• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

The Sport of Pilots

Lowflybye

Registered User
Mount Juliet, Tennessee
This is my latest article that will be on the newsstands in the next week or so. I thought it might be beneficial and entertaining to some of you.

Enjoy

-Low


The Sport of Pilots

If you have read my articles in past issues, you are probably beginning to realize there is a recurring theme in them. For me, flying is not just a passion; it is an addiction. I am an addict.

There, I have finally publicly admitted what my wife has been telling me for as long as we have been married. I am addicted to flying. I read about it. I watch movies about it. I make a yearly pilgrimage to Oshkosh, the mecca for aviation addicts. I even attend a breakfast most Saturday mornings to meet with others who share this same addiction so we can discuss our habits and compare our vices. Is this starting to sound a little too familiar to you as well? Don’t worry, you are in good company and help is closer than you think. Seek out your local “Extreme Aviation Addicts” chapter and you will find yourself among friends. Da Vinci was right: “When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”

So what is it about flying that gets into our blood and makes us want more? I suspect it is the same thing that drives some people to keep chasing that little ball around all 18 holes or that draws a running back to the end zone or a batter to the plate. It is the thrill of the sport, the challenge of the task ahead, and the satisfaction of accomplishment. Some may say flying is not a sport, but let us think about it a minute. Flying requires training, practice, and skill. It has a coach (better known as a Certified Flight Instructor or CFI), rules that must be followed, and referees to make sure the game is played correctly. Not only do we have referees in flying, but we also have penalties. And just like any great sport, the referee always seems to be full of bad calls. Yes, flying is a sport; it is the sport of pilots.

One other element flying shares with the better-known sports of the world is an injured reserve list. On the list is a group of pilots who may not be quite as physically fit as they once were yet still have the addiction and desire to remain on the team, even if it means they cannot play the entire game any longer. The player has retained the skills and the knowledge, but his body is just not quite what it was before. Many players will remain on the injured reserve list until they finally retire from the sport. For other players, the position is temporary, and as soon as a doctor signs a clean bill of health, they will return to the game. In the sport of flying, the injured reserve list could be considered the Sport Pilot category. Sport pilots are still pilots; they just play at a little slower speed with more limitations.

I have been blessed with the opportunity to meet many interesting people and make many good friends during my time in this sport. I have seen new pilots join the team, and I have seen veterans close the hangar for the last time. It was not until just a few years ago that extending your playing time by placing your name on the injured reserve list was even an option, but since a rule change hit the books, the injured reserve list has become a popular option. Now pilots who fly aircraft that meet the Light Sport rule no longer have to worry about high blood pressure, irregular heartbeats, EKG tests, or cancer medications that may ground them on their next medical. As long as a medical has not been revoked or denied, pilots can still fly their airplanes. If pilots hold at least a Recreational Pilot rating and own a Cub, Champ, or other Light Sport Aircraft (LSA)-qualified plane, they can keep flying under the Sport Pilot rating without the worry the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will deny their next medical.

No Medical Equals No Insurance

Seems like a “no brainer” doesn’t it? The FAA makes the rules so there is nothing more to worry about right? Wrong. You forgot about your insurance. The FAA does not have its money on the line in the event of an accident or claim, but insurance companies do, and the rules of the insurance companies are oftentimes more strict than the FAA’s regulations. Your insurance policy was written with the understanding that you are a Private, Commercial, or Airline Transport Pilot (ATP), and your signature on the application attests to that being true. In order for the aforementioned pilot licenses to be valid, there must be a current and valid medical certificate to accompany them.

FAR Part 61.3(c) Medical certificate.

(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft, under a certificate issued to that person under this part, unless that person has a current and appropriate medical certificate that has been issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the Administrator, which is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.

If your medical certificate expires, your Private, Commercial, or ATP pilot license is no longer valid and therefore, your policy provides no coverage during your operation of the aircraft.

