Double Standards of the LAA. By Graham Hammond

[GRF7R7]

Last night, Wednesday, at the Kent Strut committee meeting I was made aware of a new LAA ruling. That, if it is allowed to come into force, will bar me and other LAA members from taking part in a number of LAA events. I would also be banned from taking part in certain Strut organised LAA events.

I was told by a member of the excecutive that "Because I chose to fly an LAA permit four place machine, I would be banned from these events.
I was told that the extra cost of insurance, about £5000, to allow me to take part was "not good value for money"

I, along with other owners of three plus seat machines, pay approximately 10% more for our permits. We have no choice. If we want to fly a permit aircraft we pay up.

Are we now to be denied the privilege of enjoying the benefits that are bestowed on other members? Are we now becoming a selective society?
If it is a question of justifying the cost for so few, then I ask why was this factor not taken into account when the LAA chose to put the RV10 type acceptance through. How many are there, 6? probably, at most and I bet it cost a whole lot more than £5000.
It was pointed out that it would cost the equivilent of 25 members' fees to allow us to take part in these events. Isn't this what the LAA is about?
I suspect that the LAA has had this number of three plus seat machines join the organisation in the last year or so.

I have been a member of the PFA/LAA for almost all of my flying life. I have attended and helped out at rallies over the years. At almost every monthly meeting we discuss how and what we can do to promote the LAA and yet now I feel that I am being discriminated against.
You are in one stupid, irresponsible, discriminatory act destroying a lifetime of goodwill.
If this rule was sexist or racist you would not be able to implement it. I am far from convinced that it would not be viewed as anything but discriminating.

Please don't view this as an attack on the LAA. It is a plea for common sense and fairmindedness and to be treated as an equal.

Graham Hammond

[Bill McCarthy]

Somebody MUST have the wrong end of the stick here !

[John Dean]

It would seem not, Bill.

On page 18 of the latest magazine it clearly states that the LAA liability insurance cover for events such as Young Aviators only applies to two seat aircraft.

Graham operates a 4 seat Jabiru and will, therefore, be excluded from giving his services at a Young Aviators event. In his eyes this makes him a second class member and he feels he should have the same privileges as a member with a two seat aircraft.

However, I have been told that the insurance cost for two seat aeroplanes for these events is £7000 and the additional cost to include four seat aeroplanes is £5000. I estimate that the Association flies no more than 500 youngsters in a year. If these figures are correct, then it would cost £24 to fly each youngster in insurance costs alone and makes the Young Aviators events economically unsustainable.

It would be cheaper to give the local flying club £72 (3 x £24) and get them to use their Cessna 172 for a half hour "trial lesson".

[Brian Hope]

I have to put Graham right on a couple of issues as it was I who was at the Kent committee meeting last night. The quotations Graham uses are not mine, they are his interpretation of what he wants to believe I said.
As a Board member I must consider whether spending an additional £5K to cover 3 - 4 seat aircraft to participate in LAA events where youngsters and/or adults are flown is a justifiable expense. It is my personal view - not necessarily an LAA view - that it is not. The insurance to cover these events for two seat aircraft is around £7K, and as John says (and I have asked Penny at the office who collates the annual figures) we actualy only fly around 500 kids.
This issue is to be discussed tomorrow at a board meeting. I hope that in concert with YES (Youth Education Support, a group that in theory at least, oversees LAA ET's youth education initiative), we can arrive at a solution that will please all sides, but for me that will not mean LAA ET stumping up the full amount just to placate a viociferous minority. YES has to bring something to the table on these issues, not simply stick their hand out Oliver Twist fashion and demand MORE!!

[Steve Brown]

This insurance lark is good, isn't it.

Get aircraft owners to pay premiums to insurers to cover themselves against claims while operating within the privileges of their licences and the operating limitations of their aircraft.

Then.............. get organisers of events to pay premiums to insurers to cover themselves against claims caused by owners (operating within the privileges of their licences and the operating limitations of their aircraft) at events even though the aircraft owners are covered already against claims.

