There is no legal difference between taking a passenger in your car and doing it in your personal aircraft.
The liability aspects of ride sharing are widely discussed on the internet for each jurisdiction. The bottom line is that in most countries you can’t exclude liability but you can procure insurance. Or just accept that life is risky and usually ends with death.
Is there another European country where passenger liability (in GA) depends on the pilot being found “negligent” (or some similar term)?
Peter wrote:
I don’t think the EU has harmonised this aspect, however.
With the massive difference in healthcare systems among the EU, harmonisation is far away! As already stated above, in my part of the EU the health insurance is the driving force behind those liability claims. We have a very good one and they will make sure that everyone will get the treatment that he requires – basically free of cost for him and with no money paid up front at the entrance of the hospital (like in that big wonderland right across the Atlantic Ocean) – but they have to watch their expenses just like everybody else. And if they can find someone to whom they can forward the doctor’s bill they will happily do that. But as they are the ones who usually pay the bills, they also want to be the ones to sign liability waivers. Which means that waivers signed by their clients (us) are worth nothing. I can not sign anything in the name of my insurer.
Under UK law any disclaimer AFAIK for injury or death is worthless.
It looks like nobody is aware of differences in this respect around Europe. I don’t think the EU has harmonised this aspect, however.
“Liability Release Agreement”.
Many years ago the RAF used to give these to passengers travelling in Servicve vehicles for non Service purposes. It was then pointed out to them that under UK Law they were worthless, as a passenger could not sign away their legal rights.
what_next wrote:
Around here (Germany) a private pilot has nothing to fear, liability wise, as long as he does not violate any rules or acts recklessly. Vaivers signed by passengers are totally worthless
Yes, usually the case in Norway too, but no one is immune to civil law suits. Civil law has a lower threshold for proving guilt and paying damage than criminal law. My point was that this goes both ways. A “Liability Release Agreement” could easily harm the PIC as well as the passenger. If the passenger dies, then someone else will sue you in any case, and that agreement is worth nothing. It will only rise suspicion IMO, because there is no good reason to have it in the first place.
what_next wrote:
But how can a pasenger know what kind of aircraft she/he is flying with?
For experimentals (typically homebuilt aircraft with a C of A in the experimental category) the aircraft must have placards saying (loosely translated) “it is not verified that this aircraft fulfills the requirements for aircraft in the normal category”. It must be visible from every seat. It also must have written in big letters “EXPERIMENTAL” or “EKSPERIMENT”. For microlight the following placard must be visible (also loosely translated 
) “This aircraft is only approved for aerial sports, and is approved by simpler standards than ordinary aircraft”. It’s also the PIC’s duty to inform passengers about this.
As I said, insurance for third party and the aircraft itself is no problem. It’s the kind of “activity” you are doing that counts. If your life insurance covers experimental aviation (essentially a test pilot) and aerial sports, then you have a very special insurance, a kind of insurance no normal passenger is likely to have. From the insurance company’s point of view, there are no passengers in those categories. The LAA aren’t doing experimental aviation in any case, not by any stretch of the word. I’m not entirely sure what the insurance companies have to say about being a passenger in an experimental that has a valid C of A (finished the test flying). But flying microlights, as PIC or passenger, is typically explicitly excluded, as is all aerial sports (please read the finer print )
Peter wrote:
this is mandatory in the EU anyway.
Not necessarily. It depends on what the aircraft is legally defined to be, and what kind of activity you are doing. Sure, you can take passengers. You can put someone on the back of your bicycle and ride it off a cliff, were both of you pull the chute (it’s been done). Is that person a passenger? Hardly.
Yes, indeed, the basic principle with insurance is that everything not expressly excluded is included.
Also life insurance is a completely different issue to passenger liability insurance.
Life insurance covers any (not expressly excluded) activity which was commenced after the policy started, including suicide (though based on what I have seen, suicide is covered only after some time like 2 years after the policy starts). However, if e.g. you are a GA pilot then (in the UK) this must be declared at the policy commencement, along with anything else which might affect the insurer’s view of the risk. This aspect is no doubt country dependent.
Passenger insurance is valid if you can get it for the aircraft type I have never heard of any homebuilder being unable to get insurance for the aircraft or passengers; this is mandatory in the EU anyway.
There is a huge difference between certified and not certified aircraft. A certified aircraft is just like a car in this respect. Can you sue a car driver when he crashes? of course, both criminal and civil (a criminal law suit is less likely than with a car it seems, and I guess civil also?) But, for a non-certified aircraft, all your insurances (life insurances) are void. Insurance vice, flying a non certified aircraft is like base jumping, it’s not covered, and specifically so. I mean,you can insure the aircraft, and third party, but not the “activity”. So if you die for whatever reason, or get a lasting injury when flying, or as a passenger, you are not covered by an insurance
Mulling this over, I can’t let this one go. If it applies to your country, then state your country.
Otherwise it’s just fake news / alternative facts. I don’t want my pax or anyone else reading and accepting this as a blanket condemnation of insurance cover in non-certified a/c, however you define non-certified a/c.
Additionally, with my life insurance in the UK, it is not void for GA flying activities, whatever I choose to fly, whether I launch off Brighton pier on a bicycle flapping my arms, or climb into a friend’s Kingair.
… But, for a non-certified aircraft, all your insurances (life insurances) are void. …
That may be true for the owner/builder/pilot in some countries (certainly not where I live – my life insurance does not exclude anything not even suicide). But how can a pasenger know what kind of aircraft she/he is flying with? They don’t even know the difference between commercial and private operation.
Around here (Germany) a private pilot has nothing to fear, liability wise, as long as he does not violate any rules or acts recklessly. Vaivers signed by passengers are totally worthless. Should anything happen it is usually not the passenger or his familiy who go after the pilot but their health insurance. Treating severe burns in intensive care for half a year costs several hundred thousand Euros and the insurer will do what he can to forward that bill to someone else.
Commercial transport is different in that respect. Don’t know about grey areas like Wingly (which from the part of the unsuspecting passenger looks a lot like commercial operation), therefore passenger liability insurance makes a lot of sense in that case.
