Aircraft Insurance
On the assumption that this crisis will run for at least three, if not six months, has anyone yet negotiated a reduction in Insurance?
With no flying, the liabilities to be covered are phenomenally reduced – especially Third Party.
Can one ‘temporarily’ reduce one’s cover to “Fire & Theft” only?
IAA issue extensions for all licence levels – all seems very pragmatic and workable.
An AOPA article that amplifies the point on insurance under the FAA policy.
I don’t think it as much insurance as it is eventual lost case in a civil dispute. A guidance (an official one, from the government) has no legal power, but it has some power in a civil court. At least that’s the way it is in Norway. A criminal court is about breaking the law, a civil court is about being responsible/irresponsible, literally regarding money, which only requires the court to find you responsible/irresponsible in the way you have acted. If you don’t follow guidances, it will be more difficult to prove you have acted responsible (your have to hire a much better lawyer than the other guy, or the insurance company in some cases).
Peter wrote:
one saw the same polarisation on ski forums; those who had booked holidays (often a year in advance, as people do) were desperate to go regardless of the (increasingly obvious) risks, right up until the very day the ski lifts closed, while those who had nothing to actually lose were suggesting that people don’t risk i
To be fair, people who don’t live here, really don’t ‘need" to be here… I think it’s hard to argue they are protecting an asset, the asset in this case would be our region
From the UK CAA and Dept. of Transport:
The above does not apply to search and rescue operations, or where it absolutely necessary to fly to, or for, work. In all of these activities, we expect public organisations and businesses to be socially responsible in the decisions they make, and to apply social distancing guidelines.
and
In some GA flights, the risk of transmission is undeniably negligible, for example where the flight is a solo flight, from a private airstrip, in which no ground travel is required to access the airstrip. Nevertheless, such flights should not take place, in light of the blanket nature of the directive above, and the risk of an accident resulting in the need for social distancing measures to be abandoned.
Can we quantify this alleged risk? Is it, perhaps, a largely specious excuse for exercising control?
1. How many aviation accidents has this community witnessed (first-hand, not internet or news reports) in the past ten years (not counting minor “fender benders”, punctured tyres, landing gear components etc.)?
Personally, I can recall only eight.
2. How many of those involved even the slightest personal injury?
None.
3. How many required attendance by one or more emergency services?
None.
They clearly state flying is not prohibited. If they wanted “max FUD” they would have left out that bit.
So the remaining issue is the “essential” test for the whole thing, and since we are allowed to go to work and other things like that, and they do say maintenance operations are allowed, it means you can do a flight for something other than pleasure 
Complying with airworthiness limitations ought to meet the test perfectly well enough IMHO.
Someone posted this on a UK FB site:
I’ve been emailing the CAA about a GA exemption and have received the following this morning:
“ We have drafted a second exemption to support GA, which is awaiting approval and should be live in the next few days. We ask that you keep up an eye on our website https://www.caa.co.uk/COVID-19/ for updates. “
I think the URL where stuff comes up is here.
Peter_G wrote:
Can one ‘temporarily’ reduce one’s cover to “Fire & Theft” only?
For my insurance (Zurich): yes. I can contact them at any time and include/exclude things in the coverage. Which is currently already reduced to basic ground risks (plus “war risk” which includes vandalism) anyway due to some prolonged maintenance.
At least one broker tries to discourage the pausing of contracts, but I really don’t follow his arguments.
