NON A&P maintenance

Salty said:
Since you know everything about what these guys are doing, why don’t you call their insurance company and ask them?
Click to expand...
What insurance company should I start with?
 
Tom-D said:
What insurance company should I start with?
Click to expand...
You claim to know they have insurance, how could you know that so certainly and not know what insurance.

Maybe you should tell their mommies. Or random people on the internet......
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Most "non-owner" policies state the aircraft needs a standard airworthiness cert in effect.
Click to expand...

I used to have AOPA renter's policy, circa 2013. I don't have the actual contract ready, but the application states

For Single Engine Land this insurance is for your personal and non-commercial use
of non-owned, fixed wing, non-pressurized, aircraft having a non-turbine engine of
450 horsepower or less (including non-powered sailplanes), capacity of seven (7) or
less total seats, and a standard, experimental, restricted, or light sport aircraft
certificate, and not furnished to you for more than thirty (30) consecutive days. Multi
Engine, Rotorwing and Seaplanes are not included in this coverage.

Things may have changed, though
 
Tom-D said:
Once again thread is off the subject due to members who can't read and answer the question.
Click to expand...
I read the question just fine. What happens when their insurance company finds out. That was the question right? So I ask again, what makes you so sure they have insurance?
 
Tom-D said:
quit asking questions, and answer the question.
Click to expand...
Tom-D said:
What happens when the insurance company finds out?
Click to expand...

Well, having just read my insurance policy, nothing - near as I can tell. But their insurance may have come from a different company.

(note: My basic policy is written for type certificated aircraft with a couple amendments to cover the fact that it is experimental. e.g.
'The term "Standard Airworthiness Certificate" appearing within the policy is amended to read " Experimental,
Restricted or Light Sport Aircraft Certificate" .')
 
Isosceles said:
For Single Engine Land this insurance is for your personal and non-commercial use of non-owned, fixed wing, non-pressurized, aircraft having a non-turbine engine of450 horsepower or less (including non-powered sailplanes), capacity of seven (7) or
less total seats, and a standard, experimental, restricted, or light sport aircraft certificate,
Click to expand...
Key words...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Well, having just read my insurance policy, nothing - near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Most if not all insurance companies hide it in "the airworthiness certificate must be in full effect" clause... If a type-certificated airplane in not in annual, not registered, or not maintained by FARs then it makes the airworthiness certificate "not effective" and invalidates the insurance policy. The fact that the airplane is not registered will probably come up right away if claim is filed.
 
Tom, you "bet" that they're not working with an A&P, but you don't know that, right?

You're not the A&P that is going to sign off on the aircraft. Someone else might or they might be working in the experimental world. There are enough valid situations that you shouldn't be sticking your nose into it. You could earn yourself serious legal liability. Join Benjamin Franklin and doubt for a moment a little of your own infallibility,
 
bflynn said:
Tom, you "bet" that they're not working with an A&P, but you don't know that, right?

You're not the A&P that is going to sign off on the aircraft. Someone else might or they might be working in the experimental world. There are enough valid situations that you shouldn't be sticking your nose into it. You could earn yourself serious legal liability. Join Benjamin Franklin and doubt for a moment a little of your own infallibility,
Click to expand...
What makes you make a statement like that? What makes you even thing I would get involved?

I asked a question, Your reply has noting to do with that subject.
 
If the airplane is out of annual they will reject the claim because of that alone
 
Tom-D said:
What makes you make a statement like that? What makes you even thing I would get involved?

I asked a question, Your reply has noting to do with that subject.
Click to expand...

If you say something false about them to another person which causes them damage, you will have committed libel and they can sue to be made whole. Given that your certification, your words would carry official weight and you could cause substantial damage.

Translated - if you tell their insurance company something about them that 1) isn’t true and 2) causes substantial damage to them, you will have opened yourself to significant liability.

So, I am advising that unless you absolutely know what is going on, stay out of it. You can do yourself great harm and you can do very little good getting involved in something you know so little about.
 
Isosceles said:
If the airplane is out of annual they will reject the claim because of that alone
Click to expand...
FYI: In most cases they won't honor the claim due lack of a Special Flight Permit not lack of current annual inspection. And most policies state the ferry permit. An aircraft without a current annual is not illegal only operating (flying) one is hence the permit trigger.
 
bflynn said:
If you say something false about them to another person which causes them damage,
Click to expand...

