Please, just don't do this... (NTSB Factual, Turbo Lance Dec 2015)

denverpilot said:
Pretty sure it said he was a co-owner.
Click to expand...

Nope:


The airplane was owned by RAD Aviation LLC, a corporation comprising a group of individual co-owners. The accident pilot was not part of the group, but he had been given permission to fly the airplane and had been added to the group's insurance policy.
 
denverpilot said:
I always try to think of long VFR cross countries as, "We are going to TRY to go to Las Vegas" and leave the answer up to the enroute weather, if there's stuff between here and there.
Click to expand...
As a VFR only pilot, this is my effen mantra. I will go pretty much anywhere, so long as the WX is decent VFR. Couple years ago we were headed to the Grand Canyon. Except for high winds in the desert and tornadoes in Missouri. Instead, we had a fantastic time in the Outer Banks where winds were calm and it was clear and a zillion. Got to know and accept your limitations when you're VFR.
 
JCranford said:
Nope:


The airplane was owned by RAD Aviation LLC, a corporation comprising a group of individual co-owners. The accident pilot was not part of the group, but he had been given permission to fly the airplane and had been added to the group's insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Well it didn't say he wasn't insured in it. I can think of a number of reasons a co-owner group would put someone on their insurance, like a rental agreement. Even maybe let someone fly an aircraft under the open pilot clause.

Not how I'd do it, but not that uncommon either.
 
I find it strange that the insurance company would OK him in this plane without proof of complex training and sign off. In the list of aircraft he had flown, I did not see any retract. Regardless, he made a tragic list of mistakes. It has almost become cliche, but so many accidents are a chain of events, not a single mistake.
 
drotto said:
I find it strange that the insurance company would OK him in this plane without proof of complex training and sign off. In the list of aircraft he had flown, I did not see any retract. Regardless, he made a tragic list of mistakes. It has almost become cliche, but so many accidents are a chain of events, not a single mistake.
Click to expand...

He had training and endorsement. From NTSB report:
"He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and high- performance airplane endorsements."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
I find it strange that the insurance company would OK him in this plane without proof of complex training and sign off. In the list of aircraft he had flown, I did not see any retract. Regardless, he made a tragic list of mistakes. It has almost become cliche, but so many accidents are a chain of events, not a single mistake.
Click to expand...

Im curious, what kind of proof do you think the insurance company would be looking for? I've never been asked for any evidence that I completed any sort of training or received any endorsement to fly a light airplane.

We're talking about a PA32 here, not a business jet or something. Not terribly hard to insure in, regardless of certificate held.
 
drotto said:
I find it strange that the insurance company would OK him in this plane without proof of complex training and sign off. In the list of aircraft he had flown, I did not see any retract. Regardless, he made a tragic list of mistakes. It has almost become cliche, but so many accidents are a chain of events, not a single mistake.
Click to expand...

As was said, he did have the training, but to the point of insurance wanting proof, I have never been asked for actual proof of endorsements or the required annual IPC for the Navajo insurance. In fact I don't think they even wanted a copy of my certificate or medical.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
As was said, he did have the training, but to the point of insurance wanting proof, I have never been asked for actual proof of endorsements or the required annual IPC for the Navajo insurance. In fact I don't think they even wanted a copy of my certificate or medical.
Click to expand...

I got my high performance and complex sign off at about 90 hours, because I have a PA32 available to me to fly. It may have been my very low hours at the time, but the insurance company was very reluctant to give me coverage, and did require a letter from my CFI.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
As was said, he did have the training, but to the point of insurance wanting proof, I have never been asked for actual proof of endorsements or the required annual IPC for the Navajo insurance. In fact I don't think they even wanted a copy of my certificate or medical.
Click to expand...
Certificate and medical they can get in seconds with a couple clicks on a computer. Hours, training, endorsements and that stuff isn't so easy, but if you have a claim to make they'll be rolling up their sleeves and finding out. Getting insurance and paying premiums isn't all that hard. Actually being insured when something happens is another story.
 
Sundancer said:
Did a quick read. . .no way to really know what happened, is there? Probably, probably, it's as it seems - he wasn't prepared to fly the airplane IMC. Pulled it apart in a loss of control scenario. Could, could have been other, more unlikely causes, of course. . .

