On Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:03:51 AM UTC-6, wrote:
If the insurance company can't link passengers touching of controls, in general, to accidents why forbid it? I wonder how many GA accidents have been linked to a non-pilot passenger handling the controls. There are probably some but I'd guess that they would involve panicked passengers. If its such a big deal why not require that there be no controls accessible to the passenger? I could understand no touching during critical phases of flight (approach, landing take-off, below x altitude, etc) but to completely forbid it is overkill.



I just fail to see the logic of "Well, before you stall/spun on final you let the passenger make a few turns an hour prior. Therefore, your policy is cancelled" or worse, deny coverage on that particular accident.



I know 'don't ask, don't tell' is the simplest way around it but I'd hate to say to someone "I'll let you try but you can't tell anybody when we get back on the ground".

That's to the point. Not to get into cosmic scenarios, the matter boils down to what the courts will decide. That is, the expectation of service. If someone is paying for a service, the courts will hold to commercial standards in the event of an incident. You cannot have any expectation that the statements for testimony of an injured party will support your position.

The ten-hour annual pilot may not be any more likely to end up in the rocks and sagebrush as anyone else, but clearly is not your average XC pilot. Hard landing, PIO, runway excursion, or PTT, why risk it? The projected audience of the OP are likely pilots, some current, some not, but they will really want to test their stick and rudder skills.

I think there are better options for generating long-term results than what's being considered. Embrace the prospective new member, make than an introductory club/chapter member for three months (the SSA part is free), and get them 3-4 lessons in the book and at least a one hour soaring trip on O2.

My $.02,

Frank Whiteley