Double Standards of the LAA. By Graham Hammond

[merlin]

It comes down to judgement Steve. Would you put your dearly beloved with somebody who meets the CAA minima but nothing more?

Thousands of people do every day.

[steveneale]

Brian, Yes I would if I knew he was a good pilot. That fact he has not flown 10 hours in the last 3 months has nowt to do with that. Like most organisers I would look at the pilot and his/her aircraft not paperwork and simply ask him to check he was legal. I don't recall an aircraft falling out of the sky because the paperwork was not all in order.

Just out of interest can you recall how many of the litigious attacks over the last few years on PFA/LAA have been as a result of a PFA/Strut event? Perhaps I am wrong but I think it may be a round number. My recollection is they were all attacks on LAA in it's role as regulator and nothing to do with formal LAA events, strut or otherwise.

Hell! the roof could fall in killing everyone at our next CAA safety evening. Does that mean I should check the place we use has all the correct paperwork before anyone is allowed in? Just in case HQ would I'm sure prefer I didn't advertise it as hosted by LAA.

Time to get a grip.

[Jim Gale]

Guys, You are going off subject. This topic is headed Double Standards......

I really do think you are missing the point about the LAA's contingency insurance. Whilst the carriage of youngsters is an important item, the main protection for all members is that back up insurance is in place, whatever type of aircraft you fly. According to Ken Craigie's recent announcement on the web-site, if I understand it correctly, we now have nearly 200 3-4 seater aircraft on the LAA permit register.

It follows, quite simply, that there shall be no Double Standards and that all LAA permit aircraft be covered whether they are 1,2,3 or 4 seat.

Regards, Jim

[Brian Hope]

Steve, I would defy anybody to call a 50 hour total pilot who has only flown once in six months either competent or a good pilot, regardless of what the CAA's paperwork says. I would not fly with such a pilot unless I was in a position to take control, let alone put a non pilot loved one in the aircraft.
As Jim says, we are drifting. LAA has undertaken to provide the extra cover subject to Struts complying with the new procedures. For now that's as good as it gets and you must make your own mind up if you wish to take it or leave it.

[Dave Hall]

I understand the Scout Association determined their experience and currency requirements after discussions within their organisation and with some external advice.

The adopted LAA ones are now the same as the scouts and cadets:-
250 hours total; 150hrs P1
20 hrs on type
10hrs or 15 landings in previous 3 mths
3 ldgs in past 1 month.

The only substantial differences with the CAA Charity flights currency requirements are 200 hrs total PIC and 3hrs on Type in the past 90 days.

The recent flight hours is certainly much more attainable for flights early in the season.

We could not adopt all the requirements as they limit it to CofA aircraft and licensed airfields - see the regs at
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 070_en.pdf

While the LAA cannot itself change the currency for flying scouts and cadets, it might happen if we could convince those organisations that a more reasonable level is desirable for all youth flying, and that it is a SAFE level.

Evidence of the previous lower level being safe already exists for the past 10 years or more.

[CP]

I would rather argue from the point that the CAA is the rule maker and we follow their rules!

Why not ask the insurers to swap insurance for advertising at the shows/mag/letterheads etc?

Paul Whittingham

[IanTadd]

Evolution has resulted in a sub species of homo erectus, the ambulance chaser. The ambulance chaser enjoys a symbiotic relationship with another sub species the insurer. Despite considering each other as lunch they have ended up in an unholy alliance. Like the dinosaurs they have come to dominate, unfortunately I see no ‘meteorite’ heading their way.

It only takes one document or someone’s ‘professional’ opinion that suggests it would be better if x y or z had been done prior to any incident and a case can be lost. However much we don't like it there is absolutely nothing we can do to change the law or stop this trend. Standing in front of the judge and claiming the law is wrong has never been a very successful defense. However distasteful liability protection is going to eat up an increasing proportion of the LAA's budget.

What concerns me is that further decisions like this will have to made in the future not just as the ambulance chasers find even more exotic ways of establishing liability. But as the LAA inevitably expands it role and becomes responsible for increasing higher spec and complex aircraft. Consider IMC/IR flight in permit aircraft, some bright spark in an insurance office (with no knowledge of aviation) will automatically see aircraft falling out of the sky and crashing into a school full of children. Or simply an as an opportunity to up premiums just in case its more dangerous.

How many times can the LAA find yet another £5000 from a finite budget. I think this is what motivated a dissenting voice, I don’t think Brian or anyone else would want to stop 4 seat aircraft being used, he simply outlined the cost and the relative benefits involved. IMHO there was no chance that it would not be agreed

However I felt Brian raised a very important issue and however much we instinctively want to avoid “double standards” what we do within a finite budget may at some point in the future leave us with no option. What if the difference had been £50,000? IMHO having correctly agreed to spend this money, it has to be clearly understood its £5k we can not spend on another priority.

At some point members are going to have accept if they want to maintain currant activities let alone increase activity and deal with the financial consequences from outside influences we have no control over we are going to have to find more money. Where else can that money come from other than the membership? IMHO the discussion should be less about ‘if’ we do something and more about how we raise the money to pay for it. Our membership cost relates to the equivalent of 1 litre of Mogas a week, 2 pints of beer a month etc etc....its nothing in this day and age, we should not be surprised when this increasingly forces choices between priorities.