I was driving a 1995 Neon one fall evening, urban road, two lanes each way, busy-ish time of day. And the driver-side airbag fired - deployed, as they say. Blew my left hand into the windshield, which it broke (my watch actually took the impact - the windshield cracked). Slightly dislocated my elbow, blew out the driver and front passenger windows, and hurled the vents thru the car. I didn't see the bag deploy, but I knew what happened right away.

I served to the left, but grabbed the wheel before going head-on into the opposing traffic. Otherwise, it would have been "Neon driver loses control, causes head-on crash". What would the investigator see? He'd expect the airbags to be deployed, right? If I was killed, or couldn't remember, who is to say?

Anyway, cops pulled up, went looking under the car for a deer or a dog, anything to explain what happened. Chrysler looked into it, but "stood mute", and the insurance company took the hit. NHTSA wasn't interested. Weird things happen now and then. . .
Click to expand...
I know someone who was driving a 2005 Neon and was involved in a pretty serious frontal collision and the airbags did not deploy when they definitely should have. Both front seat occupants were injured.
 
MassPilot said:
I know someone who was driving a 2005 Neon and was involved in a pretty serious frontal collision and the airbags did not deploy when they definitely should have. Both front seat occupants were injured.
Click to expand...
I think the older systems were sketchy - I never looked into it too deep, but my understanding was the Feds insisted air bags protect people who weren't wearing their seat belts/shoulder harnesses, so the deployments were very violent - I think they killed or maimed a few smaller people riding in the front pax seat, apparently.

Good example of the gov't effing a good idea - as long as the total body count went down, they were happy. Darwin didn't enter into it; it was OK to kill a few folks, as long as it saved a larger number of people who chose not to strap in.

A guy at the dealership described the "trigger" on the 1995 as being a matrix of conductive fibers, for lack of a better word; almost like a synapse - when enough of them touched, when moved by an acceleration, they exceeded a threshold of resistance, and completed the deployment circuit. Apparently the QC on the mechanism wasn't too hot; or, the design was lame.

The road I was driving on had been milled - maybe I excited a resonant frequency in the switch(es). Or, maybe the switch was just defective. There was window glass all over me, and the pax seat, and even though safety glass crumbles up, I still got cut up a good bit trying to get out the pax-side door, only having one arm fully working.

Again, I hear the current bags deploy "variably", based on the force/acceleration; I'm not a big fan; I suppose they usually work, and usually well enough, to be of value. I'm not making any driving decisions based on the bag working! Probably the same idea as the chute in a Cirrus. It'll probably work. Maybe. But I'd fly one as if the chute wasn't there.

One of the main bag vendors has a few million shaky installations out there, I hear - apparently it explodes, and punches you full of shrapnel.
 
luvflyin said:
Getting insurance and paying premiums isn't all that hard. Actually being insured when something happens is another story.
Click to expand...
Being insured isn't that big a problem...don't lie to the insurance company.

Even though this was a VFR pilot on an IFR clearance, there will probably still be an insurance payout.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
Im curious, what kind of proof do you think the insurance company would be looking for? I've never been asked for any evidence that I completed any sort of training or received any endorsement to fly a light airplane.
Click to expand...

Mostly just your word on the front end. But if an accident occurs, they will check more thoroughly, and could deny coverage if you were not honest with them.
 
drotto said:
I got my high performance and complex sign off at about 90 hours, because I have a PA32 available to me to fly. It may have been my very low hours at the time, but the insurance company was very reluctant to give me coverage, and did require a letter from my CFI.
Click to expand...

Your experience would be the exception not the norm, at least when dealing with personal aircraft insurance and the FBO insurance. All I've ever filled out for anywhere is the typical one page long form that asks about certificates held and amount of flying experience. I don't think I've ever even been asked to verify I have an endorsement before.

luvflyin said:
Getting insurance and paying premiums isn't all that hard. Actually being insured when something happens is another story.
Click to expand...

