What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Sport Pilot/Insurance

J

jim miller

Well Known Member
I am considering building a RV-12. Keeping a medical is not a problem for now but I was wondering if there will be liability issues for Sport Pilots without one. As I understand the new rule the health standards are not changed just the individual is responsible for certifying his health status. If you are in an accident it will behoove your insurance company to try and prove that you were not in good health and are guilty of fraud and your policy is null and void. Also will rates be a lot higher for sport pilots without medicals?
 
Last edited:
jim miller said:
I am considering building a RV-12. Keeping a medical is not a problem for now but I was wondering if there will be liability issues for Sport Pilots without one. As I understand the new rule the health standards are not changed just the individual is responsible for certifying his health status. If you are in an accident it will behoove your insurance company to try and prove that you were not in good health and are guilty of fraud and your policy is null and void. Also will rates be a lot higher for sport pilots without medicals?
Click to expand...
Rates will vary a lot based on the aircraft's loss history, as well as your total hours and time in type (and loss history). I would guess that insuring a new/ 1-yr old LSA will be more expensive than insuring a 1 yr old DA20 or 150; mine certainly is.

TODR
 
DL

jim miller said:
....
If you are in an accident it will behoove your insurance company to try and prove that you were not in good health and are guilty of fraud and your policy is null and void. Also will rates be a lot higher for sport pilots without medicals?
Click to expand...
But isn't the LSA standard "meeting the health requirements for your local state driving license"?

It would appear to me this is the LSA requirement.... gil A
 
Gil
You may be right. I wonder why they have the clause about not being turned down for a class 3 medical previously.

Jim Miller
 
The verbage in the rule also states that you must ensure that you have no medical conditions that would make you unsafe for operating as a sport pilot. The legal standard for this will probably be the third class medical certificate. Also many states may have wording in their driver license laws that could be used against us when something happens. I am a dentist and not a lawyer-just very paranoid by anything with legal implications. As they say 98% of lawyers give a bad name to all the rest.

Jim Miller
 
jim miller said:
I am considering building a RV-12. Keeping a medical is not a problem for now but I was wondering if there will be liability issues for Sport Pilots without one. As I understand the new rule the health standards are not changed just the individual is responsible for certifying his health status. If you are in an accident it will behoove your insurance company to try and prove that you were not in good health and are guilty of fraud and your policy is null and void. Also will rates be a lot higher for sport pilots without medicals?
Click to expand...

Bingo. This is the 900 lb gorilla that I just haven't heard addressed by the proponents of LSA. I wonder how long it will be before the insurance companies require a physical before they will insure you for LSA flight ops.

Yes, the FAA doesn't require a medical for LSA. But who will apply the brakes to the insurance industry once they decide they don't want LSA policy holders with hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary issues, particular meds, etc, etc?

Wonder if the FAA had enough foresight to realize the insurance industry might eventually make "no medical" flight unobtainable? What a deal, they can advertise "no medical" knowing that the insurance carriers will do the dirty work of keeping the medically unfit on the ground.

Doesn't matter what the FARs say, without insurance we don't fly.........
 
certification medical

This is the certification we use to fly gliders. You must make this entry in your log book signed and dated.

"I certify that I have no known physical or mental conditions which would preclude safe operation of glider aircraft."

This is all it takes to be legal and to get insurance coverage. Insurance companies might use the same standards for light sport. Gliders are now considered light sport aircraft.
 
??

sportpilot said:
...... Gliders are now considered light sport aircraft.
Click to expand...
Is this the case?
I thought my sailplane retractable gear ruled that out, and I certainly don't want to be limited to 10,000 ft max. altitude.... :)

I'm sure many of the large 2-place sailplanes are over 1320 lbs (or whatever the exact number is...) when they are loaded with water ballast. My 1977 single place is pushing 1000 lbs gross with water ballast, and it's only 15 m. span...

gil in Tucson - Mini-Nimbus N871T
 
sportpilot said:
This is the certification we use to fly gliders. You must make this entry in your log book signed and dated.

