plane crashed on takeoff attempt after emergency landing

"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. It isn't uncommon for parents to have
a child charged with unlawful use of their automobile, or for friends to
have other friends charged, to receive compensation for damage resulting
from a DWI incident. And don't even think about asking Customs for your car
or plane back if someone rents or borrows it to transport something illegal
across the border and gets caught.

moo

KB
I'll bet you the policy mentions "...or operations not on an approved
runway..." etc, etc. I looked at the clip a few times and the guy
really screwed up from the time he failed to put enough fuel in his
airplane to start with. That is enough to take his policy into court
having already violated the FAR's by no fuel.
Nope, he is going to be nearly bankrupt behind this one and all the
damages.
Ol Shy & Bashful

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in
:

Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck
your (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the
nasty with under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with
your illegal machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

I can relate to all of your other examples. But I have a problem with one.
While I'm doing the nasty with under-age prostitutes, the car is in park. I
just don't see how one could total the car in such a scenario. Ruin the
apholstery, maybe. But not total it...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

"Potato Chip" wrote in message
oups.com...
holy smokes, this guy is deep in the hole now.

i doubt insurance will cover any of the damage. totalled airplane,
damage to the truck, damage to the fire engine, and towing.


Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
(insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty with
under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your illegal
machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
your current policy is in effect...

KB


Nope Car insurance is different. He was covered on the landing because it
was an emergency, but he wasnt covered on the take off unless he had
insurance for off airport take off and landings. He should of let the toe
truck take it.
If your drunk and crash your not covered. Ask your agent.

Aluckyguess wrote:



Nope Car insurance is different. He was covered on the landing because it
was an emergency, but he wasnt covered on the take off unless he had
insurance for off airport take off and landings.



It is the odd and rare policy that would list off airport operations as
not covered for an aircraft such as a 210.

Toks Desalu wrote:

Comments?

A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.

My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Toks Desalu wrote:

Comments?

A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.

My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.


A question that the FAA will likely ask.

My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.

A question that the FAA will likely ask.

We can only hope so.

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.

True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
and safety of such a take off.

As a relatively low time pilot he probably should have paid an experienced
commercial pilot to fly it out to the nearest airport instead of
risking his families safety like that. I do feel sorry for the guy
to but not much.

kontiki wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.


True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
and safety of such a take off.

How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That was
just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of making a
takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency vehicles
moved was simply stupid.


Matt