[Graham Clark]

Rather than shovel £5K a year down the insurers' bottomless pit, I would rather the Board set aside £5K (or more) a year into an interest bearing account that is a bespoke legal fighting fund for any aspect of the Association's activities.
If the Association is insured up to the hilt, it will be worthwhile for an ambulance chaser to take us to court on the thinnest of pretexts.
If there is plenty of money in the bank to pay for a defence, the ambulance chaser will be less likely to go for us.
What causes little aeroplanes to fall from the sky and hurt people? Usually, it is bad weather. And we don't fly kids in bad weather, do we? It ain't no fun, for us either.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Graham. I was unaware that bad weather actually caused accidents, I thought it was pilot error for flying into it without adequate ability or equipment to fly in IMC. I haven't checked stats but I'm also pretty sure that stall/spin accidents account for more fatalities than weather related accidents.
Your logic on whether the ambulance chaser prefers our cash or the insurer's cash eludes me.

[steveneale]

Rather than shovel £5K a year down the insurers' bottomless pit, I would rather the Board set aside £5K (or more) a year into an interest bearing account that is a bespoke legal fighting fund for any aspect of the Association's activities.
.

What an excellent idea for EC to think about for the future. Ambulance chasers gamble on getting a high proportion of out of court settlements and zero costs. this of course very frustrating for a defendant that has prepared a rock solid defence. Faced with a definite legal fight and associated high costs if they attack they may think twice before taking on LAA.

edited to add:

I was reading recently that it a feasible for large users of insurance to become their own underwriter. Wish I could remember where.
If as well as saving LAA's own insurance costs we all also insured direct with LAA, say £1000 per aircraft average each, that is £2 million pounds income a year to mitigate losses over.

[Graham Clark]

Hi Brian; if there is an organised YE day through a Strut, there will be plenty of peer pressure not to fly in bad weather. Bad weather kills pilots and passengers in stall spin accidents, but the decision to fly in bad weather is the fundamental killer. In my view, that will never, ever happen in the environment under discussion. Too many people standing around, saying NO! The decision to fly/no fly will not be the pilot's alone.

If an ambulance chaser wants to sue, he is much more likely to do so if the defendent is known to have money (insurance).
But, you can't get blood from a stone. Insurers cough up without admitting liability, if they think it is cheaper to do so rather than fight. The underlying driver for legal insurance is "I have bigger guns than you. Therefore I will sue you. Just give me the cash quietly and I'll go away."
If the prosecution think you have money, they are more likely to sue, because they think they may get it.
If they believe you have nowt, they are less likely to want to waste their time.
Walk softly, and carry a big stick.

[Nigel Hitchman]

Brian,
I wasnt meaning the CAA 3 landings in 90 day rule, I was meaning their guidlines for experience required for charity flying, as explained by Dave Hall. This would seem to be quite strict but more reaonable than the Scouts/LAA requirements. I think in this case the CAA requirement would stand up in court. (but who knows!)
I cant think that Graham's idea on insurance would work at all. Yes if we were spending hundreds of thousands and put that in our fund, but not £5k! While correct that lawyers do go after people percieved to have lots of money, like big corporations, I dont think this really aplies in our case.
My view is that we need to look at why the insurance company wants this much money to include 4 seaters and what their assumptions are compared to the reality of our events.
Maybe one of our 4 seater owners can take this on!!

[Brian Hope]

Hi Nigel, the CAA charity requirement would appear to have some merit and perhaps when we get a group up and running to take YA etc on, they can look at it and see if a satisfactory safety case can be made.
We undoubtedly have a number of insurance experts as members, perhaps one or two of them could get involved to discuss these issues with our brokers, or better still the underwriters, we would then know if we can do things better or perhaps get a better deal.

[steveneale]

Let's not forget this is nothing to do with safety but about the fear (paranoia?) of litigation. Where that has happened it has all been aimed at LAA as a regulator not LAA struts or events. Target any fix toward the problem and leave the struts alone.

The CAA charity flight criteria mentioned above are high because they see charity flights as pseudo commercial. They are worse than the Scouts in one important respect as they restrict the age of the pilot to 65 years.

As an example Bristol have always relied on club pilots in rented aircraft to augment our aircraft at events and at £150+ per hour flying club pilots are unlikely to qualify unless they are very rich. Many of us don't fly as much as is required but that is life at £1.72/litre nowadays. We are also 1/5 the size of struts like Devon so start with a much smaller pool of pilots. The simple fact is if these draconian restrictions are not rescinded then Bristol Wing will not be able to host LAA related events any more.

[Mike Cross]

IIRC Struts are not LAA, they are affilliated organisations and not part of LAA. Therefore the strut can do what it wants off its own bat. What it can't do is use the LAA name in conjunction with the event or rely on the LAA event insurance unless it toes the line and meets the requirement.

There's a certain amount to be said for having the Strut as a company limited by guarantee (the usual structure for a members organisation) with minimal funds. That way the indiviual Strut members are protected and the Strut is not a target for litigation because the litigators know it has no assets (unlike our Association).