"I certify that I have no known physical or mental conditions which would preclude safe operation of glider aircraft."

This is all it takes to be legal and to get insurance coverage. Insurance companies might use the same standards for light sport. Gliders are now considered light sport aircraft.
Click to expand...


True......until........insurance carriers are faced with huge liability payouts after the media discovers that the LSA pilot that crashed into the school had previously had a heart attack and was on a variety of medications. And while the carriers are busy denying coverage to recovered heart patients, they might as well take care of some other pesky ailments, too.

The insurance industry has the ability to attach practically any restrictions it wishes on who they insure regardless of FARs.

FARs don't spell out RV transition training specifications, but that hasn't prevented the insurance carriers from making transition training an accepted requirement for their policy holders.

I certainly hope the scenario described above never happens and we are able to fly LSA as it was intended by the authors of the rule. But I am convinced it is naive to overlook the insurance industries capacity to shut down the entire rule if they desire.
 
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan
But I am convinced it is naive to overlook the insurance industries capacity to shut down the entire rule if they desire.


There is the world of fantasy rule making where the rule makers take us thru Alice and wonderland. You are right that insurance is being used by the FAA as the police force behind the rules. In the real world right now, many light sport owners of old planes cant get certain kinds of insurance such as Hull damage and passenger liability. Some I know just take the risk on their own and seek out a 3rd party liability policy that insures only People and property on the ground. In fact some part 91 owners are doing the same thing because of the prohibitive costs.

The one hand offers you a carrot, the other hand pokes you in the eye with a sharp stick.. :p
 
jim miller said:
The verbage in the rule also states that you must ensure that you have no medical conditions that would make you unsafe for operating as a sport pilot. The legal standard for this will probably be the third class medical certificate. Also many states may have wording in their driver license laws that could be used against us when something happens. I am a dentist and not a lawyer-just very paranoid by anything with legal implications. As they say 98% of lawyers give a bad name to all the rest.

Jim Miller
Click to expand...

I did a lot of research on this very issue prior to them pulling the sport pilot for reintroduction. At that time, someone prove me wrong with the current regs, prior to flight one must be able to self certify they did not have a medical condition that would make one unable to operate safely as a sport pilot. It then referred to the section of............Third Class Medical............for reference, as those conditions which would preclude them from safely operating.

So, I just don't see how in the world this is going to a practical, no medical flying arrangement. They way I see it, it will make a person "ramp safe" to jump in and go fly without fear of being ramp checked and found not to merely have a medical in their possession. It will be all well and good until someone gets an eye poked out. At that time, the insurance companies, and legal profession, will do what is in their best interests and go directly to the operator's medical records and find high blood pressure, diabetes, alcoholism.........whatever to deny/assign coverage and liability. I my be a little jaded but I see sport pilot being more for the ultralight gang, less for those simply that are not going back for the medicals for fear of being turned down. Do you really think the listed professions are simply going to see that you were never turned down for a 3rd. class and throw their hands up and let it die. Like I said before, play ground talk...........It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt.
 
Must Read!

The following was in the Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin, and written by the manager of the medical certification division. His comment of 'if considered "safe to fly" is based on a personal physician's impression, an airman can fly under Sport Pilot' seems pretty unequivocal.

Now, I suppose that if you self certify, with a known medical condition, without benefit of your personal physician's advise, the insurance companies may have the perfect out! Otherwise.......



sp3220070904082721nz5.gif
 
BlackRV7 said:
I did a lot of research on this very issue prior to them pulling the sport pilot for reintroduction. At that time, someone prove me wrong with the current regs, prior to flight one must be able to self certify they did not have a medical condition that would make one unable to operate safely as a sport pilot. It then referred to the section of............Third Class Medical............for reference, as those conditions which would preclude them from safely operating.
Click to expand...
This has been discussed before (I'm too lazy to go pull up my old posts). The difference is that as SP, you have to self-certify that you are fit to act as PIC. For PP, etc., you have to self-certify that there are no conditions that would prevent you from getting a medical. This is a subtle but important difference - you can have conditions that would prevent you from getting a medical but be able to fly safely as a SP.

The FARs discuss operations where a medical is required vs one where no medical is required.

TODR
 
The following was in the Federal Air Surgeon's Medical Bulletin, and written by the manager of the medical certification division. His comment of 'if considered "safe to fly" is based on a personal physician's impression, an airman can fly under Sport Pilot' seems pretty unequivocal.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this will have no impact on whether or not insurance carriers may decide to offer a policy to an LSA pilot. The carriers make their own rules and most likely won't rely on a "personal physician's impression" if they think they are being exposed to an unacceptable financial risk. Shareholder and media pressure has far more impact on the carriers than an obscure statement by a flight surgeon.

Time will tell...............
 
Sam Buchanan said:
In my opinion, this will have no impact on whether or not insurance carriers may decide to offer a policy to an LSA pilot. The carriers make their own rules and most likely won't rely on a "personal physician's impression" if they think they are being exposed to an unacceptable financial risk. Shareholder and media pressure has far more impact on the carriers than an obscure statement by a flight surgeon.

Time will tell...............
Click to expand...
Sam,
I absolutely agree!

However, I think this may come into play if a policy was issued without specific conditions, precluding the carrier from latter denying coverage. Would only take a couple of those before policy language changed for every one, I suspect......

As you said, time will tell.
 
Only creditors require insurance

Another 900 lb gorilla seemingly sitting unnoticed:

Insurance is only required when there is a lien on the hull. Sadly, the idea of paying cash seems to be a foreign concept to most Americans, but I think it's the better standard of wealth and, for me, certainly a better way to live.

Rather than striving to have the prettiest, fastest airplane with the neatest gadgets, how about owning an airplane that is paid for? One that can be enjoyed without overspending and worrying about the bills. For me building a kitplane is largely about keeping it paid for as I go along. Eliminate wasteful spending in other areas. The savings in interest, insurance, and stress can provide a boost to health as well, and perhaps fend off those heart attacks.

In my estimation, airplane insurance companies only exercise power over those who don't own the airplanes they fly outright.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
In my estimation, airplane insurance companies only exercise power over those who don't own the airplanes they fly outright.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the opposite is true. If a pilot has the financial where-with-all to own the plane lien-free (assuming it is anything other than a really low-$$$ craft) then he most likely has sufficient assets to make liability coverage a must, so the insurance carriers are definitely in play.

And even if the aircraft is low-$$$, there are moral responsibilities for making sure a passenger and those at the impact zone on the ground are compensated for damages from our accident. When accident liability claims can run into the $millions, flying without insurance is not an option for most of us.
 
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves said:
The difference is that as SP, you have to self-certify that you are fit to act as PIC. For PP, etc., you have to self-certify that there are no conditions that would prevent you from getting a medical. This is a subtle but important difference - you can have conditions that would prevent you from getting a medical but be able to fly safely as a SP.
TODR
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point. Just as the good doctor pointed out in his reply, someone with documented heart problems that passes a stress test with 'flying' colors would be fine to fly Sport Pilot but fail a PP third class medical.
 
I think there are two different issues in play here: Liability and hull coverage.

I don't foresee any problems with getting liability coverage for SP or LSA. We don't fly high performance aircraft, are day / VFR only and have small airplanes that (sorry to be morbid) have little chance of killing anyone other than ourselves if they crash.

Now, as for hull insurance, I think this could be a problem. Sure, it's not required if you own the aircraft outright. However, it's always smart. BUT, the LSA claim record is a bit of an unknown so far, but the few bits I have seen suggest that the hull loss rate ($/thousand flight hour or whatever it's measured in) will be higher than "traditional" GA, at least for a while. This will be due to cost of LSA (most are factory new) and the different skill set that is required to successfully pilot them (mostly related to landing).

