Capt. Kirk,

Sure, that's what he says now, while he's alive and kicking.

Let him have an accident with the instructor aboard, though, and maybe he's killed. His spouse, sons, daughters, uncle Joe, etc, may not be quite so benevolent.

In fact, HIS liability insurance may not cover the flight instructor for HIS injuries, though most do.

The new owner may in fact have the best of intentions. Let him get hurt, though, or killed, and everyone is going after the flight instructor.

If he's too cheap to insure the plane for damage, at least while he's getting checked out in it, he can't afford the airplane, in my opinion.

A lot of people do this deal, and that is why so many really good old time flight instructors simply won't instruct any more. THAT is truly a tragedy for all of aviation.

Tell him to find a clueless 20 year old flight instructor who just wants to build time, and has never seen a Maule, and hire HIM to do a check out in the thing. Oh, wait, he'd probably like someone who knows something about Maules to check him out.

But that guy got subrogated against by an insurance company, or sued by the owner, or???? And won't give flight instruction any more.

Good grief, no wonder aviation seems to be dying. People with a wad of money, but too cheap to insure what they buy.

MTV

mtv wrote:Capt. Kirk,

Sure, that's what he says now, while he's alive and kicking.

Let him have an accident with the instructor aboard, though, and maybe he's killed. His spouse, sons, daughters, uncle Joe, etc, may not be quite so benevolent.

In fact, HIS liability insurance may not cover the flight instructor for HIS injuries, though most do.

The new owner may in fact have the best of intentions. Let him get hurt, though, or killed, and everyone is going after the flight instructor.

If he's too cheap to insure the plane for damage, at least while he's getting checked out in it, he can't afford the airplane, in my opinion.

A lot of people do this deal, and that is why so many really good old time flight instructors simply won't instruct any more. THAT is truly a tragedy for all of aviation.

Tell him to find a clueless 20 year old flight instructor who just wants to build time, and has never seen a Maule, and hire HIM to do a check out in the thing. Oh, wait, he'd probably like someone who knows something about Maules to check him out.

But that guy got subrogated against by an insurance company, or sued by the owner, or???? And won't give flight instruction any more.

Good grief, no wonder aviation seems to be dying. People with a wad of money, but too cheap to insure what they buy.

MTV

You're not going to get any arguement from me because I understand exactly what you're saying. My situation was a bit different. My brother was my flight instructor years and years ago. I purchased my Maule from my father. I insured it at that time so my brother (who flew it up from Portland) would be insured and we would be insured while I was getting re-aquainted with the plane. I cancelled my insurance after that first year.
Upon reading the fine print on the policy, I'm not sure it would have been much good anyway. My home base is a gravel strip, I used to fly to other gravel strips...this in itself voided my policy should an accident happen during take off or landing. If an accident happened enroute, the remains of the plane as well as every minute detail of the paperwork would have been scrutinized and it would take one little thing for a policy to be voided. I now fly floats...don't know how my old policy would have dealt with that.

Don't believe all the hooey about insurance companies denying claims due to minute details. They'll deny a claim if there's something significant, but I'm sometimes amazed that an insurance company pays off on some of the claims they get. Of course, it's often easier to pay and just up everyone else's rates than go to court when the aggrieved insured gets their underwear in a knot cause you didn't pay up, even though they violated the terms of the policy.

There is a significant ethical issue at the heart of this discussion. I have no doubt that if this fellow says he won't hold an instructor responsible if something bad happens, he means it, sincerely. My point is that, in a lot of cases in past, this attitude changed when someone wound up in a wheel chair or dead.

Note that MY liability insurance does NOT cover MY medical costs necessarily. That's something to check in your policy as well.

Again, attitudes change when something bad happens, and even more so when there are coffins involved and the family is looking for someone to blame.

Consider the John Denver case. He bought a homebuilt airplane. He took off with minimal fuel, ran out of fuel in one tank right after takeoff, and while trying to switch tanks, lost control of the plane and crashed, killing himself.

