Frustrated and Unhappy, Continued

Mr. Rafnar is unhappy about being told by a local airport authority that he cannot perform maintenance on the airport without insurance. For the first part of his comments, see the August edition of Aviation Maintenance. — Editor

... There is simply no easy answer at this time. We need more numbers. I have been working with PAMA for almost two years in trying to solve this problem. Certainly the important work that PAMA is doing to develop a mechanic’s certification program is a critically important step in raising the bar on mechanic’s proficiency and professionalism. Perhaps with the aid and support of new organizations, we can gather enough clout to create an insurance "program" for these individual mechanics — but we need access to thousands of potential mechanics. Insurance has always been a "numbers game" — the more numbers we have, the easier for an actuary to forecast losses.

Without sufficient exposure units/numbers, it cannot be done. It’s then a guessing game. Anyone who runs or owns stock in an insurance company does not want the underwriters to "guess."

On the other hand, I can sympathize with airport managers that want all parties working on their field, to furnish proof of adequate insurance. It would seem to be a reasonable demand, but given that there is no market that will provide this insurance for these individual mechanics, essentially the airport manager is putting these mechanics out of business with the FAA "optional" minimum standards Policy. That is wrong. Instead, I recommend that airports consider alternative methods to manage liability risks arising out of tenant aircraft operations:

• The proper focus needs to be on the aircraft owner/operator.

• Require that all aircraft owners show proof of aircraft liability. (This insurance can easily be obtained by the aircraft owners/operators.)

• Require that these aircraft policies include the airport as an additional insured.

• Require that all airport tenants — anyone leasing hangar space, ramp space, office space, tie downs, etc. — show evidence of general liability (premises liability). Again, such insurance is easily obtainable.

• Require that these tenants show evidence of such insurance and include the airport as an additional insured.

As far as the individual mechanics, I strongly recommend that they take action to protect themselves as follows:

• Consult with an attorney and attempt to limit/restrict their liability contractually before working on someone’s aircraft.

• Request that anyone who wants their aircraft serviced to show evidence that they have aircraft hull & liability insurance.

• Ask that such insurance include a "waiver of subrogation" from the insurance company that respects any possible hull damage.

• Try (this will not always be successful) to be added as an additional insured under the owner’s aircraft liability coverage — or at least limit liability for loss — arising out of "gross liability or willful misconduct."

Let’s face the reality that if a loss occurs, it most likely is arising out of an aircraft crash (covered by the aircraft liability policy) or arising out of physical exposures on the premises (covered by the general liability/premises liability policy).

Bjorn Rafnar

A&P, FAA Inspection Authorization