TODR
 
<<His comment of 'if considered "safe to fly" is based on a personal physician's impression, an airman can fly under Sport Pilot' seems pretty unequivocal.>>

Thanks for the reprint Dave. Let's all keep an eye peeled for additional guidance like this.

Recent experience; I have a friend with a Titan Tornado in the final stages of completion. My friend has no fixed wing license; he is the classic "new pilot" that Sport Pilot was supposed to enable. He has not been able to find an underwriter willing to write any coverage that names him as a pilot on the policy (including straight liability), even for dual instruction with a CFI. No medical issue here; we're told that they just won't write him until he has an SP ticket and 100 hours.

We were able to get liability only (no hull) with me as sole named pilot so I can fly flight test. Don't have the actual policy in hand yet. Frankly, the idea here is to protect my assets, although it also offers my friend some asset protection. After the test flight requirements are satisfied, my friend is back to flying naked with a CFI. The CFI may or may not have his own liability coverage.

I thought self-certified medical and student Sport Pilot insurance issues were considered when our associations were "building industry consensus". Apparently the underwriters were not consulted or refused to commit. There are some serious gaps and loose ends regarding insurance.
 
I don't foresee any problems with getting liability coverage for SP or LSA. We don't fly high performance aircraft, are day / VFR only and have small airplanes that (sorry to be morbid) have little chance of killing anyone other than ourselves if they crash.
Click to expand...

I only wish this was true. See below.

Recent experience; I have a friend with a Titan Tornado in the final stages of completion. My friend has no fixed wing license; he is the classic "new pilot" that Sport Pilot was supposed to enable. He has not been able to find an underwriter willing to write any coverage that names him as a pilot on the policy (including straight liability), even for dual instruction with a CFI. No medical issue here; we're told that they just won't write him until he has an SP ticket and 100 hours.
Click to expand...

One filled passenger seat is all it takes to incur a huge liability claim when things go terribly wrong. Doesn't matter if the plane is light and slow, the $$$$value of one life ended or dramatically altered can be staggering, far more than the value of the aircraft hull.

The insurance carriers are acutely aware of this cost.....and we are at their mercy.
 
Glass structures...

the_other_dougreeves said:
I think there are two different issues in play here: Liability and hull coverage.
.........
Now, as for hull insurance, I think this could be a problem. Sure, it's not required if you own the aircraft outright. However, it's always smart. BUT, the LSA claim record is a bit of an unknown so far, but the few bits I have seen suggest that the hull loss rate ($/thousand flight hour or whatever it's measured in) will be higher than "traditional" GA, at least for a while. This will be due to cost of LSA (most are factory new) and the different skill set that is required to successfully pilot them (mostly related to landing).

TODR
Click to expand...
The Other Doug,

Another item that may be keeping the imported LSA hull insurance rate up is the fiberglass construction of most of the imported LSAs.

It requires a much different skill set to repair, and while many A&Ps can fix riveted structure, not all can perform reliable structural repairs on glass...

I'm sure this is reflected in the hull rates... :)

gil A
 
I think the biggest problem will be liability. It is easy for insurance companies to acess libility for the hull and charge accordingly. (It may cost so much you can't afford it) but liability for injury to others can go into the millions. If having a drivers license is the legal standard for "fit to fly" LSA then that should be stated clearly in the regs and in insurance policies. The rule as it is now written implies very strongly that the standard is the class three medical and it would be very easy for a lawyer or insurance company to prove this in court. Why did the FAA have to include the requirement that LSA pilots to not have failed their last class 3 medical if this wasn't the standard carried over into the Sport Pilot category?

