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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |