Good to see the French can afford to insure Pink Lady

Ah but would that it were.

I’m afraid aviation insurance is something of a closed shop.

For we private owners there seem on the face of it to be lots of choices. But try to shop around and you’ll find there are very few.

Premiums are uncannily close, even between those few. Of course nobody would ever suggest there is any form of cartel, that after all, is illegal.

How many choices of insurer B17 Preservation have I don’t know. But I’d guess that in practice it is a number this side of ‘very few’

Moggy

I think the thing a MTOW based tariff misses is the very different operational profile of the two aircraft, both in terms of hours flown per year, and also in the likely damage caused to third parties by a catastrophic failure.

The level of third party risk for an RJ operating in and out of airports near congested areas is a lot different to Sally B or Pink Lady flying a display routine governed by CAA or DGAC rules.

(That said Sally B has sometimes flown over London)

Moggy

but then shouldnt that be reflected in the premium charged by the brokers?
a Ferrari and a Fiesta have the same legal minimums, but differing premiums based the brokers estimate of on whose behalf they’d most likely have to pay out taking in to account factors such as driver age experience, performance, and how the vehicle is used…. if you get knocked off your Duke by either of ’em the 3rd party payout by the insurance company is likely to be similar, but the premium paid by the driver would be decided after the insurance co. decides who is most likely to run you over – in this case i’m not sure which would be the worse risk, 17 year old in knackered old Fiesta or mr mid-life crisis in a Ferarri..! 😀 😀

i suppose its difficult to quantify as the scenarios vary from landing wheels up in a field of cows to losing control on landing and damage/destruction of airport property or an airliner, to a catastophic failure on take-off resulting in an impact on a populated area.. looking at those 3 scenario, what would be the difference in damage/claim (excluding pax) between a similar weight B17 or RJ.??
Neil.

I think the thing a MTOW based tariff misses is the very different operational profile of the two aircraft, both in terms of hours flown per year, and also in the likely damage caused to third parties by a catastrophic failure.

The level of third party risk for an RJ operating in and out of airports near congested areas is a lot different to Sally B or Pink Lady flying a display routine governed by CAA or DGAC rules.

(That said Sally B has sometimes flown over London)

Moggy

what no one has ever said is, what is a reasonable amount of 3rd party liability that an a/c of this size should carry?? equally, how did the now required levels get set..??
i suppose its difficult to quantify as the scenarios vary from landing wheels up in a field of cows to losing control on landing and damage/destruction of airport property or an airliner, to a catastophic failure on take-off resulting in an impact on a populated area.. looking at those 3 scenario, what would be the difference in damage/claim (excluding pax) between a similar weight B17 or RJ.??
presumably MTOW was taken as a convenient way of catagorising the requirements, isnt it also the accepted criterea for en-route charges, landing fees etc..
by the way, I believe Pink Lady was only kept flying because someone came up with cash, although this was played down as it didnt fit in with the anti-french & EU rant which so many seem to enjoy.. :rolleyes:
Neil.

I am full of admiration for your beautifully constructed letter to Grace Hansford. Please post her reply if/when you get one.
I shall be surprised if she can counter any of the points you make so eloquently.
Good luck, and regards from
Geoff.

Dear readers,

I have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes regarding the pathetic EC785/2004, not least letting our government know what a weak of load puppets they really are.

I would like to share just one exchange with you (more if you want) with one such servant.

————–
Answer to Ms Grace Hansford: UK Department of Transport.

I wish to make clear that the comments I make in my letter are purely my own, and as such are not precipitated by the owners and operator of SallyB, and are therefore not part of their own policy handling in this matter.

The operator of SallyB has been keeping friends of SallyB up to date with developments at: http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/news_frameset.php
—————

To: Ms Grace Hansford

Dept of Transport

Zone 1/28

76 Marsham Street

London. SW1P 4DR

Subject: EC Regulation 785/2004 as relating to a B-17 called SallyB

Your Ref : 02/019542/05

Date: Sunday, 23 October 2005

Dear Ms Hansford,

Thank you for your reply to my letter which was dated the 18th Sep 2005 to Karen Buck, with yours of the 19th OCT 2005.

A month to reply, and in politics, is a long, long time. Did it take that long in the ODPM/HSSD to answer letters?

Your second paragraph echoes of familiar EC incompetence in that you mysteriously refer to the template of EC785 by mentioning, “air passengers and consignors of baggage and mail” which of course has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the B-17 called SallyB.

You partially acknowledge the facts with a passing mention that, “Sally B does not carry passengers” – good point! Nor does it carry baggage, nor does it carry mail, nor does it operate to the Rules and Regulations required of a commercial jet airliner, 24/7.

I am not unfamiliar with the differences between the B-17 SallyB and a commercial airliner, having spent 38 years aviating, and well over 20,000 flying hours sharpening such knowledge (years of it in Command of BA’s B737’s) so reminding me that I am, “not comparing like for like” is patronising in the extreme: but in this particular case your pronouncement is rather wonderful, for you fall into the same trap as those in the EC who made the original mistake formulating EC785/2004, and the sound of a shooting yourself in the foot can be heard from here.

It certainly is NOT “like for like”. That is the whole point!

So why has the EC thrown a one size third-party insurance blanket over airliners and this historic bomber? In a few words Grace – a great big silly mistake, that’s why.

You say the Regulation applies to all Member States, so why did the French government turn a blind eye to the Regulation?
I have it on good authority that, “a spokesman for the company said the French government had not enforced the rule and Pink Lady was flying as normal.”

I know some more detail, but I will leave you to do the homework on the Pink Lady.

You say SallyB flights for flying displays and commemorative events involve, “significant third party risks” – if that were remotely true then I would have but few qualms about SallyB being inflicted with the same punitive insurance premiums AIRLINERS of the same weight category have to pay these days.

I strongly suggest even airliners hardly offer “significant third party risks”.

MRSA deaths running at 5,000/year in the UK present a significant third party risk. There are not that many deaths world-wide on airliners over the last 10 years, so your significant risk theory for SallyB is a load of poppy-**** I’m afraid Grace.

It will surprise you to know (you fail to mention it in your argument) that in the USA
B-17’s operators offer flights to passengers for a fee of $395.
Thus after suffering 9/11 the American government still has not recognised this, “significant third party risk” that you elude to! What is the matter with them? Passenger flights on B-17’s! Gosh.

Look here and learn more Grace: https://secure.eaa.org/B17/securejoin_B17.html

You have the temerity to bring the age of this WW2 bomber into the equation; this has absolutely NOTHING to do with EC785/2004.

Don’t you know the makers of the regulation did NOT factor the age of the airframe into the new insurance scheme? I am afraid your lack of knowledge of the tapestry of this ridiculous EU Regulation is showing through Grace.

If age be the only difficulty the government has in this matter, then let it be no difficulty at all, for it is not taken into account for insurance purposes by the one-size-fits-all by weight alone Regulation EC785/2004.

Given the age of Concorde when she was around, did that figure in third-party insurance premiums?
There are aircraft certified to fly that are 65 years old (DC-3) and there are B747–2/3’s flying that are 27 years old.

You might latterly succumb to agree to the fact that the cowardly terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11 did not take one blind bit of notice about the AGE of the airframes.

Your assertion that it is the “weight of the aircraft” that is the master issue, is but another echo of the EC mantra, and is an appalling simplistic distillation of aviation insurance risk.

The one and only reason the makers of EC785/2004 made WEIGHT the only factor was for simplicity in solving the Kinetic Energy equation in a crash scenario. To be crude, they thought the bigger the ‘plane the bigger the hole – but even that does not hold true. Trust me, I was a Flight Safety Officer in both the military and my civilian life (CAA Safety Instructor as well) for years.

There are other factors that determine survivability and damage, over and above the MTOW of a particular aircraft. It could crash 3 minutes after take-off or 10 hours and 3 minutes (greatly reduced weight) after take-off; MTOW is a misnomer.

I therefore will not agree with your statement, “that an aircraft of this size could cause considerable damage in an accident” for several obvious and logical reasons.

1. It all depends where the “accident” happened.
If the SallyB made a controlled wheels-up landing on the runway at Manston, the only damage would be to the underbelly of the aircraft and props, with minor scoring of the runway. Nobody need even get hurt, and third-party claims would not be difficult to count.

2. If the SallyB was hijacked and somehow terrorists happened to fly it into the Empire State Building, it could be argued it would suffer roughly the same fate as that of an Army B-25 which flew into the 79th floor on the building on the 28th July 1945 and only 14 died.
So where and how an aircraft crashes is important in trying to envisage what sort of “considerable damage” it may have caused to itself and other property.

May remind you of the Airbus that was recently involved in an “accident” in the USA when it’s nose-gear was locked down, but canted at 90 degrees to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. Nobody was hurt, and only minor damage to the runway ensued. Weight had little to do with it.

The very sad catastrophe of the British Airtours B737-236 on the runway at Manchester on the 22 Aug 1985 where 55 people lost their life, had nothing to do with aircraft weight, yet considerable damage (‘write-off’) was caused, not least the devastating loss of life.

The “weight of the aircraft” has a minor part to play in most “accidents” and this spurious EC regulation, and your overt endorsements, do not help improve nor protect the safety of people on the ground nor their buildings or property and it is asinine to think so.

You should know that the airline you fly with, and where, has far more relevance with having an accident than the mere age of the aircraft. The fatal crash today, 20 miles North of Lagos of a B737-200 illustrates the point. The African continent has never been the safest area of the world to fly as a passenger.

It is unworthy of the Department of Transport to offer up the age of an aircraft as a major factor in support of an EU Regulation which deals with the MTOW as the only determinant for insurance purposes.

That is what this argument is about, and the fact SallyB is not a commercial airliner. Where is this level playing field quoted by the EU/EC?

Rather than blindly agreeing with everything that Brussels dreams up and forces upon us, I suggest it would be more patriotic, and in the best interests of the British people, and more particularly our brave American cousins who died for us whilst flying B-17’s from our bases, that we formulate our own third-party insurance risks as applicable and proportionate to the limited sort of flying SallyB does; which in the long run will encapsulate other vintage aircraft as a by-product.

You say, “we must not forget the main reason for the Regulation which is, after all, to protect people and property on the ground following an accident”.

If I may say so Grace, that is just not true.
Protecting people and property comes way before any crash or payment of any insurance premium.

The MAIN reason this Regulation was formulated was from the precipitous outflow of the American litigation culture that followed 9/11 and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the protecting people and property.
It was ALL to do with governments relinquishing their responsibility in combating terrorism. Had the terrorists been apprehended before they boarded, the world and the EU would never had invented these new exorbitant insurance rates covering all types by mere MTOW(Mass) alone.

Let me quote from this source. http://www.csoonline.com/read/050104/flashpoint.html

the court also made a revolutionary declaration with respect to foreseeability. The court stated that, typically, a criminal act (such as terrorism or hacking) severs the liability of the defendant, but that doctrine has no application when the terrorism or hacking is reasonably foreseeable. The court went on to note that the danger of a plane crashing if unauthorized individuals invaded the cockpit was a risk that the defendant plane manufacturer should reasonably have foreseen—indicating that terrorist acts are indeed foreseeable.
————————————

It may be reasonably foreseeable that a large commercial airliner might be highjacked and flown into a major building, but it just cannot be reasonably foreseeable that SallyB would be highjacked for the same purpose – that is what the makers of EC785/2004 have assumed, and it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong of them and totally improper use of unelected political power.

Let me remind you what your own Department of Transport uses to measure public safety risks near an airport in the UK.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_508135.hcsp

6.3.4 In order to define risk contours, analysis is based on forecast numbers and types of aircraft movements 15 years ahead. The risk contours will be remodelled about every seven years. They will also be remodelled if a significant expansion of an airport is approved which has not already been assumed in the modelled risk contours.

