• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Birders plane crash (1 Viewer)

Any more reliable sources than the Daily Fail, please?

I refuse to give any click count to their disgusting neofascist website, too.
 
Nutcracker said:
Any more reliable sources than the Daily Fail, please?

I refuse to give any click count to their disgusting neofascist website, too.
Click to expand...

That's probably a valid point (made in typically disarming fashion ;) )

I like their interface, and consider myself immune to whatever slant they're putting on stuff. However the last couple of major news items I've been into been quite aware how blatantly one-sided they were in news dissemination.

Which news websites should I be looking at?
 
Soz for the aside this early in. A bit more solace for those involved perhaps in terms of sentencing, although would have been much better if he'd had his licence removed at a much earlier stage perhaps, and the whole thing had never happened ...
 
I once had a civil case that hinged on whether reasonable insurance had been obtained in respect of a light aircraft. I was astonished at the low levels of recommended/compulsory insurance.

All the best
 
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
I once had a civil case that hinged on whether reasonable insurance had been obtained in respect of a light aircraft. I was astonished at the low levels of recommended/compulsory insurance.

All the best
Click to expand...


I have a friend who used to fly Austers that had seen service in the Second World War and for that he only needed £1M Public Liability Insurance. I have a friend who's and entomologist and he needs £5M PL Insurance for wandering around nature reserves with an insect net. Which one is going to cause more damage if something goes wrong?
 
WalterRayle said:
I have a friend who used to fly Austers that had seen service in the Second World War and for that he only needed £1M Public Liability Insurance. I have a friend who's and entomologist and he needs £5M PL Insurance for wandering around nature reserves with an insect net. Which one is going to cause more damage if something goes wrong?
Click to expand...

That just about sums it up. You need more insurance to drive a car. In the case in which I was involved, we initially succeeded in persuading the judge (who subsequently became Master of the Rolls which is a judicial rather than a catering position) to order a higher than minimum level was required under the lease. However, he subsequently revisited his decision.

Non Daily Mail link to recent insurance element of this incident here:-

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/...r-crash-pilot-who-lied-to-insurers-1-10036023

All the best
 
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
That just about sums it up. You need more insurance to drive a car.
Click to expand...

Regarding insurance, it’s FAR more dangerous to drive a car than to fly an airplane, if you’re considering likelihood of damage and expense. You don’t fly two feet away from thousands of other vehicles operated by mostly barely trained and inattentive people. There is certainly the potential for - unusual - damage in a single private aircraft, but to a much LESS catastrophic degree. Consider the car crashes and pileups and lives lost on the road happening thousands of times a day. Private aircraft incidents are extremely rare, no matter how big the headlines. Insurance is by the numbers.

I’m not defending this jackass or his many, many blatant intentional violations, but he made an astoundingly safe landing in exactly the type of place he was trained to aim for, piling-on headlines aside.
 
Last edited:
macuaig said:
Regarding insurance, it’s FAR more dangerous to drive a car than to fly an airplane, if you’re considering likelihood of damage and expense. You don’t fly two feet away from thousands of other vehicles operated by mostly barely trained and inattentive people. There is certainly the potential for - unusual - damage in a single private aircraft, but to a much LESS catastrophic degree. Consider the car crashes and pileups and lives lost on the road happening thousands of times a day. Private aircraft incidents are extremely rare, no matter how big the headlines. Insurance is by the numbers.

I’m not defending this jackass or his many, many blatant intentional violations, but he made an astoundingly safe landing in exactly the type of place he was trained to aim for, piling-on headlines aside.
Click to expand...

Likelihood effects premium. I was referring to indemnity limit.

All the best
 
macuaig said:
Regarding insurance, it’s FAR more dangerous to drive a car than to fly an airplane, if you’re considering likelihood of damage and expense. You don’t fly two feet away from thousands of other vehicles operated by mostly barely trained and inattentive people. There is certainly the potential for - unusual - damage in a single private aircraft, but to a much LESS catastrophic degree. Consider the car crashes and pileups and lives lost on the road happening thousands of times a day. Private aircraft incidents are extremely rare, no matter how big the headlines. Insurance is by the numbers.

I’m not defending this jackass or his many, many blatant intentional violations, but he made an astoundingly safe landing in exactly the type of place he was trained to aim for, piling-on headlines aside.
Click to expand...

Why should the minimum level of cover be affected by the frequency of incident or probability of catastrophic incident? If I crash my car and kill 3 people, the liability should logically be the same as if I crash a plane and kill 3 people, all things being equal.

Surely the lower degree of risk you describe should be reflected in the cost of buying insurance cover, not the statutory minimum cover required?
 
Paul Chapman said:
I once had a civil case that hinged on whether reasonable insurance had been obtained in respect of a light aircraft. I was astonished at the low levels of recommended/compulsory insurance.

All the best
Click to expand...


Doesn't this come under liabliity / exclusion clauses?

When I did law,the quoted case law in contract was Caledonian Macbrayne who lost one of their ships along with a lot of other peoples cars etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v_David_MacBrayne_Ltd
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Steve
Birdwatcher finds gold coins
Replies
8
Views
607
PYRTLE
PYRTLE
H
Birdwatching more locally
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Mysticete
Mysticete
McHeath
Eye opener in Ireland
Replies
0
Views
1K
McHeath
McHeath
wolfbirder
Ouarzazate area, Morocco - A brief report from a 3-night trip 22/4/23 - 25/4/23
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Paul Chapman
Paul Chapman
wolfbirder
Hardcore Madeira Madness - 15 - 20 June 2022
2 3
Replies
59
Views
9K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top