Learn More – Aviation war risk insurance

Alexis Morillon from Air Courtage Assurances looks at how aviation insurers cover war risk incidents...

The Dawson’s Field hijackings, (6 September 1970 – 28 September 1970) were an event that led to the creation of AVN48B and the emergence of war risk insurance policies. Three airliners were flown to Dawson’s Field in Jordan and eventually blown up with explosives. In 1970 an event like that was not that common, and measures had to be taken to address this kind of risk and the potential damage resulting from such an incident. For this reason, a different type of insurance policy, war risk insurance, was marketed, allowing insurers to face events such as hijacking.

War risk insurance covers hull (material damage to an aircraft), which is insured separately from the hull risk insurance; and covers passenger and third-parties war risk, which is, most of the time, added to the liability policy by an extension clause.

Events such as civil wars, strikes or invasion of a country may not seem threatening to your day-to-day operations. However, aviation war insurance also covers acts of malicious intent, as well as confiscation of an aircraft. Confiscation of an aircraft is a very current topic of concern, with a large number of foreign-owned aircraft remaining in Russia. Although excluded in aviation policies pursuant to AVN48B, (war, hijacking, and other perils exclusion clause) war risk insurance is most of the time written-back.

What is covered with your LAA member insurance policy?

Under the LAA insurance programme, we automatically write-back war risks, at no extra cost.

In most cases where war risk insurance applies, it concerns malicious acts. For example, in the case of the multiple Rotax engine thefts that occurred in the UK in recent years, they were considered as malicious acts and therefore covered by the hull war risks policy. So while you think, ‘war risks won’t affect me’, the cover can prove to be important.

The write-back of war risks is made on standard market clauses which are LSW555D for losses that were excluded from Hull all Risk insurance according to AVN48B, and AVN52E for the liability side of it. LSW555D writes-back and covers for losses that are excluded from the Hull all Risk insurance according to AVN48B such as invasion, strikes, terrorist attacks, sabotage, confiscation or hi-jacking. However, there are a few exclusions to this write-back. As an example, this policy excludes loss, damage or expense that may be caused by war (whether there may be a declaration of war or not) between the UK and France. War risks are not financially bearable by insurers in case of a major conflict.

It also excludes losses arising out of any war using atomic or nuclear fission / fusion or radioactive weapons. These exclusions are common to most of the policies as there is no insurance policy available on the market as of today.

Regarding aircraft liability towards third parties and passengers, it is also subject to AVN48B and the exclusions associated. Write-backs for liability insurance are written-back under AVN52E. This writes-back the exclusion of AVN48B and covers passengers and third parties, as opposed to hull war risks covering the aircraft itself.

For more detailed information about the LSW555D scope of coverage, please refer to page 34 of the LAA insurance programme General conditions.

• You can also contact us by email or by phone. laa@air-assurances.com +44 (0)3 306 845108.

Don’t forget Acroflight! Dear

Francis,

Great to see the write up of the Waterbird in the LA magazine.

However, I’d like to correct something, which is that my involvement in the project was through Acroflight Ltd (John Wighton). There was no mention of Acroflight – and I seem to get most of the credit!

We were tasked with finding a way to get the seaplane air tested legally. Our approach was to use E conditions with myself working for AF as the ‘Competent Person’. As risk mitigation, we had to produce a dossier, including justification of the airworthiness.

Our starting point was the structural analysis done by John Tempest, that done on the float by Jack Gifford, and the mounting structure done as a Cranfield University student project.

We had to do a lot of work to produce an airworthiness report, including stress analysis, justifying all the load cases at an increased all-up weight. Fortunately we were able to use John Tempest’s FEM data file, but this was in a different format to the Hyperworks software we use, was at a lower all-up weight, and did not include all the float loads.

The very slender interplane struts were found to be inadequate in Euler buckling. On the other hand, some parts e.g. the bolts attaching the float structure were of unnecessary locomotive proportions! We stabilised the struts with a 1.5mm wire.

