Insurance for L2

[DrZoos]

Hi guys i have been plugging away developing my log book and experience and applied for my L2

 

A bit concerned to find out however, that all club committee members and instructors are covered by club insurance, but L2 are not...

 

can anyone clarrify or elaborate on this as im really not interested at all in gambling my hard earned duture on an uninsured assistance to the club.... Yes it pays, but not wnoigh relative to the loability...

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

An L2 is able to charge for his services. I'm an L2 who does not.

 

I don't know what liability you incur when you do something as a volunteer. I reckon it's less than if you get paid. The risk has never worried me, gosh we live with much worse risks every day.

 

A guy I know , same age as me, has just been diagnosed with motor-neurone disease.

 

Now that's a risk worth worrying about.

 

Getting back to the L2 risk, here's my recommendations ...any single one will do...

 

1. become appointed as a club official ( aircraft officer ) and be covered by the club's policy.

 

2. Discard all of your assets to your wife and kids and hope they don't disown you. If you have no assets, nobody will sue you.

 

3.Don't sign for any aircraft you will be worried about the plane or the pilot.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Bruce if you have saved and invested your entire life, own your own home ...to sign off and say an aircraft is airworthy is a financial huge risk , especially in a club so tuation where some users dont even know your face, let alone appreciate your efforts.... The court case alone could send you broke with or without a loss.

 

If they get injured , when i sign off....i risk everything i have ever worked for...and the stuid thing is, when you're u sign in ff your signing off to say its fully airworthy even though some company nents you may not have inspected or worked on...

 

Why does RAA insurance cover committee and instructors, but not maintainers

 

 

[frank marriott]

My take is that a L2 is an approval not a qualification. (I exclude LAMEs with L2 approval).

 

I have seen some L2s that I wouldn't let touch my bicycle.

 

I have no doubt that many L2s are very professional but without formal qualifications it is only word of mouth or observations that sort the wheat from the weeds.

 

Not pointed at any individual, just my experience over the last 8 years in RAA.

 

 

[terryc]

Bruce if you have saved and invested your entire life, own your own home ...to sign off and say an aircraft is airworthy is a financial huge risk , especially in a club so tuation where some users dont even know your face, let alone appreciate your efforts.... The court case alone could send you broke with or without a loss.If they get injured , when i sign off....i risk everything i have ever worked for...and the stuid thing is, when you're u sign in ff your signing off to say its fully airworthy even though some company nents you may not have inspected or worked on...

 

Why does RAA insurance cover committee and instructors, but not maintainers

The answers easy, don't do it.

 

 

[kasper]

Fundamental reason why the RAA insurance covers pilots/instructors and such and not L2 is basic - it was added on as a member benefit for the greatest number of members ... thousands of pilots and a few hundred L2s

 

Why your CLUB insurance is not extended to the maintainer is separate and if they really need an L2 then they really need to consider chipping in to cover your costs ... particularly as it sounds like you are not looking to start a full time business as an L2 but as their L2 for the club.

 

Simple - if the club is getting you are little to no cost they should cover your insurance ... if they are getting your services for fees then you have to consider how to cover your own insurance costs in your fees ... either way the club/aircraft owner effectively pays for your insurance.

 

at

 

Or like others you do the L2 thing as a way of giving to the club and take the risk.

 

 

[Mriya]

As a LAME/L4 I fully endorse the need to protect yourself financially from litigation which could cost you everything you have worked for. Insurance is obviously the most comprehensive way fwd, although the idea of owning no assets is appealing (the bush lawyers out there or even the real ones may be able to advise if this is a strategy that would actually work). Without any strategy, one would appear to be almost inviting a financial train-wreak the moment an incident/accident is even remotely associated with work you have done.

 

I also agree with the observations regarding L2's. Some of the things I have seen on first arrival in our workshop should have never been flying. Recent finds include brake pads installed back to front (metal side against the disc and the brake piston pressing against the lining), main electrical fuses being replaced with multi strand cable and substandard frame repairs with no documented factory repair scheme. All certified by L2's!

