NYT Op-Ed on General Aviation

[AndyFromCB]

Astelmaszek,

 

Who are you insured with that gave you a 1M smooth limit with 80 hours retract time. Let me know and I will call them today, because AOPA insurance, Falcon, and several others have all used the 500 hr criteria. 

 

AIG/Chartis, not 80 hours RR time, I've been with AIG since 2009, had 80TT when I insured my Arrow, 1 million smooth. Now I'm closing in on 750TT, so maybe things have changed.

[bonal]

Shows what I know, I thought insurance was required. Perhaps in CA it is. Be real stupid not to have it. I read the piece and seems like another good example of some one with a opinion about something they no very little about through actual esperience also a good way to bring attention to his book.

[jetdriven]

 

Accident report:  http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030903X01453&key=1

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The continued descent below minimum descent altitude and the altitude/clearance not maintained by the pilot during approach to the airport. The low ceiling was a contributing factor.

 

Doesn't sound like a very good pilot.  Flunked his IR checkride the first time, then flunked his multi ride twice 7 years later.  Then he had an accident following an aborted landing.  During the accident he shot a non-precision approach with thunderstorms and low ceilings in the vicinity, and had no alternate filed (as required due to low ceilings in the forecast).  

 

It sure sucks for those girls and their father, but it sounds like they've gotten past the tragedy from the snippets of their story that are on the web.

 

Make proficiency checks in type mandatory every 6 months like they do with Part 135 and 121 pilots and see what happens to the accident rate.

[AndyFromCB]

Make proficiency checks in type mandatory every 6 months like they do with Part 135 and 121 pilots and see what happens to the accident rate.

 

Yeah, and then wait for screaming from all the old farts usually sitting around the airport, already bitching about everything under the sun, especially their long lost medical application as their shove another doughnut down their throat. It is apparently a right of every American GA pilot, to go up, after six months of not flying and shoot an ADF approach down to 200, 1/4 mile visibility in an airplane "maintained" by Bubba with a budget of .5AMU a year, mostly spent on pencil sharpeners. To say otherwise is pure socialism and to require a working autopilot while single pilot IFR would down right put us even with North Korea in the human rights department.

 

 

From the author's publisher:

 

"Mommy burned up."

 

On a cloudy day in August 2003, Grace and Lily Pearson, 4 and 3, were flying in their uncle's plane along with their mother on their way to their grandpa's birthday party near Lake Superior, when Lily noticed the trees out the window were growing close; so close she could almost touch them. Before the trees tore into the cabin, Grace had the strange sensation of falling through clouds.

 

A story of tragedy, survival, and justice, Damian Fowler's Falling Through Clouds is about a young father's fight for his family in the wake of a plane crash that killed his wife, badly injured his two daughters, and thrust him into a David-vs-Goliath legal confrontation with a multi-billion dollar insurance company. Blindsided when he was sued in federal court by this insurance company, Toby Pearson made it his mission to change aviation insurance law in his home state and nationally, while nursing his daughters to recovery and recreating his own life. Falling Through Clouds charts the dramatic journey of a man who turned a personal tragedy into an important victory for himself, his girls, and many other Americans.

 

He definitely has an ax to grind, and is using the NYT to advance his cause and of course sell books.  Note that the author is NOT the widower from the crash.  The insurance company denied the claim b/c the pilot failed to disclose a previous accident in his insurance application, and it went to court before they ultimately paid.  The same story could be written about any number of accidents in today's society where insurance companies slow-play the process, or the insurance policies are inadequate to address all of the claims/expenses with an accident.

 

More about him:

Damian Fowler, a former BBC reporter and New York-based journalist, has spent the last three years researching the Pearson family saga. He has written for Vanity Fair, Vogue, The Guardian, The Financial Times Magazine, and The Times of London, among others.

 

As far as I am concerned, there was no "slow-play" here. He made a substantial, fraudulent omission on his insurance application. I'm not surprised they eventually paid out due to 12 morons in the jury box, but clearly he was at fault here in more ways than one. 

 

While generally I am not a big fan of Frank Robinson, I like their idea of forming their own, off shore insurance company, not subject to our judicial system. My understanding is, they pay and pay quickly, when within the terms of the contract but otherwise tell you to get lost. Their premiums are about half what a US based company must charge to insure a R22 or R44.