Denver's family, heirs to his rather substantial fortune, decided that they needed to punish the fellow who built the aircraft, because he had tried to make the airplane safer, and in doing so, changed the fuel selector. Denver didn't get a checkout in the plane, or at least not a sufficient one, and this was the builder's fault. No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes.

I'll bet that builder never in his life considered that John Denver's relatives would sue HIM for everything he ever owned.

MTV

Hi folks,
Since you all are discussing insurance, I'd like to run this by. I need periodic instruction in my Super Cub. Now finding an instructor qualified in Super Cubs much less tailwheel is a real problem in this area. But I found an real old-timer pushing 80yrs who is still current as an instructor but now he only flies LSAs. To get his experience in my cub, he is named in my policy as an "additional insured as respects liability coverage but coverage only applies while instructing, supervising, evaluating or examining pilots as set forth in the policy." My instructor was sent by my broker separately a page certifying the level of my insurance. I and another named pilot are the only ones he can instruct and be covered. This is the only way he would set foot in my plane. As far as I know, there was no additional charge to have this done.

MTV, is this what you expect when you instruct in other's planes? Or is there some other way of doing the same thing.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim,

Every insurance policy is a little different in how they handle this. Some policies require the "additional insured" endorsement, some automatically cover a "qualified" instructor if giving dual to the named insured, etc. It sounds like you've talked to your broker about this, and this is his advice, and if so, that's the way I'd go.

This all helps. It does not necessarily completely cover the instructor's butt, however. Family members can always come back at the CFI if something ugly were to transpire, though they'd probably have to go through the insurance settlement first.

I carry flight instructor's insurance. This policy covers ME, not the person receiving the instruction. If you are going to instruct, this is simply the best protection you can get, and I highly recommend it to any instructor.

My instructor insurance is through Falcon Insurance, part of the NAFI program. It also covers me as a renter or pilot in a non-owned aircraft when I'm not instructing.

That's another insurance "gotcha" that a lot of people fail to recognize. The policy that guy has on his airplane is to cover HIM and HIS losses. If you ferry someone's airplane as a favor to him, and damage occurs, the insurance company will pay HIM, but may subrogate against YOU. That's where non owned insurance comes in. Even if they don't subrogate, there will be a deductable involved, sometimes a substantial one.

Not paranoid yet, but I would NEVER provide flight instruction without some pretty solid insurance coverage.

MTV

That's another insurance "gotcha" that a lot of people fail to recognize. The policy that guy has on his airplane is to cover HIM and HIS losses. If you ferry someone's airplane as a favor to him, and damage occurs, the insurance company will pay HIM, but may subrogate against YOU. That's where non owned insurance comes in. Even if they don't subrogate, there will be a deductable involved, sometimes a substantial one.

Thanks Mike,
I tell the few who fly my cub that risk. I used to carry "renters" insurance but have not now wanted to fly other aircraft without their owners in them. My hats off to you and other non-full-time instructors who carry their own insurance to help others fly safe. I read about the folks in the recent New Holstein SC fly-in swapping planes. I guess I too am getting paranoid!

Kirk,

I can not find either of those other numbers. I will keep looking but chances are I will not find them.

In regrds to some other issues here. I have to, respectfully, disagree.

mtv wrote:
Good grief, no wonder aviation seems to be dying. People with a wad of money, but too cheap to insure what they buy.

MTV

I do not have a wad of money, but I am fortunate enough to own a Maule. When I bought that plane I was singularily unqualified to fly it, and there was not an insurance compny --"not even Lloyd of London would touch this," I was told --that would insure me. Thankfully, an old time, multi-thousand hour, Alaskan instructor helped me out. He helped me transition knowing full well I was not covered. Without his help or someone like him there would probably be one less pilot in the community. I thank him.

No, it is not the cheapness of pilots that is killing aviation. It is culture of litigation and a populace that relys on insurance and law rather than a sense of responsibility to resolve its civil problems. Outside of gross negligence of some kind, pilots should not be sued. Anyone who does not realize flying is inherantly dangerous should not fly. A notion that we must be insured and excessive litigation, fueled by greed and a lack of personal responsibility, are more responsible for the decline in general aviation than those who go un-insured.

