digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:59 am
That still doesn't explain what the advantage is for the pilot for flying under the copa for kids label if he takes up kids outside of that event as mentioned in the article:
This becomes particularly more relevant as we expand the program to allow pilots to conduct sanctioned, insurance-covered flights outside of an organized COPA for Kids event day like with neighbours, friends, work colleagues or anyone, whether youth or adults.
What kind of insurance would the pilot get extra if he already has his own liability insurance? And would he need a police check to fly his 50 year old neighbor around?
There seems to be some confusion. The insurance benefits COPA, not the pilot or the passenger. if a child is assaulted by a pilot the child (or more likely the parents) could bring a suit against COPA for negligence for placing the child in a position to be assaulted by the pilot. COPA (or actually, COPA's insurer) wants to be able to defend against that claim by saying, look, we took all reason care to keep your child safe, including requiring the pilot to provide a vulnerable sector check. If he or she assaulted the child, it's not our fault.
It's not clear that, with or without a police check, that COPA would be liable in negligence. But insurance companies are all about risk, and to them, the risk of a lawsuit, and the possible payout awarded against COPA (and therefore against them) in the event that a lawsuit is successful, are both reduced if the pilot has provided a check. Even if the lawsuit is purely speculative, it's still going to cost a six figure sum to mount a defence. The insurer wants to head that off at the pass.
Just to reiterate, it doesn't make the pilot any more or less likely to assault a child. It's just COPA's way of being better able to say, in the event a complaint is made, that it's not the charity's fault.
Please also note that the insurer doesn't care how difficult it is to get pilots to volunteer; in fact the insurer would prefer it if no pilots ever volunteered, and the events never happened. Their risk would be much lower that way. Which is how they like it.
This has nothing to do with a pilot's compulsory liability insurance, which would not cover COPA (a third party) against their own negligence in facilitating a criminal act by the pilot against a passenger. That insurance doesn't even cover a pilot for deliberate criminal acts - how could it?
There's another important point here. Insurance companies don't turn around and suddenly demand police checks. Insurance companies want to see a well thought out child protection policy, and they want to see that child protection policy followed.
Because if you don't have a policy, or if you have a policy and you don't follow it, you're implicitly in the wrong when a problem occurs. I know this because I had to negotiate with an insurance broker for an umbrella insurance policy for a charity. Including deciding when a police check was appropriate, and for whom.
So I should like to see COPA publicize their new child protection policy - and it should be public - rather than just cherry pick a single new requirement. The policy should explain how children are to be kept safe
at all stages of an event including on the ground and in the air.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.