 

Frank is very wise to recommend a high level of discernment with respect to letting any old L2 touch your aircraft. I know Darren Barnfield is actively working to address these concerns. I am sure he sees a lot more worrying things than I ever will, given his job. It continually amazes me what people manage to get away with and it is a testament to how forgiving and resilient our aircraft can be, however it is inevitable that if people keep pushing to the limits, one day (probably when they most need it) their luck will run out. Correct maintenance and observing the proper schedule will result in an aircaft that is as reliable as possible.

 

 

[djpacro]

I don't know what liability you incur when you do something as a volunteer. I reckon it's less than if you get paid. ....

Not according to my lawyer some years ago.

 

become appointed as a club official ( aircraft officer ) and be covered by the club's policy.

only if the policy specifically covers that activity.

[Camel]

As a LAME/L4 I fully endorse the need to protect yourself financially from litigation which could cost you everything you have worked for. Insurance is obviously the most comprehensive way fwd, although the idea of owning no assets is appealing (the bush lawyers out there or even the real ones may be able to advise if this is a strategy that would actually work). Without any strategy, one would appear to be almost inviting a financial train-wreak the moment an incident/accident is even remotely associated with work you have done.I also agree with the observations regarding L2's. Some of the things I have seen on first arrival in our workshop should have never been flying. Recent finds include brake pads installed back to front (metal side against the disc and the brake piston pressing against the lining), main electrical fuses being replaced with multi strand cable and substandard frame repairs with no documented factory repair scheme. All certified by L2's!

Frank is very wise to recommend a high level of discernment with respect to letting any old L2 touch your aircraft. I know Darren Barnfield is actively working to address these concerns. I am sure he sees a lot more worrying things than I ever will, given his job. It continually amazes me what people manage to get away with and it is a testament to how forgiving and resilient our aircraft can be, however it is inevitable that if people keep pushing to the limits, one day (probably when they most need it) their luck will run out. Correct maintenance and observing the proper schedule will result in an aircaft that is as reliable as possible.

With respect to good l2's and good LAME's, I have owned a GA planes and RAA planes, the standard of some LAMEs was disgusting, I found things wrong and I only felt safe if I stayed with the aircraft throughout the annual inspection and checked everything. On several occasions when I was not present I found several things on a walk around and was totally unacceptable and unsafe.

 

 

[storchy neil]

get bloody insurance and go broke paying for it go broke when the court finds you guilty of neg do not do it as a vol the ramifactions are the same neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

DrZoos, you are doing a useful thing here bringing this issue up. My suggestion is to keep hammering away until you feel happy about doing work for others or just don't do it. Write to the club, the RAAus and your MP's. And an insurance company.

 

In SA, a surf-lifesaving club was going to close down because the board members were advised that they risked everything from possible litigation following a failed rescue. Well the SA govt passed legislation to protect non-paid club volunteers. Now I don't know if this is relevant to what I do at the club as a L2, but I would be interested for sure.

 

For years, I was the club's aircraft officer, and I signed out lots of annuals. In this I was protected by the club's insurance, and I think by the volunteer legislation. No aircraft I signed out ever had an incident, so we will never know.

 

On the subject of crook L2s and LAMEs.

 

Everybody can come up with a horror story, I have 2 first-hand true ones about real LAMEs, but I don't like any implied generalization to all L2s or LAMEs.

 

I have a fear that owner-maintenance is under surreptitious attack and when this succeeds, we will go down the GA path to extinction.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I have a fear that owner-maintenance is under surreptitious attack and when this succeeds, we will go down the GA path to extinction.

This may not happen IF there was an independent Annual Review of the Maintenance. This Review would be attached to the Rego Renewal Application.

 

 

[kasper]

This may not happen IF there was an independent Annual Review of the Maintenance. This Review would be attached to the Rego Renewal Application.

But that fundamentally conflicts with the concept of 95.10 and the self build 95.32 and 95.55 ... how can you have an independent review of maintenance when the design authority sits with the owner?

