Re: High Speed Passes & the FAA (long)

[JJ Sinclair]

Good report Tom,
What's happening here? JJ being civil to a MG pilot? John Cochrane and I are
bud's over the 500 foot gate (still got a needle in your doll, over the +15
minute thing)
By Spring we'll all be Kissin' Cousins.

I would add one thing though, you wrote>>

>If the pilot kills himself breaking the rules: end of story.

If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it, They
may not pay your claim, if the violation is "Causial" to the accident. Bad news
for your Hull insurance claim. REAL Bad News to your LIABILITY Claim.

I wonder it the BOD has thought about this in relation to the controversial 50
foot, Finish Line Rule which is ALLOWED in SSA Sanctioned Contests?

JJ Sinclair

[ADP]

I recommend you look at your liability policy. Violating FARs is no longer
an "out" for an insurance company. For example, my policy has no
limitations concerning FAR violations. A conversation with Pat Costello
several months ago confirmed that, with AIG at least, there is no longer an
exclusion associated with violating FARs. There is an exclusion involving
flying with FAA "Waivers" but it does not include "Wave Windows".

No folks, I am not recommending that anyone violate FARS. I'm merely
pointing out how things evolve.

Allan

".....................................
>
> If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it,
They
> may not pay your claim, if the violation is "Causial" to the accident. Bad
news
> for your Hull insurance claim. REAL Bad News to your LIABILITY Claim.
>
> I wonder it the BOD has thought about this in relation to the
controversial 50
> foot, Finish Line Rule which is ALLOWED in SSA Sanctioned Contests?
>
> JJ Sinclair

[Dylan Smith]

On 05 Oct 2003 15:07:46 GMT, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it, They
>may not pay your claim

Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
the accident chain.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[JJ Sinclair]

>
>Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
>be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
>the accident chain.
>

Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident involves
breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay the
claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.
JJ Sinclair

[Michael]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote
> >Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
> >be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
> >the accident chain.
>
> Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident involves
> breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay the
> claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.

Insurance adjustors say a lot of things. The more they can scare you,
the better. After all, they don't want you to have a claim. FUD.
Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Your not wanting to test this is exactly
what he's counting on.

Insurance companies love to deny claims. Many adjusters will deny a
claim just because they're having a bad quarter. They figure that
even if the insured fights them, it will get pushed out into next
quarter (which they always think will be better). And there's always
the chance the insured will just roll over. Every time I've had
medical problems, I've had to fight with my insurance company. I've
always won, too, without having to go to court.

In reality, unless the contract spells out a way for an insurance
company to not pay, they'll pay eventually. The final test is always
this - do we think we can win this one in front of a jury that won't
contain ANY insurance adjusters, but will contain lots of people who
have insurance?

The reality is that Dylan is right - most accidents have an FAR
violation in there somewhere in the causation chain. If insurance
companies denied claims on that basis, the insurance would be
worthless.

I have personal knowledge of quite a few accidents that involved quite
blatant FAR violations, including a pilot with expired BFR crashing
due to blatant pilot error and a student pilot electing to take a tow
above a cloud deck geting lost and crashing. Insurance paid in both
cases, even though the details were well known to the carrier.

Michael

[Kilo Charlie]

A close friend died in a glider accident. His widow asked that I call the
adjuster since they were threatening to deny the claim because she didn't
know the weather at the time of the accident. She wasn't even there. I
spoke with some guy in NYC that sounded like he was saying with a straight
face, that unless he had exact weather information at the time of the
accident that he would deny the claim. I took his name, asked for his
supervisors name, told him that there were no less than a dozen ways that he
could have found that out without hassling the widow and told him what a
slimy piece of low lifeform he was then let him know that if it took every
last cent that I had I intended to make his life miserable and that I would
let everyone know that had the same insurance how this grieving widow was
treated. They paid up the next week.

KC
Phoenix

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (JJ Sinclair) wrote
> > >Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
> > >be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation
during
> > >the accident chain.
> >
> > Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident
involves
> > breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay
the
> > claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.
>
> Insurance adjustors say a lot of things. The more they can scare you,
> the better. After all, they don't want you to have a claim. FUD.
> Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Your not wanting to test this is exactly
> what he's counting on.
>
> Insurance companies love to deny claims. Many adjusters will deny a
> claim just because they're having a bad quarter. They figure that
> even if the insured fights them, it will get pushed out into next
> quarter (which they always think will be better). And there's always
> the chance the insured will just roll over. Every time I've had
> medical problems, I've had to fight with my insurance company. I've
> always won, too, without having to go to court.
>
> In reality, unless the contract spells out a way for an insurance
> company to not pay, they'll pay eventually. The final test is always
> this - do we think we can win this one in front of a jury that won't
> contain ANY insurance adjusters, but will contain lots of people who
> have insurance?
>
> The reality is that Dylan is right - most accidents have an FAR
> violation in there somewhere in the causation chain. If insurance
> companies denied claims on that basis, the insurance would be
> worthless.
>
> I have personal knowledge of quite a few accidents that involved quite
> blatant FAR violations, including a pilot with expired BFR crashing
> due to blatant pilot error and a student pilot electing to take a tow
> above a cloud deck geting lost and crashing. Insurance paid in both
> cases, even though the details were well known to the carrier.
>
> Michael

