![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Very good points overall Shapiro.. I appreciate your use of sound
logic here. On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro wrote: At what time did the airplane crash? Suppose someone crashes at 11:00 PM Sunday while flying in a sparsely populated where there is no radar coverage. Wreckage is found Monday morning at 6 AM. Does the weekend policy cover this crash? Before you answer, remember that there are no witnesses to the crash nor any radar tapes to confirm when the airccraft disappeared. It would be handled the same way it would be handled on the last day of an annual policy not set to renew. I don't know what the case law indicates in those instances. The court is going to use the best evidence available, which may include the date of the accident printed on the FAA accident report. If the insurance company has better information than the FAA had in their date estimation, the court will accept it. Even in the worst case, there is likely to be meterological data, approximate route, refueling records, ETA from whoever was expecting him / ETD from whoever he last spoke to. Often whether these gray areas become problematic depend on the quality of the insurance provider. I don't always buy insurance from the lowest bidder, because there are some insurers who have a high consumer rating, and a reputation for being easy going on claims. Insureds who take the lowest bid are likely to need to hire a lawyer to get the money their entitled to in these borderline claims. It's a good point though. Since a weekend policy would have 51-52 more end-of-coverage seams than an annual policy, it would be important to get a good insurer. The probability of litigation would increase with the lower quality insurers. It would certainly make sense to have set the termination time to 4am or some less likely time to be in the air. The important thing is that such a policy puts pressure on the pilot to complete the flight by midnight Sunday or fly without insurance coverage the next day. That has been shown to be the cause of gethomeitis (or, when outbound, getthereitis). The policies don't currently exist without continuity, so it cannot have been shown at this point to cause getmehomeitis.. unless you mean to say other pressuring factors have had this effect, like making it to work. And certainly those other factors are significant, and indeed just as present regardless of whether insurance coverage has continuity. If a pilot doesn't have a reason not to fly on weekdays, and we distill the hypothetical incident down to the insurance being the only pressuring factor, then I would agree - this pilot would not be a good candidate for a weekend only policy. If there were to be a significant number of pilots who are available to fly daily signing up for the weekend policy, then the solution to getmehomeitis could be a simple matter of offering additional days a la carte, at a high enough rate to make it interesting for the insurer, and sold online so the extra coverage can be bought at 3am if needed. The weather might be VFR, but is it at the pilot's personal comfort level? If the weather were sufficiently uncomfortable for the pilot, it would exceed the pilots discomfort of flying uninsured the next day.. which amounts to less risk (but more risk on the other side of the line). Finding that line is like splitting hairs, so moving on... Would the pilot feel the pressure to fly if it is below his comfort level even though legal? The risk that an entry level pilot would accept weather that does not satisfy their personal minimum is already assumed in the initial figure. The corner cases where discontinuity of coverage is the only pressuring factor could be accounted for with an increased premium. Does the weekend IFR rated pilot really feel comfortable shooting the approach to minimums when it has been maybe years since he had to do so, even though he is legally current? If not, that pilot is more prone to make mistakes than the pilot who flies much more frequently or even daily. I'm already factoring sparsity of experience in the premium, even in the annual policy - otherwise experienced pilots would be pulling the weight of entry-level pilots, which I doubt is the case. BTW, the legality of the flight has absolutely nothing to due with insurance coverage. Unlike the state DMV, the FAA does not require insurance to register an aircraft or exercise pilot privileges. Thanks for confirming that.. I looked through part 91 earlier and didn't see it. The daily pilot doesn't worry about being trapped by the weather. He just waits until the next day. He doesn't have the pressure of having to wait until the next weekend. Is this pilot retired? I've been trapped by weather myself, suffering through getmehomeitis, and I wasn't constrained by a discontinous insurance policy. Insurance was a non-issue. And if my insurance were a weekend only policy, it would have been the least of the conflicting interests. So the daily pilot is not as inconvenienced as a weekend pilot, regardless of whether the weekend pilot has daily coverage, or weekend coverage. The weekend policy tells the pilot that if he doesn't get home by midnight Sunday, he is going to either miss an entire week's work or fly without insurance coverage. The daily pilot will miss maybe half a days work if Monday morning is clear and he is only two or three hours away from his destination. The daily pilot has both more experience and less pressure to complete the flight on Sunday than the weekend pilot. Weekend pilots naturally must have a contingency plan if they're doing a weekend cross country. It could even involve buying commercial airfare round trip, or taking a bus, or a rental car. These inconveniences are not eliminated by a daily insurance policy, as the insurance policy does not relieve them of whatever week day obligations they have. If you start making the policy good through Monday, then you just moved the problem from Sunday night to Monday night. Care to go for Tuesday? Might as well go for all seven days and be done with it. I agree. If a pilot is available to fly on all those days, a weekend policy would be a poor choice for that pilot. If the weekend pilot is willing to fly Monday with no insurance coverage, why does he even bother with insurance at all, especially if he is not flying every weekend. He may be willing to accept small, infrequent measured risks in extenuating cases, but not a full year of risk. Motorcyclists who wear a helmet might occasionally get in a pinch and not have a helmet with them (or give their only to an unexpected passenger), and be willing to go a couple miles w/out a helmet. But asking them to do this all year long is quite a different matter. Just get "hull not in motion" coverage to protect against ground damage caused by someone else while the aircraft is parked in its tie down. Ah, even simpler! -- PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca | Dave | Owning | 17 | October 27th 04 03:29 PM |
Airports Around Columbia SC | S Ramirez | Piloting | 16 | December 24th 03 12:08 PM |
columbia anyone disciplined? | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 2 | September 15th 03 03:58 AM |
be careful if you fly in Columbia | EDR | Piloting | 0 | August 20th 03 05:43 PM |
Age Wasn't a Cause of the Columbia Disaster | blackfire | Military Aviation | 0 | July 15th 03 01:21 AM |