Whoa, surprised you with that one didn’t I. I have met many pilots who let their medical certificate expire and were clueless they were operating without insurance. An insurance policy is nothing more than a contract in which the underwriting company agrees to indemnify policyholders for a loss as long as they follow the terms laid out in the policy. The terms and premiums for the policy are based on the information provided to the underwriter in the form of an application. If the terms that were originally agreed upon change, the policy must be endorsed accordingly in order for the policy to remain bound. Some companies such as U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. actually spell out in the pilot section the requirement for a valid medical:

THE PILOT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT: The aircraft must be operated in flight only by a person shown below, who must have a current and proper (1) medical certificate and (2) pilot certificate with necessary ratings as required by the FAA for each flight. There is no coverage under the policy if the pilot does not meet these requirements.

Other companies such as Global Aerospace do not specifically list the medical as a required component for coverage:

Item 7

PILOTS: The policy shall not apply while the aircraft is in flight unless the pilot in command is any of the following:

PART C: Any person holding a currently effective certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration designating him or her a private, commercial or airline transport pilot …

Although we do not actually see the term “medical certificate” in this form of policy wording, we do see the term “effective certificate” with reference to the pilot’s license. Since a valid medical certificate is required under FAR Part 61.3 in order to have an effective pilot certificate, it is understood that the policy does not apply without a medical certificate.

A Matter of Health

Why is this even an issue for a sport pilot? The skill level reached by pilots has not changed just because they are operating under the Sport Pilot rating. Indeed, pilots do not wake up the day after their medical certificate expired and lose all their skills, but there is something about their physical condition that causes them to be concerned about getting their medical renewed. Some insurance companies are willing to insure Sport-rated pilots, provided they have a valid medical certificate to accompany the license. It is not a matter of skill; it is a matter of health issues. The underwriter’s only gauge as to the physical condition of the pilot is the FAA medical. Underwriters have a lot riding on whether the pilot is insurable. You are asking them to be willing to pay for an aircraft in the event of a total loss as well as up to $1 million in liability claims for a pilot who is worried about being able to pass a medical exam. Would you put up that much of your own money if the roles were reversed?

So what do you do if you are in this position or facing this possibility in the near future? Talk with your agent about it. There are some companies that will write the sport pilots without an accompanying medical certificate provided they know it is a sport-pilot risk from the time the policy is initially in force. Depending on the circumstances behind a switch to sport pilot, an underwriter may be willing to continue a current policy.

A pilot taking medication approved by the FAA on a case-by-case basis may be hesitant to risk passing a medical by a flight physician only to have it overturned by an FAA bureaucrat who “knows better” than the physician what the effects of a drug are on the pilot. The pilot would essentially be grounded until the FAA is satisfied the patient has a clean bill of health or is competent to fly while taking medication. To prevent this problem altogether, pilots will oftentimes continue to fly under the sport-pilot rating until their treatment is complete. Then they can renew their medical certificate without the worry of red tape. These are situations that should be discussed with your agent in order to find the best solution for your insurance coverage.

I am still relatively young and expect to have many more years on this earth before my Father calls me home. I plan to enjoy flying for as long as He allows me to do so. Will I join the injured reserve list someday? If it allows me to stay in the game for a few more plays, you better believe I will. I know that one day I will have to close the door to the hangar for the last time as the pilot in command. I will eventually have to retire from this great sport: the sport of pilots.
 
A current FAA medical is required to exercise the "privileges" of a pilot certificate. An expired medical does NOT make a pilot certificate invalid.

Another way of looking at it.... if my Class I is past six months, I cannot use my ATP privileges, but I can use my Commercial privileges. If past 12 months, I now can only exercise my Private Pilot privileges. If it completely expires or I am rejected, I can still exercise my CFI privileges as long as the other pilot is a current "acting" PIC for the aircraft and operation involved.... and my CFI certificate is valid. In all cases, my ATP, CPC, PPC & CFI are still valid from the FAA's viewpoint.

Also.... I do remember a long, long time ago that someone had an accident/incident and the insurance carrier refused to cover because the pilot's medical had expired. He sued in civil court and his lawyer convinced the judge/jury that no medical deficiency contributed to the cause of the accident and therefore the insurance had to pay up. Can imagine there have been other cases similar.

