Possibly the stupidest idea ever...

[Paul Tomblin]

One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things I've
heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as bad as
this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man Formation" over
Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.

Let me get this straight, you're going to get four guys who've never flown
formation with each other before, put them in four dissimilar aircraft
(try and find a speed where both the Lance and the Warrior are happy), and
fly a maneuver in close formation with only a week to practice?

What a great way to remember Bill Law - by having a fatal 4 plane mid-air
collision over his memorial service! Oh well, at least the club would get
some new planes out of it. Too bad we'd never get insurance again, and the
club officers would be put in jail for not stopping this lunatic. Oh wait,
I'm a club officer!

I wonder if we've got time to pass a bylaw expelling anybody who tries
close formation work in club planes?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -
- Delenn, Babylon 5

[Robert Briggs]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
> member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things I've
> heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as bad as
> this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man Formation" over
> Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're going to get four guys who've never flown
> formation with each other before, put them in four dissimilar aircraft
> (try and find a speed where both the Lance and the Warrior are happy), and
> fly a maneuver in close formation with only a week to practice?

I don't know the aeroplanes' characteristics, so I don't know how
easily he could choose a suitable speed.

However, if he *can* find a suitable speed, he and three others could
fly a *big* "Missing Man". After all, there's nothing that says they
have to keep it as tight as, say, the Red Arrows would.

I'm not saying it is a *good* idea, but the formation *needn't* be
particularly close - especially if it is flown fairly high, which
would also allow greater vertical separation between the aeroplanes.

That said, there is another very important consideration: what would
the family think? If *they* don't like it then it's a non-starter,
however high and wide it is flown.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
> member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things I've
> heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as bad as
> this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man Formation" over
> Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're going to get four guys who've never flown
> formation with each other before, put them in four dissimilar aircraft
> (try and find a speed where both the Lance and the Warrior are happy), and
> fly a maneuver in close formation with only a week to practice?
>
> What a great way to remember Bill Law - by having a fatal 4 plane mid-air
> collision over his memorial service! Oh well, at least the club would get
> some new planes out of it. Too bad we'd never get insurance again, and the
> club officers would be put in jail for not stopping this lunatic. Oh wait,
> I'm a club officer!
>
> I wonder if we've got time to pass a bylaw expelling anybody who tries
> close formation work in club planes?

If they have never flow formation and have not had formation training,
then, yes, it IS a stupid idea!

If, however, they have had military or FAST formation training, then
they should brief, go out and practice together, then debrief.

To prohibit formation training and flight in club airplanes outright is
also a stupid idea. If, however, you prohibit untrained formation
flight, then it is a great idea.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't cover
anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell this guy
that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your problem,
without any need to pass a by-law.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[Kyle Boatright]

I hate when people say "check with the insurance company". Hell, if they
had their way, you'd never leave the ground except that one day a year when
the visibility was perfect and the winds were forecast to be zero, and.. oh,
by the way, they'd prefer you have a CFII in the right seat.

Beyond the FAR's and club rules, the PILOT(s) decide when and where
formation flight is appropriate.

KB


"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't cover
> anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell this guy
> that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your problem,
> without any need to pass a by-law.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
>
>

[Bill Denton]

Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
decides if they're going to pay for it...



"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> I hate when people say "check with the insurance company". Hell, if they
> had their way, you'd never leave the ground except that one day a year
when
> the visibility was perfect and the winds were forecast to be zero, and..
oh,
> by the way, they'd prefer you have a CFII in the right seat.
>
> Beyond the FAR's and club rules, the PILOT(s) decide when and where
> formation flight is appropriate.
>
> KB
>
>
> "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't cover
> > anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell this
guy
> > that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your problem,
> > without any need to pass a by-law.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
> >
> >
>
>

[Geoffrey Barnes]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
> decides if they're going to pay for it...

And for most clubs, if the insurance company decides to cancel their
coverage, there is no option other than to go out of business. There just
aren't a lot of companies out there who are willing to insure a flying club
these days, and thus the club needs to keep its insurance company happy.
It's just one of the realities of running a flying club. I didn't say I lke
it, but I do have to work with the realities of the situation.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Geoffrey Barnes" > said:
>"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>> Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
>> decides if they're going to pay for it...
>
>And for most clubs, if the insurance company decides to cancel their
>coverage, there is no option other than to go out of business. There just
>aren't a lot of companies out there who are willing to insure a flying club
>these days, and thus the club needs to keep its insurance company happy.
>It's just one of the realities of running a flying club. I didn't say I lke
>it, but I do have to work with the realities of the situation.