In the event of an accident does the unfortunate victim get paid by both insurers?

Doubt it.

I'm sure I'm missing something though!

[ddurell]

I have known an owner of a four seat aircraft to give an undertaking not to fly with more than one passenger and received a cheaper insurance premium as a result.

Would it not be possible for a similar undertaking to be given for these events?

[Brian Hope]

Afraid not, at least as things currently stand. The level of the LAA insurance has to be equivalent to the mandatory third party limit required. It is actually done by max weight, but for most two seaters it is around £1.7M, for which LAA has cover, but for most four seaters it is around £3.2M, for which the additional £5K premium is required. Whether or not the owner insures all seats, or only flies with one passenger does not make a difference unfortunately.

[J.C.]

I just don't get this. Maybe I'm being thick.
Surely if the owner of the 4 seater has adequate insurance and can prove that to be the case, then he is covered.
Why does he have to be insured twice?
In the event of an accident, you cannot ( by law) be paid twice just because you have two seperate policies in force and the claim would therefore migrate to the owners policy.
All non flying risks ( such as someone walking into a live prop ) are not affected.
I just don't get it.

Also the risk of me flying 6 kids in my plane would involve 6 take off and landings giving the potential of having 6 engine failures on take off.
This is reduced to 2 using a 4 seater.

[John Dean]

Why does he have to be insured twice?

He isn't, John.

The pilot's aircraft insurance covers the pilot's liability. The LAA's insurance should cover the liability of the LAA/Strut/Member.

If you want to know more, I have a number of reference books hidden somewhere in the loft but I would warn you that they don't make absorbing reading.

[J.C.]

The pilots aircraft insurance covers the pilots laibility.
The LAA's insurance should cover the liability of the LAA/Strut /Member.


The member in this case IS the pilot.

The non flying risks ( IE ) Strut liability and LAA liability are already covered irrespective of the number of passengers.

The only thing that has changed is the potential flying risk and that is covered by the aircraft insurance.

Sorry John I still don't get it.

If a fully loaded Jumbo plummets into a crowd of kids as it overflies a LAA event, does it matter how many people are on board?
OR perhaps a better example would be "what is the difference to the potential liability if flying 6 kids in 6 planes or 6 kids in 2 planes?"

[Chris B]

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... 202009.pdf

shows the situation for 2009 (and needs updating for 2010). It says:

"‘Non Owned Aircraft Insurance Policy’ It is now recognised that the aircraft owner under law should have at least the minimum legal requirements that are required under the European Regulation EC785 which varies by weight category of aircraft and number of passenger seats. This policy exists only on a contingency basis in the event that the claimed amount exceeds the liability cover arranged on the individual aircraft itself but nonetheless has a liability limit of £2,000,000 as a maximum payment for any one claim.
This policy is arranged for the protection of the Struts. It is not the responsibility of the LAA to arrange liability cover for individual pilots connected to them. This cover has been arranged to protect The LAA and the Struts as an organisation. A responsible pilot and flyer should be carrying as much liability cover as they can reasonably afford and now under the law as detailed above, a minimum level of cover is of course compulsory."

Does this mean that the pilot/member is not covered by the LAA Insurance in any way? Would a NWNF lawyer try to sue the pilot as well as as the LAA and Strut? Presumably, a mishap with three on board could result in the award of three times the damages.

On that basis, the current insurance with legal minimums may not be enough - putting the pilot/estate at significant risk.

The LAA needs to make the implications to members very clear.

Rgds

Chris

[Martin Ryan]

I am pretty disappointed that after many years of Young Eagles and Scout camps with my CAA C of A 4 seat aircraft that I will no longer be able to attend. Indeed there have been several times when helping the disabled that carrying the helper has been necessary, thereby using the extra seat.

There is a danger here that groups will form OUTSIDE the LAA to run these events further reducing the benefits to members and also why should I join the Strut if I cannot participate in their(my!!) events.