Certainly the "ground" coverage is not affected by medical currency..???

.
 
- Ground coverage will not be effected...only in flight coverage.

- It would be hard to get a judge to rule against the insurance companies when the policy specifically states the requirements of a medical or a "effective certificate". Has it been done int he past & could it be done again...yes, but I would not bet my money that it would happen in my case.

Your points on the medical are technically valid, but flawed in reality. Your license is still valid in that you do not have to do anything additional to "re-earn" it, but you cannot exercise the privileges of that license without the accompanying medical so what good does it do for you other than bragging rights...it is in a sense not valid.

Keep in mind that this is real word insurance info to try and help you all understand it a little better...not devils advocate, argue with the FAA material.

- You walk a fine line acting as a CFI with an expired medical certificate. Who is the PIC while you are the sole manipulator of the controls and training a STU pilot, or giving a BFR to a pilot who is past the 24 month time line, or IPC to a pilot out of currency? They cannot legally be PIC as they are not current, therefore the CFI is the PIC by definition.

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

***This would be the CFI in all cases mentioned above***

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

***Cannot exercise the privileges of the license holding these items without a current medical***


Sec. 91.109 - Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons when --

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless --

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Since you may not exercise the privileges of (at least) the private license without a valid medical...you would be illegal in either case.
 
I guess scare articles sell magazines.
It all could have been written in a much more positive light, but that would be non-controversial and boring.
I had zero problems getting insurance on my 1940 J3 Cub when I sold my Cessna 152, bought the Cub, and started flying under sport pilot rules. Both places that I asked for quotes said simply enter "Driver's license" where it says class of medical, and the expiration date of the license where it asks for expiration date of the medical.

Further more, my pilot certificate is good with no FAA medical; I just can't operate with the commercial pilot privileges - only with sport pilot privileges. A pilot does not have to get a new certificate that says "Sport Pilot" when making the transition. And as far as acting as CFI with no medical, every CFI refresher course I have been to for years has explained clearly the cases where you can do that, and even take money for it.
Chuck Shaw
 
Chuck-Fairfax said:
I guess scare articles sell magazines.
It all could have been written in a much more positive light, but that would be non-controversial and boring.
I had zero problems getting insurance on my 1940 J3 Cub when I sold my Cessna 152, bought the Cub, and started flying under sport pilot rules.

Easy fellows, it was not intended to be a scare article or even controversial. It was intended to be informative and keep people from unknowingly flying without insurance. I tried to write it from a very positive light and even stated that I plan to enter the same category if it allows me to continue flying.

It is not a problem to get the coverage...you just have to give that info up front and do not assume that just because you are FAA legal (sport pilot) that the policy is still valid.

Chuck-Fairfax said:
Further more, my pilot certificate is good with no FAA medical; I just can't operate with the commercial pilot privileges - only with sport pilot privileges.

Pay attention to what you are reading...I did not say that you could not operate under sport pilot privileges!

If your medical certificate expires, your Private, Commercial, or ATP pilot license is no longer valid and therefore, your policy provides no coverage during your operation of the aircraft.

I wrote the article because I was asked to do so by many fellow pilots who had switched to sport pilot and unknowingly voided their coverage. I tried to make it interesting while being informative, and believe me that is hard to do with insurance topics. There are so many discussions on these forums that are based on speculation and "well this is what I heard" and they are far from accurate. I try to keep you all up to date with the real world of insurance and explain your questions and concerns as best I can, but it is not easy in this crowd at times. I am a pilot and aviation addict first and for most...I am an insurance agent to pay for my addiction and help others like me who want to continue flying without getting the shaft.

Don't shoot the messenger lest he stop bringing the news! :peeper
 
Lowflybye said:
- Ground coverage will not be effected...only in flight coverage.

How about during ground "operation" of an aircraft...?

- It would be hard to get a judge to rule against the insurance companies when the policy specifically states the requirements of a medical or a "effective certificate". Has it been done int he past & could it be done again...yes, but I would not bet my money that it would happen in my case.