Especially since Avemco is already on our backs about our Lance - at first
they said they wouldn't insure it (or any other complex 6 seater) at all,
then they said we have to list the 8 pilots who've flown it more than 15
hours this year on the insurance policy and nobody else can fly it. The
other 42 members of the club aren't going to be happy about that.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Died. Woke up in Hell. Punched in PIN, logged on. Just another day.
-- David Gerard

[Kyle Boatright]

Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not prohibited by
their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to decide
whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance pays.
Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal or
stupid.

Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things that
are legal and that you deem safe.

KB


"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
> decides if they're going to pay for it...
>
>
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I hate when people say "check with the insurance company". Hell, if
they
> > had their way, you'd never leave the ground except that one day a year
> when
> > the visibility was perfect and the winds were forecast to be zero, and..
> oh,
> > by the way, they'd prefer you have a CFII in the right seat.
> >
> > Beyond the FAR's and club rules, the PILOT(s) decide when and where
> > formation flight is appropriate.
> >
> > KB
> >
> >
> > "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't cover
> > > anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell this
> guy
> > > that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your problem,
> > > without any need to pass a by-law.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bill Denton]

Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!

Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something like
"Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if engaged in,
the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the GA
world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and formation
flying.

And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an insurance
company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance company. If
you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them to
court, but you will probably lose.

And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an accident and
your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party can take
your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they can place
a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to pay off
five or ten million dollars?

And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to pay if
you found liable in an accident.

And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem safe"
scares the **** out of me.



"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not prohibited by
> their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to decide
> whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance pays.
> Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal or
> stupid.
>
> Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things that
> are legal and that you deem safe.
>
> KB
>
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
> > decides if they're going to pay for it...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I hate when people say "check with the insurance company". Hell, if
> they
> > > had their way, you'd never leave the ground except that one day a
year
> > when
> > > the visibility was perfect and the winds were forecast to be zero,
and..
> > oh,
> > > by the way, they'd prefer you have a CFII in the right seat.
> > >
> > > Beyond the FAR's and club rules, the PILOT(s) decide when and where
> > > formation flight is appropriate.
> > >
> > > KB
> > >
> > >
> > > "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > > Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't
cover
> > > > anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell
this
> > guy
> > > > that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your
problem,
> > > > without any need to pass a by-law.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[alexy]

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
>
>Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something like
>"Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if engaged in,
>the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay.

Bill, reread Kyle's post. I understood his "something not prohibited
by their insurance" as meaning that it was not in the "limitations and
Exclusions" section. And such exclusions cannot just be "the insured
did something dumb", or carriers would never pay.

> And in the GA
>world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and formation
>flying.
If it does, then it would not be the case that Kyle is talking about.
I doubt that he would suggest that the carrier would have to pay off
if the pilot were doing something excluded in the policy, which is why
he said what he did.
>
>And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an insurance
>company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance company. If
>you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them to
>court, but you will probably lose.
Your state insurance commissioner would be a better first step. You
will probably lose if you are doing something prohibited in the
policy, but not if the claim should be paid.
>
>And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an accident and
>your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party can take
>your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they can place
>a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to pay off
>five or ten million dollars?
>
>And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to pay if
>you found liable in an accident.
Absolutely. that's why the phrase "not prohibited under your insurance
policy" is key.
>
>And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem safe"
>scares the **** out of me.
I fail to see where he has shown poor judgement. But the person who
proposed to fly formation w/o training certainly did show poor
judgement.

