Who cares if it was side stick or control yoke? \”wrestling control away?\” isn\’t an option anyway. Either a student lets go of the controls, or the instructor slugs him. I\’ve had friends who had students \”freeze\” on the controls and let go just before that point, so anything is possible I suppose.
A flight instructor wrote a book a few years ago titled \”They\’re all trying to kill me\”…
If he was having a lesson, isn\’t it a given he wasn\’t flying, or at least he shouldn\’t be considered to be the one that was in complete control of the plane? If I am an assistant to a director and he is out of the office and I act on his behalf, am I entitled to his salary? No. What I am saying is, if he wasn\’t an actual licensed pilot, he shouldn\’t be considered one. (But, I do suppose the word \”acting\” is the one catch in their clause….he was \”acting\” like a pilot by taking lessons.) Either way, I agree with Jewel, I don\’t see what the insurance company has done wrong by denying this claim until it\’s proven that Lidle wasn\’t flying.
Exactly my point; the instructor would have been in control of the plane, likely from the second he realized they were in trouble. that is standard practice throughout the industry.
The courts are needed to interpret \”while acting as pilot or flight crew\” clause in the policy. No one can \”prove\” who was actually flying at the time of the accident. Usual practice would be for the instructor to be sole manipulator of the controls during an emergency of any kind.
If MET writes the exclusion stating that they are not required to pay if the insured was the pilot, then MET has to prove he was a pilot to avoid paying. The beneficiary has proven the insured is dead. If MET is going to deny on the basis of an exclusion, the burden of proof is on them to show that the exclusion is triggered.
The article stated the policy \”contains an exclusion for \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\’\’
The question is not what he was doing at the time of his death, but what was his capacity on the aircraft. Simply, he was a student not a passanger. If he was on the plane as a stewart, the question is not \”was he serving drinks at the time of his death or sitting in a seat\” but his reason for being on the plane.
JCS, I agree with you 100%. No one is gonna pay that much money just to see how flight instructor is flying. Since the wording on exclusion stated ANY capacity, I am sorry to say, but, Mrs. Lidle got to lose on this lawsuit for everyones sake. Otherwise, all those exclusions are worthless.
As a former flight instructor with over 1,000 hours logged giving instruction, I can comfortably state the student was most likely at the controls. That is why they pay for instruction – to learn to control the aircraft. You can’t learn without
Only early in the initial stages of training does the instructor take the controls for the purpose of demonstrating, then promptly allows the student to take over and duplicate what was just shown. For a higher time, experienced student it was rare that I had to demonstrate anything. If a high time student executed poorly we just tried again as the knowledge and ability had been learned previously, but not yet perfected.
then I mistook the cockpit window for open space and flew into it and fell down to Earth and passed on. So, I guess a new witness to this incident is needed.
\”Quite frankly, there were no eyewitnesses that we\’ve been able to find to determine who actually was flying that plane,\’\’ King said Monday.\”
As if someone would have been walking around in the sky. What a stupid comment on her part. I\’d want that attorney to take my case- ha ha!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Now I know why I read this crap.
Chad, you\’re the best!!!
Who cares if it was side stick or control yoke? \”wrestling control away?\” isn\’t an option anyway. Either a student lets go of the controls, or the instructor slugs him. I\’ve had friends who had students \”freeze\” on the controls and let go just before that point, so anything is possible I suppose.
A flight instructor wrote a book a few years ago titled \”They\’re all trying to kill me\”…
If he was having a lesson, isn\’t it a given he wasn\’t flying, or at least he shouldn\’t be considered to be the one that was in complete control of the plane? If I am an assistant to a director and he is out of the office and I act on his behalf, am I entitled to his salary? No. What I am saying is, if he wasn\’t an actual licensed pilot, he shouldn\’t be considered one. (But, I do suppose the word \”acting\” is the one catch in their clause….he was \”acting\” like a pilot by taking lessons.) Either way, I agree with Jewel, I don\’t see what the insurance company has done wrong by denying this claim until it\’s proven that Lidle wasn\’t flying.
Exactly my point; the instructor would have been in control of the plane, likely from the second he realized they were in trouble. that is standard practice throughout the industry.
The courts are needed to interpret \”while acting as pilot or flight crew\” clause in the policy. No one can \”prove\” who was actually flying at the time of the accident. Usual practice would be for the instructor to be sole manipulator of the controls during an emergency of any kind.
If MET writes the exclusion stating that they are not required to pay if the insured was the pilot, then MET has to prove he was a pilot to avoid paying. The beneficiary has proven the insured is dead. If MET is going to deny on the basis of an exclusion, the burden of proof is on them to show that the exclusion is triggered.
The article stated the policy \”contains an exclusion for \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\’\’
The question is not what he was doing at the time of his death, but what was his capacity on the aircraft. Simply, he was a student not a passanger. If he was on the plane as a stewart, the question is not \”was he serving drinks at the time of his death or sitting in a seat\” but his reason for being on the plane.
JCS, I agree with you 100%. No one is gonna pay that much money just to see how flight instructor is flying. Since the wording on exclusion stated ANY capacity, I am sorry to say, but, Mrs. Lidle got to lose on this lawsuit for everyones sake. Otherwise, all those exclusions are worthless.
Never mind. If it says \”any capacity\” she loses and it doesn\’t matter whom the flying pilot was at the time.
As a former flight instructor with over 1,000 hours logged giving instruction, I can comfortably state the student was most likely at the controls. That is why they pay for instruction – to learn to control the aircraft. You can’t learn without
Only early in the initial stages of training does the instructor take the controls for the purpose of demonstrating, then promptly allows the student to take over and duplicate what was just shown. For a higher time, experienced student it was rare that I had to demonstrate anything. If a high time student executed poorly we just tried again as the knowledge and ability had been learned previously, but not yet perfected.
then I mistook the cockpit window for open space and flew into it and fell down to Earth and passed on. So, I guess a new witness to this incident is needed.
\”Quite frankly, there were no eyewitnesses that we\’ve been able to find to determine who actually was flying that plane,\’\’ King said Monday.\”
As if someone would have been walking around in the sky. What a stupid comment on her part. I\’d want that attorney to take my case- ha ha!