Mike, I almost always appreciate what you write and how you write it, and I respect your and Heidi's and any other intstructor's decision to not instruct uninsured pilots. Nonetheless, it seems extreme to suggest that unisured pilots are the downfall of aviation. Here in Alaska, as you probably know, there are many pilots who go uninsured. Some are carpenters and plumbers some are doctors and lawyers. The reason for such a decision: insurance is a rip off. Even after a few years of ownership, a fair amount of backcountry stuff, a successful landing after an engine failure, even now to insure would cost me more than $8000.00 a year. I could have bought a second plane had I been insuring these last five years --a real waste. I am glad that those who mentored me, and many of them did not have insurance, did not refuse to fly me around because of the risk.

Likewise I assume the risk and fly fiends and family around. Sure, if someone were to get hurt, myself or my family might be at risk, my primary instructor might be at risk, the instructor that gave me my BFR , some manufacturere of some modification, the A&P that looks after the plane --we might all be at risk. Still, we keep doing it, and doing it it is a far cry better than sitting on the couch and worrying about what bad might come from doing it. What chaps my ass is insurance in general and people's lack of a sense of responsiblity, that and mandated insurance --which I fear is next.

Furthermore,

mtv wrote:I carry flight instructor's insurance. This policy covers ME, not the person receiving the instruction.MTV

you suggest that you are reasonably covered by your own policy. If you are covered, why worry about what your student does. Sure he could be sued, you could be sued, the manufacturer could be sued --ad nauseum, but you are covered. Or is your coverage good only if your student is covered? Is his coverage good only if...? Of course, it is always: only if..., and we go right on paying for safety we can not buy.

I know this is not a simple issue, and I do not mean to mischarcterize your arguments or overly simplify the thing. Nonetheless, with or without insurance there is risk and this same chain of events --tragedy or great financial loss followed by one suing another suing another -- continues to unfold. When it next happens in aviation, I hope I am out flying, and I hope Kirk's boss gets that same opportunity --with or without insurance.

Chet

Chet,

I'm with you generally. That said, I can introduce you to DOZENS of very experienced flight instructors in Alaska who will not, under any circumstances, give flight instruction to a pilot who isn't insured, and several of them won't give flight instruction at all because of liability. That was my point.

Sorry, but "a wad of money" is relative. I would respectfully suggest that if you can afford to buy ANY airplane, most Americans would suggest that you are spending "a wad of money". Same thing goes for many new cars, etc. though.

Maules are a peculiar case. There are a LOT of aircraft that can be insured IN ALASKA, for off airport ops for less than $2000 a year, once the pilot has a bit of experience, and I don't mean hundreds of hours.

As to my flight instructor insurance: I carry liability insurance to cover me and enough hull coverage to cover a deductable and/or some damage. Why the hell should I insure someone else's airplane (and, yes, I have done that as well)?? You think MY insurance is cheaper than yours? I guess it is for you.

You are essentially correct that litigation has been one of the real dampers on aviation. I went for many years in Alaska without hull coverage on my personal airplane, in which I gave flight instruction. This was for the very reason you noted: I could have bought the plane again and again for the price of the hull insurance. I figured if I lost the plane, I'd eat the loss. Liability insurance I always carried though. Anyone who flies without liability insurance is fooling themselves, frankly. It doesn't cost that much, even in a Maule, and THAT'S what will protect YOUR assets if something bad happens. And many times this has nothing to do with pilot skill. You can have an axle break, or as Dave Wiley did this week, a wing come off. Those aren't things we can compensate for in the air by pilot skill, but they could sure wind up in litigation.

I had a couple of airline pilots call me a few years ago and wanted me to ferry a 185 on floats for them. I asked about insurance, and they had none--no liability, nada. Now, these guys were partners in the plane, and both were senior captains with a major airline. Tell me they don't have the money to insure that plane, at least liability....

