Your Aviation Life

Lance F

Lance F

En-Route
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
2,946
Location
GA
Display Name
Display name:
Lance F
Do you limit yourself in any way in your aviation activities because of the threat (real or imagined) of legal liability i.e. getting sued?

Can somebody help me make this a poll? Choices would be yes or no.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I've turned down an opportunity to ferry a friend's Arrow up to MN because I wouldn't have been covered by any insurance.
 
No.

No.

No. (there, is that long enough, yet?)
 
Nope.
 
No.

I decided a long time ago I can't go through life afraid of every little thing that might happen.

The only sort of exception would be avoiding flying death traps. There's a difference between potential risk and begging for it. Even then the selection criteria is based on getting hurt, not legal hassles.
 
The resurrectred thread on CFI liability brought this to mind. I think there are a lot in the closet that really think "yes". Too bad for them is what I say.

and what the heck Spike. an MC honcho (drolled as Neal Boortz would say it) and you can't tell me how to make this a poll.
 
Yes. A couple specific flights I did not make. When I have found the aircraft not to be airworthy, most due to incomplete paperwork. I know that opens up a can of worms. But the sole issue to me is avoiding the perception of acting negligent. Even still I suppose a lawyer would rip me apart even after I exercised caution.

My "Yes" is from concern of folks on the ground or ambulance chasing lawyers. WRT my pax, Not yet.
 
Last edited:
Other than carrying insurance, not really. I guess I have given the liability issue some thought WRT becoming a CFI someday.
 
No. I do my best to follow the applicable laws and not do stupid stuff, but beyond that...no.
 
I don't fear the threat of liability as long as I use reasonable precautions that would be expected of any PIC.

But, a recent experience with someone seeking IFR proficiency changed how much I will enforce my authority (by prior arrangement) since my life will depend on their actions. I think failing to exercise my authority and taking command in such a situation could lead to greater liability risks.
 
No, and that includes my non-aviation life as well.
 
Yes.

1. I will not fly or instruct in any airplane unless I am an listed as an additional insured. I will make no exceptions to this policy. Note that this requirement is totally separate and apart from the "named pilot" or "pilot open warranty" coverage.

My decision has partly to do with having accumulated a big enough pile for someone to perhaps consider worthwhile chasing, partly because I've seen the insurance companies immediately seek to drive a wedge between the aircraft owner and the pilot at crunch-time.

2. I do not volunteer to fly my personal airplane for many "do-good" causes. I am happy to write a check of more than equal value supporting those that I support, but choose to not offer the the plaintiff's bar a free shot at a slow-moving target.
 
Lance F said:
Do you limit yourself in any way in your aviation activities because of the threat (real or imagined) of legal liability i.e. getting sued?

Can somebody help me make this a poll? Choices would be yes or no.
Click to expand...

The answer is no. I am not scared of legality in this Country, because I believe to be afraid weakens our country. We have unbelievably stupid tort laws, and trying to restrict your fun so that you don't get sued is ineffective: People will still sue and win if they want to.

So I follow the law. But if its legal, and I want to do it, I usually do.
 
Lance F said:
Do you limit yourself in any way in your aviation activities because of the threat (real or imagined) of legal liability i.e. getting sued?
Click to expand...

Yes. Been there, done that. I've been the victim of our ever litigious society and have now stopped doing anything aviation unless it's for my personal benefit. I once enjoyed helping others with maintenance on their airplanes but no more. This also applies to airplane rides and flight instruction except for just a few long time personal friends and family.
 
Everskyward said:
No, and that includes my non-aviation life as well.
Click to expand...

There is such a thing as non aviation life? :rofl:


I feel sorry for anyone that lives their life afraid of being sued.

What the legal system has done to this country should be illegal. (Did I just say that?)
 
Last edited:
just don't get in a situation where you actually have anything that someone else might want!
Hey Lance, thinking of getting insurance for your Falcon/LJ gigs? If you get paid, you probably don't need to worry 'bout it too much.
 
Yes for commercial work - I won't fly someone else's airplane unless insurance is covering me.

No for personal flying.

I'm thinking REALLY hard about the kind of flight instruction I want to do when I get my ticket.

Some of this is geographic. Here in DC there are both lots of lawyers and lots of people whose first instinct in the event of any misfortune is to file a suit, because "accident" is a foreign concept - SOMEBODY must be to blame. In other places I'd be less paranoid.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
just don't get in a situation where you actually have anything that someone else might want!
Hey Lance, thinking of getting insurance for your Falcon/LJ gigs? If you get paid, you probably don't need to worry 'bout it too much.
Click to expand...
I suppose I have assets that others would want, but so what. I feel sorry for them. The really important things the tort lawyers can't take away. Even if I lost everything material, my family would still love me and I could still get on this forum at the public library :D. It's well worth the risk to me to do what I (legally) want.
Yeah, I get paid a little to fly, but I wouldn't worry about lawyers or insurance in any case.
Interesting thread. I expected some divergent positions. Thanks for everyone's comments.
I still wish I could have figured out how to make this a poll.
 
Yes.

