bancruptcy. Had the insurance been what is todays standard for even normal certified airplanes, there would have been no such consequences. Of course there are limits to where you can insure yourself, but seeing that even car insurances cover more third party damages than most airplane insurances, this simply shows that risk management is not something otherwise brilliant people know much about.
T28 wrote:
An approach also known as “picking pennies in front of the steamroller”.
Exactly.
@Mooney_Driver, no disrespect intended but as a statement of fact, you seem to be the single most risk averse person I have come across in my life experience. You can be that way, for sure, but some of us have taken a different direction and are now enjoying the benefits of having done so.
I regularly deal with risk cubes and formalized risk evaluation in my work, done not by me but by people who support my work, and the answer is not very often to avoid all risk.
arj1 wrote:
What about not selling a plane but a “project”? Even if it completely done, then it would be still the end user who is legally completing the assembly
With a sticker like “DO NOT FLY THIS AIRCRAFT, IT WILL KILL YOU” 
Ibra wrote:
arj1 wrote: What about not selling a plane but a “project”? Even if it completely done, then it would be still the end user who is legally completing the assemblyWith a sticker like “DO NOT FLY THIS AIRCRAFT, IT WILL KILL YOU”
In some countries that will not help as you know! :)
But if the end user bought some parts and they assembled an aircraft themselves, then that would be an exit clause! :)