6.3.5 Public Safety Zones correspond closely to the areas within which the modelled individual risk of death per year by aircraft accident exceeds 1 in 100,000. Individual risk near an airport is calculated by reference to three components:

· the annual probability that a crash will occur near a given airport (ie the product of aircraft crash rates and the number of movements);

· the theoretical distribution of these crashes; and

· the theoretical size of the crash area and the likelihood of fatal injuries within this area.

This analysis takes account of evidence drawn from historical data that different types of aircraft have different crash rates, as well as other factors
——————————————————————

So how many B-17’s fly in/out of Heathrow every day do you know about Grace?

Whilst this is an insight of the risk equation around a UK airport, some imagination is required to foresee a highjack event away from the same airport.

Using your analogy of, “an aircraft of this size could cause considerable damage” one cannot help but notice that a B-17 has never been highjacked anywhere in the world, nor been flown into a building.

Can you explain how that fact equates to a, “significant third party risk” please?

The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committees Report Aviation Safety, highlighted a few concerns, not least interference from across the English Channel here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_503567.hcsp

European institutional arrangements

(k) We view both the existing Joint Aviation Authorities and the proposed European Aviation Safety authority with some concern. The United Kingdoms aviation industry has a proud safety record and very high standards of regulation: both have at least the potential to be undermined by membership of these organisations. Accordingly we recommend that the Government should clarify whether the European Aviation Safety Authority would have legal power to impose the standards it proposes, and the Government should seek an undertaking before joining the Authority that the safety standards of the United Kingdom will not be adversely affected (paragraph 35).
————————————————————————–

Raising third-party insurance premiums in the UK years after 9/11 does not diminish the risk of accidents one little bit, does it Grace?
In the same way as increasing the cost of cigarettes does not put smokers off their disgusting habit; just more money into the government’s tax coffers.

Using an aircraft’s MTOW as the core identifier for insurance purposes is just ridiculous, but highly convenient and easy for the government/EU as a stealth tax (IPT). £1BILLION/year is creamed off UK air passengers!

The assertions in your letter of the 19th Oct 2005 remind me of what Mr Richard Norton-Taylor said before a Select Committee, in as much as your department is but the media mirror of the EU HQ in Brussels, and just re-transmits the dictatorial orders that are to be followed, come what may.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/347-vi/0051006.htm

Memorandum submitted by Mr Richard Norton-Taylor, Security Affairs Editor of The Guardian
Excerpt:
I also find disturbing Mr Campbell’s suggestion that “after Iraq and Kosovo, the media needs to reflect whether it has not provided a kind of template to dictatorial regimes in how to use the Western media to their own advantage”. The suggestion that we should somehow tailor our reporting to benefit the government’s propaganda interests is not only wrong in principle, it will also be counter-productive and weaken our credibility with readers or viewers.

The one note of optimism is that the lengthy process to amend EC875/2004 has begun, and I would hope you and your department get behind those trying to change this unfair, and unreasonable legislation rather than offer quaint excuses for its existence.

Let us never forget we owe our freedom and a lot more besides to those young American’s who flew B-17’s from our airfields during WW2, and it should not be the Department of Transport’s position to sit back and do precious little, as I and many others see it, to keep the B-17 SallyB flying under appropriate and proportional third-party insurance cover.

I would say it is your DUTY to get the Regulation changed.

I would like to see some letters from your department, duty bound, going to the EC to lubricate the machinery of this particular political engine, and ask that EC785/2004 be amended ASAP in favour of this B-17 Official Flying Memorial SallyB, in the light of the arguments you are now more accustomed with.

Yours sincerely,

Captain XX XXXXXX XXX

Well that is good news for sallyB.Hope they get rid of this stupid European Union regulation crap.

James

Sally B

At the Duxford BoB display, about to set off for the London flypast . . .
Some of the Forum at the fence, I would guess (looks like MikeJ over there on the left).

It’s great to hear some good news – well done to all concerned.

CM

Hello there,
Good news for the 2006 season.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
____________________________________

14 October 2005
Hope on the Horizon for Sally B

As Aviation Insurers, Politicians, and enthusiasts rally to the cause of ‘living’ aviation heritage

In an unprecedented move, the immediate threat of permanent grounding to an important living piece of national heritage, B-17 Flying Fortress Sally B, has been temporarily lifted. On 29th September, aviation insurance underwriters came up with an affordable ‘stop gap’ solution to comply with a new controversial European Union regulation that had placed crippling financial demands on the operation of the 60-year old bomber. New legislation had put a burden of an extra £1,000 per flying hour on this national aviation icon. Sally B receives no direct state funding to keep her airborne.

Elly Sallingboe, B-17 Operator said: “Our fight to change this rule goes on, but we are delighted that the insurance world has again come up trumps with an affordable solution to help. Meanwhile, we wait for the EU to change this totally unrealistic law. “We thank Lloyds brokers Marsh, Sally B’s broker Arthur J Gallagher (UK) and other London insurance companies and Lloyds Underwriters. The B-17 is now fully covered by third party liability insurance up to the 30th September 2006.

“With the help of politicians, the Civil Aviation Authority and our many friends and supporters, we have managed to get the ear of the Regulators in Brussels. It is now appreciated that an oversight has been made in this third party issue for Sally B.

“But, to change a law like this will take time. Once an EU law has been made, it takes years to reverse it. But, the pioneering work has now been done and I am confident that within the next 18 months this unjust law will be changed, not only for Sally B, but for vintage aircraft in general. Like Sally B, they are not commercial airliners, they are flying memorials loaded not with bombs but with memories. Such aircraft salute those who gave their lives for our freedom, a sacrifice that must never be forgotten”.

This has been a hard season for Sally B and her team, condensing as much work as possible in a season reduced to three months. But with dedication and enthusiasm, helped by loyal members and friends digging deep, the impossible has been achieved and on the 10th July Sally B joined the London flypast marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two and has since flown proudly through her special anniversary year – her 30th flying season in the UK.

A petition seeking an exemption to the new EU regulations has now been signed by 25,000-plus people – all by hand. This will be presented to Downing Street in due course.

Thousands of B-17s, nicknamed Flying Fortress, flew daylight raids over German cities during the war. The aircraft is permanently based at the Imperial War Museum Duxford. It is backed by a registered charity and relies solely on charitable donations for its survival. This year it celebrate 30 year flying in the UK and its 60 birthday. To learn more, join the Supporters Club and/or make a donation to the Sally B Anniversary Appeal, please visit www.sallyb.org.uk. or contact Elly Sallingboe on 01638 721304

www.sallyb.org.uk

Sally B is one of a mere handful of survivors from the 12,731 Fortresses which were built, and her future in this country can only be secured through fundraising.

PPRuNe reports a Daily Telegraph piece today, intimating that Sally B will fly at the Blenheim Palace event on August 14th.

Insurance cover has been supplied by The Virgin Group and an ‘anonymous American donor’. Good news as far as it goes, but we are not out of the woods yet; a display season with one appearance is a bit on the thin side, though any progress is encouraging.

Apologies if this development has already been posted, but there are various threads referring to this issue, and I have not scanned all of them!

Wow this is a good one..

Now its a complex issue and passions are running high, and 90% of my knowledge about this subject come from this thread. But a few observations:

This is 3rd Party Liability Insurance. It is enforced as a provision against the potential damage of it coming down. It was mentioned in this thread that there wouldn’t be much difference in the size of smoking hole (God forbid) if a 737 or Sally be came down, and I must say I agree. I wouldn’t expect any sympathy from the public because the life of a loved one or property was damaged / destroyed by an old plane rather than a spanky new 737. Imagine if you were rear ended in your car. Would you take a more flexible stance if your car was written off by a 60 year old MG rather than a new Ford? No, of course not, you want the correct amount of money to compensate you for your loss. As I understand it this directive sets that amount. The rest is in the hands of the insurance industry. They will assess the risk and quote accordingly. Is Sally B more likely to crash than a 737? Yes of course she is, so up the premium. Does she fly as many hours a year as a commercial 737? No she doesn’t, so reduce it. Each insurance company will play this balance and then competitive pressure between them will find the cheapest supplier. All that has happened, as I understand it, is that their potential downside in the event of a claim just got bigger, so, increased risk equals increased premium.