Ive refused to fly many planes because they either had no insurance or I was not covered for that flight. Ive mostly been asked to fly "ferry flights" or "mx test flights" even for my work I refuse to fly a plane for a mx flight as most insurance does not cover test flights or mx flights.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
in what context? I'm pretty sure my owner's policy says nothing about that. Is this for a job, or some other situation?
Click to expand...

My policy specifically says it does not cover any special maintenance test flights. Yes this is for work and friends. I don't know of any policies that cover mx test flights, though I could be wrong, but Ive never heard of any.
 
I do not limit myself, but I play by the rules and don't take chances where the risk outweighs the return. 'Course, I'd probably do it that way regardless of the liability issues, because that's how you survive 40 years of flying and still have more to come.
 
flyer said:
My policy specifically says it does not cover any special maintenance test flights. Yes this is for work and friends. I don't know of any policies that cover mx test flights, though I could be wrong, but Ive never heard of any.
Click to expand...

I've never seen one that didn't. If the aircraft is airworthy and flown by a named pilot or one who meets the terms of the open warranty, it's covered. Why would it be excluded? Which carriers have such an endorsement?
 
flyer said:
My policy specifically says it does not cover any special maintenance test flights.
Click to expand...

Does it define these test flights?
All I've seen is that the work is done, (if its a major repair or modification, it is inspected by an IA), and once the logs/337s are signed, you fly.
I must look at my policy Monday.
 
gprellwitz said:
Yes. I've turned down an opportunity to ferry a friend's Arrow up to MN because I wouldn't have been covered by any insurance.
Click to expand...

No.

I would say yes only within the constraints hull loss. I wouldn't fly the flight you mention above if the plane weren't insured at all. However, if I can get up in the airplane, have the landing gear fail, and belly it in and have the hull be covered by someone with me flying the plane, I'll fly it.

Now, were I to win the Powerball tomorrow and have a big pot of gold for somebody to go after, I might think a little differently - But more likely, I'd try to isolate the money from myself somehow and keep doing what I do now.

I can't imagine running around being afraid of my own tail. Don't be dumb, and let the chips fall where they may. If you're dumb, those chips may well be attracted to you. ;)
 
Lance F said:
and what the heck Spike. an MC honcho (drolled as Neal Boortz would say it) and you can't tell me how to make this a poll.
Click to expand...

Lance,

You can't edit a thread to add a poll, but you could probably create a new thread with a poll (to do this, scroll to the bottom, at the bottom of the additional options box, and check the "post a poll with this thread" box). Once the new thread is created, the MC could merge the two threads and hopefully the new poll will stick. :yes:
 
wabower said:
1. I will not fly or instruct in any airplane unless I am an listed as an additional insured. I will make no exceptions to this policy.
Click to expand...

By that do you mean you won't ride along in anyone's airplane other than the ones you're insured in? Or did you mean you wouldn't "borrow" someone's airplane to fly yourself unless you're covered?

BTW I thought I'd point out that there is a downside (to the policy owner) for adding named insured pilots to the policy. Doing so basically dilutes your liability coverage because the policy limits are now split among the named insureds.
 
lancefisher said:
By that do you mean you won't ride along in anyone's airplane other than the ones you're insured in? Or did you mean you wouldn't "borrow" someone's airplane to fly yourself unless you're covered?

BTW I thought I'd point out that there is a downside (to the policy owner) for adding named insured pilots to the policy. Doing so basically dilutes your liability coverage because the policy limits are now split among the named insureds.
Click to expand...

Not true - the liability limit is per occurence. As long as the airplane is flown by a named insured, the insurance company is on the hook. The exposure to the policy is the same no matter what, though I think your point may be that if two named insureds are flying the airplane their "protection" may be halved. Unless it's a two crew airplane, though, the PIC is likely to be the target of the lawsuit.

If the airplane is flown by anyone other than a named insured, including those covered under an "open pilot" clause, then the insurance company will pay out, then generally immediately subrogate to the person flying the airplane. That's why I insist on being a named insured or to have a waiver of subrogation issued when I ferry airplanes.
 
TMetzinger said:
Not true - the liability limit is per occurence. As long as the airplane is flown by a named insured, the insurance company is on the hook. The exposure to the policy is the same no matter what, though I think your point may be that if two named insureds are flying the airplane their "protection" may be halved. Unless it's a two crew airplane, though, the PIC is likely to be the target of the lawsuit.

If the airplane is flown by anyone other than a named insured, including those covered under an "open pilot" clause, then the insurance company will pay out, then generally immediately subrogate to the person flying the airplane. That's why I insist on being a named insured or to have a waiver of subrogation issued when I ferry airplanes.
Click to expand...

It's still true even with only one pilot in the airplane. I do agree that this might be less of a concern in that case but if there's a crash it's likely the owner will be sued along with the "borrowing" pilot and if both are covered by the same policy the full coverage will indeed be split between the two. Probably not a big deal but it just could be.

Separate question: When you ferry a plane and get a subrogation waiver (very good idea IMO), is that effectively the same thing as being a named insured? My guess would be that all this means is the insurer can't come after you for losses they cover but you could still be sued by someone else and would need your own liability coverage for that.
 
