• 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)

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:
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.

While everything you write may be true, how does it have any relevance to the minimum level of cover a pilot should be required to hold? If a 30 year old father of 3 is killed, his family's financial requirements and appropriate levels of compensation are the same regardless of whether the pilot is a commercial airline pilot, or a newly qualified PPL.
 
While everything you write may be true, how does it have any relevance to the minimum level of cover a pilot should be required to hold? If a 30 year old father of 3 is killed, his family's financial requirements and appropriate levels of compensation are the same regardless of whether the pilot is a commercial airline pilot, or a newly qualified PPL.

I’ll have to leave that analysis to you and others.

[edit: But I would have you consider that as a pedestrian, I also could unintentionally cause the death of a 30 year-old father of three. What other form of transportation should my insurance minimums match?]

I’m just trying to help people realize that there’s much more to it than is obvious.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks but actually mine was a case about the interpretation of a lease of an aircraft hangar on an airfield.

Like the Shoebill pic.

All the best

Cheers Paul, yours was as good I think.

Here's the full size.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_5167 (2).jpg
    DSC_5167 (2).jpg
    98 KB · Views: 110
Last edited:
I’ll have to leave that analysis to you and others.

[edit: But I would have you consider that as a pedestrian, I also could unintentionally cause the death of a 30 year-old father of three. What other form of transportation should my insurance minimums match?]

I’m just trying to help people realize that there’s much more to it than is obvious.

In any scenario, the onus should be on the father of three to provide for his family in the event of his unforseen demise hence, the need for personal insurance / assurance?
 
Last edited:
I appear to have had a post removed - i do wish the moderators would inform ppl that they are treating them like children...

Have i got any lines to do?

Laurie -
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top