DO YOUR CONTOL CHECKS!

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:4071b3fc$1@darkstar...
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


Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.

I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
the aircraft was not airworthy.

You better re-read that article. Coverage was denied because the A/C
in question was out of annual. There was a legal issue in that case
where the owner argued that the lack of a current annual was not
causal to the accident, therefore the insurance company should pay up.
It seems that some states allow this argument. The Supreme Court in
the state where this accident occurred (Nevada) had not ruled on this
one way or the other. The Court of Appeals concluded they probably
would have ruled for the insurance company and let the judgment for
the company stand. I guess a decision based on the odds is appropriate
for Nevada.

The point is, you agree to have a current annual completed and signed
off on your glider in exchange for coverage. Don't do this and you
don't have coverage. What is complicated about that? This is
distinctly different from the question from whether the A/C was
airworthy for that particular flight. I once attempted to launch with
my elevator disconnected. The flight was short and the landing wasn't
pretty. The glider clearly wasn't airworthy for that flight, but
coverage was not in question.

If you have any question about this issue don't argue with me, discuss
it with your insurance company!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA