US Senate weighs mandatory GA insurance

Pilawt

Pilawt

Final Approach
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
9,485
Location
Santa Rosita State Park, under the big 'W'
Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
This snippet was on a legal profession listserve I inhabit. Is this on AOPA's radar?

The US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is conducting a study on the feasibility associated with mandatory insurance for general aviation aircraft owners, operators and pilots.
Click to expand...
 
Canada requires insurance. Unless u self insure a fleet its no big deal.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
I can't help but think of the conflict of interest AOPA would have - on one hand it would amount to even more financial burden on owners and pilots - but there would be more customers for overpriced insurance.
 
I wish those morons would just leave GA alone.
 
I cant wait for the federal government sponsored "Aviation inSurance System" (ASS) to open up. Think of how much money you will save when everyone in aviation has to pay for mandatory insurance. Those 1-3% that aren't paying now will really bring down the premiums for the rest of us.:rolleyes2:
 
I'm just happy that the senate thinks they have all the other problems in the country solved so now they can focus on the most important things yet to do. :mad2:
 
Bob Noel said:
I can't help but think of the conflict of interest AOPA would have - on one hand it would amount to even more financial burden on owners and pilots - but there would be more customers for overpriced insurance.
Click to expand...

Never had a problem with AOPAs insurance. $1400/yr for a 600 hour pilot in a complex aircraft with 0 in type and $110k hull. Pretty reasonable.
 
James331 said:
I wish those morons would just leave GA alone.
Click to expand...
When we stop crashing in public places, maybe they will. And if they make me carry the same amount of liability insurance the state makes me carry on my car, it won't change my life a bit.

Just how many GA owners "go naked", anyway? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
When we stop crashing in public places, maybe they will. And if they make me carry the same amount of liability insurance the state makes me carry on my car, it won't change my life a bit.

Just how many GA owners "go naked", anyway? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I'm with Ron on this one. Liability insurance should be required. You are responsible for the damage you inflict on others. That's just a fact of living in our modern society.

AOPA would be very short sighted to come out against it.
 
timwinters said:
I'm with Ron on this one. Liability insurance should be required. You are responsible for the damage you inflict on others. That's just a fact of living in our modern society.
Click to expand...
That said, if Congress wants to make us meet similar standards as motor vehicle owners, they ought to give us similar protections, too, starting with "manufacturer pays" for faulty products (i.e., aviation manufacturers covering the cost of AD compliance the same as auto manufacturers cover automotive recalls).
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, if Congress wants to make us meet similar standards as motor vehicle owners, they ought to give us similar protections, too, starting with "manufacturer pays" for faulty products (i.e., aviation manufacturers covering the cost of AD compliance the same as auto manufacturers cover automotive recalls).
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!

I've never understood why an aircraft owner should have to pay for AD's where as the manufacturer has to pay for the same when its an automobile.
 
Last edited:
So will they also prohibit "flying exceptions" to umbrella policys? That would cover the victims of an accident and give pilots options.
 
"A study on the feasibility..." That doesn't sound like anything too imminent.

I agree that it is not unreasonable to require liability insurance to operate an aircraft that might destroy somebody's home or other life or property. The liability proportion of the total insurance premium is pretty small compared to hull insurance.

Jon
 
Ron Levy said:
When we stop crashing in public places, maybe they will. And if they make me carry the same amount of liability insurance the state makes me carry on my car, it won't change my life a bit.

Just how many GA owners "go naked", anyway? :dunno:
Click to expand...


I am relatively new here but I have to agree. Being a Police Officer I see people get upset all the time when someone hits them without insurance. It unfortunately is a necessary evil in this day and time.
 
Ron Levy said:
When we stop crashing in public places, maybe they will. And if they make me carry the same amount of liability insurance the state makes me carry on my car, it won't change my life a bit.

Just how many GA owners "go naked", anyway? :dunno:
Click to expand...

How childish.

If you're scared something is going to happen to YOU, YOU get insurance.
I shouldn't have to get insurance because I MIGHT hurt you.

If someone hits my car without insurance and I don't have insurance, I take the loss, that's life and I'm cool with that. If I decide I don't want that risk I GET insurance.



I do not believe I can be forced to buy a product, I insure based on my risk, I've gone without insurance, and I've over insured, just depends on MY needs.


