George you may feel instruction is pleasure but the insurance company doesn't see it that way. (I don't know if your students would side with you or your insurance co. )
I'd have to look over my policy but I seem to recall it saying specifically the policy did not cover instruction of persons not named in the policy. Any instruction I might receive or the other named pilots might receive is figured into the premium. The insurance company understands they will receive a minimum amount of hours of training, In fact they insist on it. That is why there normally has been an increase in the premium due to the increased exposure.
As far as what you did in preparation for the Pitch Hitters course, I think you were OK because you had no intent of actually training. Further you had two other people involved who could testify to that. But I think you were walking a thin line.
On the other hand if I was to give a bit of training to a pilot most of our friends in the airport lounge would know about it. Further if I was just seen in the left seat with the other person in the right they would assume training was taking place whether it was or not. I'm afraid I'd have an uphill battle with my underwriter if I was to make a claim.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
gahorn wrote:What if you have a CFI in the left seat? Doesn't that make it even MORE evident you were either giving or receiving instruction? In any case... I'd NEVER leave it up to the ins. co. to "make the call". I pay them to insure my airplane when I'm flying it as PIC or when anyone else is flying it and meets the open pilot warranty. The purpose of the flight has little to do with their obligation. It's insured for "business and pleasure" and instructing is pleasure.
There's no problem for me to receive instruction in my own airplane, and it doesn't matter where the CFI sits (I've received instruction in both seats). It's giving instruction that I'm not insured for. And if I've entered a contract with the insurance company that says they won't pay if I'm giving instruction, then it would be stupid of me to go ahead and do it and try to argue with them later. I guess I shouldn't have said "their call." It's by agreement, in the contract. I don't have an open pilot warranty, by the way. It's named pilots only (plus CFIs with me in the plane).
gahorn wrote:....Certainly, putting the airplane to "work" as a learning airplane for "students" IS a horse of a different color, tho', and the underwriter would need to be advised of the change in use.
That's what I thought this discussion was actually about!
gahorn wrote:....Certainly, putting the airplane to "work" as a learning airplane for "students" IS a horse of a different color, tho', and the underwriter would need to be advised of the change in use.
That's what I thought this discussion was actually about!
John
This thread began by examining how a pilot could be added to a policy for "non solo" flight. It was about tailwheel endorsements for friends, not flight training in the commercial sense.
In any case, I'm not an authority on anyone's personal aircraft insurance and you're correct, the specific policy provisions would prevail.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
I was talking about non-solo, non-rental tailwheel training for a fee. I guess the non-rental part is what sounds confusing... it would not be rented without me in the right seat giving instruction. Solo rental would be cost prohibitive, and the airplane would not survive on open rental.
David
dacker wrote:I was talking about non-solo, non-rental tailwheel training for a fee. I guess the non-rental part is what sounds confusing... it would not be rented without me in the right seat giving instruction. Solo rental would be cost prohibitive, and the airplane would not survive on open rental.
David
David,
The "FEE" part is where you run into problems...Although.....you can get around that, with simple "BARTER" ideas Where you sit in the aircraft, still doesn't make any difference to me. If it is recorded, you saying from the right seat, (to an equally qualified pilot), "watch your airspeed", in a heavy cross wind.....once again, a good lawyer will make you PIC....Because you just instructed that pilot in how to make a landing If your not going to spend the money for... (holding out your aircraft).....Don't instruct.....Brad
Brad, I agree. I need some form of insurance. I wanted to see in what forms others here may have done this. Hence my earlier post about "not being too keen on going naked or lying about it after the fact".
I have had two people approach me about tailwheel endorsements, one is my mechanic... a potential barter , the other is another young guy working his way up the ratings and experience ladder. Interestinly he pays over $1200 per year for some form of insurance that covers him in anything he flies (that he is rated for). But I don't think that will cover him in a taildragger that he can't be PIC in. There are potentially a few more students.
Like most of us here I am very proud and protective of my airplane, I have no plans on sharing it with others unless I am in it. I have worked hard over the past few years trying to develop good tailwheel skills, doing a little instruction in tailwheel airplanes will raise my experience level.