>
>"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>> Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not prohibited by
>> their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to decide
>> whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance pays.
>> Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal or
>> stupid.
>>
>> Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things that
>> are legal and that you deem safe.
>>
>> KB
>>
>>
>> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Maybe so, but if something goes wrong, it's the insurance company that
>> > decides if they're going to pay for it...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > I hate when people say "check with the insurance company". Hell, if
>> they
>> > > had their way, you'd never leave the ground except that one day a
>year
>> > when
>> > > the visibility was perfect and the winds were forecast to be zero,
>and..
>> > oh,
>> > > by the way, they'd prefer you have a CFII in the right seat.
>> > >
>> > > Beyond the FAR's and club rules, the PILOT(s) decide when and where
>> > > formation flight is appropriate.
>> > >
>> > > KB
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
>> > > ink.net...
>> > > > Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't
>cover
>> > > > anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell
>this
>> > guy
>> > > > that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your
>problem,
>> > > > without any need to pass a by-law.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ---
>> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> > > > Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Dave Stadt]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Check with your insurance company. They almost certainly won't cover
> anything even remotely close to formation flight. Then just tell this guy
> that the insurance company said "no". That should solve your problem,
> without any need to pass a by-law.

Mine says no such thing and I would dump them in a second if they did. I
doubt your suggestion holds water. Correctly flown formation flight is no
more dangerous than any other flight.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
>
> Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something
like
> "Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if engaged
in,
> the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the GA
> world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and formation
> flying.

Mine says no such thing. The list of exclusions is so small it is nearly
invisible.

[C J Campbell]

You have been reading Usenet for how long, now? And you say THIS is the
stupidest idea, ever?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>You have been reading Usenet for how long, now? And you say THIS is the
>stupidest idea, ever?

Since 1986. And you're right, it's merely the stupidest idea I've heard
proposed for our club. I've heard plenty stupider here.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I have a feeling the auditors haven't looked at crontab yet, but I'm
curious to see if they deem a reference to "yogurt sucking maggots" a
security risk as well. -- Paul Fenwick

[john smith]

How about this...
Have the aircraft depart and orbit an easily recognizable ground
reference about a mile or two from the gravesite. Use altitude
separation to deconflict aircraft according to speed (fastest higher to
slowest low). Brief for the overflight altitude to fly when inbound to
the gravesite.
Someone on the ground with a handheld can call them in at the
appropriate time.
Number the aircraft 1 through n. After they have been told to come in,
as 1 passes over the ground reference, he/she reports "One's inbound."
Two goes next and repeats the procedure, etc., etc.
Have all the aircraft fly in trail, fastest to slowest.
As they pass over the gravesite, they dip a wing in salute, and continue
straight on out for five miles.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Mine says no such thing and I would dump them in a second if they did. I
> doubt your suggestion holds water. Correctly flown formation flight is
no
> more dangerous than any other flight.

Is this the policy for your personal aircraft or the policy for a flying
club? A policy for a personal plane is likely to be vastly different from a
flying club's policy. I couldn't believe the hoops we have to go through at
our club to deal with the insurance company, but when we went out looking
for other options, there simply wasn't anyone else writing policies for
clubs. To fly our 182, the insurance practically requires you to be the
seventh child of a seventh child and receive an in-person blessing from the
Pope (even if you aren't Catholic).


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004

[Kyle Boatright]

Bill,

Read Alexy's post. It does an excellent job of filling in what I left
unsaid, because I thought it was apparent. I'll add a few more notes inside
your post...

KB

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
>
> Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something
like
> "Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if engaged
in,
> the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the GA
> world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and formation
> flying.

Yep, my note said "something not prohibited by insurance." I think that
covers it, although I've never seen a policy that prohibits formation flight
or aerobatics (presuming the aircraft has the proper certification). If you
have, where/who/what insurance company? I believe the most common exclusion
is related to named pilots or pilots with X time in type. I've seen that one
a few times. Also, my current policy says something to the effect of "not
routinely operated off of unpaved surfaces". That doesn't mean "can't land
on a grass strip", but I'd certainly be outside the restrictions of my
policy if I was based at a grass field. If I was based at a grass strip and
pranged the airplane, it is conceivable that the insurance company could
refuse to pay.


>
> And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an insurance
> company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance company. If
> you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them to
> court, but you will probably lose.

If you drive your car 100 mph on the wrong side of the road and kill
someone, your insurance pays. Airplane insurance is more or less the same.
The two fundamental assumptions (less exclusions) in any insurance contract
are 1) You will try to prevent accidents. 2) If/when you have one, the
insurance company will pay.


>
> And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an accident
and
> your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party can
take
> your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they can
place
> a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to pay
off
> five or ten million dollars?

