Bummer, another Mooney down

[toto]

If I read the facts in the light most favorable to the pilot here, it’s possible that he thought since his most recent application for a third class medical had not been denied, and his BasicMed was current, he was good to go.

There are definitely some conditions that would require a new application for a third class and a grant via SI before he could fly under BasicMed, but I suspect that many people don’t read that far into the reg. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

To reiterate @Shadrach, and others, what do you buy insurance for?  To cover YOUR MISTAKES!  Do you really want to pay for a policy that is going to deny YOU coverage because YOU broke a rule?  Be VERY careful for what you wish for when saying, "You would think" insurers should deny coverage for legally errant pilots.

Ask yourself how many accident reports you have read where the pilot was innocent of any and all transgressions.  

Huge difference between making a mistake, which we all do, and flying illegally, with no medical, which I hope none of us do. That's not a mistake, that's intentional. Should they cover someone without a license?

If I knowingly let an unlicensed driver drive my car, should my (and maybe your) carrier cover me? Personally I don't think so, but everyone has their own viewpoint.

[LANCECASPER]

12 minutes ago, toto said:

If I read the facts in the light most favorable to the pilot here, it’s possible that he thought since his most recent application for a third class medical had not been denied, and his BasicMed was current, he was good to go.

There are definitely some conditions that would require a new application for a third class and a grant via SI before he could fly under BasicMed, but I suspect that many people don’t read that far into the reg. 

It's nice of you to give him the benefit of the doubt, but any pilot who has had a mitral valve replacement knows that they need a special issuance to get a medical. Then three years later he doesn't disclose his medical history and tries to slide in on Basic Med. (If he had disclosed he wouldn't have got Basic Med) It doesn't work that way. 

[toto]

2 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

It's nice of you to give him the benefit of the doubt, but any pilot who has had a mitral valve replacement knows that they need a special issuance to get a medical. Then three years later he doesn't disclose his medical history and tries to slide in on Basic Med. (If he had disclosed he wouldn't have got Basic Med) It doesn't work that way. 

Fair enough.  I've never had an SI or BasicMed, so I don't have any first-hand experience with this, but I have certainly encountered a lot of ignorance about aviation regulations (medical or otherwise) and there isn't much that would surprise me 

 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Huge difference between making a mistake, which we all do, and flying illegally, with no medical, which I hope none of us do. That's not a mistake, that's intentional. Should they cover someone without a license?

If I knowingly let an unlicensed driver drive my car, should my (and maybe your) carrier cover me? Personally I don't think so, but everyone has their own viewpoint.

Is there any evidence the lack of medical was the cause of the crash?  The NTSB didn't think so.

Is your contention he should be denied insurance despite the fact that the rule he broke was completely unrelated to the cause of the crash?  If so, why stop there?  What if he was fleeing from robbing a store but was otherwise legal?  Should he be denied coverage because of that? After all, the crime is unrelated to the crash but he did just break the law, not just an FAA regulation.  Or, is it just 'anything' you decide is related to aviation?  So, if you knowingly fly one day out of 90 currency and crash should you be denied coverage?  How about if you knowingly fly 1 pound over gross and crash due to running out of gas?  Heck, there is a reg about carrying sufficient fuel so why isn't that a deliberate violation... I mean, you must have been cognizant fuel was low but deliberately and knowingly continued on anyway. Deny that coverage, right?  Flying to your annual a few days after your old annual expired because of a weather delay?

This guy, even per the NTSB, didn't crash because of lack of a valid medical but from spatial disorientation.  Why do you feel he should be denied coverage for something unrelated to the crash?  A better argument would be that he was out of instrument currency.  So, we are back to who is the arbiter of how far out is too far out before coverage is denied?  I'm comfortable with the insurance companies making that call.

I guess I'm just tired of all the holier than thou Monday morning QBs looking for any reason to deny insurance coverage so their precious premiums don't go up.  The worst are the ones that want to deny coverage for gear ups!  But the moral high ground argument (oh, he broke the 'rule' so DENY, DENY, DENY!! I'm so righteous.) are tiresome, as well.  Ever knowingly drive over the speed limit?  Think your auto insurance should be denied if you crash while speeding?

