Stupid pilot tricks

Got back to NJ from Columbus, OH yesterday afternoon. Waiting for the line
boy to fill us up, I noticed the tail of a plane sticking out of one of the
T-hangars. Very high tail at a funny angle. Several people standing
around, along with a backhoe. Seems earlier that morning the 40-year-old
son (commercial pilot, according to the paper) of someone who rents one of
the T-hangars was high on something, set his amphibious-float-equipped 185
down and immediately made a high-speed 30 degree turn toward his dad's
hangar. Judging from the grooves in the grass, the brakes were on the whole
way. Clipped off the wingtip of a 172 that was tied down along the way,
missed the first row of hangars, and then proceeded to park the plane in his
T-hangar with the door closed. Unfortunately, his Dad's other plane was
already in there, a Comanche. Both planes totaled. Hangar doors destroyed.
Pilot, unharmed, arrested for flying while intoxicated. The only good news
is that both of the totaled airplanes were his/his dad's. Pretty amazing
when you consider that his hangar was not the first on in the row. If he
just lost it, it's highly ironic that he hit his own hangar dead center.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

Newpaper article. No pix, however.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey...95311934104731
..xml

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

So, as an owner I should know this but I'll ask anyway..... Will insurance
payoff on this one? If he was flying his own plane? If he was flying Dad's
plane?


"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
Got back to NJ from Columbus, OH yesterday afternoon. Waiting for the
line
boy to fill us up, I noticed the tail of a plane sticking out of one of
the
T-hangars. Very high tail at a funny angle. Several people standing
around, along with a backhoe. Seems earlier that morning the 40-year-old
son (commercial pilot, according to the paper) of someone who rents one of
the T-hangars was high on something, set his amphibious-float-equipped 185
down and immediately made a high-speed 30 degree turn toward his dad's
hangar. Judging from the grooves in the grass, the brakes were on the
whole
way. Clipped off the wingtip of a 172 that was tied down along the way,
missed the first row of hangars, and then proceeded to park the plane in
his
T-hangar with the door closed. Unfortunately, his Dad's other plane was
already in there, a Comanche. Both planes totaled. Hangar doors
destroyed.
Pilot, unharmed, arrested for flying while intoxicated. The only good
news
is that both of the totaled airplanes were his/his dad's. Pretty amazing
when you consider that his hangar was not the first on in the row. If he
just lost it, it's highly ironic that he hit his own hangar dead center.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Maule Driver" wrote in
m:

So, as an owner I should know this but I'll ask anyway..... Will
insurance payoff on this one? If he was flying his own plane? If he
was flying Dad's plane?

Assuming all the details were in fact as reported, then:

Flying his own plane - various insurance companies would pay off on all
other planes and structures, but almost certainly not on his. His own
insurance company (if he has insurance) would be eventually be the payee to
everyone else.

Flying his fathers plane, with permission - insurance would pay off on
everything, providing he meets the open pilot clause of the policy -
otherwise it doesn't pay off on the amphib (unless it can be shown that the
father was mislead about the pilot's experience). Without permission,
insurance pays off on everything, regardless.

In all of the above cases, insurance company then subrogates against the
son for all amounts paid out.

[Just my take on it - your mileage (and insurance) may vary.]

There was one picture in the Home News Tribune in the local section.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
Newpaper article. No pix, however.


http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey...95311934104731
.xml

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

Maule Driver wrote:
So, as an owner I should know this but I'll ask anyway..... Will insurance
payoff on this one? If he was flying his own plane? If he was flying
Dad's
plane?

I sincerely hope not - why should you and I pay higher premiums for some
intoxicated fool (assuming he was intoxicated).

Hilton

"James M. Knox" wrote in message
2...
"Maule Driver" wrote in
m:

So, as an owner I should know this but I'll ask anyway..... Will
insurance payoff on this one? If he was flying his own plane? If he
was flying Dad's plane?

Assuming all the details were in fact as reported, then:

Flying his own plane - various insurance companies would pay off on all
other planes and structures, but almost certainly not on his. His own
insurance company (if he has insurance) would be eventually be the payee
to
everyone else.

Flying his fathers plane, with permission - insurance would pay off on
everything,


If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred while
he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the insurance
contract?? Or is that a myth??

"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred
while
he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the
insurance
contract?? Or is that a myth??

James' post seems pretty much right on the money to me, except *maybe* the
"flying his own plane" case where he says "his own insurance company would
be [sic] eventually be the payee [sic] to everyone else". The reason for
that "maybe" is that, assuming operating while under the influence is not
covered by the pilot at fault's policy, the true "eventual" payer (not
payee...a payee is someone *to* whom money is paid) would be the pilot at
fault, even though his insurance company may initially pay third-party
claims, and even possibly first-party claims.

In particular, the first thing that happens is that all of the involved
insurance companies look at who they are insuring. If those policies are in
good standing, and the damage is covered by the policy (and in this case, it
probably would be...can't say for sure without looking at each specific
policy), the covered party is protected.

The person who is NOT protected is the pilot flying drunk (most
likely...though there may even be policies that cover piloting while under
the influence). But that's an issue that, for any damage to property
covered by policies in good standing, will be resolved later, by subrogating
(that is, replacing one liable party, the insurance company, with another,
the pilot at fault) the payout back to the pilot at fault.

Note that a key part of James' description is that the son (the pilot at
fault) is almost certainly going to be the ultimate party to pay damages.
Any third party who suffered damage will have their damages covered by some
insurance company, but in each claim the insurance company will turn around
and extract that money from the son.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the son's insurance company
(assuming he has a policy) might try to get out of paying even the third
party claims, but that seems unlikely, and may not even be permitted by the
applicable state insurance regulations. For example, imagine you are
driving along minding your own business, and a drunk driver crashes into
you. Imagine also that, amazingly enough, that driver has a valid insurance
policy in effect. Would you expect your own insurance to have to pay the
damages? Or don't you think that the drunk driver's policy would have to
pay, even if the driver is ultimately not covered by his own policy due to
some provision against drunk driving?

As the representative of the party at fault, it would be the drunk driver's
policy that pays you. Though, of course, your own insurance company may
initially provide payment for the damages, passing on that payment to the
drunk driver and/or his insurance company later.

Pete

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
I sincerely hope not - why should you and I pay higher premiums for some
intoxicated fool (assuming he was intoxicated).

Inasmuch as there are policies out there without provisions against flying
drunk, and inasmuch as you may have a policy yourself that has no such
provision, you *do* pay higher premiums for some intoxicated fool.

If your policy has a provision against flying drunk, then you personally
should have a rate that reflects that and would not be paying higher
premiums for the people flying drunk. But anyone without such a provision
would be.

Check your auto policy. Does it have a provision that voids your coverage
if you are driving drunk? It probably does not. If that's the case, then
you are paying higher premiums for drunk drivers for your auto insurance.
Same thing for airplanes.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred
while
he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the
insurance
contract?? Or is that a myth??

...snip...
... Though, of course, your own insurance company may
initially provide payment for the damages, passing on that payment to the
drunk driver and/or his insurance company later.

I would have expected the scenerio as you state here. Thanks for the
complete explanation.