Jim Miller
 
What's Fit to Fly

Ok, the difference between the "fit to fly" standards is in FAR (14 CFR) 61.23, specifically 61.23(c). Eventually, the rule gives you the following criteria for SP operations if the pilot is using a DL instead of a medical:

(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver?s license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must?
(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person?s U.S. driver?s license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;
(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.​

Ok, of these, the one that is important is (iv). (i) is fine - comply with your DL (e.g., wear your glasses). (ii) and (iii) are easy - if you applied for a medical, you had to have been found eligible and not have had your medical suspended or revoked.

But what to make of (iv)? It puts almost all the responsibility on the PIC to certify that (s)he is fit to complete that flight. So how do you judge whether you're fit to fly or not? Most likely, that will only be addressed after an accident or perhaps during a ramp check. If you have an accident that is pilot error and is related to a medical condition, then you have apparently failed the test of 61.23(c)(2)(iv).

However, this is very different from the 3rd class medical requirements and it is also different from just meeting the medical requirements of a DL. Suppose you have some sort of lung disease from smoking. You have problems breathing at higher elevations (e.g., DEN) but live at sea level. You can get a DL but might fail a medical. Are you fit to fly? Probably not.

Now suppose you have, oh, let's say chronic migraine headaches. You think you're not going to get your medical renewed since there is now a medication that you have found can prevent them, but it is not allowed by the FAA, so you let your medical lapse and go SP. Can you fly as a SP? Are you able to safely complete the flight? Only you can make that call.

TODR
 
Doug
You are right para iv is the clincher and open to question as to what it means.
I called AVEMCO about getting LSA liability insurance for a future RV-12 and to get their take on this issue. The good news is they don't currently charge extra for those pilots with or without a class three medical. When questioned about para iv it was much less clear and I got the impression it was their catch 22. They said they would go by FAA standards which are as everyone knows not spelled out for LSA pilots. Like Sam and others have stated it will come down to the courts and insurance companies to determine. I feel when the chips are down insurance companies will drag out class 3 medical requirements and your medical history and it will be up to you and your lawyer to educate the jury on the difference between a 1350 pound GW aircraft and one a few pounds heavier.
 
jim miller said:
The good news is they don't currently charge extra for those pilots with or without a class three medical. When questioned about para iv it was much less clear and I got the impression it was their catch 22.
Click to expand...
Yep. I deal with the same problem every day - federal rules that are either vague or are open to a significant amount of interpretation. "What does that mean?" my clients will ask. My usual reply is "Well, X is a reasonable interpretation, but it means whatever the judge says that it means."

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.[/I][/INDENT]

If you have an accident that is pilot error and is related to a medical condition, then you have apparently failed the test of 61.23(c)(2)(iv).
TODR
Click to expand...

I believe the position in juris is going to be not that the accident was related to a medical condition but that the medical condition should have precluded the defendant from flying in the first place, thus making the above assertion moot. Sorry, but I believe there is a white elephant in the room.

Will insurance be higher/lower non existent? Who knows, but rest assured the insurance companies know about the discussions of someone simply not going back in for a 3rd. class. I would not be surprised at all that within your policy there will be a statement, you attest to, which refers to known medical conditions and will refer to 3rd. class as defining. They're not going to let this one get very far from the apron.
 
BlackRV7 said:
I believe the position in juris is going to be not that the accident was related to a medical condition but that the medical condition should have precluded the defendant from flying in the first place, thus making the above assertion moot. Sorry, but I believe there is a white elephant in the room.
Click to expand...
I don't think an issue with one's certificate would ever get to a jury - Hoover's didn't. It would be before an Administrative Law Judge, who deals with the same federal rules day in and day out. In the hypothetical case, they would likely rule that the pilot willfully violated the FARs by flying with a known medical condition that prohibited them from operating the LSA in a safe manner.

So, I guess my take-home point is that while everyone (Ok, not everyone - Richard Collins is exempted) is excited about the DL medical, the pilot who has the freedom to self-certify assumes the responsibility of making sure that they are truly fit to fly.

TODR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top