If Scott's airplane is a total, in theory there's no loss of use because he can take his hull payment and buy another airplane. Then his carrier would subrogate against the student's carrier.

If Scott's airplane is repaired, and he has a good policy, he should have coverage for renting a substitute aircraft while his is down. Sometimes that coverage is limited to the "extra expense" over and above the hourly cost of operating his own airplane. It may also be limited in time, such as 60 or 90 days after the accident. Good like finding something like a 340 to rent.

Ultimately it is the student's responsibility to make Scott whole, including loss of use, but student/renter pilot liability coverage often has low limits, like $100,000, which probably won't even cover the repairs. Can the student afford to make up the difference out of his own pocket? Probably not.

Hopefully Scott has enough hull coverage to replace his airplane, and hopefully it's a total. It is not likely that he will be fully compensated under any other scenario.

Well, it shouldn't be that hard if there are adequate limits and the student is clearly liable. Unfortunately, there are good carriers/adjusters and some not so good. The good ones could investigate liability and repair costs and make a deal with Scott within a few days. The not so good ones will not make a commitment until they absolutely have to, sometimes not until a court does it for them. Most aviation insurers are pretty good nowadays, so chances are that Scott will have some answers soon.

Read your policy on loss of use, it's almost always time and dollar capped. Pretty much worthless coverage.

Right. But I'm talking about someone else damaging my plane and how their insurance company would deal with my loss of use.

Tracy must sell insurance or is an attorney as it's nearly verbatim of what I was told. A policy sounds good when you hear $1,000 a day but if you read further it's only the "difference" and in my case, it's 60 days and the last kicker is the max is $10,000. I understand that's "typical". Always the details, right? Any other loss of use or cost associated would have to be covered by the other insurance and I would have to demand/document that and hope for results or it would be litigated as I'm told. To me the responsibility is pretty cut and dry so we'll see what happens. I'm a cynic based on other insurance experience. If I were them I'd cut me a check for the airplane soon because any savings to them fixing would be eaten fast in loss of use.

The student is actually the owner of the airplane. I understand he just bought the Cherokee. I haven't talked to him. Not a peep, but I'll bet he's beside himself. I never heard any of the exact details and still can't figure out how in the world you have that happen. He sure is lucky in a way as you can imagine a hundred different ways that could have ended worse than wrecking some metal.

Last, apology for jumping a thread. My 340 experience is (I guess "was" now) positive. The ones flying now and doing any kind of work are 200 knot birds burning 38gph ROP. They'll take 4 people and their bags 3+ hours with reserves and you can get up and move within the cabin of you want. I liked the 340 and I would buy another but probably going to a turbine now and hopefully very soon.

That is so sad, a nice 340 going to be parted out.

Plus, sad for you as you fly it so much. I was plane-less for a month and it drove me nutty.

I am sure things will work out in the end, it is just the crap in the middle.

Yikes....

I know of a nice 421C for sale in PHX with G600 and dual GTN750s. The owner just moved to a turbine.

Right. But I'm talking about someone else damaging my plane and how their insurance company would deal with my loss of use.

It's only reasonable that it would only cover the difference. Surely, you shouldn't fly "for free" while your airplane is down for a covered loss; insurance is supposed to put you back where you were, not give you an advantage.

Of course, figuring out the difference isn't trivial either. I could argue that my Baron costs me $1/nm to run [marginal costs] or $3/nm [average costs on a low utilization year]. You can be sure that I'd be arguing to use the $1/nm number for a loss of use claim...which I assume would be "correct" since we're comparing marginal utilization of my aircraft vs the out of pocket cost for a substitute aircraft.

Stephen,

Which model King Air do you own/use for training?

Best,

Pretty much all accidents/incidents have some element of "unbelievably stupid". That's why we have insurance!

Scott, sorry for your loss, it will suck for a little while. But... not forever! It will get resolved and then you'll put it in the rearview.

If I were you, BTW, I would make it clear to your agent/carrier as you go down the process that you would prefer a total. It is probably repairable with a wing from a salvage aircraft and some tail parts. It'd take a while. But if you want a total, make sure they are aware of your desires. If it is a close call, they will take it into consideration. I'm not suggesting anything obnoxious, just that they can take your choices into consideration if it's not clear which way the claim will go on the economics alone.

Stephen,

Thanks for the offer. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from as an aircraft owner. It seems like you felt money was wasted buying a jet, whereas a turboprop is a necessity.

When you comfortably fly 300 hours a year in a 421, in all kinds of conditions, it seems less justifiable when you put a pencil to a C90...at least imo.

Best,

Scott,
I too am sorry for your loss of a nice airplane. I landed shortly after this incident happened. The line told me that the student was waiting for the instructor to show up and thought he would warm up the airplane. It was bitter cold and I put mine in a heated hangar even though I was only going to be there for two hours. He supposedly only had two hours of instruction under his belt.

Ok, I don't own any airplanes. I have operated many corporate airplanes, including twin Cessnas of all stripes. Some factors cannot be quantified by an accountant which is why you never let him make the decision on what airplane is best for an operation. As for jet aircraft, I am not opposed to jets. It is just easy to buy more airplane than you can afford to operate. But, if you can afford to operate a 421, you can afford to operate a C90 (or 425).