DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


You clearly don't know how insurance companies work. They will check
that the required parts of the policy have been complied with (annual
inspection, BFR, etc.). There is nothing in the policy (at least the
ones I have had) that require compliance with all ADs (the annual
inspection is supposed to take care of this). And there is also
nothing in the policy that negates coverage if miss an assembly step.
Read your policy: it is a contract that can't be added to (or
subtracted from) if and when there is a claim.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.
"It excluded coverage 'if the airworthiness certificate
of the aircraft was not in full force and effect'..."

Is the certificate ok if the required AD's have not been complied
with? NO. Some AD's are 100 hour AD's, and occur more
frequently than the annual. Of course this isn't talking about
this particular accident, if the AD's were not "required."

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.

This is all just my opinion. I recommend reading the
AOPA article, and then 43.5 and 43.9, and then judging for yourself.

In article ,
Tom Seim wrote:

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


You clearly don't know how insurance companies work. They will check
that the required parts of the policy have been complied with (annual
inspection, BFR, etc.). There is nothing in the policy (at least the
ones I have had) that require compliance with all ADs (the annual
inspection is supposed to take care of this). And there is also
nothing in the policy that negates coverage if miss an assembly step.
Read your policy: it is a contract that can't be added to (or
subtracted from) if and when there is a claim.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.


This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is NOT
considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.

Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.



------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark seems to have his own unique interpretations of the CFRs (FARs).
Please don't confuse him with facts!

;0)

Allan


"Michael McNulty" wrote in message
news:75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07...

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.


This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is
NOT
considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.

Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.

From what I now find out, Michael is absolutely correct.
In the 80's this was amended so gliders didn't have
to record the assembly/disassembly in a logbook.

www.ssa.org/ListGovtNewsDetail.asp?id=15

I thought they did, as we've done so locally (I've
seen the notations in our logs). Come to find out this isn't
required (due to the amendment). Funny, I was asked about
this on my CFIG checkride from the FAA guy, and
I said log it, and he didn't disagree. It seems
this means it's ok to log it, but it isn't required.

If I had a quarter for every time I'm spectacularly wrong...

In article 75occ.26961$zh.26113@fed1read07,
Michael McNulty wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4071b778$1@darkstar...
AOPA pilot Feb 2004, page 124, article by John S. Yodice.

Is the airworthiness OK if the aircraft was disassembled,
and then flown without logging reassembly and
43.5 "approval for return to service?" If I was an insurer, depending
on the size of the claim, I might argue it was unairworthy.


This has been hashed out over and over again. There is NO requirement to
log normal glider assembly and disassembly. NONE. Look it up. This is NOT
considered a maintenance action but a part of normal operations. The FAA,
somewhere, even has made an official statement to exactly this effect.

Please stop inventing "requirements" for others to follow.

Michael, thanks for being polite enough to say please!
Quite polite and a lot of restraint here on RAS...




------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA




--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA