It may be that Nimbusgb doesn’t want to fix the plane is because the cost of fixing it is comparable to, or more than, it is worth. That is true for most “simple SEPs” when they are fairly old and have a fair number of hours on the engine. It is also true for most shagged old piston twins. When the engine needs an overhaul and the prop needs an overhaul (note that on a G-reg there is a 6 year prop overhaul) you need to decide whether to dump the plane and replace it with another costing £X, or spend close to £X on it. The rational argument for the former is that you can offload various intermittent faults onto somebody else 
The rational argument for the latter is that the plane is a known quantity and apart from these items you know there is nothing wrong with it whereas if you buy another one you are likely to get a can of worms. But in this case if a plane was bought for £X and shortly afterwards (because an unknown party has f——d it) needs another £X to be spent on it, I can well understand the owner may just want to give up on it. If it was me I would buy another plane and then offload this one when the insurance stuff is all over (regardless of the outcome of it).
I suppose another lesson from this saga is that in the GA business you can’t expect anybody else to be looking out for you… Actually I find that to be true in most of life 
Peter wrote:
It may be that Nimbusgb doesn’t want to fix the plane is because the cost of fixing it is comparable to, or more than, it is worth. That is true for most “simple SEPs” when they are fairly old and have a fair number of hours on the engine.
There is no fixed cost to rectify the issue for this plane, except when regulations are so constraining to process that common sense no longer operates. The reality is these are very simple engines to work on, and this one likely has nothing internally wrong with it.
If this Grumman were mine, and here with me, I’d pull & reinstall the engine myself, scrounge around to find an engine builder (A&P) who would work with me (personally, within driving distance) or alternately buy a different engine and sell the existing one to an RV guy. I’d similarly scrounge around for a prop, and find one. I’d have no insurance issues to worry about and the plane would already have been made airworthy since this thread started.
Regardless of what the OP does, or how his hands are tied by local regulation, I’d bet that’s essentially what’s going to happen to this plane. Few planes actually get scrapped when they are ‘beyond economic repair’… because that’s a very limited theory.
Silvaire wrote:
And they will find out when they get older that shortsightedness and dependence on the investments of others will slowly enslave them, at which point they will be angry and disillusioned. Just my opinion
LOL, what a cheery lot we are, but you’re right of course.
Somehow I really doubt people will slowly become enslaved by not owning stuff they see no good reason in owning, but that’s me.
Peter wrote:
It may be that Nimbusgb doesn’t want to fix the plane is because the cost of fixing it is comparable to, or more than, it is worth.
What is a plane worth? When a plane has depreciated to a level where maintaining/fixing it cost more than it’s purchase value, then the net worth is zero. That is the main issue here. Maintaining an old plane cost more than maintaining a new, which doesn’t really help. The reason for this is of course as SIlvaire say, regulations lacking common sense, pushing the cost up to insane levels for no good reason. I do think it will get scrapped though. No one will purchase an unresolved insurance problem, and if this gets dragged out 4-5 years, well.
I’m not sure what I would have done here. The most sensible thing is probably to close the case, fix the plane as cheap as possible, and put the whole experience as a lesson to remember. But I also understand the OP being tired of the whole thing, and other priorities are more important.
Just got ‘official’ notification that my insurers are refusing to cover it.
1 – Damage was pre-existing
2 – Outside cover on delivery flight ( as I was not in the aircraft and under instruction! )
The broker who sold me the aircraft is offering to get involved and has already contacted several respected people in the industry for support.
I will be in the solicitors this week to seek redress. I am not going to let this lie.
What the hell do you pay insurance for if not to cover a loss, especially a significant one. If you are happy to purchase insurance that is backed up by a service happy to dodge responsibility on a whim that’s your call but I expect to get what I pay good money for.
I’ll start naming names this week, from the, what we believe to be, a totally incompetent loss adjuster to the insurance broker and company behind them.
5 months to get to this. Not impressed!
Point 2 should be pretty unambiguous as per the policy and certificate…
Item 10 of the schedule:
States me as the primary covered pilot. Plus whilst giving instruction any qualified examiner / instructor is automatically included.
Fair enough……… HOWEVER an item in general exclusions in BOLD print states.
No claim under this policy shall be rejected on the grounds that the aircraft was used in a place or in a manner or by a person not permitted by this policy provided such use was not authorised by the insured and that I had taken reasonable precautions …… and …. any consent given by a servant or agent of the insured outside the normal scope of his authority shal not be deemed to be an authorisation granted by the insured.
I arranged for delivery by a very reputable dealer, by a highly experienced and well known aerobatic/display/instructor pilot whom I however had no part in the selection of. (but who would be covered by the brokers policy anyway and who has every interest in maintaining their reputation in the flying community ).
THE AIRCRAFT LANDED AT HAWARDEN IN A TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
The pilot would neither have taken off with the prop in this state and would not have handed it over without mentioning any damage that might have happened on the last taxi. Of that I am convinced! I am with the broker here and do not believe that pursuing a claim on his insurance is following the truth.
This leaves the ground handlers or person or persons unknown at Hawarden and should be covered by my insurance.
I now have the backing of several high profile persons in the aviation community and I will be exposing what amounts to a fobbing off by my insurance broker and my insurer.
Crazy stuff Look at it from the insurance company point of view. The most straight forward and simplest explanation of the damage is indeed that it was pre-existing. At least all the time no other verifiable explanation exists. Have you found the tow-bar (or whatever) the propeller could hit?
Sorry, but that paragraph in the insurance schedule means that you are covered if somebody takes your aircraft WITHOUT your consent.
provided such use was not authorised by the insured
So simply put, you did not have a policy that covered the delivery flight. And the insurer is quite right, this is no weaseling out of anything (on that point).
For you dealing with your insurance, there are only two questions: (1) was it covered, and (2) did the damage occur while it was covered.
The policy will say when the cover starts. It was covered from that point in time, then NOT covered from the time the ferry pilot took control of the aircraft on the ground, until he left after the flight, and then covered again.
So all you need is a witness statement by the ferry pilot, in writing, to the insurer, that (a) the flight was started without the damage to the prop, and (b) he left the aircraft without that damage.
That establishes the damage happened at some point after him leaving the aircraft, and hence it should be covered by the insurer, assuming the witness statement is accepted, either by the insurer or later by a court. I would rely heavily that flying an aircraft with this damage is unsafe and that no reasonable pilot would take off with a prop like that.
I arranged for delivery by a very reputable dealer, by a highly experienced and well known aerobatic/display/instructor pilot whom I however had no part in the selection of.
Let’s hope their reputation derives from other than a large number of posts on UK pilot forums
but who would be covered by the brokers policy anyway
In that case the insurer effective at the time may be somebody else, not yours. Often in these cases the insurers talk to each other to work out how to proceed. In the UK, in the car business, they would agree under the table to strip both parties of their no claim discount However did the broker’s insurance cover the delivery flight?
