No Insurance?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Apologies if I implied that not having the landowner's permission would automatically invalidate your insurance - they were originally meant as two ideas. But really you should have the landowners to fly due to what PatMc describes as "other factors".

So what could these "other factors" be? Well the principal one would be if you were breaking the law being there! If you are breaking the law then it is perfectly possible that you are not insured. And, as I understand it, trespassing is a criminal offence under the law.

So, public land; probably OK (unless there is a bye law forbidding flying). Foot path, well not so clear, the footpath is a right of access for through journeys - I don't think it consistutes de-facto "landowners permission" to fly over his land. Private land - no question in my view, if you don't have permission you are trespassing and hence breaking the law, as such I think that the insurance may not cover you.

BEB

[john melia 1]

thanks beb much clearer

[sticky fingers]

BEB, I have been of the understanding that ,under common law ,trespass is not a crime in itself. Intent must be proven,I read this some years ago in a publication on Common Law,and to my knowledge it still applies.I dont want to get involved in a lengthy discussion the ins and outs of law ,just putting my comments in on what I have read in the past.

Dave

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

You may be right Dave - my understanding is that trespass became a criminal offence a some few years ago. But I'm no lawyer! The general point I'm making is that you need to consider "I'm I breaking the law" because if you are then you are jeopardising your insurance cover.

BEB

[PatMc]

According to this parliamentary briefing paper "in general terms, trespass to land is not a criminal offence". If trespass to open fields etc was a criminal offence then removing travellers from land would not be done by councils & landowners using court orders, it would be done by the police & if the CPS thought it worthwhile there would be criminal charges.

Skippy, there must be hundreds of slope soarers who do exactly what you do. I don't think that in the vast majority of cases that they are breaking any law & I don't see that what they're doing invalidates their insurance.
If permission is asked and refused or if the landowner asks you to leave or not to fly for a specific time &/or reason (e.g. lambing season) then insurance cover might be invalidated. IMO it's most often better to fly after making a sensible assessment if it's safe, possible nuisance etc without asking than to seek out the landowner for permission first.

John, the circumstances of flying at different sites are too varied to answer your question. If you have doubt about a particular site advice is available from the BMFA, it's one of the many benefits of the association. However if you're not a member then I'm afraid it's your decision.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well there you go - you live and learn! I understood Trespass had already been made a criminal offence - obviously not - yet!

I'm sure Pat is right - for the vast majority - particularly on public land - there isn't issue. On private land without permission I still think it is not clear cut. But his advice to consult BMFA if you are not sure is also sound.

BEB

[PatMc]

BEB, it's highly unlikely that trespass will ever be made a criminal offence on most land that doesn't require unlocking gates etc to enter. Remember that it's only a few years ago that most land was opened to ramblers by act of parliament.

BTW there's very little public land in the UK almost all land is privately owned. IMO if you use common sense & are realistic in making sure you wont cause a nuisance or damage then go ahead. But do bear in mind that what might be OK for one or two might not be if it burgeons into a larger group - especialy so if that entails a number of cars parked on narrow road verges etc.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There's a bit about it here - which seems to back up Pat's viewpoint - the new criminal acts are mostly those involving intent to squat in residential property and/or violence - unless you happen to take a fancy to flying off the roof of the Lithuanian embassy or suchlike...

[Peter Miller]

Just an interesting little note on this. Back in the 50s when my mother used to walk her dogs over fields etc a solicitor gave her the following advice.

If you are aproached for trespassing offer the person sixpence and just say, "I am sorry. Here is sixpence to pay for any damage that I may have caused." If the person refuses it he has acknowledged that there was no damage. If he takes it he has accepted the payment for any damage that may have been done.

One of those strange quirks of English law I believe.

[john melia 1]

Thanks guys , a few grey areas tidied up for me , as with any aspects of law , or breaking it , there never seems to be an easy answer , or a clear cut path through all the legal red tape .

however i'm on the lookout for a decent field which i may have found , and i'm going to approach the owner to see if he will allow maybe 6 to 8 people to fly from it

[Rich too]

Posted by PatMc on 26/05/2013 20:52:09:

Posted by Dickster on 26/05/2013 19:55:40:

I do fly with insurance, mainly because it is so cheap. But there are many other pursuits where you are more likely to be involved in an accident with a 3rd party. Surely 99.99% of model aircraft accidents are just freak accidents where noone is to blame?

