Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861342
Even if the bloke on the internet is quoting the written word of the CAA?

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Displays,-events-and-activities/Charity-flights/

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=6849

Anyway, as the situation stands, it's "standard" for registered charities and has blanket permission, but any other fund raising needs specific permission from the CAA. If you've asked them "can I raise money for X school?" and they've said yes, you're fine.
GrahamB liked this
User avatar
By MartinC
#1861343
Hi Paul, it's not about paranoia (don't shoot the messenger....). From many years experience working in the insurance industry, it is apparent that most purchasers of insurance covers don't understand what they are buying - or why. If motorists were allowed to set the amount of liability cover based on the amount of premium they were prepared to pay, nobody would have 'sufficient' cover to pay for accidents and injuries to third parties. It's the law that requires unlimited liability cover as a minimum for motor accidents. I don't see why aviation should be any different, but you only need to look at threads on policy renewals where everybody is chasing the lowest cost to see that most pilot/owners see the premium, not the coverage, as the most important criteria, and this generally means that general aviation liability covers are not going to cover a serious liability event to the detriment of all parties concerned.

I would like to see much more awareness of the (true) possibilities and, especially, a more serious approach from general aviation insurers to liability covers. Taking the view that 'it probably won't ever happen' is really a head in the sand approach to buying insurance. The current situation when claims occur is driven by lawyers and they certainly don't stop just because the cover runs out.

The opening post was really directed to the question of legality of charity flights where no profit is being made, and the CAA make it clear that there is no issue there. My interjection is to consider the further implications of risks being accrued through the operation of an aircraft and the impact of potential third party claims from anyone affected on the ground or as a passenger, whether it be a charity flight or otherwise makes no difference to the legal liabilities.
By MikeE
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861345
Just a quick 'thank you' to the OP - and others - who offer flights for charities, that is such a lovely thing to do. I understand that charities have had a bad year income-wise, so your efforts are very much appreciated. Take a bow...

Best wishes

Mike
By BoeingBoy
#1861393
I've spoken directly with the CAA on this issue.

I'll take the CAA's word over a "bloke on the internet".


Firstly, this 'Bloke on the Internet' has over fifty professional years in the Aviation Industry and has long learned that the 'Only' safe reference for any question pertaining to legality is to see written evidence from the law makers. Not to trust word of mouth. Standing up in court after the crash with your entire estate being hounded by underwriters is not the time to say 'I spoke directly with the CAA' because I can assure you that the Teflon Coated ******* that spoke to you will have long since disappeared into the woodwork.

I fail to understand what problem you have with the fact that the CAA clearly publish guidance on charity flying on their web site and through CAP 1330 linked above. If you have been told differently by a CAA representative that the information is not correct then please ask LAA/AOPA to lobby to get it changed. I for one, have unregistered charities that I wish to fly for, and up until now I have resisted doing so.

It may interest you (but I suspect not) that it was as a direct representation from me to the CAA GA unit that the old Information Circular declaring the minimum experience levels, along with double weather minima was preventing me obtaining insurance to carry terminally ill people out on pleasure flights. They agreed that insurance should not be withheld and that such flights should be deemed normal operations. Along with other consultations the AIP circular was scrapped and the current guidance issued.
By BoeingBoy
#1861396
RisePilot wrote:I don't have the desire nor need to convince you of anything. If you don't want to fly - don't fly.


Well RiseRilot. If you can't be bothered convincing me of anything perhaps you'd be kind enough to let Martin Robinson of AOPA UK know of your fortunate conversation, and the identity of your source so that many of us can benefit in serving unregistered charities.

Of course, if you don't want to. Then I'm afraid you just become 'another bloke on the internet' don't you..... :roll:
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1861417
MartinC wrote:............ From many years experience working in the insurance industry, it is apparent that most purchasers of insurance covers don't understand what they are buying - or why. If motorists were allowed to set the amount of liability cover based on the amount of premium they were prepared to pay, nobody would have 'sufficient' cover to pay for accidents and injuries to third parties. It's the law that requires unlimited liability cover as a minimum for motor accidents. I don't see why aviation should be any different, but you only need to look at threads on policy renewals where everybody is chasing the lowest cost to see that most pilot/owners see the premium, not the coverage, as the most important criteria, and this generally means that general aviation liability covers are not going to cover a serious liability event to the detriment of all parties concerned.

I would like to see much more awareness of the (true) possibilities and, especially, a more serious approach from general aviation insurers to liability covers. Taking the view that 'it probably won't ever happen' is really a head in the sand approach to buying insurance. The current situation when claims occur is driven by lawyers and they certainly don't stop just because the cover runs out.

..............


then maybe you can explain why when;

my car is worth more than my aeroplane
my car can carry (and potentially injure) 4 passengers, my aeroplane only 1
my car is faster than my aeroplane
my car weighs 3 times my aeroplane
my car is regularly used in very close proximity to large groups of other people and vehicles
my car is used significantly more than my aeroplane by more than one driver
my aeroplane is extremely unlikely to get vandalised in a car park
I was issued a driving licence with a third of the training hours it took me to get my NPPL

yet for significantly less cover, my aeroplane insurance is over 4 times that of my car.

You wonder why we shop around?
User avatar
By MartinC
#1861420
Hi Sooty, its not for me to justify the way insurers work or what they charge, but I can say that there are a lot more motor policies sold than aircraft policies, so it follows that the claims load built in to premiums is spread across millions of motor policies whereas there are far fewer aircraft policies to share the costs between. I believe that the aviation insurance market is becoming smaller so fewer players offering coverage means less competition. I suspect also that the majority of the premium paid relates to the liability cover rather than the hull limit.
By rdfb
#1861423
Sooty25 wrote:my car can carry (and potentially injure) 4 passengers, my aeroplane only 1


It's the third party liabilities. Your aircraft could crash into a block of flats and result in more damage and serious life-changing injuries than a car could. What's the repair/compensation bill for that going to be?
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861426
MartinC wrote:I suspect also that the majority of the premium paid relates to the liability cover rather than the hull limit.


In terms of aeroplanes, I believe it's the other way round.

It makes sense if you think about it, third party claims are rather rare, whereas people and storms break aeroplanes quite frequently.
RisePilot liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861436
rdfb wrote:It's the third party liabilities. Your aircraft could crash into a block of flats and result in more damage and serious life-changing injuries than a car...


Its my belief that most light aeroplanes would bounce off a block of flats... in fact I believe there was exactly that scenario not long after 9/11...
By David Potts
#1862107
What would the cost be of if you clipped another aircrafts wing while taxiing? Inspections, repairs, return to service repairs etc. The costs would add up very quickly without any other claims such as a schools loss of earnings