plane crashed on takeoff attempt after emergency landing

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in

You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.

Same with aviation policies, and the crime doesn't have to be serious. My
AOPA/AIG policy, for instance, doesn't cover any damage that arises while
the plane is used with my knowledge and consent for any unlawful purpose.

Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know exactly
what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that your
"knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the plane.
You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your consent
uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent for...
an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean that the
unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it could be
argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my knowledge and
consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful purpose.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know
exactly what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that
your "knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the
plane. You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your
consent uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent
for... an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean
that the unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it
could be argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my
knowledge and consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful
purpose.

In fact, the latter is true for motor vehicles, maybe bicycles too. So it
probably applies to planes, boats, ATVs, etc. If you loan your vehicle to
someone and, with or without your knowledge, it's involved in certain types
of crime, your insurer won't willingly pay. And, I suspect, the test of the
definition of "crime" becomes looser with the enormity of the claim. I know
of one case where a body shop owner wasn't paid for loss of property when a
loaner vehicle was involved in an accident that resulted in criminal
negligence charges against the driver. I don't know if there was any
liability claim paid out by his insurer or if they subsequently sued him for
it. Insurers, obviously, have plenty of motivation to aggressively deny any
claim that their policy gives them a chance to litigate. And, in my
experience, they do.

A few years ago, I was walking down a quiet residential street in downtown
Toronto when I saw an SUV with major damage to the front pull up at an
intersection next to me. It had obviously just been involved in a major
shunt and was barely drivable. The fender was pressing so hard against the
tire that it could barely maneuver and smoke from the friction billowed from
the front when it moved. I phoned the police and gave a description of the
vehicle and driver (a young Asian male). The investigating officer called
me a week later and told me that they were pretty sure that they knew who
the driver was (and there was an accident and injury involved) but the kid's
mother said she was driving. Why? Who knows? But, if I testified, I
couldn't positively identify the driver (it was dark) but if I was sure that
it was a young man, and not an old lady, which I was, then the prosecutor
wouldn't proceed with charges. And that was the end of it. No charges,
insurance pays. Another cop told me that it's remarkably easy to get away
with a hit and run if nobody can positively ID the driver and the owner
claims that he loaned the vehicle to someone but doesn't know where they
live and hasn't seen them since.

Anyway, back to the idiot who's the topic of the thread, he's double ****ed.
I can't imagine explaining this one to the wife. How long was it after the
landing that he attempted to take off? Traumatic experiences, like an
emergency landing, tend to screw up people's ability to think for a period
afterward. I once saw a new pilot park on a restricted air ambulance ramp
next to the flight school hangar. I'd just landed myself and the conditions
were really challenging. I told him he should move it and he said that he'd
just had a really bad landing and was a bit pumped up and parked in the
wrong place by mistake. I laughed and told him I'd almost done exactly the
same thing when I was a student; and helped him push the plane next door.
I'm not making any excuses for this moron, but I suspect that his, already
questionable, judgment abilities were further diminished by the preceding
screw-up.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
How long was it after the landing that he attempted to take off?
Traumatic experiences, like an emergency landing, tend to screw up
people's ability to think for a period afterward.

The emergency landing was on Wednesday, and the attempted takeoff was
Thursday afternoon.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
How long was it after the landing that he attempted to take off?
Traumatic experiences, like an emergency landing, tend to screw up
people's ability to think for a period afterward.

The emergency landing was on Wednesday, and the attempted takeoff was
Thursday afternoon.

One less excuse then. FWIW, in Canada:

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act says:

When an aircraft has landed on a highway because of an emergency related to
the
operation of the aircraft, the aircraft may take off from the highway
provided,

(a) a commercial licensed pilot, not being the owner of the aircraft, who is
qualified to fly that class and category of aircraft, and the pilot in
command
of the aircraft are both satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy and that
there are no physical obstructions on or over the highway which would make
such
take-off unsafe;

(b) the pilot in command of the aircraft is satisfied that weather
conditions
are satisfactory for the purpose and that the minimum requirements are met
under the visual flight rules established by the regulations made under the
Aeronautics Act (Canada) or, if the flight is to be continued under
instrument
flight rules, that adequate arrangements can be made for obtaining a
clearance
from an air traffic control unit prior to entering instrument flight weather
conditions;

(c) traffic control is provided by the appropriate police force;

(d) the police force consents to the take-off.

Similar rules there? Another pilot might have been helpful.

m

Happy Dog wrote:

Similar rules there? Another pilot might have been helpful.

One competent pilot would have been sufficient.

Matt