 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LarryM
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 63
Location: Genoa, IL
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: The FAR Mentality - Avemco |
 |
|
Thought that this was appropriate. Attached is the article in pdf. if you'd like to keep it.
THE FAR MENTALITY
By Jim Lauerman
President, Avemco Insurance Company
Why The Rules and Regs Aren’t Always the Holy Grail
When I give educational forums around the country, I can count on almost always getting a
question like the one I had at Sun ‘N Fun a few years ago. An obviously agitated member of
the audience asked, “How come you people require me to receive 25 hours dual flight
instruction before I can get insurance in a twin when all the FAA makes me do is get a multi-
engine rating?” My somewhat flippant answer was, “Because the FAA isn’t putting a million
dollars on the line every time you go flying.”
This pilot’s question reveals a mindset that
I observe frequently. That is the mindset
that the FAR’s are the “Holy Grail” of aviation
safety and that they prescribe acceptable
behavior for all flying situations. Here
are a few more illustrations.
A few years ago a CFI friend of mine sent
his flight school an e-mail regarding the attitude
of one of his students. The CFI
expressed “concern about his complacent
attitude about flying and expressing (the
CFI’s) concern for (the student’s) safety
post check ride.” None the less, this CFI
endorsed this pilot for the check ride
“because he met all of the standards for
the practical test and he passed his Part
141 Graduation ride.” Less than a month
later the pilot killed himself and three passengers
in a late model Cessna 182.
One final illustration: when I became
involved with the FAA/Industry Training
Standardization (FITS) initiative a few
years ago as a representative of the insurance
industry I commented that my
desired outcome of the initiative would be
that it would devise some guidelines for
transitioning to Technically Advanced
Aircraft (TAAs) that would be effective, yet
voluntary. I suggested that insurance companies
such as Avemco® could then have
the option of writing those standards into
our policies to have a reasonable chance
of knowing that effective transition training
was taking place. I felt that a free market
solution could be offered to the problem
of transition training. That way not
every insurance company would adopt the
standards, giving the consumer the choice
as to whether to insure with a company
that required the training or one who didn’t.
Our industry would thus be able to avoid
the cumbersome heavy hand of FAA regulation
on this new technology, regulation
that invariably would be extremely difficult
to keep up with given the amazing technological
developments and advancements
in avionics.
My idea was immediately labeled by individuals
representing pilot associations as
“de facto regulation” by insurance companies.
The association representative said he
preferred that this “regulation” be done
through the FAA regulatory process where,
he asserted, it belonged. Interestingly he
admitted that the FAA was ill-equipped to
do this effectively, but that he still preferred
that process to a free market one.
It is my belief that these illustrations represent
a view of the FAR’s that are both unrealistic
and dangerous. By their very nature,
regulations are “minimum” standards.
They are designed that way to give the
pilot maximum leeway in making his or her
own decisions. For example, the FAR’s permit
a newly minted Private Pilot to obtain a
multi-engine rating (and complex endorsement)
in a Seminole and be “legal” to fly a
brand new Beech Baron. Does anyone really
think that is a “safe” situation? If you
were an insurer, would you be willing to
risk $2,000,000 on that pilot’s skill (considering
both hull and liability)?
Was the pilot of the fatal C-182 a “safe” pilot
simply because he met the FAA’s Practical
Test Standards and could pass the check
ride? Did the FAR’s protect his passengers?
Can you regulate away complacency?
Do we really want the FAA to dictate the
standards for transition training into a TAA?
Doesn’t it seem evident that such an
approach would probably be ineffective and
that after a few bad “high profile” losses the
FAA would be forced to impose stringent
(and non-negotiable) standards that could
damage the TAA market? Whatever one
believes about “de facto” regulation by insurers,
I strongly suspect that insurance for
expensive TAA’s would dry up long before
the FAA had a chance to take action.
My point here is not to denigrate the hard
working people who write and enforce the
FAR’s. I know many of them and I can
assure you that they want a safe and profitable
General Aviation as much as you and
I do. Instead, it is my intent to help all of us
rise to a higher level of personal responsibility
for aviation safety other than just
“meeting the FAR’s”.
Consider this: regulations, by their very
nature, are written to be legally enforceable.
They are black and white attempts to codify
acceptable behavior. Flying an aircraft, however,
is a complex act that involves not only
the mind, but also emotions and values.
Recent efforts by people like John and
Martha King to engage in real world risk
management training recognize this reality
and offer much promise in reducing accidents
(and, might I add, helping to control
insurance costs).
But for our industry to fully engage in serious
risk management we must first get past
the “FAR mentality”. I encourage each of
you to think about that deeply the next time
you are managing your own risks of flight.
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
The FAR Mentality - Avemco.pdf |
| Filesize: |
26.65 KB |
| Downloaded: |
261 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rex Hefferan
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Location: Olney Springs, Colorado USA "NOT a Kitpig"
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: The FAR Mentality - Avemco |
|
|
Yes very appropriate, Thanks
--
Rex Hefferan
SE Colorado / K-II / 582-C / still waiting repairs
Do not archive
LarryM wrote:
| Quote: |
Thought that this was appropriate. Attached is the article in pdf. if you'd like to keep it.
THE FAR MENTALITY
By Jim Lauerman
President, Avemco Insurance Company
<snip>
|
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Rex
N740GP - M2/582
Colorado |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: The FAR Mentality - Avemco |
|
|
Government regulations tend to be minimums. Transport category planes seldom, if ever come close to FAA minimums. That should tell you something.
Noel
--
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