Read the NTSB reports. 90% of 'em are pilot error and the insurance company
pays up. Nobody plans to screw up, but it happens. That's why we buy
insurance. Who'd buy insurance if the insurance company wouldn't pay when
someone screws up?


>
> And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to pay
if
> you found liable in an accident.
>
> And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem safe"
> scares the **** out of me.

This is getting awfully close to a personal attack, so take it careful... I
deem it safe (or unsafe) every time I open the hangar doors. Sometimes I
fly, sometimes I don't. I'm not averse to cancelling a trip if I don't like
it. I've done it more than a few times. Also, I'm not averse to flying in
MVFR or when the FSS says "VFR not recommended", if I judge it to be safe.
That's the responsiblitiy of the pilot - to use his or her judgement to make
the right choices - go/no go, over/under, 3 point/wheel, slips with/without
flaps. You get the idea. Bottom line, every time you leave the ground in
an airplane, there is some risk. It is up to the pilot to minimize those
risks by flying in a manner and in conditions that are within the
capabilities of the pilot/airplane combination.


>
>
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not prohibited
by
> > their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to decide
> > whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance pays.
> > Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal or
> > stupid.
> >
> > Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things
that
> > are legal and that you deem safe.
> >
> > KB
> >

[Bill Denton]

If you are seeing an exclusion like "not routinely operated off of unpaved
surfaces" you are looking at a hull damage policy, not a liability policy.
May I suggest you take a look at your liability policy, as that is what is
being discussed?





"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
>
> Read Alexy's post. It does an excellent job of filling in what I left
> unsaid, because I thought it was apparent. I'll add a few more notes
inside
> your post...
>
> KB
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
> >
> > Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something
> like
> > "Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if engaged
> in,
> > the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the GA
> > world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and
formation
> > flying.
>
> Yep, my note said "something not prohibited by insurance." I think that
> covers it, although I've never seen a policy that prohibits formation
flight
> or aerobatics (presuming the aircraft has the proper certification). If
you
> have, where/who/what insurance company? I believe the most common
exclusion
> is related to named pilots or pilots with X time in type. I've seen that
one
> a few times. Also, my current policy says something to the effect of "not
> routinely operated off of unpaved surfaces". That doesn't mean "can't
land
> on a grass strip", but I'd certainly be outside the restrictions of my
> policy if I was based at a grass field. If I was based at a grass strip
and
> pranged the airplane, it is conceivable that the insurance company could
> refuse to pay.
>
>
> >
> > And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an insurance
> > company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance company.
If
> > you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them to
> > court, but you will probably lose.
>
> If you drive your car 100 mph on the wrong side of the road and kill
> someone, your insurance pays. Airplane insurance is more or less the same.
> The two fundamental assumptions (less exclusions) in any insurance
contract
> are 1) You will try to prevent accidents. 2) If/when you have one, the
> insurance company will pay.
>
>
> >
> > And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an accident
> and
> > your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party can
> take
> > your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they can
> place
> > a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to pay
> off
> > five or ten million dollars?
>
> Read the NTSB reports. 90% of 'em are pilot error and the insurance
company
> pays up. Nobody plans to screw up, but it happens. That's why we buy
> insurance. Who'd buy insurance if the insurance company wouldn't pay when
> someone screws up?
>
>
> >
> > And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to pay
> if
> > you found liable in an accident.
> >
> > And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem safe"
> > scares the **** out of me.
>
> This is getting awfully close to a personal attack, so take it careful...
I
> deem it safe (or unsafe) every time I open the hangar doors. Sometimes I
> fly, sometimes I don't. I'm not averse to cancelling a trip if I don't
like
> it. I've done it more than a few times. Also, I'm not averse to flying in
> MVFR or when the FSS says "VFR not recommended", if I judge it to be safe.
> That's the responsiblitiy of the pilot - to use his or her judgement to
make
> the right choices - go/no go, over/under, 3 point/wheel, slips
with/without
> flaps. You get the idea. Bottom line, every time you leave the ground in
> an airplane, there is some risk. It is up to the pilot to minimize those
> risks by flying in a manner and in conditions that are within the
> capabilities of the pilot/airplane combination.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not
prohibited
> by
> > > their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to decide
> > > whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance pays.
> > > Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal or
> > > stupid.
> > >
> > > Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things
> that
> > > are legal and that you deem safe.
> > >
> > > KB
> > >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> I wonder if we've got time to pass a bylaw expelling anybody who tries
> close formation work in club planes?