I've had this exact argument with RAA Tech Managers across the years and they have all accepted that if I am the designer under the CAOs then even the Tech Manager cannot deny my right to declare that maintenance IS within authority ... and they cannot even pull the registration just because they do not like what I am doing or like the current state of one of my planes.

 

This resistance by me to having RAA Tech go beyond their powers is not just a pissing contest on who is the designer vs the RAA ... its application and defense of the actual CAOs and the freedoms we have.

 

If you want to require secondary/independent validation you are fundamentally restructuring what homebuilt within RAA is.

 

 

[facthunter]

We have to be very careful here to not throw the baby ( original concepts of how we operate) out with the bathwater. You don't know what you've got till it's gone. (as the song goes). Owner maintenance is fundamental. It's a flow on from building. It's not compulsory as you are required to ensure the job is done properly for YOUR sake. You get advice or help when required. Surely if you build a plane you would be familiar with it's construction, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. You or another qualified owner may with advantage modify (improve) it. If something proved unsatisfactory (and this can happen in BIG stuff.) You make it better..(Modify).. Nev

 

 

[deadstick]

I have seen a case like this tested to the legal advice stage in RAA ( didn't go to court) , and the responsibility came to the owner of the aircraft to ensure that correct maintenance was being carried out. There is a line in the OPs manual that states it's the owners responsibility. As far as an L2 signing to say the aircraft is airworthy:- they are not and cannot certify an ultralight to be airworthy as they are not deemed to be, have a read here:- ( skip to placards and warnings) https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c42.pdf

 

( didn't check currency)

 

What an L2 is signing for is that they have performed maintenance to the manufacturers requirements laid down in the maintenance manual by delegation of the RAA tech manager.

 

 

[Downunder]

It seems wrong that an L2 cannot specialize in an area such as fabric repairs, if they have to sign off on the whole aircraft.

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

[Mriya]

With respect to good l2's and good LAME's, I have owned a GA planes and RAA planes, the standard of some LAMEs was disgusting, I found things wrong and I only felt safe if I stayed with the aircraft throughout the annual inspection and checked everything. On several occasions when I was not present I found several things on a walk around and was totally unacceptable and unsafe.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on that point too. This thread was talking about L2's and I commented on that, however as in every industry there are good and bad operators.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon we could do much better in RAAus at very little cost by using volunteer second inspectors. This is not my idea, Mike Busch says big-time manufacturers use inspectors all the time. He says there are more man-hours inspecting than there are building.

 

GFA uses the second pair of eyes idea on annuals and also on rigging a glider.

 

Then Turbs said how motor-sport has been using this idea for years too, and it worked well.

 

What I would like to see is a trial where it was not compulsory but you could volunteer to be inspected. The volunteer inspectors would need to become qualified... the gliding and motor-sport people have this in place. We could too.

 

I would bet that after some time, the second-inspected aircraft would show up better. At least they would be far less likely to have the horror stories that might be used to ban owner-maintenance.

 

Before I first flew my kit Jabiru, every visitor to my hangar was asked to do an inspection and yes there were things noticed.

 

 

[frank marriott]

volunteer inspectors would need to become qualified

Therein lies the problem I would suggest Bruce - given many l2s are not qualified anyway. I would object to anyone "inspecting" my aircraft if they didn't have better qualifications then me, a piece of paper & being recommended by a mate (or it might be 2) is not a qualification to me.

 

 

[jetjr]

You can get a L2 or LAME to check over your aircraft today, unofficially or whatever, no papers or sign off. Its a solid idea and some do it.

 

As a volunteer, and you find an issue and suggest its rectified and somethong goes wrong, even on a personal level, how would you handle that

 

You would also I assume need to spend time reding all SB etc or be very familiar with a type to be effective

 

 

[deadstick]

It seems wrong that an L2 cannot specialize in an area such as fabric repairs, if they have to sign off on the whole aircraft.Doesn't make sense to me.

Hi, they can and do so. The tech manager in conjunction with a maintenance evaluation board get together and review L2 applications. The experience base of the candidate is evaluated and limitations if needed put in place. Some L2's are limited to a specific type or require work experience and a log under the guidance of and experience L2 or LAME. I was already a LAME when I applied for L2 and was still given a 12 month supervisory limitation and had to apply with documented evidence and recommendations for that to be lifted. My point is there is a robust system to determinate a candidates limitations if any.

