And, the final arbiter is?
Feeling a little like Oliver Twist asking for more, I wonder if some of the 'grown ups' can shed some light into a dark corner. I suspect (thankfully) that like most of us my experiences with insurance companies is limited to paying the fee and hoping that 'it' never happens. But, the business at Essendon has the curiosity bump operating at full throttle and without enough knowledge to solve the puzzle, not funny.
So, to begin: it is reasonable to expect that the King Air was properly insured, that the AOC was valid and the pilot properly licensed and technically fit for duty, insofar as would satisfy the court. It would also seem reasonable that the DFO building was fully and legally approved;and, covered for the routine stuff, but would it have a specific 'clause' or policy against collision with an aircraft? Then there is the aerodrome operator's coverage to consider. This is all 'on-the-surface' stuff, with deep roots leading back to several layers of 'approvals' being issued, those underscored by 'compliance' with the pertinent regulation and ICAO requirements attached, etc.
Now that the ATSB and CASA have done their homework and 'published' their eloquent 'not my fault' papers with enough nebulous wriggle room to keep a battalion of lawyers engaged until pension day; who will the 'other side' tackle on the compensation side of the ledger? Should they win the day, who will the insurers then tackle to recoup the loss? Or will they? Will the loss be passed on up the insurance food chain and be absorbed into the great pool of 'that's the cost of doing business'.
I've no idea – but it seems to me (in layman ignorance) there are three separate possible avenues for action – A. the easy minimum cost/loss and least embarrassment way; B. big cost with more expense to follow; C. mission impossible against the government position.
A. It was simply 'pilot error' the impact with the innocent DFO unfortunate; all quickly tucked up, neat tidy and at minimum expense. Was the pilot/company and insurer aware of and accepted the risks that the reduced runway margins imposed? Did the operating company carry any written insurance rider to cover this shortfall? Did the CASA approved (accepted) operations manual specifically mention operations at aerodromes with less than ICAO promulgated requirements? You can see where that is heading; the current story line clearly lighting the way.Out of pocket payment for the aircraft; life insurance for the occupants – the DFO repairs – neat, clean and cost effective, leaving the government agencies and developers with a clean slate and no red faces and little in the way of 'expenses'.
B. Was the DFO an innocent bystander or was it, in part, responsible for the deaths? Had there been a couple of hundred shoppers and children killed or injured at the time of the event, what would the insurance case be then? Had that building been destroyed, who would be in the insurance payout recovery gun sight? Then the question of whether the DFO was 'legal' or not so much – that becomes a legal brangle of epic proportions and serious money. Is ICAO compliance simply lip-service – applied as and when convenient – or is this country serious about world best 'safety' practice? The lodged differences with ICAO make a small mountain of paper; the rampant development on Commonwealth land is unchecked. Had this event been just a little more lethal than it was; would the insurer pool then roll out the big guns and take it on more seriously? Seems to me there is a case to answer, just below the surface of that murky pool.
C Was the commonwealth in any way responsible for the approval process? You could bet your best Sunday go-to-church boots on the No answer. Yet there is a responsibility there; diffused, diluted and kept a long way away from the 'corridors' of real power to be sure; nevertheless, it does exist. Would any right minded insurance consortium tackle the might of a government or even a body remotely attached, over the Essendon event? Unlikely. Will ICAO weigh in – unlikely.
So whats left – who's to bless and who's to blame is a valid question, but it ain't the core issue is it. Is the DFO building 'legal' and compliant? Are the developers taking sanctioned liberties? We just don't know; what we do know is that somehow, some way an aircraft carrying passengers travelling in 'good faith' collided with a building, all died and the potential for many more deaths was and remains very, very real. It will be for the insurance brokers and the court to decide the outcomes. But a few millions spread about, the last nail hastily put into the coffin of this event, followed by a swift burial will not resolve the potential for a repeat performance. The best that can be expected is insurance premiums will be jacked up to cover the minor shortfall created by an 'unfortunate' accident caused by 'pilot error'.
Will the 'names' of the great insurance pools give a monkeys? Probably not. Will the developers care a hoot? Probably not. Is CASA off the hook? Has ATSB got any skin in the game? Is the DoIT under the pump? Has the minister any notion that the event even occurred? Who cares the most that the DFO is still standing? Yep, you've guessed it.