Take a page from the NY/NJ politicos. At the last minute, claim there *is* such a
bylaw. By the time they can prove there isn't, it'll be too late to do it for the
ceremony! :-)

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Kyle Boatright]

I thought we were talking about insurance in general, and my comments
addressed several aspects of insurance.

That said, I've think made my point and don't see much use in arguing with
you. We can simply agree to disagree.

KB


"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> If you are seeing an exclusion like "not routinely operated off of unpaved
> surfaces" you are looking at a hull damage policy, not a liability policy.
> May I suggest you take a look at your liability policy, as that is what is
> being discussed?

> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bill,
> >
> > Read Alexy's post. It does an excellent job of filling in what I left
> > unsaid, because I thought it was apparent. I'll add a few more notes
> inside
> > your post...
> >
> > KB
> >
> > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
> > >
> > > Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called something
> > like
> > > "Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if
engaged
> > in,
> > > the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the
GA
> > > world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and
> formation
> > > flying.
> >
> > Yep, my note said "something not prohibited by insurance." I think that
> > covers it, although I've never seen a policy that prohibits formation
> flight
> > or aerobatics (presuming the aircraft has the proper certification). If
> you
> > have, where/who/what insurance company? I believe the most common
> exclusion
> > is related to named pilots or pilots with X time in type. I've seen that
> one
> > a few times. Also, my current policy says something to the effect of
"not
> > routinely operated off of unpaved surfaces". That doesn't mean "can't
> land
> > on a grass strip", but I'd certainly be outside the restrictions of my
> > policy if I was based at a grass field. If I was based at a grass strip
> and
> > pranged the airplane, it is conceivable that the insurance company could
> > refuse to pay.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an insurance
> > > company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance
company.
> If
> > > you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them
to
> > > court, but you will probably lose.
> >
> > If you drive your car 100 mph on the wrong side of the road and kill
> > someone, your insurance pays. Airplane insurance is more or less the
same.
> > The two fundamental assumptions (less exclusions) in any insurance
> contract
> > are 1) You will try to prevent accidents. 2) If/when you have one, the
> > insurance company will pay.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an
accident
> > and
> > > your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party
can
> > take
> > > your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they can
> > place
> > > a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to
pay
> > off
> > > five or ten million dollars?
> >
> > Read the NTSB reports. 90% of 'em are pilot error and the insurance
> company
> > pays up. Nobody plans to screw up, but it happens. That's why we buy
> > insurance. Who'd buy insurance if the insurance company wouldn't pay
when
> > someone screws up?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to
pay
> > if
> > > you found liable in an accident.
> > >
> > > And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem safe"
> > > scares the **** out of me.
> >
> > This is getting awfully close to a personal attack, so take it
careful...
> I
> > deem it safe (or unsafe) every time I open the hangar doors. Sometimes
I
> > fly, sometimes I don't. I'm not averse to cancelling a trip if I don't
> like
> > it. I've done it more than a few times. Also, I'm not averse to flying
in
> > MVFR or when the FSS says "VFR not recommended", if I judge it to be
safe.
> > That's the responsiblitiy of the pilot - to use his or her judgement to
> make
> > the right choices - go/no go, over/under, 3 point/wheel, slips
> with/without
> > flaps. You get the idea. Bottom line, every time you leave the ground
in
> > an airplane, there is some risk. It is up to the pilot to minimize
those
> > risks by flying in a manner and in conditions that are within the
> > capabilities of the pilot/airplane combination.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not
> prohibited
> > by
> > > > their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to
decide
> > > > whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance
pays.
> > > > Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something illegal
or
> > > > stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing things
> > that
> > > > are legal and that you deem safe.
> > > >
> > > > KB
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rolf Blom]

On 2004-08-23 19:16, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
> member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things I've
> heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as bad as
> this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man Formation" over
> Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're going to get four guys who've never flown
> formation with each other before, put them in four dissimilar aircraft
> (try and find a speed where both the Lance and the Warrior are happy), and
> fly a maneuver in close formation with only a week to practice?
>
> What a great way to remember Bill Law - by having a fatal 4 plane mid-air
> collision over his memorial service! Oh well, at least the club would get
> some new planes out of it. Too bad we'd never get insurance again, and the
> club officers would be put in jail for not stopping this lunatic. Oh wait,
> I'm a club officer!
>
> I wonder if we've got time to pass a bylaw expelling anybody who tries
> close formation work in club planes?
>

I'd say it's a bit too optimistic.

