Sport Pilot and Insurance

RogerT

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
1,387
Location
Lake Placid, FL
Display Name

Display name:
RogerT
I had a rather ominous conversation with my insurance company today.
Nation Air. I've been with them or their previous incarnations since
the 70s. I was asking about getting liability for the experimental
I built and I asked what if I just didn't renew my medical next year
and went Sport Pilot. The agent said that they would expect that
a SP would be able to qualify under the requirements for a medical
certificate at all times or the insurance wouldn't be in effect. So
they are raising the bar from what the FAA has established ..
a valid drivers license and no medical condition that make operating
an aircraft unsafe .. to meeting all the requirements of Part 67 at
all times. Are the insurance companies just rewriting the SP
requirements? Is anyone else getting this same thing?
 
"Are the insurance companies just rewriting the SP requirements?"

No, you can still go SP, but there ain't no law that says anyone -has- to sell you insurance. You think they want to have to start "paying off" when these folks that are otherwise not medically fit to fly start dropping out of the sky?
 
Doesn't surprise me, as it's not the first time the FAA let the insurance companies do their dirty work for them. The FAA has stayed out of writing any regs about glass panel training requirements because the insurance companies are requiring extensive glass panel training (usually the factory sponsored program) for any "steam gauge" pilots going to G1000's and the like. This seems to be more of the same.
 
mgkdrgn said:
"No, you can still go SP, but there ain't no law that says anyone -has- to sell you insurance. You think they want to have to start "paying off" when these folks that are otherwise not medically fit to fly start dropping out of the sky?

Well .. first of all .. .. saying that anyone who goes SP is medically unfit paints a pretty broad brush. I can guarantee you I'm as medically fit as you and could certainly qualify for a Class 1 should I wish. But not having to hassle with it all sounds pretty convenient. The
requirement to not fly if you have reason to know of a condition that
could compomise the safe operation of any aircraft is still there.

I was simply inquiring if anyone else had seen the same thing.
 
Last edited:
My suspcion is that this is a legal risk reduction effort spurred by the insurers' lawyers. Imagine having to defend the insured when the plaintiff's attorney turns to the jury of 12 poor souls who can't tell one end of a plane from another, no less understand aviation medicine, dragged in off the street, and says, "...and the pilot chose not to get an FAA medical examination! What do you think he was hiding? Do you think that's a reasonable exercise of responsibility?" I'm sure that thought gives the insurers' legal staff nightmares.
 
well insurers have been covering gliders for years, with no medicals required and no complaints from the companies. If the AOPA and EAA insurance companies require a medical, I would raise hell with the alphabet soup orgs that fought so hard for the no medical thing.
 
It might well be a "pretty broad brush", but it's the one thats going to be used for the "painting" just as soon as the first of the "unfit" meets their maker and takes someone on the ground along with them and their LSA. Why on earth would any insurance company want any part of that?

At least with auto drivers they get a very large population to spread out the risk .. likely not going to be anywhere NEAR as large with SP.

Ya, reality bites at times.

RogerT said:
Well .. first of all .. .. saying that anyone who goes SP is medically unfit paints a pretty broad brush. I can guarantee you I'm as medically fit as you and could certainly qualify for a Class 1 should I wish. But not having to hassle with it all sounds pretty convenient. The
requirement to not fly if you have reason to know of a condition that
could compomise the safe operation of any aircraft is still there.

I was simply inquiring if anyone else had seen the same thing.
 
tonycondon said:
well insurers have been covering gliders for years, with no medicals required and no complaints from the companies. If the AOPA and EAA insurance companies require a medical, I would raise hell with the alphabet soup orgs that fought so hard for the no medical thing.
I keep telling everyone it's not about your ability to fly. It's about Insurance. Now do y'all believe me?

You don't need no Steenkin Medical or even a Pilot Cert. to fly. You can kick the tares and light the fares anyold way-how. You just need both to get insured.

Actually, the SP insurance I've looked into does run higher than older certificated designs for which there is a loss experience! No duh?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top