I told them I wouldn't ferry the plane unless they signed the title over to me prior to the flight, and I'd sign it back to them when I arrived. They got major huffy-in fact, they got downright snotty. This was a simple means to alleviate all liability, but they weren't interested. Hell, I might steal their airplane, I guess. So, I'm supposed to trust THEM, but they sure don't want to trust ME.

Course, the dang thing could break a crankshaft in the mountains and ball it up, and they'd probably sue my butt for a new airplane. I thanked them for their "offer" and suggested that they not call back. They got someone else to fly the plane.

By the way, most helicopter companies, when sling lifting an airplane or most other loads, require that you sign over the title to them prior to the lift. That way, if they drop it, it's theirs, and you have no beef.

I do not have any problem with someone who is uninsured except I wouldnt ride with them. Ever check your medical insurance?? They may just have a little exemption in there for airplane accidents, where the expectation is the owner or operator of the plane will have insurance to cover medical costs. Point is, if anyone gets hurt in that person's airplane, can that person pay the medical bills that ensue??

As noted if they don't have liability insurance, I think they are fooling themselves, and their risk is waaaayyyy up there. That is THEIR decision, though, not mine. If they run into MY airplane at an airport because of a stuck brake, though, they'd best be prepared financially to fix MY airplane. That's what liability does for you.

You were fortunate to find someone with experience who'd fly with you, and that's great. Realistically, that just doesn't happen much any more, and frankly, it'll happen less and less in future.

The insurance industry isn't the bogey man. In fact, if it weren't for insurance, there would be a lot LESS people flying nowadays.

Course, as I noted, the guy can always find someone with no experience at all to give him dual. You can bet that guy is uninsured as well, so birds of a feather.....

My point is simply that if he can afford to purchase a Maule, but he's too cheap to insure it, even for the short period of time he'll be getting checked out in it, then maybe he should spend a little less money on a different airplane and use the excess funds to insure THAT airplane. Or maybe he needs to buy his flight instructor an insurance policy==that might be cheaper than insuring the Maule.

There are reasons that tailwheel airplanes can be expensive to insure. Most of those have to do with accidents, often the result of poor training.

I have a few assets. I've worked hard to acquire them. I'd like to keep them. Hence I carry insurance. You do what you want, but just be REAL careful who you carry as a passenger, and be very careful where you land, cause one of these days......

Unfortunately, bad things sometimes happen to good people with the best intentions. No offense intended. As I said, this is a personal decision, but you really need to fully understand the possible ramifications of going uninsured.

MTV

No the boogey man is not the insurance companies. It's the people that sue. The catch 22 is that without big insurance policies, there would be less lawsuits. Why you ask? It's simple math, if there is a big piece of pie (a lot of assets or big insurance policy) then the more likely you are to be sued. If there are essentially no assets or insurance to go after, no decent lawyer will take the case because there is no reward. The exception is if a rich person wants to punish you.
You know it was liability that essentially killed the GA manufacturing years ago and some type of reform allowed it to resurrect itself.
Apparently there needs to be some form of reform here as well.
Insurance is a "rip off". It has to be. How long would any insurance company stay in business if there pay out exceed their pay in?
At one time I heard a statistic that seemed hard to believe. It was that the state of California had more lawyers than any other nation in the world, excepting the US. I guess they have to eat.

The idea that tort reform revitalized the aircraft industry is fallacy. Take a look at many of the small aircraft manufacturers: Maule, Aviat, AC, etc. To the best of my knowledge, none of them carries manufacturer's liability insurance.

Cessna does, largely because of the jets and the customers involved there.

It aint the lawyers, either.

Sorry, but it's us and our greedy relatives that created this situation. Lawyers just fulfill OUR demand.

MTV

a64pilot wrote: .................
Insurance is a "rip off". It has to be. How long would any insurance company stay in business if there pay out exceed their pay in? ...

