RAAus head office.

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

It's not just raa. We members have the 20 mil p/l. I have asked the raa broker and he confirmed it.

The passenger limit is not enough but the passenger is flying at their own risk. That's why we have fly at own risk decals on the panel.

Well where did your "RAA insurance public liability is only good for $1 million" come from? If its confirmed every member is covered for $20 million that suits most. You just have to stay away from Fifo and Charter airports like Roma where if you knock down Dash 8 by picking the wrong approach and runway the familes of about 85 people could be claiming.

 

The safety messages are simply to warn the person there is a different risk to flying in a 747 - gives him or her the option of stepping out.

 

I've given examples in the past on payouts for:

1.  No safety warning and the plaintiff succeeded.

2. Safety Warning and the plaintiff succeeded.

3. Safety Warning but failure to advertise the plaintiff was told he could sue          succeeded.

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well where did your "RAA insurance public liability is only good for $1 million" come from? If its confirmed every member is covered for $20 million that suits most. You just have to stay away from Fifo and Charter airports like Roma where if you knock down Dash 8 by picking the wrong approach and runway the familes of about 85 people could be claiming.

 

The safety messages are simply to warn the person there is a different risk to flying in a 747 - gives him or her the option of stepping out.

 

I've given examples in the past on payouts for:

1.  No safety warning and the plaintiff succeeded.

2. Safety Warning and the plaintiff succeeded.

3. Safety Warning but failure to advertise the plaintiff was told he could sue          succeeded.

 

 

 

The 1 million is tenant liability not public liability. 

[jackc]

I think we have now reached a point that when you look at taking a policy from an insurance company you get their PDS which is very intricately worded, you take that to a lawyer and ask him what am I really not covered for here because the last thing anybody wants to do is to make an insurance claim because these days the whole thing becomes a nightmare,  regardless.

It’s like reading the warranty statement in a new car handbook and I discovered that when I bought a new Mahindra Ute, the supposed it many year warranty only covered certain things for three months and all this sort of rubbish. In other words I told the dealer the warranty was not worth the paper was written on.

I tend to think that many insurance policies are similar………..

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

I think we have now reached a point that when you look at taking a policy from an insurance company you get their PDS which is very intricately worded, you take that to a lawyer and ask him what am I really not covered for here because the last thing anybody wants to do is to make an insurance claim because these days the whole thing becomes a nightmare,  regardless.

It’s like reading the warranty statement in a new car handbook and I discovered that when I bought a new Mahindra Ute, the supposed it many year warranty only covered certain things for three months and all this sort of rubbish. In other words I told the dealer the warranty was not worth the paper was written on.

I tend to think that many insurance policies are similar………..

Ring Geoff tonkins at insurance house. He put the raaus insurance package together. He will answer all your questions.

The third party does work well.

When the Jabiru went through the side of the hangar at Goolwa a while back. The raa insurance paid out everything straight away.

[BurnieM]

This appears to cover me in a VH registered plane as long as I maintain my RAAus membership.

Am I reading this correctly ?

 

[BrendAn]

I am pretty sure they told me you have to be doing an raaus related activity. As in flying an raaus registered aircraft.

Even though the insurance covers the member not the aircraft.

[BrendAn]

Also if you are flying vh you are casa not raaus. You are flying on rpl

[BurnieM]

Ah yes, in Coverage "RAAus related activity".

 

Wonder what the actual policy conditions say as this reference in Coverage is very loosely defined.

ie is flying a VH aircraft to an RAAus airshow an RAAus related activity ?

 

Edited November 10 by BurnieM

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Ah yes, in Coverage "RAAus related activity".

 

Wonder what the actual policy conditions say as this reference in Coverage is very loosely defined.

ie is flying a VH aircraft to an RAAus airshow an RAAus related activity ?

 

I don't know much but Geoff is well worth talking to . He is always happy to answers any questions.

But I can't imagine them Covering you in a VH AC even going to an raaus event.

You would have to be in an raaus ac.

Edited November 10 by BrendAn

[skippydiesel]

Is it not a truism that insurance policies, of any kind, are worded so that should the incident/policy holder stray from the strict conditions of the policy, a claim may be denied in whole or part?

 

The Forum members can debate this for ever and will never know the actual result (payment in whole, part or denied) until making a claim.😈

[coljones]

19 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That's what Publkic Liability Insurance is for and also

 

That's what Directors and Officers Liability is for.

 

I can't remember now, but if we go back to around 2010/12 as an Incorporated Association, it MAY be that we were indemnified under the ACT. For anyone planning to be in Recreational Aviation for a few years, it would be well worth doing the research, and it may be smart to fly back to RAA Inc.

There were many good reason to move away from "RAA Inc" but the big furphy was that the Federal jurisdiction would look after the members. It should but won't. Little organisations like ours don't rate on the CVs of the regulators. State based regulators are even more useless.

[turboplanner]

39 minutes ago, coljones said:

There were many good reason to move away from "RAA Inc" but the big furphy was that the Federal jurisdiction would look after the members. It should but won't. Little organisations like ours don't rate on the CVs of the regulators. State based regulators are even more useless.

There are, and were plenty of people around who thought that a Limited Company was better than an Incorporated Association. There were plenty of opinions from "You don't have a dog and bark yourself" to "we're not a cricket club"; none of them produced the documents or comparison charts, yet here we are all sore and unhappy once again.....................

 

As I recall, there was no discussion about Federal jurisdiction furphy or not because the Federal Government can't interfere with State Government jurisdiction. 

 

The RAA Inc members had incorporated in the ACT which is a separate Territory, as a democratic decision. They could have chosen any State or Territory, and they could have had a National Committee based in one of them and each State/Territory registering an Incorporated Association.

 

Many Incorporated Associations register their National Arm in the ACT and the Presidents of the States and Territories form the Committee and elect a National President. There are dozens of ways to set it up.

 

However currently I'm reading it that no one is particularly interested in doing the work to campaign and change the structure.