CARs help
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: CARs help
My last checkout was also by a PPL as directed by the insurance company.
Re: CARs help
Are you a commercial pilot? If so, yes.Alex335 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:20 pmReally? So when insurance asks for someone to be checked out on my aircraft I can do it myself?Bede wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:43 pm I forgot to ask, is the instructor charging money? If not, that changes everything. An instructor not charging money can instruct on his own aircraft, or anyone else’s aircraft, for any license that they are qualified to instruct. (Hint: follow the chain of definitions for “flight training service”.)
Still seems better to use an instructor at arms length, or one who is also a co-owner, I wouldn’t want to pay for someone else’s fuel, and simultaneously donate my time. Lol
Re: CARs help
I love silly insurance checkouts. I bought an airplane and insurance wanted 10 hours dual from an instructor.
Me: My wife is an instructor. Can she check me out on the type? (She has no experience on the plane.)
Insurance agent: yes
Me: Excellent, and once I'm checked out, as an instructor, may I check my wife out on the plane.
Insurance: ahhuuummmm
Another time, on the insistence of a family member, I got a checkout in a type I hadn't flown in 20 years from an old guy at the local field that I didn't know at the time, but owned the same type (I assumed he was one of these, flown and fixed this thing all my life kind of pilot). After the "checkout" we started talking. He got a rec permit 2 years ago and had about 20 hours post permit on the type. Not quite sure what he was going to teach me. Fantastic guy though.
Re: CARs help
I don’t think it’s *quite* as silly as it sounds. A checkout is at least a sanity check with two people present in the plane. So yes, I would say once she’d checked you out, you’d be ideally placed to reciprocate.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: CARs help
Agreed, it's not "Are you completely out of your mind" silly, it's just "you have no idea what you are doing" silly. They figure something is better than nothing even if it fails to accomplish their stated purpose. Either way, it demonstrates the lack of expertise and competence at insurance companies these days.
Re: CARs help
If you start with a “make the most of it” attitude, that really helps. Also, what is their stated purpose? They’ve never stated a purpose to me, so it’s hard to argue that what they ask for doesn’t meet it.
Maybe they’re not as inexpert at assessing risk, and how to reduce it, as you think. Maybe this is just another example of pilots assuming they can do everyone else’s job better than them, as well as their own. Maybe.
Maybe they’re not as inexpert at assessing risk, and how to reduce it, as you think. Maybe this is just another example of pilots assuming they can do everyone else’s job better than them, as well as their own. Maybe.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: CARs help
Maybe.
1. Stated purpose is to reduce claims.
2. There are around 100 aircraft in Canada who would happily pay for insurance but cannot get it because the experts assessing the risk think it's too risky.
3. That's about a half a million dollars being left on the table.
4. These expert risk assessors think that the risk of an accident is based on the aircraft type, not the pilot qualifications.
5. They also think that "A checkout" is the correct way to mitigate risk. When asked for details on what kind of checkout they want, the answer is "you know ... a checkout?"
6. Number and severity of claims has been rising for at least 3 years.
So maybe not. As Canadian broker for Lloyd's told me "We are at a loss for what to do. We keep losing money." Doesn't sound like an innovative or responsive business plan to me. Looks more like a dinosaur that can't adjust to real world changes.
1. Stated purpose is to reduce claims.
2. There are around 100 aircraft in Canada who would happily pay for insurance but cannot get it because the experts assessing the risk think it's too risky.
3. That's about a half a million dollars being left on the table.
4. These expert risk assessors think that the risk of an accident is based on the aircraft type, not the pilot qualifications.
5. They also think that "A checkout" is the correct way to mitigate risk. When asked for details on what kind of checkout they want, the answer is "you know ... a checkout?"
6. Number and severity of claims has been rising for at least 3 years.
So maybe not. As Canadian broker for Lloyd's told me "We are at a loss for what to do. We keep losing money." Doesn't sound like an innovative or responsive business plan to me. Looks more like a dinosaur that can't adjust to real world changes.
Re: CARs help
And as usual, a pilot has all the answers....?
Half a million dollars pays for one eighth of a written off TBM. It’s peanuts. Who’s to say they shouldn’t have left 200 aircraft unable to get insurance?
Last edited by photofly on Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: CARs help
How would you suggest the insurance companies adjust to change, and what are those changes? I'm pretty frustrated with all the elements you mentioned as well. But if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure how it could get fixed. I do doubt the effectiveness of a checkout though.ahramin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:06 pm Maybe.
1. Stated purpose is to reduce claims.
2. There are around 100 aircraft in Canada who would happily pay for insurance but cannot get it because the experts assessing the risk think it's too risky.