How about someone injured by your illegal actions, be they in an auto or an airplane?  Should they be denied compensation from your insurance because you broke a rule or law?  How about your example: you let someone drive that isn't licensed and they injure someone in a crash and you don't have assets to cover since the insurance denies coverage?  Does that seem just?  Change it up a bit: your unlicensed hypothetical driver is in an accident that is NOT his fault; he's sitting at a signal and is rear ended at a stoplight by an uninsured driver.  You okay with your insurance denying coverage?  How about if someone else in your car is injured?  Still okay with coverage denied?

Be careful on that high horse; the fall may hurt more than you might think.

[Shadrach]

An Insurance policy is fundamentally a financial contract between the indemnifier and the indemnified. The limits and limitations of the policy are codified within the contract. An accident/incident either falls within the bounds of coverage or it does not. It’s not a moral decision. It’s not about accountability for one’s actions. It’s simply a contract.

Accountability for criminal behavior is for the criminal courts.

This is not a new concept nor is it a byproduct of neomarxism. 
 

[ArtVandelay]

We all break rules, have you never broken the speed limit?

[LANCECASPER]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Is there any evidence the lack of medical was the cause of the crash?  The NTSB didn't think so.

Is your contention he should be denied insurance despite the fact that the rule he broke was completely unrelated to the cause of the crash?  If so, why stop there?  What if he was fleeing from robbing a store but was otherwise legal?  Should he be denied coverage because of that? After all, the crime is unrelated to the crash but he did just break the law, not just an FAA regulation.  Or, is it just 'anything' you decide is related to aviation?  So, if you knowingly fly one day out of 90 currency and crash should you be denied coverage?  How about if you knowingly fly 1 pound over gross and crash due to running out of gas?  Heck, there is a reg about carrying sufficient fuel so why isn't that a deliberate violation... I mean, you must have been cognizant fuel was low but deliberately and knowingly continued on anyway. Deny that coverage, right?  Flying to your annual a few days after your old annual expired because of a weather delay?

This guy, even per the NTSB, didn't crash because of lack of a valid medical but from spatial disorientation.  Why do you feel he should be denied coverage for something unrelated to the crash?  A better argument would be that he was out of instrument currency.  So, we are back to who is the arbiter of how far out is too far out before coverage is denied?  I'm comfortable with the insurance companies making that call.

I guess I'm just tired of all the holier than thou Monday morning QBs looking for any reason to deny insurance coverage so their precious premiums don't go up.  The worst are the ones that want to deny coverage for gear ups!  But the moral high ground argument (oh, he broke the 'rule' so DENY, DENY, DENY!! I'm so righteous.) are tiresome, as well.  Ever knowingly drive over the speed limit?  Think your auto insurance should be denied if you crash while speeding?

How about someone injured by your illegal actions, be they in an auto or an airplane?  Should they be denied compensation from your insurance because you broke a rule or law?  How about your example: you let someone drive that isn't licensed and they injure someone in a crash and you don't have assets to cover since the insurance denies coverage?  Does that seem just?  Change it up a bit: your unlicensed hypothetical driver is in an accident that is NOT his fault; he's sitting at a signal and is rear ended at a stoplight by an uninsured driver.  You okay with your insurance denying coverage?  How about if someone else in your car is injured?  Still okay with coverage denied?

Be careful on that high horse; the fall may hurt more than you might think.

I’m not looking for any reason for a company to deny a claim. Just two. I just think to pay the claim the insured should actually be a (1) licensed pilot with a (2) valid medical. In fact every policy I’ve ever read reads as such. Very simple. Forget the fact that he violated many FARs that day - we all make mistakes. If that’s too restrictive then we can agree to disagree.

Someone without a license or a medical knows it when they apply for coverage and if they brazenly falsify that I can only imagine what other risks they’ll take. Do your think his insurance company would have issued the policy if he told the truth about his medical? Contracts for coverage are bi-lateral - both parties have to act in good faith. A bad decision is a momentary lapse in judgment - we all have them. Lying intentionally to get coverage is a character flaw.