So is the amount of Liability cover correct? Well I don’t know where these numbers came from nor how often in the past they were reviewed. There are some similarities here to the row about speed cameras which always puzzles me. People appear to be against them? Why? If you don’t speed then they are not a problem. They just represent a new way to enforce the rule that has been in place for years. Now are the speed limits correct? Well that’s a whole new argument. They were set years ago when car / tyre performance was far inferior. Stopping distances are now much reduced from cars made 30 years ago – but then again some of these cars are still on the road – ummm its a tough one.

My point is that I think we should analyse if the rule is correct and appropriate (and like I said I have no idea how they come up with these numbers). If it is then sadly it makes sense, we are stuck with it and it should be enforced. If this is the case then all we have left to talk about is how we / charity / lottery / Government help to pay the increased premium rather than trying to knock a rule that potentially could be appropriate.

Sally B deserves to fly and most everyone, from the hardened enthusiast to the average man in the street, would agree I’m sure.

I wish her both a speedy solution and many safe future flying hours.

According to a friend in France the Pink Lady situation is as follows –

Our “Pink Lady” operator was not able to “solve” the problem. Their insurance asked them to pay an extra 12 000 euros to go until the end of their contract in October. It is only the goodwill of their insurer (Verspiren) that made it possible for her to fly at La Ferte Alais. I started raising hell here reference this issue and others, using the La Ferte Alais airshow as a lever to reach the media.

Just seen the following post from a French WIXer expanding on Skybolt’s original post above.

There is no in your face attitude from the fench B-17 crew. Their plane is fully insured and camplaint in this rspect to the new european rule. It just happen that The Pink Lady is insured within a fleet of 50+ plane ; that allowed for a big margin of negociation, and only costed them a minimal (as opposed to Sally B’s) increase for its insurance fee.

So, ignoring the right’s and wrong’s of this EU ruling, Sally B’s problems are being compounded by being a sole aircraft operation, resulting in a bigger financial ‘hit’. 🙁

Perhaps, it’s time for some of the various operators to join forces under one operational banner with the advantages of ‘fleet’ insurance, or this is too far fetched an idea…????

Derek Clark MEP is clearly part of the problem – not part of the solution. Pressure on the EU transport commissioner from MEP’s can be effective but Clark seems to have forgotten why he was elected by his constituents. Perhaps they will be wiser next time. Despite his lukewarm reaction to the request for help we will get this ludicrous situation changed.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

Quite right.

We’ll have to watch out for this agreeing. Can’t be good.

Quite amusing as you say, unlike the MEP in question.

You know, Australian politicians are no more worthwhile, but they abuse each other so much more ripely than the British ones.

Goody. Another immortal Bedism which I shall deploy the very next time I have the chance.

I think it’s actually a Twelveism. Amusing nonetheless!

“useless fudgewit”

Goody. Another immortal Bedism which I shall deploy the very next time I have the chance.

As Andy says, clearly Derek Clark is someone one would entrust high office to; I’d be happy to rely on him – wouldn’t you? If you want it to be an episode of ‘Yes Minister.’

Now I’ve had a response from Derek Clark MEP. See if you can guess which party he represents!
Predictable and unhelpful.

I think the phrase “useless fudgewit” comes into my mind while reading his response.

Can I suggest you write to him ask what the hell he’s paid for?

Later
A.

The robotic bishop carefully steered the hovercraft towards the radioactive stack of flapjacks.

(Sorry, sorry, sorry, couldn’t help it…Nurse!)

“Winds light to variable” (Eccles – Goon show c1956)

…..after it’s light, it’ll get dark…