Insurance

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:10 am

n4517c wrote:AIG confirmed yesterday that only FAA approved fields are covered. Since many FAA approved fields are not charted, a field with a windsock with several planes tied down that does not show on the chart, may or may not be FAA approved. Conversely, a field that has been decertified often stays on the chart for a long time.

It's a shame that some people in this business promote themselves as final authorities.
Try asking the agent to define "FAA approved" and see what you get.
The FAA doesn't "approve" airfields. Nor do they "dis-approve" them.
There are regs that apply to the certification of airfields, FAR 139 for example. But those typically relate to lighting, marking, materials, security, fire/rescue services, etc, etc, as they pertain to commercial operator use. Those fields which meet Part 139 are a small minority as compared to the total number of airports in the world that are useable as such according to insurance underwriters.
I'll bet that your underwriter actually doesn't mean "approved" when he says that. I'll venture he means that the field has merely been listed or registered with the FAA, which is a very simple matter of notifying the FAA of basic details via letter or by filling out their forms and mailing them in. The FAA doesn't, however, send you back any "approval" or "disapproval".

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Sat Feb 01, 2003 2:14 pm

George is 100% correct in what he said about airports and the FAA. Personally, I'd not use this insurance agent who appears to be ignorant of the basic rules, and what rules don't exist.
Maybe the underwriter is confused, but we can't change that. But the agent should have informed the underwriter to check again, and discover that FAA doesn't "approve" GA airports.
What I think was meant to occur here is a policy exclusion for any damage that occurs in an intentional, off-airport operation, not involving an emergency or precautionary landing.
Most of the insurers are now excluding operations intentionally made off of airports, and are particularly sensitive about this when insuring taildraggers of all types. Taildragger pilots are more apt to try off-airport operations.
We have such an exclusion in our policy.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 6:17 am

I would have assumed that the underwriter meant "FAA recognized" airport. What makes an airport an airport-- a runway? A windsock? An airplane parked on it? An FAA-assigned identifier? A symbol and name on an FAA sectional?
The policy is the underwriter's ball game. If you have a problem with the terms and restrictions,better iron it out now,or dump them. Don't be trying to split hairs later after an incident on a backyard airstrip,because I'll bet ya that the insurance company will win. After,they've got the money,it'll be up to you to get it out of them.
If it were me,I'd ask for a written definition of "off airport operations". I'd also think about having a ready explanation for the "precautionary landing" you made on your friend's back-40 airstrip which had a less-than-successful finale. Carb ice is a good one,and my personal favorite.

Eric

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 4:18 pm

Eric - Good point about what constitutes an airport. I haven't had to litigate this policy language yet, so I'm not in a position to offer anything authoritative.
The underwriter probably won't give that written definition that you suggest. IF your exclusion pertains the "off-airport operations" (except in an emergency or impending emergency), I would take the position that any charted airport is an airport.
As for your carb ice excuse, don't count on it to prevail if, in fact, you do land on a friend's property and come to grief.
Being a friend's property would make your excuse seem unbelievable in the eyes of most juries or judges.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:02 pm

Yeah, Eric. I think Jerry has a good point. You might better stick to the mogas and MMO excuse.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 1:32 am

Within 5 miles of my home field there are 2 airstrips which have been active for years ("grandfathered in") but have never appeared on the sectional. There is another which used to appear on the sectional,but no longer is,which is still open and usable. And there is another which still appears on the sectional,in spite of the pilot-owner's wife getting the property in a divorce and building a house right smack in the middle of the strip!
The best & safest airstrips of the bunch are,you guessed it,the 2 that have never been charted. I know which one I hope I'll be over the next time a connecting rod breaks on me!
Carb ice is the perfect excuse because the proof ( frost on the carb) melts in short order. And who's to say that I wasn't landing at my friend's (or should I say "aquaintance"?) because of an emergency?

Eric

n4517c · Post by **n4517c** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:37 pm

