Ballistic shute debacle ??

[grostek]

Hi David,

Very good and logical posts from you.

Quote
take control and take responsibility....
Un Quote.

This sums it up very nicely.

Kind regards,

Gunter Rostek.

[Thatchman]

The point is that insurance claim repudiation often has no logic. They look for any reason not to pay.

I once had a gearbox claim on my Isuzu rejected because I changed the engine oil myself. The engine oil had nothing to do with the gearbox.

It was just a thought. Apologies if it was a kak one.

[Dre'man55]

Mmmmmm a financial guy near a motor


and we blame insurance.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I remember some time back when I queried the mod fee for a GPS installation. If you make a permanent installation (in my case wire a 196 into panel) you have to get Mod approval and at that time (around 1999ish I think) pay R120 for CAA to modify their records -It was a paperwork issue. If you do not wire the GPS into the bus, no mod fee or approval. Did not make sense so we just continue to use the cig adapter.

Wonder if this is the same issue.

Do CAA actually come and inspect the plane or do they simply require notification of the "mod"?

I would rather fit the chute and be able to fight the insurance claim, than not fit and not be there to defend my actions ...

[Dobbs]

Thatchman, I agree with you and I my experience confirms your comments.

Last year my Bushbaby was damaged shortly after 30 hours, ground looped, had nothing to do with anything mechanical, exept maybe the pilot , the 25 hour service had been done (new Rotax 912S), but before the insurance company would even entertain my claim, they wanted confirmation in the form of receipts that the fuel, oil and oil filter had been changed - fortunately all had been complied with.

David, with all of your dealings with CAA, surely you would have learnt by now that the CAA is not logical

[Thatchman]

I do not think its an issue of the CAA being illigical. The chute either requires a mod or it does not. If David is right then there is no issue.
If it does require a mod then the insurance Co could use it not to pay out even if the chute had nothing to do with an accident.

For example if you crashed because you got caught in a dust devil and you did not have a valid ATF, they would not pay because your paperwork was not up to date.

Now say you fit a chute and have no mod done (again assuming that it is required) and you crash because of a dust devil. They may say that you should not have been in the air because your paperwork was not up to date.

[Tumbleweed]

I do not think its an issue of the CAA being illigical. The chute either requires a mod or it does not. If David is right then there is no issue.

You're right. Maybe the ballistic agents can about the latest status from CAA and advise?

[Wargames]

I do not think its an issue of the CAA being illigical. The chute either requires a mod or it does not. If David is right then there is no issue.

You're right. Maybe the ballistic agents can about the latest status from CAA and advise?

Hi Guys,

It is not the agents of the BRS/GRS that need to be consulted. You must consult your trike manufacturer on whether they included the BRS/GRS as part of the trike or not. If it is not included, then a mod is required. You can also advise them to add shute as part of trike, then no mod will be required.

Regards,

[Tumbleweed]

We can't all have a knee jerk everytime someone hears a new CAA rumour. If anyone gets informed/ confronted/ officially advised/ grounded, share the info.

If I as the agent of any after fit was told that my product requires a mod I would advise all and save everyone the CAA / Misasa / insurance frustration.