I have no problem whatsoever with a company paying for stupid mistakes - that’s why we insure. Taking off with a 300 foot ceiling when you aren’t instrument current was a stupid mistake, in addition to violating the FARs. But he never would have been insured if he had not lied when he applied for the policy.

[N201MKTurbo]

25 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I’m not looking for any reason for a company to deny a claim. Just two. I just think to pay the claim the insured should actually be a (1) licensed pilot with a (2) valid medical. In fact every policy I’ve ever read reads as such. Very simple. Forget the fact that he violated many FARs that day - we all make mistakes. If that’s too restrictive then we can agree to disagree.

Someone without a license or a medical knows it when they apply for coverage and if they brazenly falsify that I can only imagine what other risks they’ll take. Do your think his insurance company would have issued the policy if he told the truth about his medical? Contracts for coverage are bi-lateral - both parties have to act in good faith. A bad decision is a momentary lapse in judgment - we all have them. Lying intentionally to get coverage is a character flaw.

I have no problem whatsoever with a company paying for stupid mistakes - that’s why we insure. Taking off with a 300 foot ceiling when you aren’t instrument current was a stupid mistake, in addition to violating the FARs. But he never would have been insured if he had not lied when he applied for the policy.

So you spaced out your medical and it expired last week and you had a gear up. 

So sad to bad......

[Shadrach]

56 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I’m not looking for any reason for a company to deny a claim. Just two. I just think to pay the claim the insured should actually be a (1) licensed pilot with a (2) valid medical. In fact every policy I’ve ever read reads as such. Very simple. Forget the fact that he violated many FARS that day - we all make mistakes. If that’s too restrictive then we can agree to disagree.

Someone without a license or a medical knows it when they apply for coverage and if they falsify that I can only imagine what other risks they’ll take. Do your think his insurance company would have issued the policy if he told the truth about his medical? Contracts for coverage are bi-lateral - both parties have to act in good faith.

I have no problem whatsoever with a company paying for stupid mistakes - that’s why we insure. But he never would have been insured if he had niot lied when he applied for the policy.

So the pilot of the Cirrus that spun in at Love Field in 2016 was at 25 months since her last flight review so just one month out of currency. One could make the argument that her unfortunate lack of airmanship might have been corrected prior to the accident had she received a proper FR in the weeks leading up to the accident flight. It's no stretch to attribute that accident to task saturation and poor airmanship, the very reason we get a flight review is to identify and rectify deficiencies in our performance. Legally out of currency and a fatal accident attributed to poor airmanship. Should her insurance have denied to cover that loss?    The same case could be made for the Mooney accident.  Much easier to make the case that his lack of instrument currency was causal when compared to the medical issues.

I'm sympathetic to your view point, but I think that the professionals in the industry have repeatedly encountered this situation and found it preferable to err on the side of paying claims in spite of bad boy/bad girl acts.   In the case of this Mooney accident, you appear to be implying that there was intentional and deliberate fraud with regard to this pilot's policy renewal.  I don't think we have enough information to be sure of that but it's certainly a strong possibility. In such a case, I think it's prudent to pay the liability claims but the pilot and their heirs do not collect.

[wombat]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

I’m not looking for any reason for a company to deny a claim. Just two. I just think to pay the claim the insured should actually be a (1) licensed pilot with a (2) valid medical. In fact every policy I’ve ever read reads as such. Very simple. Forget the fact that he violated many FARs that day - we all make mistakes. If that’s too restrictive then we can agree to disagree.

We all have our preferred set of actions and situations we want covered and those that we don't want covered.   Why don't we exclude from health insurance coverage anybody who doesn't actually follow the doctor's advice on dieting, exercise, and smoking?      I remember someone on mooneyspace wanted to reject coverage for any flight with a special flight permit.       And I think someone else or maybe the same person wanted to reject fuel exhaustion claims.     There isn't a large enough pool of people to offer specific policies for each set of things people want covered or not.

