Liability ?

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:17 am

We finally got a forum fly-in and the people at Little Snoring obviously went out of their way to put on a good do,lovely grub AND good weather.
Many thanks for all your efforts.
However(please don't take this as a personal winge-no harm done this time) I have never taxied so far over so many large stones. I picked up a couple of minor dings that will dress out on the prop, but I can't help wondering what would happen if it had been damaged beyond repair ?
With new props getting on for 10k nowadays this is obviously a concern.does anyone know how we stand on insurance?

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:34 am

Acting reasonably within the law. This is the basic tenent that should be applied. Locally we had a woman golfer who was at least partially blinded when she hit a stone with her club. She sued the golf club. She lost on the grounds that complete removal of all the possible stones on a golf course was wholly impractical.

So if you destroy a new propeller? Well if you were asked to taxi over a pile of loose stones the organiser would have liability. If you were asked to taxi over a normal manoeurving area - your risk.

I have some experience of the receiving end of this having been pursued over a prop strike on a strip I ran. In spite of instructions not to move out of the marked area the pilot did - under power and put his nosewheel in a rabbit hole. After much tooing and froing (largely because the pilot knew I held insurance!) his insurance company paid the bill.

And that largely would be the situation in the majority of cases. If you suspect the ground is 'foul' then you have an obligation not to taxi across it - someting about being the 'pilot in command' and all that stuff. If you do then your own insurance company do have grounds to refuse your claim (let alone the airfield's insurers), afterall they are not there to protect you from behaving wrecklessly.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:50 pm

Thanks,that seems logical.However,being faced with landing on the runway and aircraft in the circuit waiting for you to clear so that they can land is difficult.It is not practical to shut down and block the runway to be pushed 1000yds.Then there is the problem of getting home again.

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:17 am

I take your point but I would observe that many pilots appear to think their aircraft are very heavy, it is rare to see an aircraft pushed anywhere.

The classic turn left on landing would in most cases clear the runway without using any power. After that it is about arguing (hopefully not necessary but....) about where the parking is and how to get there. I have to say that many flyins seem to have unnecessarily complex arrangements on the ground which are often not explained - a couple f big yellow signs makes all the difference.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Thu May 08, 2008 8:29 pm

The problem at Lt Snoring was that you had to back track to clear the runway and due to the conditions,most people were landing deep,some even ran onto the extension.
Stopping there would have effectively shut down the runway so I felt under pressure to taxi clear.
As I said no real damage done on this occassion,but it could have been very expensive.
Surely people running Fly-ins should give warnings in advance such as "beware pssibility of stone damage on such and such taxiway" etc.,especially as inviting strangers to a fly in ,by its very nature will mean people will turn up who are not familiar with the strip.

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:14 am

Unfortunately a warning such as beware of stone damage - would invalidate your insurance cover - if you have any. You have to act reasonably within the law and that means maintaining the surfaces.

So if you invite aircraft to fly in, then there has to be a reasonable expectation that you will not damage same. That means maintenance as required. So if the taxiway is covered in stones it has to be cleared. If it is grass twith a lot of stones hen rolling it would (might!) be enough. Having had to do both all I can say is they both need machinery!

So if the organisers were aware of the stones, (or had it brought to their attention) and did not remedy the situation then there is some liability to argue over.

ChampChump · Post by **ChampChump** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:40 pm

I saw mention of the worst areas mentioned on the notice board in the clubhouse, which was handy for departure, anyway.

With that sort of runway, it is evident when one lands that it's not going to have had the maintenance of a Sarfend or/etc and one moves with caution. If it does hold up arrivals it's probably the lesser of two evils, innit? Those behind will realise the reason soon enough and probably be grateful, ultimately.

That said, I hope I haven't suggested I'd deliberately hold up other traffic without good cause. I can't recall anyone coming in as I was backtracking but grovel (or should that be gravel?) humbly if I did cause discontent.