The E conditions worked well for the 2021 trials where there were porpoising problems we could not solve on the lakeside. This year, after aero and hydrodynamic analysis, the wing alpha was increased (to get the aeroplane to lift off at a lower airspeed) and the height of the twin steps reduced (to raise the critical speed for porpoising).

This year the team decided to apply for an LAA Permit to Test, which was granted, but only on the basis of the work done by Acroflight the previous year.

It’s true, however, that this year I jumped into Nigel Jones’ shoes following his accident, to get the aeroplane dismantled, transported from Liverpool, reassembled, rigged (many turnbuckles!) and inspected.

Following the fuselage on the low loader up the M6, despite advising the driver not to exceed VNe, I saw the canard steadily rising above the lorry cab. After much flashing of lights he stopped – a strap had sawn through on a sharp edge. After reassembly on site, a further inspection (by Francis) was carried out where he spotted a few more things, which were corrected prior to issue of the Test Permit. Hearing of Nigel’s injuries, I was astonished when he turned up, supported in a kind of exoskeleton to see his ‘baby’ and give advice. I wish him further speedy recovery.

Best regards.

Bill.

Francis Donaldson replies: Sorry for not giving John Wighton’s part in the Waterbird’s earlier story the recognition it deserved, Bill. It was a genuine omission on my part when, just back from the Lakes, I wrote the item for the magazine as a ‘stop press’ late addition

Image size: Engineering Matters

Dear Jerry, I’ve recently received the latest edition of Light Aviation

Despite not being an aircraft owner, I am most interested in the Engineering Matters section of the magazine. However, I do find it somewhat frustrating that some of the images of failures are too small to see satisfactorily. The engine mount pictures in the August edition are a case in point.

It is, perhaps, possible to see where the Sting mount has failed (but only due to the red arrow!)... Bigger images would be very nice, but if impossible due to space constraints, perhaps they could be displayed on the website in sufficient resolution to allow detailed inspection?

A picture may ‘paint a thousand words’, but not if one can’t see it!

Aside from that, thanks for another interesting set of articles.

Best wishes,

Ian Marsh

Ed replies: Thanks for emailing Ian. We’ll try and make the images as big as space permits in future.

Ideas to fly more?

Hello LAA members, Fingers crossed, in a few weeks I should hold a private pilot’s licence. Recently I landed back from Chicago having attended Oshkosh. If I wasn’t slightly obsessed with aviation beforehand I most certainly am now. It was also eye-opening to experience first-hand the quality and quantity of airfields in the United States. What’s more I wasn’t charged a single cent for several touch-andgoes in either Canada or the United States. That’s an enormous contrast from what I have to pay at Redhill.

I write to the membership asking for some advice. I have no ambitions to be a commercial pilot, but I do want to experience as much as possible and fly as much as possible.

As far as I can see there are a couple of options for me:

· Buy an aircraft

· Buy a share in an aircraft

· Hire from Redhill aviation or Cub Air I fear the first option, mostly through my lack of management experience, and secondly, as I would expect that I would lose flying time to maintenance issues. I also would want to store it at Redhill as I can walk there, but I imagine that would be very expensive.

A share seems to be sensible, the costs would be more controlled and management handled by someone with more experience. Availability and possibly having to travel to Biggin or Shoreham are likely to be minor issues?

Hiring an aircraft is likely to be the easiest way to control costs and outsource all the aggravation. I imagine that taking an aircraft for a weekend or week would be very challenging. I would then continue to look at hiring an aircraft or taking a lesson when I am travelling for work or a holiday.

If my ego was a little bigger and I was more impulsive I would have purchased the first aircraft I saw in the classifieds so I could call it my own, but I’m a cautious type and I am taking the opportunity to ask the membership for advice.

What have you done? What do you wish you had done? What would you avoid? Feel free to reply to this letter or email/WhatsApp/ call.

All words of wisdom gratefully received. Many thanks in advance

Matthew Taylor matthew@mct72.co.uk 07917185951 ■