[scottfromiowa]

Make proficiency checks in type mandatory every 6 months like they do with Part 135 and 121 pilots and see what happens to the accident rate.

How about for drivers over 80 too?

[Bob - S50]

Not very positive about General Aviation...I will refrain from sharing my thoughts about the quality of reporting and the validity of the opinion-editorial writings at the "Grey Lady"...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-Planes.html

I can't remember for sure, but I think it was Mark Twain that said something like...

 

"If you don't read the news you are uniformed.  If you do read the news you are misinformed."

 

Bob

[scottfromiowa]

Yeah, and then wait for screaming from all the old farts usually sitting around the airport, already bitching about everything under the sun, especially their long lost medical application as their shove another doughnut down their throat. It is apparently a right of every American GA pilot, to go up, after six months of not flying and shoot an ADF approach down to 200, 1/4 mile visibility in an airplane "maintained" by Bubba with a budget of .5AMU a year, mostly spent on pencil sharpeners. To say otherwise is pure socialism and to require a working autopilot while single pilot IFR would down right put us even with North Korea in the human rights department.

 

 Don't you mean pure Conservatism? Sorry, didn't mean to tell a Socialist how to use Socialism in a sentence. Carry on...I am actually enjoying this. North Korea, they are C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.V.E there, right?

 

As far as I am concerned, there was no "slow-play" here. He made a substantial, fraudulent omission on his insurance application. I'm not surprised they eventually paid out due to 12 morons in the jury box, but clearly he was at fault here in more ways than one. 

 

While generally I am not a big fan of Frank Robinson, I like their idea of forming their own, off shore insurance company, not subject to our judicial system. My understanding is, they pay and pay quickly, when within the terms of the contract but otherwise tell you to get lost. Their premiums are about half what a US based company must charge to insure a R22 or R44.

[scottfromiowa]

How many of us Morons are out there AssfromCB?

[aviatoreb]

I always enjoy your posts, Erik. The error that you mentioned. Is it that you also have to drive to GA airports? There is risk there, too, but perhaps less than driving to airports with commercial service for at least a couple of reasons that I can think of.

Jim

 

Thanks Jim.  Actually I was thinking of the 2 per million hours fatal accident rate for driving which is ambiguously stated - is that 2 accidents with fatalities per million hours or is that two fatalities per million hours.  (so risk per person or risk per vehicle) which would be the same if there were zero car pooling.

 

But you are correct that I neglected the risk of driving to a GA airport.  I deliberately did not compute the number of GA deaths per year - since per person it would be much higher than per person as compared to the driving phase of going to a commercial airport since driving is much better per hour, and also per mile than GA flying - statistically - but not as much as you might guess.  I figured it out once but I forget how much.

 

If you let me, I can quote real numbers and write an op ed story that shows either side of the argument for or against GA safety.

[jetdriven]

Whats interesting, is the pilot had insurance, the insurance company just refused to pay. So that pilot was compliant under his idea of mandatory insurance.  Now, if you want to question the pilot if his insurance is compelled to pay for the hundreds of ways an accident can occur, thats another matter, and impossible to determine.

[scottfromiowa]

Whats interesting, is the pilot had insurance, the insurance company just refused to pay. So that pilot was compliant under his idea of mandatory insurance.  Now, if you want to question the pilot if his insurance is compelled to pay for the hundreds of ways an accident can occur, thats another matter, and impossible to determine.

Bottom line: As long as there is a legal system that allows puntitive damages...as long as there are big pockets...actuaries and decision-makers at aviation insurance carriers will elect to "settle" vs. rolling the dice. It is the "wise" business decision.

The jury pool is vast and lawyers of course do their job and select the "best jury". Best being the most compassionate to "their side". Some call them "Morons" for acting the way they do...Some would call them compassionate.

That is why I like the story. If its sole purpose is to get kids out of uncle _____'s plane by educating the parents...It is a winner in my book...and will hopefully lower my insurance rates because kids won't be as much at risk because they will say "NO, you are not flying today. Have you see the weather up there"!?

Pretty telling when you look at the pilots background...the assessment of the contributing causes...and yet the carrier settles. As Bruce Hornsby said: "That's just the way it is"...

