Overdue flight review

M

mryan75

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,648
Display Name
Display name:
mryan75
Was at the drome today, and one of the guys on the field was talking about his recent realization that he needed a flight review in October and totally forgot about it. I'm sure he's not the first guy on earth this has happened to. He has flown in the intervening months. What is the proper way of dealing with this?
 
File a NASA report and get his butt to a CFI now.
 
Ravioli said:
And he should also post on PoA about whether he can log PIC time.
Click to expand...
I kind of assume what's done is done, no? Does he have to strike the PIC time from his logbook? There are a few CFIs at the airport and I'm sure they'll know the answer, but none of them were around today.

Ps He doesn't do the interwebs. He's a older guy.
 
Last edited:
He should also be counting his lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time. Insurance wouldn’t take ‘I forgot’ as a very good excuse.
 
mryan75 said:
I kind of assume what's done is done, no? Does he have to strike the PIC time for, his logbook? There are a few CFIs at the airport and I'm sure they'll know the answer, but none of them were around today.

Ps He doesn't do the interwebs. He's a older guy.
Click to expand...
It was a joke, son. I say, a joke. (In the best Foghorn Leghorn imitation I can muster.)

Get your flight review and go and sin no more.
 
Ryanb said:
He should also be counting his lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time. Insurance wouldn’t take ‘I forgot’ as a very good excuse.
Click to expand...

Yuuup! They would drop the claim and tell him he is on his own fo sho!
 
Greg Bockelman said:
It was a joke, son. I say, a joke. (In the best Foghorn Leghorn imitation I can muster.)

Get your flight review and go and sin no more.
Click to expand...
So basically go get a flight review and move on with life?
 
I suppose if a violation or accident was being investigated by the FAA and they reviewed his logbook it could result in an enforcement action. The chances of that are rather small. Also a NASA report may not cover this because it is a pilot qualification issue, but I suggest filing one.
 
Unit74 said:
Can’t unshoot a gun.... can’t unfly hours.
Click to expand...

CO05GiC.gif
 
Ryanb said:
He should also be counting his lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time. Insurance wouldn’t take ‘I forgot’ as a very good excuse.
Click to expand...

Unless you insure with Avemco...
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose if a violation or accident was being investigated by the FAA and they reviewed his logbook it could result in an enforcement action.
Click to expand...
Which is why it's time to start a new log book and "misplace" the old one in the near future.
 
Ryanb said:
He should also be counting his lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time. Insurance wouldn’t take ‘I forgot’ as a very good excuse.
Click to expand...
Most insurances don't work like that. If you drive drunk or on a suspended license, the insurance is still going to pay for an accident you got into. Now, they may drop your coverage immediately after, but they'll still pay for any damage you did while insured through them. The only think I can think of that would alter that is if you procured the insurance under false pretenses (said you were a pilot but weren't). Obviously each policy is different, and some may have exclusions for that sort of thing, but most will cover them in that instance.
 
SoonerAviator said:
If you drive drunk or on a suspended license, the insurance is still going to pay for an accident you got into.
Click to expand...
Auto insurance is different, with different statutory requirements. In general, states view auto coverage as protection for those around the driver. Accordingly, insurance laws prohibit auto carriers from denying coverage just because the driver is drunk in order to protect the public. (A notable exception is that extra coverage that rental cars sell you. They can deny coverage if you are drunk.) But there is no such requirement for airplane coverage. So, aviation carriers can pretty much do what they want.
 
PPC1052 said:
Auto insurance is different, with different statutory requirements. In general, states view auto coverage as protection for those around the driver. Accordingly, insurance laws prohibit auto carriers from denying coverage just because the driver is drunk in order to protect the public. (A notable exception is that extra coverage that rental cars sell you. They can deny coverage if you are drunk.) But there is no such requirement for airplane coverage. So, aviation carriers can pretty much do what they want.
Click to expand...

I understand that, which is why I used the modifier "most". I would imagine any insurance carrier that denied coverage of a claim where the pilot in question was in violation of an FAR but otherwise qualified as PIC would open themselves up to lawsuit from the pilot if they refused payout. If there were a specific clause in the contract that stipulated "any FAR violation/expired BFR" could result in denial of a claim, then that's fine. However, I'd think any owner/pilot would be stupid to have insurance that denied coverage on those grounds.
 
All insurance providers are not the same,you have to speak to the company directly ,to understand the fine print.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I understand that, which is why I used the modifier "most".
Click to expand...

Maybe you used the word "most," but your post showed no sign of understanding that auto is regulated completely differently than aviation insurance.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe you used the word "most," but your post showed no sign of understanding that auto is regulated completely differently than aviation insurance.
Click to expand...

I was merely providing an analogy to something most could understand. Next time I'll write a treatise on the subject to make sure it's clear. I have worked as an insurance adjuster for a stint, so I have some knowledge of how different insurances are structured.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I was merely providing an analogy to something most could understand. Next time I'll write a treatise on the subject to make sure it's clear. I have worked as an insurance adjuster for a stint, so I have some knowledge of how different insurances are structured.
Click to expand...

