insurance risks of private airstrips

[GSchuld]

I would like to find as much info as possible pertaining to the use of a private turf airstrip. I recently purchased a property in Vermont that has a fully legal 1900ft turf airstrip. The airstrip is approved to have up to three privately owned planes operated from there, any of which may be owned and flown by NON owners of the property. An obvious concern for me is liability. I will not be living on the property, but the there is a home there to visit. If I were to have someone local base their plane there and use the strip, I would want to protect myself as much as I reasonably can.

I would assume that putting the airstrip part of the property in an LLC or similar structure would be a good start.

Does anyone have any suggestion about insurance carriers or types of coverage?

I would assume that people who base their planes out of other peoples private airstrip sign some sort of hold harmless type of paperwork in an attempt to reduce their lawsuit potential. If so, does it actually offer much protection? Lawsuits seem to blow right through such agreements when serious personal injury (or worse) is involved.

I do not at all consider myself to be a live in fear type of guy, but I take such risk assessment seriously. Any information or personal experience would be greatly appreciated.

George

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by GSchuld

.....
I would assume that people who base their planes out of other peoples private airstrip sign some sort of hold harmless type of paperwork in an attempt to reduce their lawsuit potential. If so, does it actually offer much protection? Lawsuits seem to blow right through such agreements when serious personal injury (or worse) is involved.
....

George

...is to require liability insurance (you name the amount) and for the airstrip to be named as an "additional insured".

Having recently sat through 9 hours of mediation meetings for our airpark being sued over a fatal accident, my impression of the US legal system and lawyers has sunk even lower than I could have thought.....

Our airpark was sued because our runway was too narrow - the fact the plane seemed to have no airwrthiness documentation, was still in Phase I testing with a passenger (his widow was the party sueing) and the pilots last words on the radio were "watch this"... all had no effect.

Money was based on "cost of defense" and what a grieving widow would sound like on the stand, not truth and/or justice - actual facts and details just got in the way of the discussions.

Do not rely on any EAA insurance if you have a chapter fly-in event.

Perhaps Shakespeare had it right....

[GSchuld]

az_gila

Sad to hear. That's about the sobering story that I was expecting. Any idea how much of the "payoff" the airpark's or EAA's insurance will cover? Or will they likely cover everything and then "adjust" their standing with the airpark for the future?

So the guy was in phase I testing with no airworthiness cert. How is that possible exactly? Isn't an airworthiness cert required to even qualify for official phase I testing? And he was taking a passenger at the time! Wow!

My airstrip is fairly narrow, has a slight bend in it mid length, and is a bit lower in the middle than in the ends! It is what I would consider a fairly challenging airstrip for an other than STOL prepped aircraft. This of course, only increases my concern. I know of a homeowners association owned 30 home airpark that will only allow aircraft to land that are approved by the association "board". This includes owners in the airpark. If an owner buys a plane, they must present all the documentation to the board for approval. Absolutely no phase I testing allowed there. If an owner wants to invite someone to visit, they must ask for the approval of the board in writing. The visitor "application" requires full information on the pilot, the plane, and proof of certain levels of insurance. I understand that quite a few potential visitors were turned away. It sounds fairly nuts on the surface, but in reality, it might not be so rediculous after all. They sight liability as their main concern.

I'm not a big fan of the legal system either. I try to stay as far away as I can from them. I'd like to be able to feel comfortable allowing visitors to fly in, but being that I will be living 300 miles away from the property, among other things, I'm reluctant to have anyone use it.

George

[Tony Spicer]

Originally Posted by GSchuld

So the guy was in phase I testing with no airworthiness cert. How is that possible exactly? Isn't an airworthiness cert required to even qualify for official phase I testing? And he was taking a passenger at the time! Wow!

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...06LA041&akey=1

Tony

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by GSchuld

az_gila

Sad to hear. That's about the sobering story that I was expecting. Any idea how much of the "payoff" the airpark's or EAA's insurance will cover? Or will they likely cover everything and then "adjust" their standing with the airpark for the future?

So the guy was in phase I testing with no airworthiness cert. How is that possible exactly? Isn't an airworthiness cert required to even qualify for official phase I testing? And he was taking a passenger at the time! Wow!

.......

George

Our insurance company did pay out, but the details are not public info...

The EAA insurance company refused to get involved, and the local chapter contact was killed in an RV accident in the interim period. They would not even talk to me because I was not a lawyer...

