Training in other peoples airplanes

[cessna_driver2]

The only other thing I would think about is if the school you instruct at has a no freelance clause.

 

[JediNein]

I'm just referring to 61.195(f). I don't know what special experience you had concerning multi instruction with the FAA. If your circumstance involved certificate revocation and appeals to the NTSB board, perhaps there was more than the issue of not having five hours PIC in M/M to give a BFR/IPC or avionics demo.

It was an ASI out for blood and this was his sixth attempt. He didn't get any because I did have the five hours as PIC in M/M.

It surprised me because I didn't think 61.195(f) applied to IPCs or avionics training. According to John Lynch, the ASI, and FAA National HQ's Legal Team, it does apply and woe be to the CFI/MEI/CFII that dares to think otherwise. See the Part 61 FAQ Question #641.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[zuka]

See the Part 61 FAQ Question #641.

Can someone post this FAQ #641? I can't find it...

 

[zuka]

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

How are you supposed to get M&M experience in a high perfomance privately owned twin if the Insurance company won't cover you as PIC without time in type and owner isn't an instructor so he can't give you dual. Owner isn't going to pay for instructor to go to flightsafety on his piston twin and instructor can't afford that.

I flew with some owners and gave them some instruction on the GPS which they had no clue how to use, and logged it as dual given which gave me time in type. It wasn't for a certificate or rating and the owner would rather go flying than sit in front of a computer using a GPS simulator so I didn't complain.

The reg does say 5 M&M for a certificate or rating, but YES, I think you will get blamed if ANYTHING happens.

I heard a story about a guy who crashed his plane and the family went through his logbook and tried to sue everybody and anybody who touched the plane including mechanics, and any instructor he flew with.

 

[JediNein]

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?postid=455748#post455748

Perhaps it hasn't made it into the public FAQ document, yet.

Basically, the owner sits there and keeps you from killing yourself while you do a self-checkout in the plane.

John Lynch states the avionics training is for "educational/informative" purposes so don't even sign a WINGS card, say anything in either logbook that differs from "GPS instruction", or credit the time spend towards the tasks listed in the PTS for an IPC unless you have the 5 hours make/model.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't recall names of the FL & AZ flight schools but the accidents that I recall happened in light twins with two students up front and the mei in the back.

Ah! Okay. For a minute I thought you were referring to the "backseat CFI who's really only a passenger" urban legend.

 

[rumpletumbler]

So is everyone here saying that I should go through the guys insurance company before doing it at all?

 

[flyer172r]

There are some owners that will react very negatively if you start giving them criticism over how they operate their airplane. However, there are some who are generally open to quality instruction. Find those people and hang on to them, you never know what opportunities will arise. Several months ago I was hired by a Bonanza owner to instruct him for his instrument rating. I don't really tell him too much about basic flying or how to operate the plane's systems (although I did borrow the AFM and go over everything). We get along great, and the instruction has led to a very good flying job for me.

Ditto what has been said about getting insured. In my case, since I had many more hours and ratings than the owner, it was cheaper for him to take himself off the insurance (but still covered under the open-pilot clause) and make me a named insured.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So is everyone here saying that I should go through the guys insurance company before doing it at all?

I'm not. There is no scenario in which the guy's insurance company will completly protect you. You should go through =you= insurance company before doing anything at all and get whatever concessions the guy's insurance company is willing to give.

 

[Lead Sled]

So is everyone here saying that I should go through the guys insurance company before doing it at all?

I'm going to disagree with Midlife Flyer. Get the owner to add you to his policy as a named insured. As long as you meet the open pilot warranty, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Whatever you do, don't fall for the trap where you simply assume that since you meet the open pilot warranty that you'll be covered. The aircraft owner is the one that will be covered if there's a loss. You, the unnamed pilot that was acting as PIC could be subject to subrogation, that is the insurance company will pay the claims, but then go against you to recover their losses. Some companies also offer a waiver of subrogation. Spend some time with his insurance guy and make sure you clarify your position.

Assuming that you can get the insurance comapny to add your name to the policy, you'll have the same coverage and protection that the owner has. If that doesn't happen then you'll need to provide your own coverage - and since that's not going to be economically justifiable in most cases, you'll be better off passing on most of these opportunities.

'Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

Assuming that you can get the insurance company to add your name to the policy, you'll have the same coverage and protection that the owner has.

That's right. Unfortunately, the owner doesn't have any protection for giving flight instruction. That is defined as a commercial activity and specifically excluded from coverage in every owner policy I've ever seen.

Personal FAQ:

==============================
Named Pilot, Named Insured and other Myths

Watch out for this. It is a =very= common misconception that being listed as a "named pilot" on someone's insurance policy protects you when you're instructing.