 

If you have not heard this line that I think started with George Carlin:    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

I’m not looking for any reason for a company to deny a claim. Just two. I just think to pay the claim the insured should actually be a (1) licensed pilot with a (2) valid medical. In fact every policy I’ve ever read reads as such. Very simple. Forget the fact that he violated many FARs that day - we all make mistakes. If that’s too restrictive then we can agree to disagree.

Someone without a license or a medical knows it when they apply for coverage and if they brazenly falsify that I can only imagine what other risks they’ll take. Do your think his insurance company would have issued the policy if he told the truth about his medical? Contracts for coverage are bi-lateral - both parties have to act in good faith. A bad decision is a momentary lapse in judgment - we all have them. Lying intentionally to get coverage is a character flaw.

I have no problem whatsoever with a company paying for stupid mistakes - that’s why we insure. Taking off with a 300 foot ceiling when you aren’t instrument current was a stupid mistake, in addition to violating the FARs. But he never would have been insured if he had not lied when he applied for the policy.

Well, I don’t think this is as simple as you might prefer. The evidence here falls way short of establishing the “brazen fraud” you posit. He was certainly licensed (certificated to be pedantic) as I saw nothing to indicate his cert was ever revoked. As far as the medical, I’m allowing for ignorance of what conditions require a new 3rd class medical when already under Basic Med rather than conclude deliberate malice.

This guy paid for his mistake with his life, and fortunately didn’t hurt anyone else. And now you want to punish his grieving wife by denying the claim for the plane and having her pay for damage to the farmer’s field out of her pocket? You certainly aren’t punishing him!

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So you spaced out your medical and it expired last week and you had a gear up. 

So sad to bad......

Would be interesting to know how many of the pilots on this board have had an "oh $h!#" moment discovering an overdue flight review. Harder to do in this day of electronic calendars, but still possible.

[N201MKTurbo]

Just now, Shadrach said:

Would be interesting to know how many of pilots have had an "oh $h!#" moment discovering an overdue flight review. Harder to do in this day of electronic calendars, but still possible.

Do you check your currency before every flight? I've actually made a few local flights without the IPad! (How did we ever fly without them?) I'm not saying I'm flippant about currency, I'm not, but things happen.

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Do you check your currency before every flight? I've actually made a few local flights without the IPad! (How did we ever fly without them?) I'm not saying I'm flippant about currency, I'm not, but things happen.

I make lots of local flights with out a tablet.  I keep a current EFB database on my iphone to be legal.  I flew the Decathlon for an hour on Monday between a few different airports. Was never more than about 1500ft AGL and as low as 500ft AGL over the mountains and rural farm land.  I know the area well enough that I don't need to be low enough to read the route numbers on the state roads. 

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

I make lots of local flights with out a tablet.  I keep a current EFB database on my iphone to be legal.  I flew the Decathlon for an hour on Monday between a few different airports. Was never more than about 1500ft AGL and as low as 500ft AGL over the mountains and rural farm land.  I know the area well enough that I don't need to be low enough to read the route numbers on the state roads. 

Oh, fun.

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So you spaced out your medical and it expired last week and you had a gear up. 

So sad to bad......

He hadn’t had a valid medical for six years. All I was saying is that in applying for his insurance he would have had to have told them he had a valid medical or they never would have written the policy. That’s not spacing out your medical by a week - that’s fraud.

Again it’s surprising what an uprising this has turned into - it started by me using the words, “you would think, right” . . lol. Apparently it was only me that thought that . .  Point taken.

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

He hadn’t had a valid medical for six years. All I was saying is that in applying for his insurance he would have had to have told them he had a valid medical or they never would have written the policy. That’s not spacing out your medical by a week - that’s fraud.

My last medical expired in 2018.   I've had several checkrides and flight reviews since then, and renewed my insurance many times since then, including changing underwriters.  The FAA says I'm legal.   I have not committed fraud.

