Amateur built aircraft

[ruddersup?]

Question - Are you able to obtain a private pilot license when all flying is done in an Amateur Built Aircraft with a qualified flight instructor?
Yes I'm lazy.

[Bede]

Yes

[photofly]

Question - Are you able to obtain a private pilot license when all flying is done in an Amateur Built Aircraft with a qualified flight instructor?
Yes I'm lazy.

Some of it you'll have to do without the qualified flight instructor...

[digits_]

The lazy part might be an issue

[photofly]

The lazy part might be an issue.

Lol. Happily, he wasn't asking for himself:

Question - Are you able to obtain ...

[final28]

You also need to make sure there is an examiner available who is willing to do a flight test on an experimental. Not everybody will be comfortable with that.

[Big Pistons Forever]

You also need to make sure there is an examiner available who is willing to do a flight test on an experimental. Not everybody will be comfortable with that.

You will need both an instructor and an examiner that is OK with flying an experimental aircraft. Finding an instructor with suitable experience, especially if the airplane is a taildragger is a major consideration as he/she will have to be accepted by your insurance company

FWIW I will not do a flight test in an airplane where I do not know and trust the builder, which mean’s I will pass on almost all homebuilts

[photofly]

And you’ll have to carry out a lesson on spins. I’m not sure many people will be happy spinning an amateur built airplane, unless it’s an aerobatic type.

[Bede]

You will need both an instructor and an examiner that is OK with flying an experimental aircraft. Finding an instructor with suitable experience, especially if the airplane is a taildragger is a major consideration as he/she will have to be accepted by your insurance company

Every policy I've seen doesn't require the instructor to be approved when providing instruction to the Named Insured. For some reason though they won't let the instructor fly solo until they meet the minimum checkout requirements from another qualified instructor.

[photofly]

The sensible instructor will require to be a named insured on the policy, not just a named pilot, or rely on the generic clause.

Otherwise the policy is there to protect only the owner and third parties. The owner is covered for their losses if the instructor is PIC but if there is a claim there is nothing to stop the insurance company pursuing a claim against the instructor to recover what it paid to the insured parties.

Once the instructor is a named insured, it becomes their policy too and the insurance company cannot sue them.

The instructor should also insist on a general waiver of subrogation clause.

Every policy I've seen doesn't require the instructor to be approved when providing instruction to the Named Insured. For some reason though they won't let the instructor fly solo until they meet the minimum checkout requirements from another qualified instructor.

The purpose of the “instructor” clause is to permit the owner to train. It’s not there to let the instructor train. If the instructor could fly solo, then every instructor would de facto have free cover on every airplane in existence, which is not in the interest of the insurer to permit.

[digits_]

Once the instructor is a named insured, it becomes their policy too and the insurance company cannot sue them.

Are you sure about that? I remember some vivid discussions about that subject. I recall the conclusion was that only being an owner mattered. Not so much a named insured.

The owner is the one potentially suffering the cost of a loss. So if it is a named insured that caused the damage, the insurance can still make their life difficult if they believe they made a mistake, to make sure the owner gets their money.

I don't have a reference for this either. It's hard to get information about this. Brokers just say not to worry, and get fairly suspicious if you press them for details.

[photofly]

Once the instructor is a named insured, it becomes their policy too and the insurance company cannot sue them.

Are you sure about that? I remember some vivid discussions about that subject. I recall the conclusion was that only being an owner mattered. Not so much a named insured.

The owner is the one potentially suffering the cost of a loss. So if it is a named insured that caused the damage, the insurance can still make their life difficult if they believe they made a mistake, to make sure the owner gets their money.

I don't have a reference for this either. It's hard to get information about this. Brokers just say not to worry, and get fairly suspicious if you press them for details.

I have it on a “things you didn’t know about airplane insurance” video on YouTube by the senior broker at my brokerage. When I tried to ask for this, the admin assistant professed ignorance and/or told me it wasn’t required. So I told her to consult her own principal and sent the url of the video.