[scottfromiowa]

Ask Eddie Andreini's family-Travis Air Force Base-Accident/Fire/Emergeny Response-What they thought of the government response? 1-minute standard for response. 4-minutes to get to his overturned aircraft. Repeated replies that I am "O.K."...Burned alive while crowd watches...

Damages? Law suit? Just one of those things?

I don't think "sorry" cuts it here.

Mayber the writer could sharpen his axe and grind it on Uncle Sam? Or is the blade one-sided for Big Corporations?

[flyboy0681]

Were there really 7,502 "accidents" between 2008 and 2012? Or were they incidents, some as mundane as taxiing past another plane and nipping the wingtip? 

 

Am I the only one that resents the word "amateur" pilot? Just about every article on GA uses this word.

 

The comments section submitted by readers are interesting to read. Some comments are thoughtful and well written, others not so much. Here are but a few:

 

"A friend of mine who is a very experienced pilot, told me that he would never fly with a pilot with less than 5,000 hours of flight time."

 

"Why pick on general aviation? Approximately 450 annual fatalities does not compare to the 35,543 motor vehicle-related deaths or 32,351 gun-related deaths in 2011"

 

"Many of the comments to this article seem to arise from the class envy rampant in big cities (NYC) where the hoi polloi see the 1% climb out of their limos and into their $50mil biz-jets like Bloomberg. Come visit a few private pilots in Kansas or Idaho and gain some perspective."   (Doesn't Michael Bloomberg own a Mooney?)

 

" Unfortunately, as others have mentioned, there are too many pilots who believe that they absolutely have to get somewhere on a schedule and then pay the price. Flying is not inherently a dangerous pastime if a pilot understands the risks and avoids dangerous situations, particularly weather."

[201er]

Whats interesting, is the pilot had insurance, the insurance company just refused to pay. So that pilot was compliant under his idea of mandatory insurance.  Now, if you want to question the pilot if his insurance is compelled to pay for the hundreds of ways an accident can occur, thats another matter, and impossible to determine.

But wouldn't scud running below minimums fall outside of the insurance's governance of safety for pilots and therefore be inelliginle for compensation? I thought this guy thinks insurance will make pilots have to fly safer? Surely paying out in an instance of breaking the rules and flying dangerously sends the wrong safety message?

[AndyFromCB]

But wouldn't scud running below minimums fall outside of the insurance's governance of safety for pilots and therefore be inelliginle for compensation? I thought this guy thinks insurance will make pilots have to fly safer? Surely paying out in an instance of breaking the rules and flying dangerously sends the wrong safety message?

 

Actually it's impossible to weasel out paying a claim for stupid, even if stupid was on purpose. If that was the case, then 80% or so of aviation claims would not paid. And about 99% of vehicle claims.

 

However, factual omission on an application, is perfectly good grounds for denying a claim until of course it gets in front of group of people too stupid to get out of jury duty aka compassionate folks.

[chrisk]

However, factual omission on an application, is perfectly good grounds for denying a claim until of course it gets in front of group of people too stupid to get out of jury duty aka compassionate folks.

 

There are plenty of cases where a jury should ignore a factual omission.  As an example:  You lied on your life insurance application about being a pilot.   If you died in an auto accident on the way to the airport, would that be a factual reason for denial?  If I was on the jury, it would not be.  Now if you died while acting as pilot in command, that might be a valid reason for denial (assuming death was from something stupid the pilot did, and not a heart attack).

[scottfromiowa]

News Flash! Performing civic duty now is stupid....

Dateline 7/18/14

when asked about participating on jury duty-those that participate on jury duty are "to stupid to get out of jury duty"-J.P. Stelmaszek

[flyboy0681]

News Flash! Performing civic duty now is stupid....

Dateline 7/18/14

when asked about participating on jury duty-those that participate on jury duty are "to stupid to get out of jury duty"-J.P. Stelmaszek

 

Consider me one of the stupid ones. I actually like serving when called up.

[AndyFromCB]

News Flash! Performing civic duty now is stupid....