Point is, there are no absolutes and your statements should reflect that. An expensive lawyer and a stupid jury are capable of amazing things... and verdicts.

Your points on the medical are technically valid, but flawed in reality. Your license is still valid in that you do not have to do anything additional to "re-earn" it, but you cannot exercise the privileges of that license without the accompanying medical so what good does it do for you other than bragging rights...it is in a sense not valid.

I don't have a license, I have a pilot certificate. If you are writing articles for aviation related publications, you might want to make an effort to define the terms correctly. Simply, you specifically said that an expired medical made a certificate invalid and I simply corrected you, which you just admitted. There is nothing flawed about it at all. A certificate and the privileges of a certificate/license are a common thing... in education, aviation, medicine, etc. My favorite is a doctor who is given a license to "practice" medicine. Is my certificate to "practice" flying..??

Who knows, I might want my bragging rights some day when they lock me up and only let me out in my walker..!!

Keep in mind that this is real word insurance info to try and help you all understand it a little better...not devils advocate, argue with the FAA material.

Using your logic to an extreme, an expired medical is just a violation of the FARs... just like flying slightly over gross weight and other many things that can easily be done. What does the insurance company say about that? NO coverage..?? Does that mean when I have a car accident and they pull the computer and find I was speeding by 10 mph, that coverage will be denied..?

Obviously, gross violation of rules (FAA or speeding) might be grounds for an insurance company trying to get out of a claim... but if an aircraft has an engine failure caused mechanically... if my medical is one week expired, I think I have a good case to ask for coverage.

- You walk a fine line acting as a CFI with an expired medical certificate. Who is the PIC while you are the sole manipulator of the controls and training a STU pilot, or giving a BFR to a pilot who is past the 24 month time line, or IPC to a pilot out of currency? They cannot legally be PIC as they are not current, therefore the CFI is the PIC by definition.

There is no fine line at all.... it is clearly defined and has been accepted by the FAA for many years. If a CFI does not have to "act" as PIC, he/she can instruct as long as they want as long as their CFI is valid.

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

***This would be the CFI in all cases mentioned above***

Not so.... CFI without a medical cannot "act" as PIC therefore cannot be the PIC.

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

***Cannot exercise the privileges of the license holding these items without a current medical***


Sec. 91.109 - Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons when --

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless --

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Since you may not exercise the privileges of (at least) the private license without a valid medical...you would be illegal in either case.

Not applicable if not "acting" as PIC or as a required safety pilot, etc. In laymen terms, if the pilot is legal in the aircraft and its operation without the CFI, the flight is legal. If the CFI is there and giving instruction, the CFI does NOT need a medical as he/she is not required to be in the aircraft in the first place. The CFI is simply giving instruction... not being a required crew-member and certainly not the acting PIC as he/she is not capable of that without a medical. The CFI can log PIC without a medical, but there is a special FAR that allows that.

To make matters more complicated, the FAA just issued an opinion that a non-night current CFI could fly at night with a non-night current pilot while the pilot makes landings and takeoffs to get night current. Go figure..!!


I appreciate your contributions, Lowflybye.... just like to nitpick things on Thursdays... gets me up for the weekend...!!! btw, do you insure Part 91 corp jets? There is a real trap in most of their policies.

I always challenge my agent.... and you won't believe who he is..!!! He has a great disadvantage... an ex-Navy jock..!! famous one, no less
 
HydroCub said:
How about during ground "operation" of an aircraft...?

There are no absolutes in law therefore can be no absolutes in insurance as it is based on law. You accuse me of not accurately defining terms and making specific statements, yet you ask me questions about well defined specific statements. Are you just wanting to argue or are you truly curious?

THE PILOT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT: The aircraft must be operated in flight only by a person shown below...

...Item 7

PILOTS: The policy shall not apply while the aircraft is in flight unless the pilot in command is any of the following:...