Why Would I do that? I've already said I'd never get in involved.
Plus what does that have to do with the question?
 
Tom-D said:
Once again thread is off the subject due to members who can't read and answer the question.
Click to expand...
It's already been answered, repeatedly...or did you miss that? Apparently some thought it was thread drift time, which is typical here. Bitching about it won't stop it.

For some reason, every time I read a "Tom thread", I'm reminded of a guy who I bought a 160ac farm and house from some thirty years go. He was going thru a divorce also at the time. One day I overheard him tell his lawyer, "I don't want to settle, I want to fight."
 
Last edited:
Isosceles said:
My bad. I meant non-type certificated. In particular, EA/B airworthiness certificate has "unlimited" duration. No requirement of the proper maintenance or even periodic condition inspections.
Click to expand...

Not true.
 
Tom-D said:
NTSB has some really good inspectors, They can tell when she thing has been worked on, So when they see no entry in the logs, for obvious maintenance.
What then?
Click to expand...
Nah man, jb weld and old baling wire typically melt in the crash, and it’s difficult to distinguish melted Natty Light cans from cocacola cans.
 
An insurance company really only has one thing in mind on any claim, what is the simplest way to end the claim. In the litigious society we live in, that pretty much means writing a check and moving on. The people in question would never get insurance again, but that claim would sail right through.
 
Tom-D said:
I am not in any way associated with theses guys. I'd bet no A&P is.
Aircraft in question, is no longer in the data base @FAA.

The question remains "What will any insurance company do when they find that the aircraft was worked on by some one who is not a properly certified mechanic".
Click to expand...
Who said they have insurance? Insurance is not required...:rolleyes:
 
Tom-D said:
we have a two people here at OKH that are working on aircraft that are not A&Ps.

Now the question,
What happens when the insurance company finds out?
Click to expand...

How do you know they have insurance? There no requirement for insurance in most states.
 
Last edited:
There’s certainly no insurance required to tinker on an airplane.
 
Tom-D said:
Why Would I do that? I've already said I'd never get in involved.
Plus what does that have to do with the question?
Click to expand...

Well, good then. Glad to know you have no concerns about what they’re doing.

Since we don’t have any information about what they are doing, it is a hypothetical situation and your original question is impossible to answer.
 
bflynn said:
Well, good then. Glad to know you have no concerns about what they’re doing.

Since we don’t have any information about what they are doing, it is a hypothetical situation and your original question is impossible to answer.
Click to expand...
Well then,, why not answer the question?
 
Tom-D said:
Well then,, why not answer the question?
Click to expand...
How would anyone be able to answer definitively unless they've been in the situation themselves or know someone who has been in the situation or unless they happen to be an insurance agent for a company that writes aircraft policies? Short of that, the best anyone can do is guess.

Your question as it was posed was vague. What happens when the insurance company finds out? Under what circumstances have they found out? Did they find out via an NTSB investigation after an accident? Was maintenance a factor in the accident? Has a claim been filed in relation to the accident? Or has there been no accident or claim and they found out because someone told them?

And I ask again, what makes you think they have insurance? If they're not paying the registration nor a certified mechanic, stands to reason they're probably not paying for insurance either.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Tom...hope you are feeling better pal. ;)
Click to expand...

If this thread is in real time, he must've made a trip to the airport since his last stint in the hospital. Or he's hallucinating.

So, either way, yeah obviously feeling better. :D
 
Unless there's a claim being processed, I don't see how an insurance company would even care. It's when they have to lay out some cash for a claim that it would behoove the claimant to have his ducks in line, because claims cost them profits. Even so, it's likely the claim would be paid and the claimant would not get his policy renewed for failing to follow the rules if they were blatant about it. The FAA might also have some issues with unauthorized maintenance and revoke the airworthiness certificate until the aircraft got a full conformance inspection if for some reason they observed wanky (legal term ;) ) maintenance. With the emphasis on part 121/135 maintenance monitoring, the FAA is unlikely to have the manpower or inclination to skulk around GA airfields checking on civilians turning wrenches on private aircraft.
 
Hi Tom!
Glad you are all better!
Any updates on the prostrate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top