Dateline 7/18/14

when asked about participating on jury duty-those that participate on jury duty are "to stupid to get out of jury duty"-J.P. Stelmaszek

 

Have many cases have you been deposed for? How many cases have you sat to select a jury for? I assure you, from my own personal experience, and being I've work in insurance since 1997, there have been many, by the time both sides are done with selection, there is not one person left on that jury with an IQ over 80.

 

Consider me one of the stupid ones. I actually like serving when called up.

 

If any of the lawyers on either side have a single brain cell left functioning (granted, that would maybe be 20% of JDs out there), you'd be out quicker than I can say objection. Last thing I'll ever want on any jury is someone who is too eager to serve.

 

I never said it's not our civic duty, however, doesn't matter a bit anymore since instructing the jury of nullification leads to automatic mistrial. I simply stated that both sides will pick the dumbest of the dumb they can find. Jury duty is pretty much slavery and smart slaves do lousy work and attorneys know that.

[AndyFromCB]

There are plenty of cases where a jury should ignore a factual omission.  As an example:  You lied on your life insurance application about being a pilot.   If you died in an auto accident on the way to the airport, would that be a factual reason for denial?  If I was on the jury, it would not be.  Now if you died while acting as pilot in command, that might be a valid reason for denial (assuming death was from something stupid the pilot did, and not a heart attack).

 

Yes, the omission has to be substantial to the matter at hand, but that's not for the jury to decide. That will be decided in evidentiary hearings by your honor aka an-ex partner in law "promoted" to position of a judge.

[201er]

Actually it's impossible to weasel out paying a claim for stupid, even if stupid was on purpose. If that was the case, then 80% or so of aviation claims would not paid. And about 99% of vehicle claims.

 

However, factual omission on an application, is perfectly good grounds for denying a claim until of course it gets in front of group of people too stupid to get out of jury duty aka compassionate folks.

Oh, I'm not questioning insurance, I'm questioning the article author's claim that mandating insurance would make general aviation safer because insurance would fix stupid.

[chrisk]

I assure you, from my own personal experience, and being I've work in insurance since 1997, there have been many, by the time both sides are done with selection, there is not one person left on that jury with an IQ over 80.

 

 

If any of the lawyers on either side have a single brain cell left functioning (granted, that would maybe be 20% of JDs out there), you'd be out quicker than I can say objection. Last thing I'll ever want on any jury is someone who is too eager to serve.

 

I never said it's not our civic duty, however, doesn't matter a bit anymore since instructing the jury of nullification leads to automatic mistrial. I simply stated that both sides will pick the dumbest of the dumb they can find. Jury duty is pretty much slavery and smart slaves do lousy work and attorneys know that.

 

 

Yes, the omission has to be substantial to the matter at hand, but that's not for the jury to decide. That will be decided in evidentiary hearings by your honor aka an-ex partner in law "promoted" to position of a judge.

 

 

I believe you just described why the jury system is broken in this country.  It has been corrupted to pick non-thinking folks, and then it hides evidence from them.   I say dismiss anyone who knows the parties, then pick the first 12.   Let them hear all the evidence, the judges ruling about the evidence, and let them ask questions. 

 

At least where I live, we have had a number of innocent folks sent to jail.  It seems a trial is more of a formality on the way to jail, not a true test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  On the civil side, I imagine the insurance company is assumed to be the bad guy, unless the other side is a no good welfare thief.  And I assume to the lawyers try to manipulate this bias as best they can.

 

And I've been on a jury twice.  Once for a potential life sentence (yes, having half a pound of cocaine will get you life in Texas).  And once for a civil case involving a used car dealership (which since lost their license for deceptive practices).

[flyboy0681]

 

 

At least where I live, we have had a number of innocent folks sent to jail.  

 

 

Somewhat related, the Innocence Project to date has gotten 317 people off of death row and freed. 

[scottfromiowa]

"Am I the only one that resents the word "amateur" pilot? "-Flyboy quote

Are you offended if someone calls you an amateur golfer? If you don't do it for money....and I definitely don't fly FOR money. You/we are amateur's...

[flyboy0681]

"Am I the only one that resents the word "amateur" pilot? "-Flyboy quote

Are you offended if someone calls you an amateur golfer? If you don't do it for money....and I definitely don't fly FOR money. You/we are amateur's...

 

The word amateur implies novice.