While I'm no fan of insurance companies, this statement is not only unfair but kinda dumb (no offense ). It's like saying building contractors are a ripoff if they can build a house, office building, or whatever, and not go broke. Or Starbucks making a cuppa coffee, or (to take it a little closer to home) Alaska Bushwheel making a tire. Any business is entitled to make a fair profit.
I carry full coverage- hull and liability. I've thought about dropping the hull, and may yet, but will definitely continue to carry liablity. Like Mike sez, I have some assets that I've worked hard & scrimped to acquire. I don't want some dirtbag putting me into the poorhouse by suing me, or just by taking me to court- so I carry liablity. Hopefully nothing will ever happen, or if it does,that liability coverage will protect me.

Eric

Excellent discussion going on here!
My situation sounds much like Chets. I own a Maule but that doesn't automatically mean I've got dollars dripping out of my butt. I have a good job and my family and I are doing alright for ourselves. I do not make a living with my plane and, as much as I love to fly, I can't do it as much as I'd like due to other responsibillities. Thirty hours a year is a good average...sometimes less, sometimes more. 75% of the time I'm flying by myself and I fly from a small private (homeowners association) float pond to lakes and rivers where there are no other people or property. Flying for me is a hobby...a hobby that I love...an expensive hobby. When I fly I spend $50 an hour for fuel, I spend $1400 to $2000 a year on an annual...yada, yada, yada. I don't mind spending money when I need to but I'm not a big fan of wasting it. I do not carry insurance because the last policy (expensive) I purchased had a couple pages of fine print that basically voided my policy for the type of flying I did (back then...on wheels) so what was the point? Felt kinda good being able to say I was insured but the moment I started the engine and taxied out onto the "unimproved" landing strip my policy was void and the moment I landed on an unimproved strip my policy was again void. The two stages of flight with the highest risk were not covered. I'd sell my plane and rip up my ticket if I were forced to keep my flying limited to "improved" strips.
I realize I'm gambling by not having insurance but the odds are in my favor. I flew 10 hours last summer and about 45 minutes of that was with my wife's brother. Would a reasonable person spend $8000 (or $2000 whatever the cost may be) for the type of flying I did last summer? Probably not. If I wreck my plane...my loss. If I damage someone elses plane with mine...and it's my fault, I'll do the responsible thing and fix their plane.
The liabillity to my passengers is something that I am concerned with though. I plan on flying a friend and gear out to Moose camp this fall (if my mechanic ever gets my plane finished) and will be flying meat back out of a river that's none too big (friend will boat back out). So, I'm faced with flying without insurance or paying $2000 to $8000 to insure my plane for the 2 hours I will have a non-family passenger this year (I don't fly in winter). In the future should I consider having all passengers sign a consent / waiver of liability form before setting foot in my plane?
Chet is probably right that most private pilots in Alaska probably don't carry insurance. I don't know any private pilot that does...many of the "mom-and-pop" air carriers are barely keeping their heads above water due to the exhorbitant insurance premiums.
With all this said, I'm not anti-insurance...it's just not the best choice for me right now. All my cars are insured and they would be regardless of the laws requiring it.

Capt. Kirk wrote:If I damage someone elses plane with mine...and it's my fault, I'll do the responsible thing and fix their plane.

So say that plane you happen to damage is a commercially operated turbo beaver on floats, or any other larger plane for that matter, its not that inconceivable that you'd end up with a $200,000 repair bill. Not to mention the loss of income for that plane that the operator would probably expect payed to him for the down time of the plane. That's not the kind of thing I'd wanna be paying out of my own pocket.

$2000 for liabilty? You spend that on an annual to make sure that your plane will carry you safely. Whats another 2 grand to make sure everyone else around you has some peace of mind as well?

zero.one.victor wrote:

a64pilot wrote: .................
Insurance is a "rip off". It has to be. How long would any insurance company stay in business if there pay out exceed their pay in? ...

While I'm no fan of insurance companies, this statement is not only unfair but kinda dumb (no offense ). It's like saying building contractors are a ripoff if they can build a house, office building, or whatever, and not go broke. Or Starbucks making a cuppa coffee, or (to take it a little closer to home) Alaska Bushwheel making a tire. Any business is entitled to make a fair profit.
I carry full coverage- hull and liability. I've thought about dropping the hull, and may yet, but will definitely continue to carry liablity. Like Mike sez, I have some assets that I've worked hard & scrimped to acquire. I don't want some dirtbag putting me into the poorhouse by suing me, or just by taking me to court- so I carry liablity. Hopefully nothing will ever happen, or if it does,that liability coverage will protect me.