Insurance contracts are highly technical documents. Terms like "open pilot warranty," "named pilot," "named insured," and "waiver of subrogation" mean very specific and very different things.

An "open pilot warranty" is a promise that the owner of the airplane makes to the insurance company that no one that doesn't meet certain stated minimums will be permitted to act as PIC of the airplane. But the insurance does not protect the "open pilot".

"Named pilot" only means that the insurance company agrees to permit a specific pilot to act as PIC of the airplane, even if that pilot doesn't not meet the "open pilot warranty." But the insurance does not protect the "named pilot".

Being listed as a "named insured" means that the insurance company will treat you as one of the people p[protected by the policy. a specific person as one of the owners of the airplane for insurance purposes. Of the three terms, this is the only one that protects the pilot, and there may be limitations.

"Waiver of subrogation" means that the insurance company will not sue, even though it has the right to. A simple way to understand this is in the automobile insurance context: If some other driver slams into your parked car, that other driver is liable for your damages, and you have the right to sue him, if necessary, in order to collect. If you have collision coverage, your insurance company takes care of your loss. But the insurance company also takes over your right to collect from the person who is really responsible. That right to take over your claim is called subrogation.


Here's some examples that illustrate the differences. A is the owner and the primary insured on the insurance policy. B is another pilot.

1. B does not meet the "open pilot warranty" on A's policy. There is an accident that is arguably B's fault. B was acting as PIC on the flight.

Result: A has no insurance coverage. Period. No hull coverage and no protection in case someone else or his property was damaged.

2. Same as 1 but B meets the "open pilot warranty".

Result: The insurance company covers A's claim for hull damage and protects A in case someone else or his property was damaged. The insurance company may go after B ("subrogate") to collect everything it paid for or to A. In addition, B has no protection in case the "someone else" whose person or property was damaged.

3. Same as #1, but B is a "named pilot".

Result: Same as #2. No difference.

4. Same as #1, but B is a "named insured" or "additional insured" on A's policy.
Result: The insurance company covers A's claim for hull damage, protects both A and B in case someone else or his property was damaged, and will usually not subrogate against B.

The catch is that even #4 assumes that B was =not= giving flight instruction to A. Owner insurance contracts typically contain a provision that specifically excludes commercial activities, defined as including flight instruction. The Avemco owner policy, says this about four different ways, including the statement that

However, persons or organizations who are in an aviation business are not insured persons when the accident arises out of, or occurs during, the conduct of such aviation business.​

"Aviation" business, of course, is defined as including " providing pilot, crew or flight instruction services. "

So even if B =is= a named insured, he's not an insured when he's providing instruction.

Whether B has any protection at all when instructing A depends on the existence of endorsements or agreements that are usually outside the basic insurance contract. They take a number of forms, the most common being a waiver of subrogation against the flight instructor. And even =that= doesn't protect the CFI from a third party lawsuit.
==============================

 

[zuka]

1. Unlike automobiles, no insurance is required for privately owned aircraft. (Finance company may require insurance) Correct?

2. Are there any circumstances where insurance is required?

3. I know this is a little off topic from the original subject of instructing, but does anybody know about insurance policies for 135 operators? I fly 135 cargo and have never thought about insurance or if I’m covered. I’m just thankful to have a job if you know what I mean.

 

[Lead Sled]

Whether B has any protection at all when instructing A depends on the existence of endorsements or agreements that are usually outside the basic insurance contract. They take a number of forms, the most common being a waiver of subrogation against the flight instructor. And even =that= doesn't protect the CFI from a third party lawsuit.

Here the key. You'd be surprised what you can negotiate with insurance companies. Just communicate with the underwriter and use your negotiating skills. As far as 3rd party suits go...
I'm assuming that any active CFI also has liability insurance to cover his activities. If not, that's another thread.

'Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

Here the key. You'd be surprised what you can negotiate with insurance companies. Just communicate with the underwriter and use your negotiating skills.

Agreed. But it's a =lot= more than simply becoming an insured. And, so far, I haven't heard of an owner insurer who was willing to add CFI professional liability coverage to an owner policy. Everything up to and including subrogation, yes, but underwriting an entirely new risk, no.

I'm assuming that any active CFI also has liability insurance to cover his activities. If not, that's another thread.

Big assumption. That's the problem. They don't. A lot of CFIs teach at flight schools (where they may or may not be covered) and haven't a clue what the insurance situation is when they get into someone else's airplane for teaching purposes. The question comes up a lot (the reason I have a FAQ - I've answered it so many times) And too many posts suggest, intentionally nor not that becoming a "named insured" on an owner policy takes care of the need. It doesn't.