Non-Owners insurance- Worthless?

I agree. So given that many single seat rentals ARE experimental, what
to do? Will my insurnace company pay for an accident knowing the
lessor illegaly leased an experimental plane to me? I guess I just
shouldn't rent...

Matt


Nyal Williams wrote:
The word 'lease' might be misunderstood here. It refers
to the owner; he/she is forbidden to let an experimental
aircraft out for hire. The pilot/renter is probably
also in trouble.

At 01:00 13 January 2007, wrote:
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued
an experimental
certificate under =A721.191 (i) of this chapter, except
in accordance
with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.




Marc Ramsey wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
'Matt Herron Jr.' wrote in message
oups.com...
I subsequently rented a glider after presenting proof
of insurance with
Avemco, and was told that they had contacted Avemco
and Experimental
aircraft were not covered. My limited understanding
is that many
gliders in the rental pool fall into the experimental
category, perhaps
up to half. I guess you can't tell by type of glider
either, as it
depends on how they were imported, equipment, etc.
(my knowledge is
obviously sketchy here..)

Under what conditions can you rent an experimental
glider? Doesn'=
t 91.319
prohibit that?

How so? A pilot renting a glider is not 'Carrying
persons or property
for compensation or hire.'
=20
Marc

Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
I agree. So given that many single seat rentals ARE experimental, what
to do? Will my insurnace company pay for an accident knowing the
lessor illegaly leased an experimental plane to me? I guess I just
shouldn't rent...

Matt


Nyal Williams wrote:
The word 'lease' might be misunderstood here. It refers
to the owner; he/she is forbidden to let an experimental
aircraft out for hire. The pilot/renter is probably
also in trouble.

At 01:00 13 January 2007, wrote:
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued
an experimental
certificate under =A721.191 (i) of this chapter, except
in accordance
with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.




Marc Ramsey wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
'Matt Herron Jr.' wrote in message
oups.com...
I subsequently rented a glider after presenting proof
of insurance with
Avemco, and was told that they had contacted Avemco
and Experimental
aircraft were not covered. My limited understanding
is that many
gliders in the rental pool fall into the experimental
category, perhaps
up to half. I guess you can't tell by type of glider
either, as it
depends on how they were imported, equipment, etc.
(my knowledge is
obviously sketchy here..)

Under what conditions can you rent an experimental
glider? Doesn'=
t 91.319
prohibit that?

How so? A pilot renting a glider is not 'Carrying
persons or property
for compensation or hire.'
=20
Marc



Matt
That's a question for your ins broker/carrier.

"Matt Herron Jr." wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like paragraph f) prohibits it, but I know for a fact it is
happening. Interesting. So then what happens in the event of an
accident in an experimental rental? Lawsuit? Or worse, your insurance
that claims to cover experimental then denies coverage based on
91.319f. They would still be on the hook for "borrowed" experimental
aircraft I expect.

Any lawyers out there have an opinion?

Would it be OK in a true club situation? ...where the members are actually
equity owners and arguably not renters? Oh; then "non owner's" insurance
becomes a problem!

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Matt Herron Jr." wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like paragraph f) prohibits it, but I know for a fact it is
happening. Interesting. So then what happens in the event of an
accident in an experimental rental? Lawsuit? Or worse, your insurance
that claims to cover experimental then denies coverage based on
91.319f. They would still be on the hook for "borrowed" experimental
aircraft I expect.

Any lawyers out there have an opinion?

Would it be OK in a true club situation? ...where the members are actually
equity owners and arguably not renters? Oh; then "non owner's" insurance
becomes a problem!

Vaughn
Depends on the club business model. Could be that members are not
equity owners and have no owner rights nor obligations. At least one
large club carries no hull coverage, has a $3000 member deductible, and
encourages members to have non-owner/renter coverage. Another has a
category of owner members, has no hull coverage, requires higher dues
of non-owner members, and maintains a high repair fund. Whether the
non-owner members carry renter/non-owner coverage isn't clear.

YMMV,

Frank