I agree, getting insured isn't hard at all. I continue to be amazed at the payouts on aviation insurance claims. It is often said that your claim will be denied if you aren't appropriately rated or your airplane is determined to be unairworthy or other similar things. I have yet to hear of a claim that has been denied however, even when there are obvious airworthiness issues that the pilot chose to fly with, no flight reviews, etc. I think people paint this out to be a bigger concern/problem than it is in reality.
 
mondtster said:
Your experience would be the exception not the norm, at least when dealing with personal aircraft insurance and the FBO insurance. All I've ever filled out for anywhere is the typical one page long form that asks about certificates held and amount of flying experience. I don't think I've ever even been asked to verify I have an endorsement before.



I agree, getting insured isn't hard at all. I continue to be amazed at the payouts on aviation insurance claims. It is often said that your claim will be denied if you aren't appropriately rated or your airplane is determined to be unairworthy or other similar things. I have yet to hear of a claim that has been denied however, even when there are obvious airworthiness issues that the pilot chose to fly with, no flight reviews, etc. I think people paint this out to be a bigger concern/problem than it is in reality.
Click to expand...
I promise you that if your insurance company requires you to have X amount of hours with a CFI in your plane prior to you going solo, and you wad the plane up without those hours, you will have absolutely nothing coming from the insurance company.
 
haskell99 said:
He had training and endorsement. From NTSB report:
"He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and high- performance airplane endorsements."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Only one problem with the endorsement, an Arrow is not HP. The FAA should violate the CFI that gave him the endorsement.
 
Last edited:
ircphoenix said:
I promise you that if your insurance company requires you to have X amount of hours with a CFI in your plane prior to you going solo, and you wad the plane up without those hours, you will have absolutely nothing coming from the insurance company.
Click to expand...

Do you have experience to back that up? That has not been my experience with aircraft insurance. There are any number of ways an insurance company could get out of paying a claim yet they don't seem to pursue them.
 
I have seen insurance carriers go both ways on this. I gave an opinion to a carrier that there was no coverage for a loss because the plane was not within the annual, as required per the language of their policy. They chose to pay the claim anyway. I have also seen where other carriers denied coverage where a medical lapsed, or there was not a current BFR. I have seen a case where the pilot's estate had a knock-down drag out about whether to provide coverage due to an alleged lack of hours. In short, this is not an issue that I would go to the mat on, either way. It just depends.
 
It's not an insurance company that's responsible for licensing and training pilots. Nor is it their job to punish errant pilots. That is the FAAs job.
 
citizen5000 said:
It's not an insurance company that's responsible for licensing and training pilots. Nor is it their job to punish errant pilots. That is the FAAs job.
Click to expand...
But insurance companies are all about their statistics and tables. If based on training, hours, previous history, etc. The view you as risky the may charge more or deny coverage. I have already been told when I get my IFR rating they will knock about $500 off my premium. Which has already gone down as I reach certain hour milestones. Why, because the magic table says they can.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
citizen5000 said:
It's not an insurance company that's responsible for licensing and training pilots. Nor is it their job to punish errant pilots. That is the FAAs job.
Click to expand...

True, but it's the insurance company's job to determine if the pilot with a claim, met the clearly documented requirements of the contract that both parties signed before paying on a claim.

Nothing surprising or shocking in that at all. They'll do it on a vehicle claim, a homeowners claim, a commercial business loss claim, anything they insure.

What claims have you made where they didn't determine eligibility?
 
Clip4 said:
Only one problem with the endorsement, an Arrow is not HP. The FAA should violate the CFI that gave him the endorsement.
Click to expand...
Where does it say he got the HP in an Arrow?

luvflyin said:
Certificate and medical they can get in seconds with a couple clicks on a computer. Hours, training, endorsements and that stuff isn't so easy, but if you have a claim to make they'll be rolling up their sleeves and finding out. Getting insurance and paying premiums isn't all that hard. Actually being insured when something happens is another story.
Click to expand...

The question was how a pilot could get insurance without providing proof of appropriate endorsements. Not if they would pay out if you didn't have them.
 
The entire thread was started as a plea not to do things that will get you killed in an airplane.

The tangent into whether or not the pilot was insured is pretty much immaterial for anyone other than whoever handled Probate.
 
Clip4 said:
It says he logged time in a 172, DA40 and a PA28R-200
Click to expand...