However, on the subject of insurance, I was just reading about the Dartford Heath case 10 years ago (I flew there many moons ago, and it has been used for model flying since the 1920's), which very sadly involved the death of a teenage girl. I beleive the pilot was uninsured? Anyway, the surprising thing to me in that case was that noone was held liable - the verdict was that it was a terrible accident. The coroner did nothing but recommend that flying be banned from the Heath - which I believe it has? That is despite the fact that a girl was killed, and that someone else reported a near miss to the council not long before. The BMFA critised both the council and the pilot.

But the case does make me think, is the insurance necessary when you have cases/verdicts like this? Rich

Edited By Dickster on 26/05/2013 19:58:21

I think that most model aircraft accidents are avoidable & there's virtualy no such thing as a "freak accident".

You have the facts about the accident on Dartford Heath wrong & you seem to misunderstand the purpose of an inquest is.
A claim for damages would be held by a civil court which would decide on liability with a lower level of proof than would be necessary in a criminal court but the case would need to be brought by the wronged party/parties. In the case of personal injury or death level of damages would depend on a number of factors, some obvious, some not. For example the award for death of a young person without dependants would be much less than a parent with dependant children. Permanently incapacitating injury to a young person would receive a much higher award than their death would. The award for damage to property could very easily be much more than that for a death.
If the person responsible for the accident was covered by insurance the insurer, in most cases, would settle after a negotiated level of compensation was agreed with the injured parties' through their solicitor. This would be without a court case. If there was a court case the insurer would bear all legal costs as well as any award.
Any person not insured in the same circumstances would have to bear all legal costs as well as any compensation award.

Still wonder if having insurance is necessary ?

Pat, I disagree with your comment regarding freak accidents.

Please enlighten me to the "facts" of the case that I have wrong. I understood that the pilot was uninsured, and I cannot find any details regarding a settlement.

Are you suggesting that we insure ourselves against any possible accident in any pursuit that we are involved in, cycling for instance? What a sad world that would be - unfortunately accidents happen, end of.

An example, true story - my son hit a neighbours car and put a big scratch on it, is my 9 year old son liable?

 

Rich

 

 

Edited By Dickster on 27/05/2013 08:57:16

Edited By Dickster on 27/05/2013 08:59:21

[Rich too]

In regards to flying on land without permission, you can fly in the "airspace" above the land? So you could take off on a public footpath and fly over the field? Rich

[Bearair]

If you son damaged my car, then I would expect you to pay for it Dickster. Excaxtly the same as when I broke a window with a cricket ball 40 years ago. Dad paid and I paid him back out of my pocket money. The law and insurance had nothing to do with it. I think it used to be called Parenting

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The law of trespass applies to airspace but there is an exemption for aircraft flying at a "reasonable" height. This might possibly extend to our "Small Unmanned Aircraft" flying much lower but might need to be the subject of a test case before anything was determined in law?

"The rights of landowners over airspace are not unlimited; in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd,[53] the action for trespass failed because the violation of airspace took place several hundred metres above the land. This was backed up by the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides that it is not trespass if the aircraft is flying at a reasonable height"

Edited By Martin Harris on 27/05/2013 10:10:26

[Pete B]

The existence of a public footpath only gives you the right to 'pass and-repass' over that piece of land - it does not confer any right to deviate from the path or conduct any activity from it and a landowner could rightly ask you to leave the land if you do otherwise.

Access to the country has been opened to a degree by the CROW legislation but it's quite involved.

Getting back to insurance, nothing that you do would preclude the insurance company from being obliged to pay out to a third party in the event of injury or damage, and rightly so.

However, if it was as a result of you acting unlawfully or being so grossly negligent in your conduct, I wouldn't rule out the insurance company pursuing you afterwards to recover some or all of its costs - so you cannot just act as you wish and expect the insurance company to pick up the tab. I don't think that's unreasonable......

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The representative from the insurers that spoke at a BMFA Chairman's conference I attended stressed that you cannot insure against an illegal act.

[SkippyUK]

This has turned into a very wide discussion.

I've very rarely meet anybody on my quick flights and have never yet had anybody challenge me or tell me not to fly - mostly the opposite and I'm sure slope soarers would say the same from passers by.

The Jerry is very light and reasonably quiet and although we all know small light things can cause damage, the likelihood (or risk assessment if you want another word for it) of something serious happening from a strike by a Jerry is very low - we're not talking about a composite glider travelling at 40+mph here, it's a 23" EP foam wing with 5" plastic prop held on with 'O'ring, a 40 Watt pusher motor and 500mAh 2cell held on with velcro.

I've read the other threads about chuck gliders etc. but I don't fly in range of other people although I accept others use the footpaths and can come within range but my common sense makes me fly or land away from these people.