FYI are so many aircraft falling from the sky and causing SOO much damage thst congress needs to "fix" this? Seems GA has been running along just fine without forcing people to buy stuff for nearly 100 years.
 
If it's quid pro quo for losing the Class 3, then it's more than a good swap.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
If you're scared something is going to happen to YOU, YOU get insurance.
I shouldn't have to get insurance because I MIGHT hurt you.
Click to expand...
OK, so you hurt me and my insurance pays for it. Cool.

What happens next?

My insurance company knocks on your door to get their money back. All of it. And I have no say about it. It's called "subrogation". Read your uninsured motorist coverage.

Why should I -- or my insurance company -- pay for the mess you made?
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
OK, so you hurt me and my insurance pays for it. Cool.

What happens next?

My insurance company knocks on your door to get their money back. It's called "subrogation". Read your uninsured motorist coverage.

Why should I -- or my insurance company -- pay for the mess you made?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why you pay them.


What about bird strike? Should we force birds to carry insurance? :lol:

Again, insurance is a product, nothing more, buy it if you feel you need it, don't if you don't, there are benefits and draw backs to ether option.

Life is full of risks, life is not "safe" or "fair" it will never be.



pilot_dude said:
I assume you're talking about AOPA and I agree.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
James331 said:
Yeah, that's why you pay them.


What about bird strike? Should we force birds to carry insurance? :lol:

Again, insurance is a product, nothing more, buy it if you feel you need it, don't if you don't, there are benefits and draw backs to ether option.

Life is full of risks, life is not "safe" or "fair" it will never be.




Lol
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, I am all about personal responsibility. Hull coverage is on you but, what is being discussed is liability coverage. If I cause harm to you or your "stuff" then it is my responsibility to make you whole. Don't ask me to insure myself against your mistake. Reasonable liability insurance should be required on any machine of conveyance. Car, boat, plane, scooter whatever. It is just taking personal responsibility for YOUR actions.
 
First you'll be required to carry insurance,then they will legislate how much you must carry. Then they will find a way to tax it. Sounds about standard procedure.
 
ronnieh said:
Ridiculous, I am all about personal responsibility. Hull coverage is on you but, what is being discussed is liability coverage. If I cause harm to you or your "stuff" then it is my responsibility to make you whole. Don't ask me to insure myself against your mistake. Reasonable liability insurance should be required on any machine of conveyance. Car, boat, plane, scooter whatever. It is just taking personal responsibility for YOUR actions.
Click to expand...

Skateboards? Roller skates?
 
ronnieh said:
Reasonable liability insurance should be required on any machine of conveyance. Car, boat, plane, scooter whatever. It is just taking personal responsibility for YOUR actions.
Click to expand...

Or, in lieu of insurance, demonstrate that you can afford to pay the cost of any damage you might reasonably cause. The point is, as you say, to be responsible for your own actions, even if they were unintentional.

The point of mandatory insurance, which some people seem to be missing, is to make sure you are ABLE to take on that responsibility.

If you cause some significant harm to someone else, and you say "hey, yeah, my bad, I'd love to pay for that, but gee I don't have any more money, so I guess you're out of luck" well that's not much use to the injured party, and it makes willingness to take on responsibility pretty empty.

People **** and moan about mandatory insurance, whining "you can't make me buy something I don't want to buy!" but that's not the point at all. The point is to require that you are able to shoulder whatever responsibility you take on, one way or another. Don't want to buy insurance? Fine---show personal wealth adequate to self-insure, or don't drive. Driving is a convenience (albeit a big one), not an inalienable right, and a lot of people manage without.
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, if Congress wants to make us meet similar standards as motor vehicle owners, they ought to give us similar protections, too, starting with "manufacturer pays" for faulty products
Click to expand...

Agree completely, it should've always been this way. OTOH, to my amazement, 2 years ago Cessna paid 100% of the cost to install an auxiliary seat stop system. On a freakin' 1958 airplane! I'm sure Chevy would've done the same, right? :no:

James331 said:
How childish.

If you're scared something is going to happen to YOU, YOU get insurance.
I shouldn't have to get insurance because I MIGHT hurt you.