David
Now that I've rid myself of the St. Pauli Girl .... ..... my mind is a bit clearer.... I'm thinking that if logbook endorsements are involved.... it probably meets the definition of "instruction" and the existence or lack of fees .... will have little bearing on the matter. Bruce's plan works for me. If someone wants the instruction badly enough, they'll probably pay the insurance fees. Meanwhile I have a good excuse to decline requests for training in my airplane.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
The extra $200 or so per pilot is really not that much, That is my thinking at this point, if they want it, then they shouldn't mind the fees.
On a slightly different note, I also enquired about instructor insurance in others airplanes and she quoted me $650 for any non-turbine general aviation airplane ( I am not sure what is with the non-turbine part... the majority of my experience is turbine ). I am about to start working on my helicopter CFI, so I asked her about the same for helicopters... she just about choked, you would think I proposed something indecent. The price for the instructor coverage doesn't seem too out of line, but I am not sure if it would be needed. Any thoughts from any of you experienced instructors?
David
The last time I administered actual flight instruction in a turbine aircraft (a Hawker) I required the operator to name me "additional named insured" on their regular policy. It cost them $80 for the year, and we both were satisfied.
This had the effect of preventing the ins. co. from subrogating charges to me, while providing me with the same protection as the policy holder from claims.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
It is a shame that instructing is getting to this. I've been approached by more than a few of the folks I know at the airport about a tail wheel endorsement. I'd love to share the experience with them but this insurance issue has prevented that. Tail wheel endorsements just can not be had anywhere around our area though there remain to be a few. No 170s though.
As far as instructing in other peoples airplanes I am very careful. For anything other than a BFR or a instrument proficiency check, in other words basic flight training, I would almost insist on being named on the owners policy. I also insist on seeing the policy to make sure it meet my standards. A student of mine did not have hull insurance. Like his mother and father before him he said he would just except the lose of the plane. I said that his wife may not and I could not afford to buy his aircraft. He gladly added the hull coverage for the time i instructed him.
I've had this conversation with my insurance broker as well as Avemco and they both pretty much said the same thing. They said that the insured pilot is expected to receive training consistent with their level of rating. In fact the insurance companies encourage it. The premium is set with that training in mind and so all participants are covered to the extent of the policy. They have never heard of a case of an underwriter not paying under these circumstances. Neither of them would have any problem naming a CFI.
They also noted the policies they write probably wouldn't cover the CFI against negligence suits brought against them but again they had no knowledge of a suit ever being filed. They also said they would be likely to know if there was a suit because that would be big news in there industry. I found this hard to believe and bought my own insurance for the period I was actively doing basic instruction. As I recall the premium about equaled what I made so I was basically donating my time.
I've been very fortunate in my flying hobby/career. I've benefited from the generosity of individuals who didn't worry to much about liability or making money. I try, within reason, to return the favor to others. It is this cycle of passing on knowledge that helps perpetuate aviation as we know it. In passing on the knowledge freely given to me I've accepted some risk and also for me making a buck while doing it is not the highest priority. My reward is seeing the knowledge and experience passed on and of course experiencing the "pleasure" of training someone.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
N9149A wrote:....I've been very fortunate in my flying hobby/career. I've benefited from the generosity of individuals who didn't worry to much about liability or making money. I try, within reason, to return the favor to others. It is this cycle of passing on knowledge that helps perpetuate aviation as we know it. In passing on the knowledge freely given to me I've accepted some risk and also for me making a buck while doing it is not the highest priority. My reward is seeing the knowledge and experience passed on and of course experiencing the "pleasure" of training someone.
I think we all echo this sentiment, Bruce! I couldn't have said it better.
N9149A wrote:I've been very fortunate in my flying hobby/career. I've benefited from the generosity of individuals who didn't worry to much about liability or making money. I try, within reason, to return the favor to others. It is this cycle of passing on knowledge that helps perpetuate aviation as we know it. In passing on the knowledge freely given to me I've accepted some risk and also for me making a buck while doing it is not the highest priority. My reward is seeing the knowledge and experience passed on and of course experiencing the "pleasure" of training someone.
Very well said Bruce, I hope you're around for a long time.
W.
May there always be and Angel flying with you.
Loyalty above all else except honor.
1942 Stearman 450
1946 Super Champ 7AC
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.
)
). I am about to start working on my helicopter CFI, so I asked her about the same for helicopters... she just about choked, you would think I proposed something indecent. 
The price for the instructor coverage doesn't seem too out of line, but I am not sure if it would be needed. Any thoughts from any of you experienced instructors? 
May there always be and Angel flying with you.