HydroCub said:
- You walk a fine line acting as a CFI with an expired medical certificate. Who is the PIC while you are the sole manipulator of the controls and training a STU pilot, or giving a BFR to a pilot who is past the 24 month time line, or IPC to a pilot out of currency? They cannot legally be PIC as they are not current, therefore the CFI is the PIC by definition.

There is no fine line at all.... it is clearly defined and has been accepted by the FAA for many years. If a CFI does not have to "act" as PIC, he/she can instruct as long as they want as long as their CFI is valid.

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

***This would be the CFI in all cases mentioned above***

Not so.... CFI without a medical cannot "act" as CFI therefore cannot be the PIC.

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

***Cannot exercise the privileges of the license holding these items without a current medical***


Sec. 91.109 - Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction may be given in a single-engine airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons when --

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless --

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

Since you may not exercise the privileges of (at least) the private license without a valid medical...you would be illegal in either case.

Not applicable if not "acting" as PIC or as a required safety pilot, etc. In laymen terms, if the pilot is legal in the aircraft and its operation without the CFI, the flight is legal. If the CFI is there and giving instruction, the CFI does NOT need a medical as he/she is not required to be in the aircraft in the first place. The CFI is simply giving instruction... not being a required crew-member and certainly not the PIC as he/she is not capable of that without a medical.

In the examples that I gave (BFR & IPC to out of currency pilots) my statement is indeed applicable as those pilots cannot act as PIC in the aircraft since they are out of currency. This means that the instructor would have to act as PIC in order for the flight to be legal and without a valid medical he/she cannot "legally" do so.

Again...I am not with the FAA and do not claim to be an aviation law expert. I was just cautioning you all to make sure you are within legal parameters for the flight involved. Have an accident on one of the flight scenarios that I mentioned and you may be in for a headache. You all talk so heavily about instructor liability and subrogation, yet when I try to point out some issues...

HydroCub said:
To make matters more complicated, the FAA just issued an opinion that a non-night current CFI could fly at night with a non-night current pilot while the pilot makes landings and takeoffs to get night current. Go figure..!!

Leave it to the FAA to "clear things up" a bit more. Something about the referee's in the sport of pilots being full of bad calls... :wink:
 
What magazine will this article appear in? I'll have to look for it on the newsstand so I can write a letter to the editor! :)
 
After reading all this, I guess I'll have to hire an attorney to look at that paperwork Avemco sent me. And all I wanna do is fly my little airplane around the country side. :drinking:
 
Much of the information is just plane wrong. When I elected to not renew my medical, almost immediately after the Sport Pilot rule became law, my former insurance company (Avemco/AOPA) said that they were working on it but insurance was not available yet. I called EAA and they sent me to Falcon and there was no problem getting insured with reasonable premiums. When my wife was taking lessons in our J-3 cub Falcon insured her and her instructor in our Cub. When she got her Sport Pilot certificate, she was insured. When we bought her a "new" PA-11 Cub, Falcon required her to make 25 take-offs and landings with an instructor. She did that and is insured. Your article does not do general aviation any good and I think it should be revised before it is published. ...Clyde Davis
 
You said:
"Pay attention to what you are reading...I did not say that you could not operate under sport pilot privileges! "

No, you said the following, and have repeated it again:


"If your medical certificate expires, your Private, Commercial, or ATP pilot license is no longer valid..." and this is absolutely incorrect. You further state: "...and therefore, your policy provides no coverage during your operation of the aircraft." Why not add the positive comment "unless you inform your insurance company of your change to flying light sport pilot rules, and receive approval for continued coverage."

Why start a paragraph with a bolt font heading:
"No Medical Equals No Insurance" when that is an incorrect or at least very misleading scare tactic headline.
No need to answer this. Your piece is written the way you want it, and it is a disservice to the aviation community, like much of the items in the press. I am sure you are enjoying the fuss you have created, so I will respond no further.
 
Clyde and Susan said:
Much of the information is just plane wrong.

What part is wrong? I never said that you could not get insurance as a Sport pilot...in fact I said:

So what do you do if you are in this position or facing this possibility in the near future? Talk with your agent about it. There are some companies that will write the sport pilots without an accompanying medical certificate provided they know it is a sport-pilot risk from the time the policy is initially in force. Depending on the circumstances behind a switch to sport pilot, an underwriter may be willing to continue a current policy.