Details of the planes certification are in the NTSB report that is linked by Tony S. above.

According to the FAA records, there was no experimental airworthiness certificate on file as being issued on the aircraft. Without the airworthiness certificate, the FAA could not confirm whether or not operating limitations had been issued for the airplane.

I would also hope there is one less DAR out there....

The DAR indicated that he had provided the pilot a set of operating limitations, which required that the aircraft undergo 40 hours of flight testing before passengers could be carried on board. The FAA inspector assisting in the investigation requested a copy of the operating limitations issued for the accident airplane, but did not receive a copy.

In my mind, the worse part is that Walter Engines US was involved because "they did not tell builders that the engine was too big for the plane". They had never seen or touched the engine, which was first sold to a communist govt. and then privately surplused to the US, and the corporate Walter engines had changed from a communist govt. enterprise to a commercial company in the decades since the engine was made.

The kit plane designer - who put in the bigger engine - was not involved because "he had no assets"....

Our reason for us being sued - the too narrow runway - was based on us not meeting Federal runway width standards because we took govt. money. We never took any govt. money (we are private and not eligible), but try proving a negative. In spite of a lot of effort, I never did get the FAA to officially tell us we never received money - mainly because of the 30 year time frame being asked for. After discovery took copies of every Airpark document over the last 30 years, it suddenly changed to "we were too cheap to go for a wider runway" when we repaved the runway in 2002. However, a close review of the discussions would have shown that the the debate over wide vs. narrow was over the original 36 ft width vs. a proposed wider 44 ft width. The "wide" folks won the debate and we now have a 45 ft. runway. The federal standard of 60 ft. was never considered.

As I said before, actual facts and details just got in the way of the discussions....

[WillyEyeBall]

A link to what a "Tingle" is, and the actual aircraft can be seen at:
http://www.air-and-space.com/2004082...20Aviation.htm

[GSchuld]

It's an unfortunate situation for sure, and I imagine things like that happen all the time. I imagine that for a private airstrip renting a bunch of hanger space and gathering other income or for live in airparks, it is easier to accept the risks. As a one man band that would be limited to 3 based aircraft, sadly I am concerned that it simply would not be worth the risk to let others use the strip. Even if I wasn't to allow others to base a plane or two there, it would be great to allow fellow flyers to stop in. From reading the above report, your runway makes my little strip look like Andrews air force base.

George

[JDRhodes]

A good author I know wrote had an article published on this topic...

See link: http://www.aviationinsurance.com/art...t_Spring07.pdf

[GSchuld]

Jeff,

I agree, the author did a fantactic job explaining the situation. Thanks. I imagine that if my runway was in a huge open field, dead striaght, flat, smooth, and 3500ft long and not adjacent to a fairly steep hillside, I would be MUCH more open to allowing people to use it. Unfortunately this is not the case. The surrounding trees are far too close to the runway in parts to meet the slope requirements to meet federal standards, I checked. I can think of several reasons why I would get the book thrown at me if someone had an accident. The Vermont Aeronautics reps mentioned this as well. As I have 0 financial gain to expect, unnecessarily exposing myself to painful litigation is starting to sound very unappealing. I have read about a number of private airstrip accidents, and it seems that every time there is a lawsuit, the plaintiff always seems to win, regardless of the actual fairness and responsibility of the situation. Sadly, I think it would be best to agree with my partner and let this one go. After researching the relative ease of getting a new private airstrip approved in VT, I personally would rather locate a more suitable piece of land (I have a piece in mind) that would more comfortably handle what I would wish to fly as well. The current one is admittedly a bit of a stretch. Luckily, the fact that it has a legal turf airstrip had little effect on our interest in the property (its value is more in the fact that it has 2900ft of frontage on the Williams river and the soils are factastic, rare up here). Anyone interested in a choice of 60k to 90k 3-4 acre beautiful riverfront lots in Verment, 20 minutes from the Okemo ski resort?

George

[Tony Spicer]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Do not rely on any EAA insurance if you have a chapter fly-in event.

Gil,

Are you saying that the host EAA chapter had filled out the required EAA paperwork for a breakfast fly-in event, then EAA provided no assistance with the suit? If yes, what was their reasoning? Our chapter has two lunch fly-ins a year, and I'm sure the airport owners assume that the EAA insurance covers anything that might result in their being sued.

Tony