Of course, it's not impossible, but you need some training flying
formation in dissimilar planes, in order for the display to look good.

My club has an airshow team (Skybirds, all ladies) flying 4-6 PA-28:s
(the same ones used for normal schooling) in formation, but they have
been at it since -91, and they began with good help from an ex AF
instructor.

ESCN/Rolf

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

If you or your club members do not have the proficiency and skill that is
necessary for formation flight, then "yes" it is dumb. Training and practice
will help. Formation flying is about control and learning this skill will
help in all aspects of flying.

A couple of years ago, nine airplanes on our field flew the missing man for
Gordon Brock, a WWII veteran, a Korean War veteran and a Vietnam veteran.
When he retired, he used his IA to help a lot of folks keep flying
affordable and safe and was rewarded with the Charles Taylor Award.

The airplanes involved ranged from 65 hp taildraggers to three Cessna 414s.
Mr. Brock had personally laid hands on each of these aircraft.

It was my finest flying hour and one of the most spiritual experiences of my
life. It was the least we could do for an old soldier.

Deb

BTW, other than a terrorist hijacking the airplane, damage caused by war and
flying to Alaska or Mexico (must be purchased separately) there are no
exclusions in our full coverage policies.
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
> member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things I've
> heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as bad as
> this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man Formation" over
> Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.
>

[Bill Denton]

Fair enough...