[LANCECASPER]

24 minutes ago, EricJ said:

My last medical expired in 2018.   I've had several checkrides and flight reviews since then, and renewed my insurance many times since then, including changing underwriters.  The FAA says I'm legal.   I have not committed fraud.

If you have Basic Med you’re legal. He couldn’t have received Basic Med legally since he needed a Special Issuance. He lied about that also.

[Shadrach]

On 4/24/2024 at 1:36 PM, LANCECASPER said:

If you have Basic Med you’re legal. He couldn’t have received Basic Med legally since he needed a Special Issuance. He lied about that also.

I try not to ascribe duplicity to any situation where ignorance or dare I say, stupidity will suffice...unless I have firsthand knowledge that suggests otherwise.  I did not know this pilot, but I also find it hard to believe that he did not understand that the undisclosed medical conditions for which he received treatment were disqualifying without an SI.  However, I never underestimate people.  I met a Mooney owner just last week with a beautiful 201 that he said "cruises at 180-190kts, depending on the wind".  He did not pick up on my confused look at all. The conversation did not last much longer but what remained of it convinced me that I often over estimate intellect.

[Hank]

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Not my original thoughts, but I heartily agree with both of these, and their underlying sentiments.

[LANCECASPER]

26 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I try not to ascribe duplicity to any situation where ignorance or dare I say, stupidity will suffice...unless I have firsthand knowledge that suggests otherwise.  I did not know this pilot, but I also find it hard to believe that he did not understand that the undisclosed medical conditions for which he received treatment were disqualifying without an SI.  However, I never underestimate people.  I met Mooney owner just last week with a beautiful 201 that he said "cruises at 180-190kts, depending on the wind".  He did not pick up on my confused look at all. The conversation did not last much longer but what remained of it convinced me that I often over estimate intellect.

"The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits"         Supposedly said by Albert Einstein

[jlunseth]

Reminds me a little of the Victoria MN crash of a few years ago where the NTSB reported that the pilot was not instrument current. What makes people think that is ok somehow?

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

If you have Basic Med you’re legal. He couldn’t have received Basic Med legally since he needed a Special Issuance. He lied about that also.

While I am not convinced he was knowingly fraudulent (your quote regarding "no limit to stupidity"), let's say he was: he said he had a valid medical when applying for insurance. So, what? The lack of medical even according to the NTSB was NOT causal. So, we are back to denying claims on a legal basis based on the insurance contract....and back to wanting insurance companies to start denying claims when they can find any legal out in the contract.  Again, the better argument is that he was not instrument current; that is a relevant cause!

Then we are back to insurance companies using their judgement on how far out is too far out.  I'm okay with that.  I don't think any of us want them to start trying to deny claims based on any little thing they can come up with!

[LANCECASPER]

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

While I am not convinced he was knowingly fraudulent (your quote regarding "no limit to stupidity"), let's say he was: he said he had a valid medical when applying for insurance. So, what? The lack of medical even according to the NTSB was NOT causal. So, we are back to denying claims on a legal basis based on the insurance contract....and back to wanting insurance companies to start denying claims when they can find any legal out in the contract.  Again, the better argument is that he was not instrument current; that is a relevant cause!

Then we are back to insurance companies using their judgement on how far out is too far out.  I'm okay with that.  I don't think any of us want them to start trying to deny claims based on any thing they can come up with!

So what . . lol?

61.113 describes the privileges and limitations of a Private Pilot Certificate. You don't get to exercise those privileges without a valid medical, including Basic Med(ical). Instead of going through the Special Issuance process, which he never received, you can't just find a doctor that doesn't know your medical history and lie on the medical history portion of the Basic Med app and now have a valid medical.

The relevant cause of flying without being instrument current, although stupid,  is superseded by the fact that he wasn't legal to even exercise his privileges to fly in severe clear VFR weather.

I am the last person in the world that thinks that insurance shouldn't cover common mistakes that are made that result in an accident - that's the whole purpose of having it. However I don't think it's too much to ask that the insured actually be a pilot who is legal to fly the airplane.

Do you think the insurance should still be valid if someone lies and says they have a Private Pilot Certificate, but actually doesn't?