Eric

I guess my point didn't come through. I put rip off in parenrthesis because by definition, it has to be a losing proposition, like extended warranties or gambling etc. etc. It is a valuable service though, you just have to realize that in the long run you will pay out more than you get back.
I do not understand why I can't have a high deductable though. Really what bothers me the most is that insurance works on an agreed value, which means that you have to keep a high hull value or the insurance company will write you a check for the insured amount and take your plane. I saw an old man lose his M-4 that way when the airplane was not badly damaged.

I saw an old man lose his M-4 that way when the airplane was not badly damaged

I recently heard that a gentleman damaged his plane while it was on wheels. The insurance policy mentioned "floats" so the insurance company wrote him a check for the plane valued on wheels and then came and took his floats.

Dean wrote:

Capt. Kirk wrote:If I damage someone elses plane with mine...and it's my fault, I'll do the responsible thing and fix their plane.

So say that plane you happen to damage is a commercially operated turbo beaver on floats, or any other larger plane for that matter, its not that inconceivable that you'd end up with a $200,000 repair bill. Not to mention the loss of income for that plane that the operator would probably expect payed to him for the down time of the plane. That's not the kind of thing I'd wanna be paying out of my own pocket.

$2000 for liabilty? You spend that on an annual to make sure that your plane will carry you safely. Whats another 2 grand to make sure everyone else around you has some peace of mind as well?

I understand your point...hell, I could fly into the side of a parked 747 too and paying that repair bill would be a little difficult for me. Where I'm at, the odds of that happening are right there next to 0...I'd have better odds putting that insurance premium into the Lotto.
The thing is, I don't think you're understanding the kind of flying I do. I joined Backcountrypilot.org recently because I fly in the back country. I'm not flying to Anchorage, I'm not flying into Fairbanks International...I'm flying from a small float pond which departs over trees/swamp and I go out to the wilds of Alaska to get away from people. If I were flying around busy airports where there is more of a risk that I could damage someone elses person or expensive equipment I'd go ahead and get insurance. I've had insurance in the past for that reason. The only property I could damage would be the few planes beached along the side of the float pond. I'll bet you a steak dinner that if the owner of each of those planes parked there were asked, you'd find none have insurance. My plane is equally at risk from someone crashing into it as theirs is with me crashing into theirs. I'm more concerned with liability to my passengers though because it's conceivable that I could have an accident without envolving anyones elses property and end up hurting myself and/or someone else. If they have insurance that would cover only my passenger and wouldn't exempt me from flying into and out of "unimproved" lakes and rivers then sure, I would consider purchasing that. Something else that irked me was that I was forced to purchase a years worth of insurance when I only flew the few short summer months. Apparently, the insurance company can't make money by providing policies in 6 month increments.
There is a certain level of inherant risk involved with flying. Each of us has weighed that risk and has made decisions based on that. We have each decided if we want to risk loosing our plane due to an accident by not purchasing hull insurance. Each of us has decided weather or not they want to risk getting into a plane with an uninsured pilot or teaching an uninsured pilot and that's fine. Each of us has weighed the risk of death by performing an activity that is more risky than sitting on the couch watching TV. As far as the people around me/us having peace of mind, I'm not sure how that works. For some pilots, their spouses and children have zero peace of mind when mommy/daddy's out flying (they worry) yet they selfishly keep right on flying. There is a risk of turning our spouses into widows and our kids minus one parent. We accept all those other risks yet we scoff at the pilots who have weighed the risk of flying without insurance. If my situation was different and I flew my plane in and out of LAX I'd for sure have insurance but at this point, I think I can replace the Moose that I might take out should something happen.

Well, even if you could'nt replace the moose, you could eat it and be happy.
Jeremy