Toot – toot...
Feeling a little like Oliver Twist asking for more, I wonder if some of the 'grown ups' can shed some light into a dark corner. I suspect (thankfully) that like most of us my experiences with insurance companies is limited to paying the fee and hoping that 'it' never happens. But, the business at Essendon has the curiosity bump operating at full throttle and without enough knowledge to solve the puzzle, not funny.
So, to begin: it is reasonable to expect that the King Air was properly insured, that the AOC was valid and the pilot properly licensed and technically fit for duty, insofar as would satisfy the court. It would also seem reasonable that the DFO building was fully and legally approved;and, covered for the routine stuff, but would it have a specific 'clause' or policy against collision with an aircraft? Then there is the aerodrome operator's coverage to consider. This is all 'on-the-surface' stuff, with deep roots leading back to several layers of 'approvals' being issued, those underscored by 'compliance' with the pertinent regulation and ICAO requirements attached, etc.
Now that the ATSB and CASA have done their homework and 'published' their eloquent 'not my fault' papers with enough nebulous wriggle room to keep a battalion of lawyers engaged until pension day; who will the 'other side' tackle on the compensation side of the ledger? Should they win the day, who will the insurers then tackle to recoup the loss? Or will they? Will the loss be passed on up the insurance food chain and be absorbed into the great pool of 'that's the cost of doing business'.
I've no idea – but it seems to me (in layman ignorance) there are three separate possible avenues for action – A. the easy minimum cost/loss and least embarrassment way; B. big cost with more expense to follow; C. mission impossible against the government position.
A. It was simply 'pilot error' the impact with the innocent DFO unfortunate; all quickly tucked up, neat tidy and at minimum expense. Was the pilot/company and insurer aware of and accepted the risks that the reduced runway margins imposed? Did the operating company carry any written insurance rider to cover this shortfall? Did the CASA approved (accepted) operations manual specifically mention operations at aerodromes with less than ICAO promulgated requirements? You can see where that is heading; the current story line clearly lighting the way.Out of pocket payment for the aircraft; life insurance for the occupants – the DFO repairs – neat, clean and cost effective, leaving the government agencies and developers with a clean slate and no red faces and little in the way of 'expenses'.
B. Was the DFO an innocent bystander or was it, in part, responsible for the deaths? Had there been a couple of hundred shoppers and children killed or injured at the time of the event, what would the insurance case be then? Had that building been destroyed, who would be in the insurance payout recovery gun sight? Then the question of whether the DFO was 'legal' or not so much – that becomes a legal brangle of epic proportions and serious money. Is ICAO compliance simply lip-service – applied as and when convenient – or is this country serious about world best 'safety' practice? The lodged differences with ICAO make a small mountain of paper; the rampant development on Commonwealth land is unchecked. Had this event been just a little more lethal than it was; would the insurer pool then roll out the big guns and take it on more seriously? Seems to me there is a case to answer, just below the surface of that murky pool.
C Was the commonwealth in any way responsible for the approval process? You could bet your best Sunday go-to-church boots on the No answer. Yet there is a responsibility there; diffused, diluted and kept a long way away from the 'corridors' of real power to be sure; nevertheless, it does exist. Would any right minded insurance consortium tackle the might of a government or even a body remotely attached, over the Essendon event? Unlikely. Will ICAO weigh in – unlikely.
So whats left – who's to bless and who's to blame is a valid question, but it ain't the core issue is it. Is the DFO building 'legal' and compliant? Are the developers taking sanctioned liberties? We just don't know; what we do know is that somehow, some way an aircraft carrying passengers travelling in 'good faith' collided with a building, all died and the potential for many more deaths was and remains very, very real. It will be for the insurance brokers and the court to decide the outcomes. But a few millions spread about, the last nail hastily put into the coffin of this event, followed by a swift burial will not resolve the potential for a repeat performance. The best that can be expected is insurance premiums will be jacked up to cover the minor shortfall created by an 'unfortunate' accident caused by 'pilot error'.
Will the 'names' of the great insurance pools give a monkeys? Probably not. Will the developers care a hoot? Probably not. Is CASA off the hook? Has ATSB got any skin in the game? Is the DoIT under the pump? Has the minister any notion that the event even occurred? Who cares the most that the DFO is still standing? Yep, you've guessed it.
Toot – toot...