3. That's about a half a million dollars being left on the table.
4. These expert risk assessors think that the risk of an accident is based on the aircraft type, not the pilot qualifications.
5. They also think that "A checkout" is the correct way to mitigate risk. When asked for details on what kind of checkout they want, the answer is "you know ... a checkout?"
6. Number and severity of claims has been rising for at least 3 years.
So maybe not. As Canadian broker for Lloyd's told me "We are at a loss for what to do. We keep losing money." Doesn't sound like an innovative or responsive business plan to me. Looks more like a dinosaur that can't adjust to real world changes.
I'm also curious how you determined the "100" in statement 2.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: CARs help
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: CARs help
The 100 aircraft figure comes from an industry poll. It could be much higher. I've been working on this for RAA for a couple years now.
Actually I don't think a pilot has all the answers. I would hope a pilot would have a few of the answers for safer flying, but the problem is much bigger than pilot proficiency. Anyone here ever tried to insure a boat? Hint: They do require a survey, they don't require a checkout, they aren't loosing money.
Actually I don't think a pilot has all the answers. I would hope a pilot would have a few of the answers for safer flying, but the problem is much bigger than pilot proficiency. Anyone here ever tried to insure a boat? Hint: They do require a survey, they don't require a checkout, they aren't loosing money.
Re: CARs help
Exactly. Know any TBMs that aren't able to get insurance?
Re: CARs help
I know.
I've never seen the inside of a cockpit, should never see the inside of a cockpit, will never see the inside of a cockpit and I don't know what I'm talking about.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: CARs help
I know a couple which should have had a longer checkout.ahramin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:31 pmExactly. Know any TBMs that aren't able to get insurance?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: CARs help
My experience with checkouts has been reasonably positive. I have had several occasions training on unusual types where very high dual requirements were applied where I was able to get the insurance company to accept my assessment of competency even though the hours minimum was not met.
I have also seen several occasions where pilots with lots of time on type but only a PPL were accepted as suitable to conduct the checkout
I have also recently seen a severe hardening of minimum pilot requirements. In one case a PPL pilot who was flying a light single retractable wanted to move to a pressurized piston twin. He was not able to get a quote at any price.
I have also seen several occasions where pilots with lots of time on type but only a PPL were accepted as suitable to conduct the checkout
I have also recently seen a severe hardening of minimum pilot requirements. In one case a PPL pilot who was flying a light single retractable wanted to move to a pressurized piston twin. He was not able to get a quote at any price.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:41 pm
- Location: Wet Coast.
Re: CARs help
Instead of starting a new thread I will resurrect this one. So here is the scenario I am trying to do. I own a corporation and want to buy an aircraft in the corporations name. The purpose of this is so my daughter can get her private pilots license. She is under 18 so therefore cannot be a director of said corporation. She is however a shareholder of the corporation, so technically an owner, or the very least a family member of the majority shareholder/owner. Can she take her private pilots license on this aircraft? I read Cars 406.03. In particular the line that states:
the trainee is
(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,
Any clarification is appreciated. I would rather the aircraft be kept in the corporation, but would do it personally if I had to.
the trainee is
(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,
Any clarification is appreciated. I would rather the aircraft be kept in the corporation, but would do it personally if I had to.
How can you tell which one is the pilot when you walk into a bar?....Don't worry he will come up and tell you.
Re: CARs help
No, she can’t.
Being a shareholder in a corporation is technically NOT being an owner, it’s being a shareholder in a corporation. A corporation is a legal person in it’s own right, and *that* person, although not a natural person, is the owner of an airplane owned by the corporation.
It should be obvious: if I buy Air Canada shares, I’m not an owner of any part of their aircraft.
Being a shareholder in a corporation is technically NOT being an owner, it’s being a shareholder in a corporation. A corporation is a legal person in it’s own right, and *that* person, although not a natural person, is the owner of an airplane owned by the corporation.
It should be obvious: if I buy Air Canada shares, I’m not an owner of any part of their aircraft.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: CARs help
Who will be instructing her and are they being paid?
If you are teaching her I assume that there will be no payment so it’s not a flight training service and training is legal on any aircraft regardless of the relationship.
If you are teaching her I assume that there will be no payment so it’s not a flight training service and training is legal on any aircraft regardless of the relationship.
Re: CARs help
That is true - SeptRepair’s daughter can be instructed as long as no payment or reimbursement is made to anyone - including to the corporation - for the use of the airplane. That might have tax implications in terms of receipt of an in-kind benefit (free use of an airplane and provision of fuel). And if he can find a class III or better instructor (himself, if he qualifies) to do it also for no fee, reimbursement or charge.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.