No, it says "He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and highperformance airplane endorsements."

That does not mean he flew zero other airplanes. In fact, if you bother to read the very next sentence, it says "In April 2013, he purchased a PA-28-236,". He got his PPL in July 2012. If you've got a calendar handy, you might notice that he not only flew but owned a legitimately HP aircraft within those 10 months. Thus we know the "continued to fly" list is not all-inclusive. Whether he got it in the 236 or something else, who knows, but it was certainly not in the Arrow. I got my HP in a 182 which I never flew again. I can guarantee you that those 2 whole hours in a 182 would not even make the list of what I "continued to fly...throughout" that year.

English comprehension: All that stands between accusing a CFI of gross incompetence and demanding a violation, and understanding what actually happened.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
No, it says "He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and highperformance airplane endorsements."

That does not mean he flew zero other airplanes. In fact, if you bother to read the very next sentence, it says "In April 2013, he purchased a PA-28-236,". He got his PPL in July 2012. If you've got a calendar handy, you might notice that he not only flew but owned a legitimately HP aircraft within those 10 months. Thus we know the "continued to fly" list is not all-inclusive. Whether he got it in the 236 or something else, who knows, but it was certainly not in the Arrow. I got my HP in a 182 which I never flew again. I can guarantee you that those 2 whole hours in a 182 would not even make the list of what I "continued to fly...throughout" that year.

English comprehension: All that stands between accusing a CFI of gross incompetence and demanding a violation, and understanding what actually happened.
Click to expand...

English comprehension indeed. According the print, he bought the Pa28-235 after he received the hp endorsement and no other aircraft were logged.

"The pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land issued in July 2012."

Most of his initial flight training had been conducted in a Cessna 172. He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and high-performance airplane endorsements.

In April 2013, he purchased a PA-28-236, which he flew exclusively for the next 2 years, accruing 85 hours of flight time. He flew five flights from the San Jose area to Henderson during that period."

"
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:

English comprehension indeed.

"Most of his initial flight training had been conducted in a Cessna 172. He continued to fly the Cessna along with a Diamond DA-40 and a Piper PA-28R-200 throughout the 10 months following his private pilot checkride, during which time he received complex and high-performance airplane endorsements.

In April 2013, he purchased a PA-28-236, which he flew exclusively for the next 2 years, accruing 85 hours of flight time. He flew five flights from the San Jose area to Henderson during that period."
Click to expand...

Still think the CFI should be violated?
 
If he had a bogus HP endorsement, don't you think the NTSB would have mentioned that in the report? That would be a headline item.

Clip4 said:

English comprehension indeed. According the print, he bought the Pa28-235 after he received the hp endorsement and no other aircraft were logged.



"
Click to expand...

That does not mean he flew zero other airplanes. In fact, if you bother to read the very next sentence, it says "In April 2013, he purchased a PA-28-236,". He got his PPL in July 2012. If you've got a calendar handy, you might notice that he not only flew but owned a legitimately HP aircraft within those 10 months. Thus we know the "continued to fly" list is not all-inclusive. Whether he got it in the 236 or something else, who knows, but it was certainly not in the Arrow. I got my HP in a 182 which I never flew again. I can guarantee you that those 2 whole hours in a 182 would not even make the list of what I"continued to fly...throughout" that year.
 
Last edited:
Wow talk about derailing a thread with garbage. Who cares about the insurance. I think the point of this thread is a VFR pilot that made a long list of mistakes leading to a tragedy.
 
Clip4 said:
I am a firm believer in chain of events for accidents and there is a mile long worth of chain on this one probably going back to his primary training.
Click to expand...

The book "The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" by Sidney Dekker has some compelling alternatives to look at the cause of accidents/crashes.
 
Clip4 said:
No it shouldn't and neither should a SR22, Mooneys, and a host of other HP/complex singles.

And here the part that is really telling, this pilot did HP/Complex training with somebody. And probably completed at least one flight review with somebody, and did not have a single hour of instrument training other than the minimum 3 hours he needed for his private certificate. So when he got into an unusual attitude in a real HP/Complex aircraft, even if he flew into IMC accidentally, he was screwed.
Click to expand...
That's one of the dumbest things I have ever read on this board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top