"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> I thought we were talking about insurance in general, and my comments
> addressed several aspects of insurance.
>
> That said, I've think made my point and don't see much use in arguing with
> you. We can simply agree to disagree.
>
> KB
>
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you are seeing an exclusion like "not routinely operated off of
unpaved
> > surfaces" you are looking at a hull damage policy, not a liability
policy.
> > May I suggest you take a look at your liability policy, as that is what
is
> > being discussed?
>
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > Read Alexy's post. It does an excellent job of filling in what I left
> > > unsaid, because I thought it was apparent. I'll add a few more notes
> > inside
> > > your post...
> > >
> > > KB
> > >
> > > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Sorry, but you are just totally wrong!
> > > >
> > > > Every insurance policy I have ever read has a section called
something
> > > like
> > > > "Limitations And Exclusions". It's a list of activities that if
> engaged
> > > in,
> > > > the insurance policy is null and void; they will not pay. And in the
> GA
> > > > world, it will frequently include such things as aerobatics and
> > formation
> > > > flying.
> > >
> > > Yep, my note said "something not prohibited by insurance." I think
that
> > > covers it, although I've never seen a policy that prohibits formation
> > flight
> > > or aerobatics (presuming the aircraft has the proper certification).
If
> > you
> > > have, where/who/what insurance company? I believe the most common
> > exclusion
> > > is related to named pilots or pilots with X time in type. I've seen
that
> > one
> > > a few times. Also, my current policy says something to the effect of
> "not
> > > routinely operated off of unpaved surfaces". That doesn't mean "can't
> > land
> > > on a grass strip", but I'd certainly be outside the restrictions of my
> > > policy if I was based at a grass field. If I was based at a grass
strip
> > and
> > > pranged the airplane, it is conceivable that the insurance company
could
> > > refuse to pay.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And I don't know who you think it is that decides whether an
insurance
> > > > company pays a claim or not, but it is, in fact, the insurance
> company.
> > If
> > > > you think they wrongly refused to pay you can sue them and take them
> to
> > > > court, but you will probably lose.
> > >
> > > If you drive your car 100 mph on the wrong side of the road and kill
> > > someone, your insurance pays. Airplane insurance is more or less the
> same.
> > > The two fundamental assumptions (less exclusions) in any insurance
> > contract
> > > are 1) You will try to prevent accidents. 2) If/when you have one,
the
> > > insurance company will pay.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And what do you think happens if you are judged at fault in an
> accident
> > > and
> > > > your insurance doesn't pay? In most jurisdictions the injured party
> can
> > > take
> > > > your house, your car(s), your business (if you have one), and they
can
> > > place
> > > > a judgment on your wages. How long do you think it would take you to
> pay
> > > off
> > > > five or ten million dollars?
> > >
> > > Read the NTSB reports. 90% of 'em are pilot error and the insurance
> > company
> > > pays up. Nobody plans to screw up, but it happens. That's why we buy
> > > insurance. Who'd buy insurance if the insurance company wouldn't pay
> when
> > > someone screws up?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And just because something is legal doesn't mean your insuror has to
> pay
> > > if
> > > > you found liable in an accident.
> > > >
> > > > And given the judgment you've shown in this post, "what YOU deem
safe"
> > > > scares the **** out of me.
> > >
> > > This is getting awfully close to a personal attack, so take it
> careful...
> > I
> > > deem it safe (or unsafe) every time I open the hangar doors.
Sometimes
> I
> > > fly, sometimes I don't. I'm not averse to cancelling a trip if I don't
> > like
> > > it. I've done it more than a few times. Also, I'm not averse to flying
> in
> > > MVFR or when the FSS says "VFR not recommended", if I judge it to be
> safe.
> > > That's the responsiblitiy of the pilot - to use his or her judgement
to
> > make
> > > the right choices - go/no go, over/under, 3 point/wheel, slips
> > with/without
> > > flaps. You get the idea. Bottom line, every time you leave the
ground
> in
> > > an airplane, there is some risk. It is up to the pilot to minimize
> those
> > > risks by flying in a manner and in conditions that are within the
> > > capabilities of the pilot/airplane combination.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Let's see... Pilots are doing something legal, something not
> > prohibited
> > > by
> > > > > their insurance, and the insurance company has the authority to
> decide
> > > > > whether or not to pay if there is a claim? Nope. The insurance
> pays.
> > > > > Usually, they pay even if the pilot(s) were doing something
illegal
> or
> > > > > stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't let fear of insurance companies prohibit you from doing
things
> > > that
> > > > > are legal and that you deem safe.
> > > > >
> > > > > KB
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[you k who]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> One of the guys who founded our flying club 40+ years ago is still a
> member. He's got a lot of experience, but quite frankly some things
> I've heard about him scare the hell out of me. But nothing quite as
> bad as this: He's proposing that the club does a "Missing Man
> Formation" over Bill Law's memorial service next weekend.
>
> Let me get this straight, you're going to get four guys who've never
> flown formation with each other before, put them in four dissimilar
> aircraft (try and find a speed where both the Lance and the Warrior
> are happy), and fly a maneuver in close formation with only a week to
> practice?
>
> What a great way to remember Bill Law - by having a fatal 4 plane
> mid-air collision over his memorial service! Oh well, at least the
> club would get some new planes out of it. Too bad we'd never get
> insurance again, and the club officers would be put in jail for not
> stopping this lunatic. Oh wait, I'm a club officer!
>
> I wonder if we've got time to pass a bylaw expelling anybody who tries
> close formation work in club planes?
>

Paul, I beleave you will find that the QB are going to do the missing
man flight. So don't worry, they have had a little to much practis at
this over the last few years........

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, you k who > said:
>Paul, I beleave you will find that the QB are going to do the missing
>man flight. So don't worry, they have had a little to much practis at
>this over the last few years........

QB? Who dat?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The thing I've noticed, particularly about Usenet, that while as a
welcome break from work it is refreshing and interesting, when you've
got bugger all else to do it kinda loses its appeal. -- C Speed

[john smith]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, you k who > said:
>
>>Paul, I beleave you will find that the QB are going to do the missing
>>man flight. So don't worry, they have had a little to much practis at
>>this over the last few years........

> QB? Who dat?

Quiet Birdmen (another secret society, you have to be invited to become
a member)

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> In a previous article, you k who > said:
>>
>>> Paul, I beleave you will find that the QB are going to do the missing
>>> man flight. So don't worry, they have had a little to much practis at
>>> this over the last few years........
>
>
>> QB? Who dat?
>
>
> Quiet Birdmen (another secret society, you have to be invited to become
> a member)

I keep getting invited. One of the guys at the tower is one and 4 or 5
of the guys in the hangars near me are members. All they do is have a
party once a month and hire strippers to perform.