A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Liability insurance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 14th 04, 07:27 AM
Mike Borgelt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 9 Jun 2004 16:52:47 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote:

Mike,
Thankyou for the insight, which may very well
be good advice.

However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest
between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having
the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that
fact.

The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested
in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability
claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety
program. That would hardly be bad for us.

The large pool might well be a captive market for the
duration of any one contract; but at renewal time,
it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus
attract competitive rates.

Am I hopelessly naive ?

Ian

Ian,

It hasn't worked that way in Oz. You can also end up with the
insurance company dictating the rules or the organisation buying the
insurance adding yet more rules over the legal minima to convince the
insurance company not to raise premiums.

Imagine the effect of your SSA disowning you or not getting involved
on the insurance company's decision to pay out.

Hvaning soaring advocacy bodies making too many rules is a really bad
idea.

Right now in Australia someone like Eric Greenwell, who as I
understand, operates a self launcher out of a trailer at an airfield
with no other soaring pilots around cannot be covered by the GFA's
third party insurance as there is a requirement for a second qualified
inspector's signature on the maintenance release for that day.

Yes, we've had a couple of accidents with controls not hooked up or
assembled backwards but what the rocket scientists in the GFA have
ignored is that at least two checks in the current rules were not done
or not done properly to get to this point. Instead of reinforcing the
need to carry out these checks properly they simply added another one
which now has the effect of putting at risk the other person's assets
etc . This will probably end after the first time someone who signs
some else's maintenance release gets sued.

Mike Borgelt
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
insurance for Sport Pilots! Cub Driver Piloting 4 September 11th 04 01:14 AM
Make sure of Your Liability Insurance Icebound Piloting 1 April 25th 04 09:19 AM
Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability Caracole Soaring 18 April 1st 04 09:17 PM
Aviation Insurance History, data, records? cloudclimbr General Aviation 0 February 17th 04 03:36 AM
How find out one's aviation insurance claims history? Aviation Claims Information Bureau? cloudclimbr Owning 1 February 15th 04 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.