Is this not what you are describing in your situation after saying my information is incorrect?

The only statement that I made that has been questioned as to it's validity is my reference to an invalid pilot certificate. My points referring to insurance are accurate...I deal with it on a daily basis.

With reference to the license invalidity statement...I understand that a license does not literally become invalid, but without a medical you cannot exercise the privileges of the certificate as was presented to the insurance company...in effect the certificate you presented for underwriting purposes is invalid. This is a very important issue with reference to your insurance policy. Had I known that my terminology would cause this problem, I would have used a different word.

Chuck-Fairfax said:
You further state: "...and therefore, your policy provides no coverage during your operation of the aircraft." Why not add the positive comment "unless you inform your insurance company of your change to flying light sport pilot rules, and receive approval for continued coverage."

Why start a paragraph with a bolt font heading:
"No Medical Equals No Insurance" when that is an incorrect or at least very misleading scare tactic headline.
No need to answer this. Your piece is written the way you want it, and it is a disservice to the aviation community, like much of the items in the press. I am sure you are enjoying the fuss you have created, so I will respond no further.

Holy Crap people :bang read in context. I spent 5 paragraphs trying to give this article a positive, fun spin before I got down to the facts. If read in context the scary information is very accurate and appropriate for the article. It is the reason for the entire article. Would you rather that I did not tell pilots this information and let them find out the hard way?

I spent the last 4 paragraphs explaining the reasons behind this issue and what can be done to prevent having a problem with it.

I do not appreciate you accusing me of trying to stir up trouble or "enjoying the fuss I created". The intent of the entire article was to help my fellow pilots and prevent an unseen problem...not trying to scare people. Those that know me personally will tell you that I am the least controversial person at the airfield and I will bend over backwards to help out with most anything. I would never intentionally do anything to harm general aviation or try to scare people.

You know, it is easy to be a critic and everybody seems to be one...especially on things that they don't fully understand. Try teaching a misunderstood / controversial topic sometime.

If the information given in this article prevents even just one of my fellow pilots from having a claim denied for something they did not realize then all this criticism will be worth it in my book.
 
John
You must spend way too much time reading those FAR's while you are sitting in those far away motels :lol:

To make matters more complicated, the FAA just issued an opinion that a non-night current CFI could fly at night with a non-night current pilot while the pilot makes landings and takeoffs to get night current. Go figure..!!

I personally don't have a problem with this. the whole purpose of the night currency reg to start with is to protect unsuspecting passengers. Most people keep current by going out and shootin a few touch and goes (oops--Stop and Goes) when they are slightly out, if they don't regularly fly at night. Neither the pilot nor the CFI would be an unsuspecting passenger.


Course I grew up in the age of if you could start it, you could check yourself out in it. (Much to MTV's chagrin) 8)
 
Lowflybye,

Just face it...everybody hates dealing with insurance. Funny it took a different turn on this site than on BCP. But then I didn't say anything here.:)
Insurance probably wouldn't be such a sore spot if it were written in layman's terms and not requiring the assistance of an attorney to read the fine print. And of course that's the typical "gotcha" with insurance....the fine print.

Clyde,

Just curious.....did your rate stay the same when you went to Sport Pilot? If they did.....you are one lucky gentleman!!

Keith
 
Clyde and Susan said:
The headline that states "No Medical Equals No Insurance" seems pretty plain and incorrect to me. ...Clyde

Context Clyde...read it in context.
 
Headlines in bold print stand alone and in many cases that's the only part some folks read.

By-the-way, in the sport pilot rules the driver's license is referred to as a "driver's license medical". The FAA and the people that wrote the rule intended that the driver's license would be the medical. A sport pilot flying within the limitations of the sport pilot rule (no night flight, only one passenger, aircraft weight limits, ...etc.) who has a current driver's license has a medical. If an insurance company tries to get out of paying a valid claim by saying that the pilot does not have a legal medical, I think they would lose that one.