I don't ride along unless the other pilot is waaay senior to me in ratings, qualifications and experience, or qualified by type rating. So it doesn't often happen. I have a sufficient fleet of planes so that my flying needs are met. I'm also happy to extend the same insurance accommodations to pilots who fly my planes.

Specifically, I do not go along when somebody is going for an evaluation ride with the owner with whose skills I am unfamiliar and a potential buyer who wants to ride in the right seat. I just tell them "it will perform better without me along" and send them on their way. Seen too many cluster-fumbles in the front seat to need any more of them.

lancefisher said:
By that do you mean you won't ride along in anyone's airplane other than the ones you're insured in? Or did you mean you wouldn't "borrow" someone's airplane to fly yourself unless you're covered?

BTW I thought I'd point out that there is a downside (to the policy owner) for adding named insured pilots to the policy. Doing so basically dilutes your liability coverage because the policy limits are now split among the named insureds.
Click to expand...
 
lancefisher said:
It's still true even with only one pilot in the airplane. I do agree that this might be less of a concern in that case but if there's a crash it's likely the owner will be sued along with the "borrowing" pilot and if both are covered by the same policy the full coverage will indeed be split between the two. Probably not a big deal but it just could be.

Separate question: When you ferry a plane and get a subrogation waiver (very good idea IMO), is that effectively the same thing as being a named insured? My guess would be that all this means is the insurer can't come after you for losses they cover but you could still be sued by someone else and would need your own liability coverage for that.
Click to expand...

That's correct. I maintain my own liability coverage for ferry flights. Being a "named insured" means that my coverage is secondary to the owner's policy, and getting the waiver (if the owner so chooses) means that I've only got liability issues to worry about. When ferrying, I have a policy that I'm the only one in the airplane, and that limits my potential liability to damage to people or property on the ground.

As I've noted, I'm going to look hard at what insurance will and won't cover after I start teaching.
 
I haven't had many opportunities to put myself at risk of liability, and I can see why this can be a concern if your vulnerable asset is your airplane or your business, but ...
If you ask the question "which benefits aviaton more in terms of public image and real safety- skilland knowledge, and trust in them, or insurance policies?" the answer is pretty obvious.

No piece of paper is going to keep me or my pax safe. To paraphrase Richard Bach, I am your insurance policy. The insurance company isn't flying the plane, nor does paying X amount per year make me a better pilot. And no amount of money is going to replace a life or a limb.

I carry non-owner's insurance, mostly for renting, but if I had a potential pax who was going to base their decision whether or not to fly with me on whether or not they were covered, I'd remind them of that. I might even decide I don't want them to fly with me.

Nobody's asked yet, and I don't ask when I'm going for a ride. I might ask about the pilot, the airplane, and the planned flight, but I don't ask about the insurance. Nobody's asked me when they've offered me the controls of their airplane, even one they know I am not familiar with.

That being said, I don't have a lot to lose, asset-wise, so I dn't expect those who've been at the pointy end of a lawsuit to give a damn about my opinion. :D

This question also reminds me of what an older, independent CFI once told me: he's not insured as an instructor because he feels that "they will not come after you if you don't have anything". I guess in his mind, the cost of maintaining the coverage, plus the effect on his premium if he is ever held at fault in an accident but the insurance company provides the deep pockets, isnot worth what it provides, which is, basically nothing in terms of his own ability to keep his flights safe.
This makes sense to me on the surface, but perhaps nowadays that is no longer the case, with the "shotgun" approach...?
 
Single-seat airplane...much less liability exposure, in any legal environment. I do carry liability insurance, basically to fund squeegeeing the wreckage up, should the worst happen.

It's strange that it took me years, though, to find an insurance company that didn't insist that their policy include passenger liability....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Lance F said:
Do you limit yourself in any way in your aviation activities because of the threat (real or imagined) of legal liability i.e. getting sued?
Click to expand...
I do not.

I try to be a good pilot because I want to minimize the safety risks of flying for myself, my family, and those that fly with me, whether it be a close friend, a neighbor or a child.

I try to be a good instructor because I love flying and love teaching and hope that my students get some benefit for it.

I maintain an amount of liability insurance for my activities that, given the way limits work in aviation policies, is probably inadequate if something serious happened, but I don't worry about it.
 
Richard said:
Yes. A couple specific flights I did not make. When I have found the aircraft not to be airworthy, most due to incomplete paperwork. I know that opens up a can of worms. But the sole issue to me is avoiding the perception of acting negligent.
Click to expand...
I'm very curious about this answer. Are you saying that, in the context of flying an airworthy aircraft, you are only concerned with appearing to be careless and not at all with, well, flying an unairworthy aircraft? :confused:
 
Any lawyer can nail me for any activity of mine at any time of their clients' choosing, should I annoy them sufficiently.

I have a similar opinion about law enforcement.

As such, I do what pleases me, including flying of many sorts.

There is no pile of money that they can steal from me in the courtroom that I cannot make all over again to spite them, and there are no 'things' which I require to have a happy life anyway -- including aircraft, my home, my car, etc.

It's just stuff.

If they want it so bad as to sue me for it, then they can have it, and I'll go get some more.

$0.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top