 

 

[deadstick]

I reckon we could do much better in RAAus at very little cost by using volunteer second inspectors. This is not my idea, Mike Busch says big-time manufacturers use inspectors all the time. He says there are more man-hours inspecting than there are building.GFA uses the second pair of eyes idea on annuals and also on rigging a glider.

Then Turbs said how motor-sport has been using this idea for years too, and it worked well.

 

What I would like to see is a trial where it was not compulsory but you could volunteer to be inspected. The volunteer inspectors would need to become qualified... the gliding and motor-sport people have this in place. We could too.

 

I would bet that after some time, the second-inspected aircraft would show up better. At least they would be far less likely to have the horror stories that might be used to ban owner-maintenance.

 

Before I first flew my kit Jabiru, every visitor to my hangar was asked to do an inspection and yes there were things noticed.

Hi Bruce,

 

All L2's should be using a secondary inspector or a duplicate for flight critical systems. There in my experience speaking with L2's is no confusion on this topic. You are right to seek inspection on your home built and as an L4 I find it surprising that it was no mandatory before registration.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Hi Deadstick, there sure was a mandatory inspection, the guy had to be a LAME as well as AUF. He cost so much money that I didn't want him to find anything wrong and have to come back twice.

 

In the event, he knew a lot of good stuff and was worth the money and he didn't find anything to make him need to return.

 

This was in the olden days (I started the kit in 1998 under SAAA. ) Gosh we have lived through some changes since then.

 

And Frank, I take your point about disliking inspectors who are less qualified than you are, I feel the same way a lot. The head of CASA falls into that category. Several people who contribute on this forum are way ahead of him.

 

But somebody who has a checklist and who has attended say a weekend course on how to use that checklist would pick up most omissions, like a non-tightened bolt. And he would surely pick up that illegal extra fuel tank way behind the C of G.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I don't think this should be an argument about the quality of L2's, that is a separate issue , as some have said, we get good and bad operators in every industry...The fact is many of us and the future of RAA rely on flying clubs teaching pilots to fly.

 

Without L2's the whole thing stops. Right now we have a huge inequality in that every person performing things for a club is insured except an L2 L3 L4 who signs off maintenance, often for 50% less money than an instructor...now lets not debate that either as the instructor risks their life...

 

But if the future of RAA is reliant on RAA, every club needs one or tow or three of them, then why the hell are they left out to dry... Our club has two, both are extremely uncomfortable signing of on aircraft...as am I about to be qualified.... i simply wont sign until I am insured...Id like to and i have every intention to help the club , but i simply cant take that risk...

 

There are plenty in here with fantastic experience in the areas of risk analysis, risk reduction and risk mitigation....any fool with a brain knows that in this day and age, dont even think about putting up your hand to do anything unless you are covered by liability insurance... RAA needs to address this urgently as this has the potential to get very ugly for RAA very fast if someone gets injured or sued and all RAA maintainers for clubs refuse to sign off aircraft. RAA would be in a far better position to rectify this before an incident or high profile court case than after or during .

 

Some members may think this post is self serving and yes to an extent it is, but its also in the interest of RAA future, as having existing relationships with insurers is always better than trying to get coverage after an incident. Thus given the future of RAA relies on a continuation of flying clubs pumping thru new pilots, why are we not ensuring the correct risk management is in place, to ensure maintainers are adequately protected from the same mistakes and liability all other club members and RAA members are protected from.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm in furious agreement with you. The risks you are concerned with are real. Quite a few years ago now I was ready to go for the L2 but I would have had to do lots of aeroplanes. Sorry but there are aircraft and owners I wouldn't work on or for where a signature is involved. Being involved with some people is only going to end up in strife for you without some protection.

 

Just doing your part of it right doesn't cover it. People do heavy landings with out checks afterwards and overload planes. They also fiddle with it them selves If you've worked on it you could/would be drawn into the situation you have no real control over. Nev