It is because of the limitation placed on someone flying under sport pilot rules that the FAA determined that the limited physical exam given to driver's license applicants is adequate (eye exam, no epilepsy, not on drugs, ...etc.).

This is different than a glider pilot that does not need a medical of any kind, not even a driver's license. The glider pilot simply self certifies that he is fit to fly. All pilots must do that regardless of the class of medical required, driver's license on up.

I haven't changed my opinion of your article. Fortunately it is published in a little known magazine read mostly by other insurance salesmen. That's all I'm going to say about this.
 
HydroCub said:
I appreciate your contributions, Lowflybye.... just like to nitpick things on Thursdays... gets me up for the weekend...!!! btw, do you insure Part 91 corp jets? There is a real trap in most of their policies.

I always challenge my agent.... and you won't believe who he is..!!! He has a great disadvantage... an ex-Navy jock..!! famous one, no less

Yes, we insure a lot of corporate jets and most all of them operate under part 91. If it was part 135 then it is a charter operation and not a corporate jet. No company would pay the 135 fees & training if they were not going to actually charter it out. In the insurance world a pro flown (hired pilot) corporate jet risk is called industrial aid.

There can be traps in any policy if it is not written correctly. Most of the time the "trap" comes because the policyholder never actually reads the policy or asks questions and therefore has no real idea what is and is not covered. Traps don't work very well if you know about it ahead of time. :wink:

Challenging your agent is not necessary, but never be afraid to ask them any valid questions that you may have about the policy...that is what you pay them for. The insurance markets change all the time so it can be difficult (even for the agents) to be on top of everything all the time...but we try.
 
Clyde and Susan said:
Headlines in bold print stand alone and in many cases that's the only part some folks read.

Ah yes...you just proved my point about context without even realizing it.

By the way, headlines never stand alone...they allude to information that will follow in the next few paragraphs, hence the term HEADLINE. It is an attention grabber. Take a look in Sport Aviation, AOPA, or any other publication if you do not understand...but you will have to read past the headline to see if I am correct. These articles are all edited by professional media editors so I am pretty confident in the grammatical construction. Do you even have any experience in writing or do you just like to play critic on things that you are apparently not equipped to judge?

Clyde and Susan said:
By-the-way, in the sport pilot rules the driver's license is referred to as a "driver's license medical". The FAA and the people that wrote the rule intended that the driver's license would be the medical. A sport pilot flying within the limitations of the sport pilot rule (no night flight, only one passenger, aircraft weight limits, ...etc.) who has a current driver's license has a medical. If an insurance company tries to get out of paying a valid claim by saying that the pilot does not have a legal medical, I think they would lose that one.

Um no...you are completely wrong here UNLESS the policy was originally written as a sport pilot policy. Read past the headlines in bold print to learn more. I know the FAA rules on sport pilots, but you obviously did not read the article that you are so adamantly arguing with.

An insurance policy is a CONTRACT between two parties with TERMS AND CONDITIONS that dictate coverage. If the terms & conditions are not met then the coverage is not valid regardless of the FAA. If the pilot terms required a valid medical then a drivers license will not suffice. But don't take my word for it if you choose not...just don't complain when your claim gets denied.

Clyde and Susan said:
Fortunately it is published in a little known magazine read mostly by other insurance salesmen. That's all I'm going to say about this.

Just because you have not read it does not make it "little known". The current mailing list is upwards of 22,000 copies.
 
LFB

If the pilot terms required a valid medical then a drivers license will not suffice. But don't take my word for it if you choose not...just don't complain when your claim gets denied

I doubt anybody is arguing that that is what the policy says and that is what the insurance companies will try to do, but that doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

But thanks for pointing that loophole out for us. Now we can make sure that our policies spell it out accurately from now on. Required medical is a medical that the FAA requires unless the Policy specifies differently in my mind (but then it is blank most of the time)
 
WWHunter

INSURANCE GOES UP WITH LIGHT SPORT RULES

My insurance increased slightly when I went to sport pilot rules only because the 1940 J3 is insured for 1/3 more than my 1978 Cessna 152 was insured for. Now I find that my 152 has been sold by the flight school I sold it to (they decided to stop operating) and it is now for sale in Hungary for $43,000!