Quite, you are insuring against your neglience, not against "Acts of God."
That's what liability coverage is. Comprehensive, e.g. hull, protects you
from property loss.

Pat Costello gave an interesting example at the SSA convention a few years
ago. You park your glider in a row of gliders, but don't show due diligence
and tie it down. Maybe you leave for a while to get something. In the
meantime, a gust front comes through and lifts your glider and it comes down
on the glider next to you. Your liability coverage will pay for the damage
to the other glider. However, say you used the appropriate tie downs and
the glider was secured against all reasonable wind. An extreme wind
condition manages to lift your glider and it smashes down on the next
glider. You were not negligent and the owner of the other glider would have
to depend on his own comprehensive coverage to make him whole again as it
would be considered an "Act of God".

This doesn't say anything about your future insurability and rates.

IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
might play in denial of future coverage.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:%j3hb.11797$hp5.3902@fed1read04...
> A close friend died in a glider accident. His widow asked that I call the
> adjuster since they were threatening to deny the claim because she didn't
> know the weather at the time of the accident. She wasn't even there. I
> spoke with some guy in NYC that sounded like he was saying with a straight
> face, that unless he had exact weather information at the time of the
> accident that he would deny the claim. I took his name, asked for his
> supervisors name, told him that there were no less than a dozen ways that
he
> could have found that out without hassling the widow and told him what a
> slimy piece of low lifeform he was then let him know that if it took every
> last cent that I had I intended to make his life miserable and that I
would
> let everyone know that had the same insurance how this grieving widow was
> treated. They paid up the next week.
>
> KC
> Phoenix
>
That may well be the difference between insuring directly with the
underwriter or through an independent agency, advocacy. When you insure
directly with the underwriter, those agents are company advocates and are
representing the best interests of the company's bottom line. An
independent agent generally should perform as the insured's advocate.

Choose wisely.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[Michael]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote
> IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
> hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
> might play in denial of future coverage.

And indeed the club that had the accidents I mentioned (as well as
others) eventually found itself unable to secure hull insurance.

Michael

[Ralph Jones]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:59:05 -0600, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

[snip]
>
>IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
>hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
>might play in denial of future coverage.
>
Frank, I think this issue came up in the Seventies when some aviation
insurers were trying to deny claims based on FAR violations, and there
was some sort of gubmint action to put a stop to that. The way the
FARs are written, essentially anything that happens to an aircraft can
be traced to either an FAR violation or an "act of God" -- so a policy
that excluded both would never pay on anything!

rj

[Tom Seim]

> [snip]
> >
> >IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
> >hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
> >might play in denial of future coverage.
> >
> Frank, I think this issue came up in the Seventies when some aviation
> insurers were trying to deny claims based on FAR violations, and there
> was some sort of gubmint action to put a stop to that. The way the
> FARs are written, essentially anything that happens to an aircraft can
> be traced to either an FAR violation or an "act of God" -- so a policy
> that excluded both would never pay on anything!
>

The insurance industry is heavily regulated and laws specifically
govern their operation. Part of the law is called "bad faith". It
essentially means that an insurance company is guilty of bad faith if
they issued it without any intention of paying the claim. If the
courts find them guilty of bad faith the insured is entitled to treble
(triple) damages. Read your policy; if there is no clause concerning
violation of FARs then it doesn't apply. Some policies do have
exclusions for illegal acts, such as malpractice insurance.

My own experience in processing claims on my glider insurance has been
positive. They are interested in closing (i.e. paying) claims as soon
as possible (I think that claims that stay open for long periods
attract attention). This can be an issue with gliders since repairs
can take a LONG period of time (remember this when you consider trying
to make a marginal glide over bad territory-bone heal even more
slowly). They only issue I had was they wanted me to take my
motorglider to a local A/P because the claim was related to the engine
extension mechanism. I insisted that only the DG dealer was qualified
to do the repair (which, in fact, was the case). I got my way.
Translation: insurance companies can't force a claim resolution down
your throat that you disagree with. Example: having a boat repair shop
do glass repair on your glider.

Of course, these are U.S. laws. I have no idea what goes on in other
countries.

