The need for original documents, N-reg aircraft?

Yes, But!!!

The FAA web site is old and often has incorrect information.

For instance, the web site says I have a commercial rotorcraft cert. I
don't, it's only private privileges.

Karl
"Peter" wrote in message
...

Sylvain wrote:

internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
like a CFII with a 3rd class medical

why would that be funny?

When the CFII in question is offering flight training, in an airspace
(Class A) where he **would have to be** PIC.

This is why I can't see the need to carry original docs. Anybody who
has verified the pilot's (or the aircraft's) identity is able to look
up on the FAA website the current status. It's all there in the open.
Carrying a piece of paper conveys no additional info. If I show you a
piece of paper which says I am this and that, and you look on the FAA
website and that says I haven't actually got that rating or whatever,
you'd be a bit concerned, wouldn't you?

"Peter" wrote in message
...

IME the first thing the insurance company checks is that all paperwork
is in order. So, if e.g. the pilot was not licensed to do the flight,
the insurer will walk away from it right away. But if the paperwork is
in order, that is OK so far. I can't see them walking away from it
because the originals were at home at the time. The CofA is just as
valid, the pilot has still got the same license/rating.

You can't see an insurer walking away? I would think they'd take any
opportunity to avoid payment. I once read (in a well respected aviation
publication, either AOPA Pilot or Aviation Consumer) about a 172 that hit a
deer on landing and the insurance company refused to pay because the pilot
had failed to disconnect the cigarette lighter! The point was that there
was an AD out requiring the cigarette lighter to be disconnected or a fuse
installed. Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight was in
violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am pretty sure that
held up. So why would you think that an insurer would ignore something like
required documents not being carried?

In the totalitarian communist countries an adult had to carry an
internal passport / ID document, and if this was not carried, and he
got stopped and checked, he'd be locked up until somebody produced the
documents. I don't think the USA, or any other western country would
do this.

How about the Denver woman who was arrested for failing to produce ID when a
cop asked her to do so on a public bus? More details he
http://papersplease.org/davis/

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:xUlif.28166$4l5.18021@dukeread05...

If the "student" is a qualified and current Instrument rated
pilot and the flight is conducted in IMC, the CFI would not
be a required crewmember.

I seem to remember an FAA ruling that the safety pilot must possess all the
qualifications required to be PIC of the flight if needed. The particular
question was whether a safety pilot had to be current with respect to
takeoffs and landings. Althought the FAR said only "appropriately rated
safety pilot," the FAA ruled that that phrase meant "a safety pilot with all
the attributes needed to be PIC of that flight."

Andrew Koenig wrote:

Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight was in
violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am pretty sure that
held up. So why would you think that an insurer would ignore something like
required documents not being carried?

Not equivalent at all. Failure to comply with an AD makes the aircraft
unairworthy. Every insurance policy I've had contains a clause that coverage
will be denied if the aircraft is unairworthy at the time of an accident. No
policy that I've had contained any clause about denying coverage if the FARs
were violated.

So, yes. The insurer would ignore something like required documents not being
carried.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
airplane. But then it was discovered that the insurance
company investigator had found it in his pocket and took it
with him. He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
A legal airplane is usually a requirement of any insurance
policy and that includes the paperwork.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:cxOkf.1476$ew5.329@trndny04...
| Andrew Koenig wrote:
|
| Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight
was in
| violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am
pretty sure that
| held up. So why would you think that an insurer would
ignore something like
| required documents not being carried?
|
| Not equivalent at all. Failure to comply with an AD makes
the aircraft
| unairworthy. Every insurance policy I've had contains a
clause that coverage
| will be denied if the aircraft is unairworthy at the time
of an accident. No
| policy that I've had contained any clause about denying
coverage if the FARs
| were violated.
|
| So, yes. The insurer would ignore something like required
documents not being
| carried.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.

Why didn't the company just "deny coverage because the airplane was not
airworthy"?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Citation please. Otherwise this is just another BS OWT.

Jim



"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:JMOkf.11643$QW2.3019@dukeread08...
About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
airplane.

This was related during a FIRC put on by the ABS in Wichita.
The course had a lawyer teaching. I do not remember the
exact date or the name of the insurance company. For $100
an hour, I'll research it in the OK records and get back to
you.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
| Citation please. Otherwise this is just another BS OWT.
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:JMOkf.11643$QW2.3019@dukeread08...
| About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember
correctly, a
| plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
| because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
| airplane.
|
|

They did try that based on the "missing Airworthiness Cert"
but that is what they had to pay punitive damages for, the
insurance company's attempted fraud.



"Jose" wrote in message
m...
| He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
| know that they could deny coverage because the airplane
was
| not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
| discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
| result was the company had to pay something like
$100,000 in
| damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
|
| Why didn't the company just "deny coverage because the
airplane was not
| airworthy"?
|
| Jose
| --
| You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose
whom to love.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
airplane. But then it was discovered that the insurance
company investigator had found it in his pocket and took it
with him. He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
A legal airplane is usually a requirement of any insurance
policy and that includes the paperwork.

I've read this over about a dozen times trying to decipher
it...either your use of the English language sucks (as my
grandkids say) or I've lost my mind, which is it?...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)