Nothing I've read above indicates that I'm absolutely breaking any laws as the phrases used are open to interpretation and my activity is a recreational one which may come under a different set of parameters - I don't know as I'm no lawyer but there's a lot of legal speak involved in the recent opening up of the country side for recreational use so I'll take my chances and I'm sure the BMFA's insurers would support me.

I wonder how many clubs do not have the express permission of all adjacent landowners they might overfly even if by accident and slope soaring is a whole other kettle of fish......

If somebody has expert legal knowledge that I am committing a specific offence then I will desist but until then, myself and I imagine, a few others will carry on using common sense on where we fly.

If use of a public footpath is only for 'pass and re-pass' then my dog walking is surely also an offence?

[flytilbroke]

Without reading through from post one. I have seen the documentation or at least very relevant parts in relation to two insurance claims involving model pilots and the model impacting on the agrieved party. The Insurance insisted they will only be liable if blame can be placed on the Pilot in charge. The Insurers were a well known Model one.

By the way, please do not let a CYCLIST crash into you in the future,,,, That crowd in Parliament want to make YOU, the victim, compulsarily accept that YOU were at fault and pay for it.

[SkippyUK]

I must confess to not completely understanding the definition of access land (Section 1) but this is the section of the CRoW act 2000 I refer to.

2 Rights of public in relation to access land. E+W

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

(1)Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as—

(a)he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, stile or gate, and

(b)he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II.

I believe my flying to be 'open-air recreation' therefore unless somebody can enlighten me as to why I'm wrong........

Edited By SkippyUK on 27/05/2013 14:37:31

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by SkippyUK on 27/05/2013 14:30:54:

I must confess to not completely understanding the definition of access land (Section 1)

This might make it a bit clearer, Skippy...

[Pete B]

Nobody is suggesting that you are committing an 'offence' by flying a model, or walking a dog,on a footpath, Skippy. However, if the landowner upon which the footpath is situated takes exception to you flying over his land he is quite entitled to ask you to desist. As I said before, you are only entitled to use that land for the purpose of passage. In the extreme, trespass may be considered a 'tort' and the owner may seek damages in a civil action.

What might appear to be just a field of grass to a passer-by might, for example, be a crop to the landowner. People not appreciating that the countryside is a workplace and the farmer's 'factory' are a constant source of annoyance to them.

If you know of a field that may be suitable for a spot of innocuous model flying, then it seems to me that it's a matter of simple courtesy to ask the owner beforehand if he would be kind enough to allow you to use it. There's always going to be the awkward, "Git orf my laaand" type but I'm sure there would be just as many who would not have a problem with it....

Either way, with or without permission, any unforeseen incident resulting in damage or injury, would not, IMHO, result in your insurance company refusing to honour a claim by a third party.

Edit: There's a difference between access land under CROW which is predominantly open countryside and 'excepted land'. There is an online map here where you can check the land you're referring to.

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 27/05/2013 14:56:01

[Pete B]

Here is a useful link - scroll down to the paragraph 'What can I do on a right of way':

What can I do on a right of way?

This depends on the status of the route in question (see above), but in general terms you are allowed to pass and re-pass as a genuine traveller, and undertake closely allied activities such as stopping to rest or look at views. Wherever there is a right of way on foot there is also a right to have certain accompaniments, such as a pram or pushchair where accessible. You have no right to undertake unrelated activities such as metal-detecting or flying model aircraft. Certain organized events such as races may also not be allowed, or may require permission. Contact the Public Rights of Way Officer of your local authority for further details.

Pete

[SkippyUK]

I am, and I'm sure others are, now a bit more enlightened on these issues but I pride myself of being reasonable and conscientious so if I was approached during one of my lone flying moments then I would handle any land owners wroth in a sensible way and as I said, my risk assessment of the dangers of my flying my Jerry along with common sense will probably see me through.

Skippy

[Rich too]

Posted by Bearair on 27/05/2013 09:36:01:
If you son damaged my car, then I would expect you to pay for it Dickster. Excaxtly the same as when I broke a window with a cricket ball 40 years ago. Dad paid and I paid him back out of my pocket money. The law and insurance had nothing to do with it. I think it used to be called Parenting

Exactly, and you don't need insurance for it do you? And yes, I took my son to my neighbour and explained what happened (in fact it wasn't the first time). They wouldn't accept payment so I sent them a hamper..

And for the rest of this thread, I am out of my depth.....

Rich

Edited By Dickster on 27/05/2013 18:39:20

[Bearair]

As I was at pains to point out in my opening post I am not against people not having insurance. I am against people not being able to afford to put right the damage they do when they choose not to have it.