Like the headline?
Chuck Shaw
 
S2D said:
John
You must spend way too much time reading those FAR's while you are sitting in those far away motels :lol:

Dang... you just gave me an idea since the plane is big enough to carry various parts and lots of tools...!!! I wonder if the inverters can handle the voltage spike of my air compressor kicking on..?

Truth be known... I'm involved in some other areas that force me to keep up on such things or I get caught (more often) in stupid mode.

.
 
I have no problem with the article. It makes folks think about their insurance coverage, which is good. It also brings up the point that some insurance policies are written to explicitly require a medical certificate for coverage. So, if you are flying as a sport pilot without a medical, be aware of what YOUR policy actually states . . . Kind of an "if the shoe fits . . . " deal.

Hank
 
Clyde and Susan said:
By-the-way, in the sport pilot rules the driver's license is referred to as a "driver's license medical". The FAA and the people that wrote the rule intended that the driver's license would be the medical. A sport pilot flying within the limitations of the sport pilot rule (no night flight, only one passenger, aircraft weight limits, ...etc.) who has a current driver's license has a medical.

Actually, this is not correct. Nowhere in the regulations does the phrase "driver's license medical" show up. FAR 61.23 covers the medical certificate requirements. Section (c) of that regulation is titled "Operations requiring either a medical certificate or U.S. driver's license." Note that it says "medical certificate OR U.S. driver's license". It does not make reference to a "driver's license medical".

The regulations do NOT consider a drivers license to be a medical certificate. A driver's license may be used in lieu of an FAA medical certificate for sport pilot operations. A sport pilot using his/her driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate DOES NOT have an FAA medical certificate.


Clyde and Susan said:
If an insurance company tries to get out of paying a valid claim by saying that the pilot does not have a legal medical, I think they would lose that one.

If the policy specifically requires the pilot to hold an FAA medical certificate and he/she does not, the driver's license won't help. This is an issue that many policy holders had to deal with when switching over to sport pilot operations. Neither the FAA nor the insurance industry considers a driver's license to be an FAA medical certificate. Again, the driver's license can be used in lieu of an FAA medical certificate for sport pilot operations, but it is NOT a medical certificate.

Just wanted to make these points clear. This is a discussion that has happened many times since the sport pilot regulations came into effect. make sure you understand the regulations, not just the "talk" that's going around.

Cheers![/i]
 
I find it interesting the direction this thread has taken. What started out as an honest effort by Chris (lowflybye) to let his fellow SC.org members in on an issue that may impact many of our insurance policies has degraded into a criticism of proper writing styles, reading comprehension and accusations of scare tactics.

For what it's worth, I've met Chris and he helped our airport drastically improve our insurance coverage from what we had in prior years. I will be moving my personal insurance to him next month when my current policy expires. And by the way, did you know he was at New Holstein in 2007? I only add that fact so maybe you'll understand, he is just one of us.

What really disturbs me though is instead of taking the moral of Chris's story of "check your insurance coverage" the underlying response has been "it won't stand up in court". To me, this is just one more example of the lack of personal responsibility that permeates much of society today. This attitude of "if you deny my claim I'll sue you regardless of what my policy says" is quite depressing.

Thanks for the effort Chris. I know of one person I will discuss this issue with tomorrow as I have a friend that exercised his rights as a sport pilot after his current medical expired and before his next exam that probably never thought to check the on the potential impact this might have had on his insurance coverage.

I apologize to all if my comments get this thread sent to R&R.

James Smith
 
HydroCub said:
To make matters more complicated, the FAA just issued an opinion that a non-night current CFI could fly at night with a non-night current pilot while the pilot makes landings and takeoffs to get night current. Go figure..!!

Hello Hydro,

I'm interested in this opinion. Do you know where I could find it? Thanks.

Hank
 
Back
Top