Stupid Pilot Tricks - Insurance Co. Trying to Back Out

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Why should they pay a claim if they are not required to?

Fair question -- but from a broader social point of view, if an
expensive object (like an airplane) that has some small but significant
change of causing massive damage to innocent third parties is going to
be exist and be operated at all, maybe (or for sure, IMHO) it should be
impossible for it to operate, or even exist, without at least liability
coverage for damage to others.

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind of
aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must always
contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane should be
required to include liability coverage for others no matter who operates
it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should include liability
coverage for others, no matter what plane he operates (or in what
condition).

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

Yeah, that's what we need, more government intervention. They do such a
good job when they interfere with the market.

What you are saying makes sense to me - insure everything. Europe is
great - I can't wait for the government in the US to finally convert totally
to socialism. It will be such a huge step forward for us.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

....snip...

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

Yeah, that's what we need, more government intervention. They do such a
good job when they interfere with the market.

What you are saying makes sense to me - insure everything. Europe is
great - I can't wait for the government in the US to finally convert
totally
to socialism. It will be such a huge step forward for us.



If insurance is such a "socialist" concept, why do we use it at all?

There are many brands of "socialism", some within dictatorships..... but
many within democracies, something that seems to escape a lot of us.

The definitions range everything from:
"The set of beliefs which states that all people are equal...." which I am
sure you would not dispute, to:
"the...[economy]...is owned collectively or by a centralized government that
plans and controls it...."

Under some of the definitions, "of the people, by the people, for the
people", can sound like a pretty "socialist" concept, especially when I have
to assume that the constitution did not intend to leave anyone out, did
it??... and the real interpretation must be: "of ALL the people, by ALL the
people, for ALL the people".


It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and fifteen.

Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently, or
even today.

The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

snip

It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Yes, it is generally considered a "good thing", but forcing that
"sharing of skill and good fortune" is anathema to many people. Most
people realize that it's in their self interest to share some, but they
would like to exert control on the extent of the sharing. When
government goes and shares YOUR wealth beyond what you would do on your
own, there are some sour grapes.

Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum. Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that? There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.

The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer. This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?


Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently, or
even today.

Whoa, hold on there. There is no need for revolution. This is a
democratic country - those "revolutionaries" could simply run for
office. Luckily their ideas are so far removed from the values of most
Americans that they won't stand a chance in hell getting elected. We
know what has made this country great, and it's not government control
of the economy!


The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

Yes, the founding fathers wrote in some pretty neat stuff about
governing this nation, protecting freedom of speech, while at the same
time protecting EVERYONE's life and liberty. That excludes
"revolutionaries" that wish to impose their will on others by means
other than democratic election. The government does not have the
authority to "clamp down on revolutionaries with military might" under
our constitution unless they are breaking the law. So the Communist
Party USA can operates as freely as it wants, so long as they are not
breaking any laws. Laws that are checked by our judicial branch and
that must be constitutional. Although it is constantly under
bombardment, the constitution is still holding up.

How well would it hold up under socialism/communism? I assert that it
couldn't.

-Aviv

Hi NG,

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind
of aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must
always contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane
should be required to include liability coverage for others no matter
who operates it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should
include liability coverage for others, no matter what plane he
operates (or in what condition).

My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Yes, that's the case in Germany. To register a car you are required to
have an insurance that will cover any damage to others caused with this
car, no matter how reckless the driver or whatever the circumstances.
They will afterwards try to reclaim the damage from the driver or
whoever they see not complying with requirements. Could also be the
person who registered the car, if he didn't take proper precautions to
prevent unauthorized use for example. But whoever suffers damage from
this car will receive compensation.

Definitely a good idea.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

AES/newspost wrote in news:siegman-
:

In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Why should they pay a claim if they are not required to?

Fair question -- but from a broader social point of view,

Just say no to Socialism.. and bigger government

AES/newspost wrote in message ...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Why should they pay a claim if they are not required to?

Fair question -- but from a broader social point of view, if an
expensive object (like an airplane) that has some small but significant
change of causing massive damage to innocent third parties is going to
be exist and be operated at all, maybe (or for sure, IMHO) it should be
impossible for it to operate, or even exist, without at least liability
coverage for damage to others.

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind of
aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must always
contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane should be
required to include liability coverage for others no matter who operates
it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should include liability
coverage for others, no matter what plane he operates (or in what
condition).

Seems a bit strange to require a certain type of insurance when no
insurance is required at all today.


My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Same in the U.S. If you (one person) go out and buy 5 cars, you will
find that each car causes your rate to increase. The reason is because
the car creates liability indepenent of the driver.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

The illegal alien license was just a silly back door solution to avoid
addressing a real problem. If X number of immigrants are required to
run the state of California, then the feds need to come up with X
number of work permits. Making people live in a half-illegal status is
just stupid. If they're as needed as we're told, they need work
permits (i.e. be legal).

-Robert

Mike Rapoport wrote:

The insurance company is not insuring the damaged
planes, it is insuring the pilot who caused the accident and, even then,
only subject to various requirments. I agree that it is unfortunate for
the victums.


As much annoyance as we might carry towards insurance companies, it is
important to remember just who here is the cause. The insurance company is
just trying to avoid becoming another victim of this person's Darwin Award
attempt.

- Andrew

Bob:

That was the fine print on page 13 of the Avemco insurance policy.

Have a great one!

Bush

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:47:04 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
wrote:

Apparently, the insurance co of the pilot who lost his amphibious float
plane on landing (see "Stupid Pilot Tricks" and Followup a couple of weeks
ago) and parked it in a hangar with a Comanche already inside, is trying to
get out of paying anything since the pilot was on drugs. Not surprising,
but that leaves the owners of the two other planes involved and the airport
(hangar owners) with no recourse but to claim on their own insurance. I
guess this is just the way it works, but it's a shame that the pilot's
insurance won't at least pay the innocent parties' claims and then go after
the pilot themselves.