The required amendments were made immediately.

The owner is the one potentially suffering the cost of a loss. So if it is a named insured that caused the damage, the insurance can still make their life difficult if they believe they made a mistake, to make sure the owner gets their money.

An insurance company can't sue one named insured to pay another. If you're the insured party, your losses are covered, so if the insurer sued you they'd have to cover your payment to themselves.

The waiver of subrogation is a belt-and-braces approach to the same issue. There's a lot of reading available on Google about that.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am with photo on this. I will not instruct on a private airplane unless I am a named pilot on the insurance policy. It has never been a problem to get added and I seemed to be well enough known in the insurance world that they sometimes don't even require me to submit a pilot history form, they just amend the policy to show me on the list of approved pilots when the owner asks.

[digits_]

Once the instructor is a named insured, it becomes their policy too and the insurance company cannot sue them.

Are you sure about that? I remember some vivid discussions about that subject. I recall the conclusion was that only being an owner mattered. Not so much a named insured.

The owner is the one potentially suffering the cost of a loss. So if it is a named insured that caused the damage, the insurance can still make their life difficult if they believe they made a mistake, to make sure the owner gets their money.

I don't have a reference for this either. It's hard to get information about this. Brokers just say not to worry, and get fairly suspicious if you press them for details.

I have it on a “things you didn’t know about airplane insurance” video on YouTube by the senior broker at my brokerage. When I tried to ask for this, the admin assistant professed ignorance and/or told me it wasn’t required. So I told her to consult her own principal and sent the url of the video.

The required amendments were made immediately.

The owner is the one potentially suffering the cost of a loss. So if it is a named insured that caused the damage, the insurance can still make their life difficult if they believe they made a mistake, to make sure the owner gets their money.

An insurance company can't sue one named insured to pay another. If you're the insured party, your losses are covered, so if the insurer sued you they'd have to cover your payment to themselves.

The waiver of subrogation is a belt-and-braces approach to the same issue. There's a lot of reading available on Google about that.

Thanks!

[Bede]

I have it on a “things you didn’t know about airplane insurance” video on YouTube by the senior broker at my brokerage. When I tried to ask for this, the admin assistant professed ignorance and/or told me it wasn’t required. So I told her to consult her own principal and sent the url of the video.

Good info. Thank you. Can you post the url of this video?

[photofly]

Wondered when you’d ask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adY98hpWoWc
From about 9:19.

My understanding is that being an additional insured and the waiver of subrogation although different effectively cover much of the same ground in protecting the instructor's interests, but one may apply where the other doesn't in some corner cases.

Note that it's the aircraft owner who is the policyholder and so really you have to get the policy holder to ask that these clauses be added; neither are in the policy holder's interest.

[Bede]

Excellent video. Thanks.

[digits_]

Wondered when you’d ask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adY98hpWoWc
From about 9:19.

My understanding is that being an additional insured and the waiver of subrogation although different effectively cover much of the same ground in protecting the instructor's interests, but one may apply where the other doesn't in some corner cases.

Note that it's the aircraft owner who is the policyholder and so really you have to get the policy holder to ask that these clauses be added; neither are in the policy holder's interest.

It might not be in their interest, but the policyholder doesn't have any negative effects from this either, right? (Other than possibly a higher premium) is that correct?

[photofly]

It might not be in their interest, but the policyholder doesn't have any negative effects from this either, right? (Other than possibly a higher premium) is that correct?

As far as I can imagine, the downsides for the policyholder are fairly corner-case. It means the instructor could bring a claim on the policy in some circumstance (as they are an insured party) even if the policyholder didn't want them to, affecting future premiums, but it's hard to think of a situation where that would arise, since in any accident the most likely person to actually suffer a loss is the policyholder.

I'm not really a huge expert on insurance, but the people who are (the underwriters) keep very quiet about what is and isn't covered in different circumstances for obvious reasons.