If someone hits my car without insurance and I don't have insurance, I take the loss, that's life and I'm cool with that. If I decide I don't want that risk I GET insurance.
Click to expand...

You're the only person here who confirms my opinion of them multiple times per day.
 
DesertNomad said:
Skateboards? Roller skates?
Click to expand...

Most damage done by these devices seem to be quite small and generally can be self insured. However, for those that a few thousand dollar judgement is catastrophic might want to have some type of personal liability policy.:dunno:
 
deyoung said:
Or, in lieu of insurance, demonstrate that you can afford to pay the cost of any damage you might reasonably cause. The point is, as you say, to be responsible for your own actions, even if they were unintentional.

The point of mandatory insurance, which some people seem to be missing, is to make sure you are ABLE to take on that responsibility.

If you cause some significant harm to someone else, and you say "hey, yeah, my bad, I'd love to pay for that, but gee I don't have any more money, so I guess you're out of luck" well that's not much use to the injured party, and it makes willingness to take on responsibility pretty empty.

People **** and moan about mandatory insurance, whining "you can't make me buy something I don't want to buy!" but that's not the point at all. The point is to require that you are able to shoulder whatever responsibility you take on, one way or another. Don't want to buy insurance? Fine---show personal wealth adequate to self-insure, or don't drive. Driving is a convenience (albeit a big one), not an inalienable right, and a lot of people manage without.
Click to expand...

+1000, my point exactly.
 
"If you like your airplane you can keep your airplane."


Oh boy ... :mad2:
 
Then when the government wants to end GA all they have to do is raise the requirements to a point where insurance companies will no longer underwrite the policies.
 
DFH65 said:
Then when the government wants to end GA all they have to do is raise the requirements to a point where insurance companies will no longer underwrite the policies.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh...boyyyyyyy...here we go again.

index.jpg
 
James331 said:
I do not believe I can be forced to buy a product, I insure based on my risk, I've gone without insurance, and I've over insured, just depends on MY needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks to Justice Roberts, they could just fine you for not having insurance, and when it's challenged in court, all they have to do is call it a tax.
 
DavidWhite said:
Never had a problem with AOPAs insurance. $1400/yr for a 600 hour pilot in a complex aircraft with 0 in type and $110k hull. Pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

I was just quoted, and then purchased a policy from AOPA for $1400/yr insuring a 95hr pilot in a DA20C1 with 1hr in type and $125k hull... EXTRAORDINARILY reasonable.
 
brian109 said:
I am relatively new here but I have to agree. Being a Police Officer I see people get upset all the time when someone hits them without insurance. It unfortunately is a necessary evil in this day and time.
Click to expand...


The LEO's share a huge blame.... Insurance is required to drive a vehicle... When you investigate a accident and the driver has NO insurance.... You need to cuff him /her... Pitch them in the rear seat of your patrol car and take them STRAIGHT to jail...

Pretty soon the word will get out that LEO's will arrest you for driving without insurance and alot more people will conform to the laws....:yes::yes::yes::rolleyes2:...

IMHO...
 
RELAX GUYS…..

With the slowwwwwwwww pace that we are all too familiar with in terms of proposed legislation becoming law, do you REALLY think that the chances of this being passed and signed into law are that high??

Don't something like 90% of all bills die in committee, plus a lot of the remaining 10% usually don't pass one (or both) of the houses of congress.

Like sperm cells, only 1 in a million become a human!!
 
beestforwardspeed said:
RELAX GUYS…..

With the slowwwwwwwww pace that we are all too familiar with in terms of proposed legislation becoming law, do you REALLY think that the chances of this being passed and signed into law are that high??

Don't something like 90% of all bills die in committee, plus a lot of the remaining 10% usually don't pass one (or both) of the houses of congress.

Like sperm cells, only 1 in a million become a human!!
Click to expand...


Yeah.... BUT... We get to "resead" the egg several times a day till it get's fertilized....

Congress only get's one shot at it each year during their session...

I like our odds better...;););):D...

And our way is more fun too...:yes::)
 
DFH65 said:
Then when the government wants to end GA all they have to do is raise the requirements to a point where insurance companies will no longer underwrite the policies.
Click to expand...

If the government wanted to end GA, it wouldn't need to resort to a back door gimmick like this to do it.

So, why does the government want to end GA, again? I missed that part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top