Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd September 2011 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cant see what the problem is.. CAA asks if you're insured, you say yes. Simples... It's a legal requirement to have 3rd party insurance, so whats the big deal?:confused:
By: - 25th September 2011 at 10:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's the point of a monitoring procedure that only half works? If it was applied to road traffic, we'd have even more uninsured citizens creating even more uninsured havoc.
C'mon Ewan, catch up.
John Green
By: - 25th September 2011 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sense would be to have it tied to the ARC renewal or C of A renewal, that way it is proven at least once every 3 years, or in the case of the ARC renewal or extension annually.
But hey look at the USA, they in effect cancelled all aircraft registered and asked owners to renew the registrations as they had know idea how many of the aircraft actually on the N reg still were or existed! CAA Seminar I went to many years ago believed their were quite a few ringers flying, I.E freighters in say Africa that were sporting the registrations of legally operated aircraft on the register....
By: - 25th September 2011 at 20:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TonyT
You are right. When I spoke to the CAA, I suggested that a/c insurance should be tied to the Annual or the Permit. A condition of issue of both would be sight of the aircraft insurance certificate. Simple and cost effective.
The bloke at the CAA said that had been considered but was dismissed as not cost effective. I'm all for 'light touch' regulation but it has to be seen to be effective.
John Green
By: - 26th September 2011 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would suggest that the audit only applies if the registered owner has not changed in those 3-4 years because if the aircraft is re-registered during that time then the new owner would have had to supply evidence of insurance at the point of re-registration anyway. Thus the CAA are being seen to monitor insurance compliance whether the aircraft is re-registered or not as the case may be during that rolling period (note that a change of address is not a change of registered ownership, if you changed address you wouldn't be required to show insurance). I think 3-4 years is probably because monitoring it yearly would be a huge task, and it is of course the aircraft owner's responsibility to ensure that their aircraft is insured correctly at all other times.
By: - 26th September 2011 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just out of interest, what would the average cost be of insuring something like
a Cessna 152
By: - 27th September 2011 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Alan.
I would give a half educated guess that around £1300 per annum would be an average.
Wannabe.
I'm pretty certain that the bloke I spoke to at the CAA and the letter of enquiry received from the CAA mentioned only 'the registered owners'.
My original point still holds good: There is nothing to prevent an unscrupulous owner paying for insurance this year and then having two or three years without insurance knowing he/she is safe from the prospect of an unscheduled visit from the CAA insurance police. That is the flaw in the CAAs rolling audit system.
The answer is as I have mentioned. Tie sight of the insurance certificate to the Annual or Permit renewal.
John Green
By: - 28th September 2011 at 12:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. What I meant is that proof of insurance is mandatory at the point of re-registration. So if an aircraft changes hands 3 times a year, its insurance would be checked each time. If an aircraft does not change hands within 3 or 4 years, then it would be audited, or at least that's how I understand it.
You are right, you could fly without insurance for 2 years (unless you have an accident or are caught in the meantime). However, that would be illegal, and in my opinion very silly! You could also drive your car without insurance, until such day that a police car number-plate recognition system flags it up and you get pulled over. If you don't get pulled over, no-one knows any different!
By your theory, you could also cancel your insurance policy a week after your Annual/Permit renewal and then fly for 51 weeks a year without insurance. So how is it any better? Unfortunately regulation will never cover every possible scenario, and for that reason there has to be an element of trust that people will abide by the law without being forced to do so.
By: - 28th September 2011 at 16:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Make it a legal requirement for the insurance companies to inform the government...I.e the CAA when insurance on hulls is cancelled....
As for the
The answer is as I have mentioned. Tie sight of the insurance certificate to the Annual or Permit renewal.
John Green
Agreed, but believe me the hassle I have in just getting the log books can turn into a long winded battle...
By: - 20th October 2011 at 03:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not Hull Insurance Though.
It's only the Third Party element of the insurance that is mandatory. The Hull element is entirely optional, just as with a motor vehicle. Frankly though, if you can't afford to properly insure your a/c, you really can't afford to fly in the first place...! :rolleyes:
By: - 20th October 2011 at 08:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what does the affluent a/c owner fly Snoopy? I assume you are well insured but I'm just considering whether I should half or double my inspection fees. :diablo:
By: - 22nd October 2011 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
???
'Affording' does not = 'affluent'...! I'd say the 'affluent' pilots fly their own business jets, everyone else struggles with the costs to some degree, apart from the engineers...;)
By: - 23rd October 2011 at 19:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has there ever been an accident in the UK where a loss has been caused by an uninsured aircraft, or are we solving a problem that doesn't exist?
Moggy
By: - 24th October 2011 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I believe there have been several such cases.
I know of one individual who taxied into the back of another aircraft and in a separate incident taxied into a clubhouse while uninsured. Being a handy sort of chap, he repaired both the chewed up rudder and the clubhouse (and his own aircraft) himself. He had a tailwheel aircraft with no park brake and limited forward view.
These are at the lower end of the accident scale, but there have been other more serious incidents.
In the US their is no legal requirement to be insured, but most airports won't accept you as a based aircraft without insurance.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 23rd September 2011 at 19:38
I've just received a rather bizarre e-mail request from the CAA regarding my aircraft insurance. Quite sensibly, they wanted to know if the a/c was insured. I confirmed that it was and asked why they had approached me and had they approached any other owner/trustee.
The bizarre bit concerned their reasons for asking. They said that due to the effect of an EU Directive covering compulsory a/c insurance they - the CAA had found it necessary to conduct a rolling audit ONCE EVERY THREE OR FOUR YEARS. I asked how they chose whom to audit. They said that the choice was made on the basis of a/c registered TO THE SAME OWNER FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
I then asked what was supposed to happen in the intervening period. An owner might decline to take out insurance. The fact that the owner/trustee would not be monitored in the interval didn't seem to matter. I though that this was illogical and said so.
So, if you're an owner/trustee and you're finding things a bit tough financially, the message seems to be if you move your address at which the a/c is registered every year, you won't have any embarrassing questions to answer.
John Green