Most
companies require a current medical if you are to be insured. Does that mean you don’t have insurance if
you don’t have a medical? No! If you are not using the aircraft in a way that
needs a medical, why would you need to have a medical?
If you are
unable to maintain a medical, but you still own an aircraft it could still be
insured. If you are not flying the
aircraft and you have coverage while “not-in-flight” and the aircraft is
damaged by a big storm, you should still be covered.
Many of the
aviation insurance companies follow the guidelines of the FAA. I even tried to find an FAR that said you had
to have a medical (or a pilot’s license for that matter) to taxi or own an
aircraft. I was unable to locate
anything specific to that. (Just think,
if that was the case, many of the corporate owners or the owners that hire a
pilot, would not be able to have any coverage).
For an example,
say you are the aircraft owner and you don’t have a medical and you are taxiing
your aircraft around the airport. A good
owner keeps the engine, tires and brakes limbered up. And let’s assume that you have full coverage
for ground and flight. Now, what if you
happen to have a minor mishap during that time, such as you hit a taxi light or
drop in a hole and damage the prop, you should have coverage. Should have coverage and the insurance
company not wanting to pay are two different things. Most aircraft insurance policies have a
section that states that the operator of the aircraft has to meet the
requirements of the policy. The requirements
usually include a medical. But a medical
is not required to taxi or start the aircraft only to fly the aircraft. If you were not on the runway, not flying or
haven’t been flying, should they pay? I
think so. And will they pay? Probably.
If the company has provided the correct coverage for the aircraft and
the aircraft is not in a situation requiring a medical, they should be
responsible!
If you were
out flying and the aircraft had an accident, you’d void the policy without a
medical. So just because you are on the
ground doesn’t mean you don’t have to meet the policy requirements. The earlier example is a situation, where you
were not in flight and not intending to fly.
Of course,
this is a “gray” area. If the pilot is
taxiing to the pumps for fuel to make a flight, he doesn't have to have a
medical, but going down the runway he does...I just thought of something else. Many people think they can get
around this by having a friend in the aircraft that does have a medical. Problem is if they are not qualified, listed
or meeting the open pilot warranty they are not covered in the aircraft. If the other pilot is not an instructor they
can’t be “giving dual”. Additionally,
that “friend” will be the one at risk of being the pilot in command in the
event of an accident or claim. Very few
people I know want to have an accident (and possibly a violation) on their
pilots record for a friend who just happened not to have a medical! Usually the friendship ends up being very
short.
Labels: aircraft accident, aircraft insurance, aviation insurance, aviation market, experimental aircraft, FAA, FAA registration, FAR