George, Jerry, Eric, thanks for your comments. I know the FAA behaves differently in the various parts of the country, but let me say that they do in fact approve airfields in tne New England region. I have personally been involved in this process twice so let me use the most recent case as an example. On 12/03/01 I submitted a 7480-1 form ( Notice of Landing Area Proposal ) to the New England Regional Office of the FAA. This form lists all the particulars of the field where you want to establish an airfield. In my case it was a hayfield which is 1600 long. On 01/11/02 I got a reply assigning a case number ( 01-ANE-8031-NRA ) On 02/07/02 I got another letter from the Region saying, " Please contact the following Flight Standards District Office to schedule the requisite attendance at the site evaluation visit". ( Portland FSDO-5 ) On 05/12/02 the FAA came to the site and took digital pictures from every angle and evaluated the grades. On 07/10/02 I got a letter from Region which spelled out a Conditional Determination. It said, " The FAA has completed an aeronautical study to determine the effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by your proposal for the establishment of Morrel Field Airport, a private use, privately owned airport........ The FAA does not have any aeronautical objections to your proposal, providing the following conditions are complied with: ....Trees on the approach end of RWY cleared.....All operations light STOL..... All operations DAY VFR..... All users of this facility are notified and must comply. I then mowed the runway and cut the trees. On 07/16/02 I received form 5010-5 ( Airport Master Record ) from the Region. On this form it asks whether you want charting. I mailed this form to the Region requesting Charting. When I got the return receipt my airfield was registered and approved as long as I abided by the restrictions placed upon it. This process is covered in Part 77. With the great difficulty people face in some parts of the country establishing an airport, everyone should be aware of what you must do to have a FAA approved and registered airfield. Some zoning boards take the position that since registration is reguired by part 77 that you are not grandfathered until you are registered. Now I have not seen the airport exclusion clause that supposedly is being added to the AIG policy, but if it says only FAA approved airports ,there is such an animal in New England anyway.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 5:30 pm

This discussion now takes on a different dimension. So now you've got your 1600' hayfield recognized &/or approved by the FAA as an "airport". I assume that it will (eventually) be included on the sectional,with the little circle-R logo to indicate a private airfield. What happens when some idiot (whether an aquaintance or not) comes barrelling in there & runs off the end or puts it into the trees--then decides to sue you? Since it is charted,even though as a restricted-use private strip,it seems like that implies some sort of minimum airstrip standards have been met and since our idiot is an accomplished pilot (!) surely it is the airstrip owner's fault (not his!) that he wiped out his beloved and trusty airplane. Which was a fine specimen of it's type and worth well above market value,by the way. Oh,lots of pain & suffering by the pilot/occupents of said airplane,also.
In other words,if a guy is not gonna develop it into some sort of large &/or commercial operation,is he better off NOT having his small airstrip recognized and charted? It might make it easier to keep the city/county/state (take your pick) from shutting you down,but does it expose you to more legal risk?

Eric

n4517c · Post by **n4517c** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:34 pm

Eric , No question that a private airstrip exposes the owner to liability. Your defense is that the pertinent information about the strip is listed on the 5010-5 form which can be accessed through AirNav.com or the Feds. ( Mine has not been posted as of yet by the FAA ). You need an identifier to find the form , which has not been asigned in my case. It can take more than a year to get on the chart. I decided that official grandfather status was more important to me.

Jake

JDH · Post by **JDH** » Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:37 pm

These insurance people are really starting to exagerate in spades! How are we supposed to operate on skis or floats if they start saying they won't insure us outside of "approved" airfields??? JD

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Tue Feb 04, 2003 2:16 am

Don't count on the feds posting it or the airfield showing up on a sectional anytime soon. When I was on the board of our homeowners association for our Stuart Island Airway Park we sent in for maybe five years in a row the proper form to get the charts changed from 2700 feet long runway to the actual 2000ft it is. That was five years ago and it still has not happened.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Tue Feb 04, 2003 5:48 pm

Come on Dave,you know that strip's 2700' long,it's just that the LAST 350' on each end is under water! Makes for a real effective arrested landing if you come in too hot! I think that last 350' uses crab pots for runway markers!

Eric

n4517c · Post by **n4517c** » Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:15 pm

I finally got a printed copy of the AIG OFF AIRPORT LANDING EXCLUSION clause. It says, " It is agreed that coverages provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed, designated and operated as an airport, unless such operations are the result of a DECLARED EMERGENCY." The Company is saying that designated means registered. At best your not going to be paid for an incident at a nonregistered airport without a fight after the fact.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:32 am

Dave Clark wrote:Don't count on the feds posting it or the airfield showing up on a sectional anytime soon. When I was on the board of our homeowners association for our Stuart Island Airway Park we sent in for maybe five years in a row the proper form to get the charts changed from 2700 feet long runway to the actual 2000ft it is. That was five years ago and it still has not happened.

Dave,I looked at a new sectional the other day and Stuart is now noted as being 2000 feet long. They also deleted the airport near my place where the owner's ex built a house on the runway. I talked to a FSDO guy about that last year sometime,and he referred me to a note on the sectional about how to report charting errors. I then contacted NOAA as detailed in that note. They followed up on that pretty darn quick!

Eric

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:02 pm

Eric

Thanks that's good to know we finally got it changed. Guess I should think about buying some new charts? Maybe I could get someone to sell me cheap their ones that just expired. After this restoration/engine change when I shake my pockets nothing rattles anymore!

BTW..... If you do have old charts in the plane be sure to mark them "reference only do not use for navigation"