But it's an analogy that is not accurate. That's the problem.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I was merely providing an analogy to something most could understand. Next time I'll write a treatise on the subject to make sure it's clear. I have worked as an insurance adjuster for a stint, so I have some knowledge of how different insurances are structured.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the analogy between optional insurance doesn't work. You don't need a treatise to explain the difference. Auto insurance is mandatory and regulated; aviation policies are neither. If you want to compare it to commercial liability insurance, that would work, but even there, the bargaining power of a commercial vendor, backed up with the bargaining power of a commercial or governmental customer which requires a certain level of insurance, is probably a bit greater than that of an aircraft owner.

In response to the "lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time [when not current]," you talked about how car insurance will pay even with a suspended license. There have been cases in some states (with the opposite result in others) in which aviation insurers have successfully denied claims because the pilot was out of flight review currency under clauses requiring "current and valid" certificates and ratings, even when the accident had nothing to do with the lack of currency.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The problem is, the analogy between optional insurance doesn't work. You don't need a treatise to explain the difference. Auto insurance is mandatory and regulated; aviation policies are neither. If you want to compare it to commercial liability insurance, that would work, but even there, the bargaining power of a commercial vendor, backed up with the bargaining power of a commercial or governmental customer which requires a certain level of insurance, is probably a bit greater than that of an aircraft owner.

In response to the "lucky stars that he hasn’t had any accidents during this time [when not current]," you talked about how car insurance will pay even with a suspended license. There have been cases in some states (with the opposite result in others) in which aviation insurers have successfully denied claims because the pilot was out of flight review currency under clauses requiring "current and valid" certificates and ratings, even when the accident had nothing to do with the lack of currency.
Click to expand...

Not to dispute it, but I've heard this for years and have never seen an article about it with factual data or any printed case study.
 
unsafervguy said:
Not to dispute it, but I've heard this for years and have never seen an article about it with factual data or any printed case study.
Click to expand...
I will try to find more later, but this one is not directly related. It is along the same lines of the subject at hand:

"In O'Connor v. Proprietors Insurance Co. the Colorado Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals, held that when there is a provision in an insurance policy specifically excluding coverage in the event of an FAA violation, the insured is not entitled to recover unless it can be established that no causal relationship existed between the FAA violation and the accident giving rise to coverage. The policy in question provided no coverage for losses incurred if the aircraft was operated in violation of the terms of the Federal Aviation Airworthiness Certificate or Operational Record. Since the aircraft had not had its required annual inspection, the court found that the aircraft insurance policy did not cover damages sustained by the aircraft in the crash. The court held that the insured was not entitled to recover under the policy unless he could prove that no causal relation existed between the FAA violation and the accident and that the insured did not meet his burden of proof." citation: Recent Developments in Aviation Case Law, Rod D. Margo, Volume 52, Issue 1
 
unsafervguy said:
Not to dispute it, but I've heard this for years and have never seen an article about it with factual data or any printed case study.
Click to expand...

NealRomeoGolf said:
I will try to find more later, but this one is not directly related. It is along the same lines of the subject at hand:

"In O'Connor v. Proprietors Insurance Co. the Colorado Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals, held that when there is a provision in an insurance policy specifically excluding coverage in the event of an FAA violation, the insured is not entitled to recover unless it can be established that no causal relationship existed between the FAA violation and the accident giving rise to coverage. The policy in question provided no coverage for losses incurred if the aircraft was operated in violation of the terms of the Federal Aviation Airworthiness Certificate or Operational Record. Since the aircraft had not had its required annual inspection, the court found that the aircraft insurance policy did not cover damages sustained by the aircraft in the crash. The court held that the insured was not entitled to recover under the policy unless he could prove that no causal relation existed between the FAA violation and the accident and that the insured did not meet his burden of proof." citation: Recent Developments in Aviation Case Law, Rod D. Margo, Volume 52, Issue 1
Click to expand...
The North Carolina rule is even more in favor of the insurer. Under a line of cases extending back at least into the 1970s, coverage can be denied even if there is no causal relationship. From one of the early cases cited in later ones:

Under such circumstances [in that case, lack of a current medical] coverage under the policy simply did not exist, and it was not necessary for the insurer to show any causal connection between the breach of the exclusionary clause and the insured's loss.​

Other states have noted there is a trend toward requiring a causal relationship, with the burden variously on the insurer to prove there was one (Colorado in your example), or in the claimant to prove there wasn't one (Washington state, if I recall correctly). I don't know of a recent case doing a tally, but a case 20 years ago did a survey and reported denying coverage in these circumstances was the majority rule.

And the rule is not limited to where the claimant is the violating pilot. In most of the cases involving pilot currency, the claimant is an "innocent owner" (a term used by the cases) such as an FBO which rented to the pilot.

I unfortunately had an opportunity to do research in this area several years ago.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Which states:
  • Avemco will pay your covered claim even if your medical, annual or flight review accidentally expires mid-term.
I didn't know those things accidentally expire. I thought they expire by design.

:D
Click to expand...
So accidental -just forgot.
Intentional- went for flight review and failed but continued to fly anyway and then got in an accident ??
 
benyflyguy said:
So accidental -just forgot.
Intentional- went for flight review and failed but continued to fly anyway and then got in an accident ??
Click to expand...
Well, except it's my understanding that you can't "fail" a flight review. The CFI can simply choose to not sign you off, and then, there would be no record in your logbook (at least I would never allow there to be one in mine) so there is no difference between your two examples.
 
Last edited:
I knew someone who didn't notice that their medical had expired; he "unlogged" the twelve hours of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top