Tom

[Shaber CJ]

So what happens when a pilot decides to test modifications to his glider and
does not listen to the voices of experience

"but ITS MY LIFE AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH!

Kirk (last bastion of stupid individualism)
66"

In this wild hypothetical the pilot is just obstinate and foolish (is that
redundant?) and he kills himself. Will our insurnce rates go up do to the
change in actuary rates???

[Kilo Charlie]

"Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
...
> So what happens when a pilot decides to test modifications to his glider
and
> does not listen to the voices of experience
>
> "but ITS MY LIFE AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, THANK YOU
> VERY MUCH!
>
> Kirk (last bastion of stupid individualism)
> 66"
>
> In this wild hypothetical the pilot is just obstinate and foolish (is that
> redundant?) and he kills himself. Will our insurnce rates go up do to the
> change in actuary rates???

Dude....can you share what your smokin' with the rest of the group?

KC
Phoenix

[F.L. Whiteley]

reminiscent of the late George Worthington's final letter to Soaring

"Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
...
> So what happens when a pilot decides to test modifications to his glider
and
> does not listen to the voices of experience
>
> "but ITS MY LIFE AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, THANK YOU
> VERY MUCH!
>
> Kirk (last bastion of stupid individualism)
> 66"
>
> In this wild hypothetical the pilot is just obstinate and foolish (is that
> redundant?) and he kills himself. Will our insurnce rates go up do to the
> change in actuary rates???

[Kirk Stant]

(Shaber CJ) wrote in message >...
> So what happens when a pilot decides to test modifications to his glider and
> does not listen to the voices of experience
>
> "but ITS MY LIFE AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, THANK YOU
> VERY MUCH!
>
> Kirk (last bastion of stupid individualism)
> 66"
>
> In this wild hypothetical the pilot is just obstinate and foolish (is that
> redundant?) and he kills himself. Will our insurnce rates go up do to the
> change in actuary rates???


Wow, what an amazing leap from a discussion about turbulating
elevators to stupidity affecting insurance rates!

You guys really need to get out and fly more. That is how you will
lower your insurance rates - being current, qualified, and competent
in your glider. It's the clowns who only fly their totally legal,
unmodified, certified, inspected, paperworked, untouched gliders (or
any kind of aircraft, for that matter) only once or twice a year, and
who don't realize that flying skills have a shelf life, who are the
real "obstinate and foolish" pilots, IMHO. But they sure are quick to
admonish those of us who are a bit more "involved" in the sport!

Funny, the whole point of this thread was to find out if there was any
experience out there in RAS-land (admittedly, a pretty strange place)
on turbulators on LS6's. Turns out there is, but not much. And some
good (and not so good) advice - and concern, which is appreciated.

As far as life philosophies is concerned, I'm sure nothing said on RAS
is going to change anybodies mind. I'll stick to mine,
unapoligetically (sp?). And I'm probably a safer pilot for it,
because I analyse and accept or reject the risks I encounter in
soaring based on a variety of information, not just what the lowest
common denominator or regulation says.

Plus it really ****es off all the crypto-democrat nannies out there
(heh heh heh!). Life is really too short not to have fun with
politics...

Kirk
66

[F.L. Whiteley]

Sorry, not in reply to Shaber, but 66.

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> reminiscent of the late George Worthington's final letter to Soaring
>
> "Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So what happens when a pilot decides to test modifications to his glider
> and
> > does not listen to the voices of experience
> >
> > "but ITS MY LIFE AND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, THANK YOU
> > VERY MUCH!
> >
> > Kirk (last bastion of stupid individualism)
> > 66"
> >
> > In this wild hypothetical the pilot is just obstinate and foolish (is
that
> > redundant?) and he kills himself. Will our insurnce rates go up do to
the
> > change in actuary rates???
>
>

[Shaber CJ]

>From: (Kirk Stant)
>
>Wow, what an amazing leap from a discussion about turbulating
>elevators to stupidity affecting insurance rates!
>
>You guys really need to get out and fly more.


Kirk, actually it is not "an amazing leap" it is causal. And why do you think
we do not fly, I am not in this newsgroup anymore than you are.

Craig

[Kirk Stant]

(Shaber CJ) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Kirk Stant)
> >
> >Wow, what an amazing leap from a discussion about turbulating
> >elevators to stupidity affecting insurance rates!
> >
> >You guys really need to get out and fly more.
>
>
> Kirk, actually it is not "an amazing leap" it is causal. And why do you think
> we do not fly, I am not in this newsgroup anymore than you are.
>
> Craig

Craig,

Point well taken!

I only managed to fly 3 times last week (220, 50, and 150 miles XC) so
I definitely need to get out more! And my wife also thinks I spend
too much time on RAS banter.

Kirk
66