Guess I will have to cancel plans to support Youth Day at Bodmin on 21 May and Scout Camp in June( even got CRB for this!) unless the Board have a change of mind tonight.



Martin Ryan Stinson Voyager G BPTA

[J.C.]

Just to play devil's advocate, why should a member that has no interest in supporting these events have his or her subs used to top up others insurance shortfall anyway?
Brian, you always advocate members should pay their way so why is cross subsidy OK now?Why should ordinary members' subs be used to polish the ego of the super struts that carry out these events?
Surely this sort of money should be raised from sponsorship and is an ideal way of getting some publicity for the LAA.

I have no axe to grind before you crucify me...I am only asking the obvious.
I have flown hundreds of kids and adults over the years .I don't need a special event to continue to do that.

[Dave Hall]

What a pity this issue has been reduced to the simplistic cost per Young Aviator flown. Is this actually being suggested as an alternative? If so pay the insurance and allow LAA members to continue to enjoy offering these flights - they do it because they WANT to, not because they have to.

What a pity too, that no account has been taken of the two hundred a year, and rising, Young Aviators flown each year at the increasingly popular Scout Aviation Camps.

But it isn't the cost per young aviator that really matters here. The cost per LAA member is around 60 pence if the whole of the amount was met direct from LAA subscriptions. That's a piddlingly small amount to ask of members, but it would still be wrong to waste that amount.

So is it being wasted if spent on ensuring that YA Days and Scout Aviation Camps can continue?

I would say no, and anyone who has been involved in those events would agree, I'm sure. The viability of these events is seriously compromised if multi-seat aircraft are not able to be used. Just on a time and aircraft available basis, it becomes marginal, and the need to have up to 3 times as many aircraft airborne does affect the risk, even if it doesn't affect the
premium. We can't afford to have EXTRA RISK - we should be trying to REDUCE the risk.

What a pity that we won't be able to fly disadvantaged or sick children who need a carer with them to get airborne. They won't get a look in at all.

What a pity we won't be able to fly parents with their children - a really good way to get families interested in aviation.

What a pity if the LAA ET cannot continue its good work because like all charitable trusts now, the major beneficiaries of its activities must be the general public.


As a positive initiative to help solve this problem, YES Strut has offered the LAA Board some thoughts as to how the insurance premium could be met, not the least of which would be to hand out flyers to the parents of youngsters who have had a great flying experience explaining what the LAA ET is, what it does and inviting them to send a donation to help the trust to continue to support such events.

The "Sally B" got flying again through sponsorship; we could try doing that. Maybe the underwriters or brokers would like their name publicised as a sponsor. Perhaps an aviation publisher would take an interest. We must be a pretty feeble organisation if we can't attract someone to help out financially with such a worthwhile activity.

We have an "LAA Can Do" group to campaign to keep the airspace open for us. Maybe we can have one to keep our outreach activities going. YES Strut has always had a 'can do' attitude, and I'm sure we will find a way around this obstacle.

What a pity proper consultation didn't happen before we got into this situation.

As Leonardo (one of the ninja turtles, wasn't he) said, "Once you have tasted flight, you will ever after .....etc".
The late, and much missed, Ian Leader gave me my first light aircraft flight 9 years ago this month, when I was already aged 55. We need to catch them earlier than that or where will we get our future executive members from?

[john t m ball]

Is it not possible for the member taking the young flyers for a trip, to contact their insurance broker and just get the LAA added as additional insured in respect these flights. I am sure it would cost nothing and the LAA would be fully indemnified. BUT What the LAA is doing by taking out a non owner policy is sensible, as it is a 'sleep easy' policy. In this litigious age every angle should be covered. An example would where a LAA member takes someone flying at one of these sponsored LAA events, has an accident causing a serious passenger or third party injury and it is found that he has breached an insurance warranty on his own aircraft policy ( expired medical, not valid permit etc etc ). Then the dependants or parents sue the LAA as part of the action against the Pilot. The Limits for aircraft insurance are mandatory minimums not set amounts. Everyone should buy what they can afford and their conscience says.