4 ms·
Wouldn’t this problem be obviated by simply mandating sufficiently high third party liability insurance? Then it will be the much less likely to be gamed insur
by MichaelZuo 1y ago
Wouldn’t this problem be obviated by simply mandating sufficiently high third party liability insurance?
Then it will be the much less likely to be gamed insurance market effectively deciding who gets to fly the higher performance aircraft.
- willis936 1y agoThe goal of regulation should not be "make reckless endangerment expensive enough that only the plutocrats can afford to do it".
- MichaelZuo 1y agoThat doesn’t make sense… the vast vast majority of people could never pay the damages of a serious plane crash into another plane or building, regulations or not.
- willis936 1y agoThen why increase the risk and damages by letting private individuals pilot more dangerous aircraft? There are already avenues for people to fly these aircraft that mitigate the risks.
- MichaelZuo 1y agoIs the question rhetorical? I don’t see how I could possibly know.
- parsimo2010 1y agoBy and large the affordability will keep a lot of people from anything too high performance and dangerous. But there will be a few dead doctors who weren’t dissuaded by high premiums and high gas bills.
- zzless 1y agoI was wandering the same thing. Quite often the insurance sets a much higher standard than what is legal. I had a lot of fun flying a local police helicopter as a commercial helicopter pilot with the police pilot (who only had a private certificate at the time) simply because insurance required a commercial pilot to be present in the cockpit.