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?
Cost of coverage and minimums both rise quickly as the pilot’s ratings, requirements and capabilities of the plane, and uses of the plane expand. A Private Pilot is permitted to endanger only himself first, but even flying a single passenger friend for free once triggers the long chain of increasing requirements, which ultimately escalate the sophistication, certification and inspections of both the pilot and the plane and how far into the system they can both penetrate. For example, to take a single dollar in compensation, a pilot must have two more advanced ratings, more frequent and recent experience - and the plane must be more fully equipped and MUCH more frequently and intensively inspected and recertified. And you bet, the insurance situation rises.
It’s understandably easy to underestimate the complexity of the systems in place, even for a new pilot. And like anything involving people, some will decide it doesn’t apply to them. There’s much more involved.
Last edited: