Just to clarify: I am talking exclusively about life insurance and not
health insurance!

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a pilot should take more risks
just because he's got health insurance. But since people can always be more
stupid than you think, I suppose it is possible. No insurance compensates
for the actual accident. In fact insurance premium is money that you spend
and pray that it was spent in vain! Always!

But reagrding the subject of life insurance, I don't think it makes sense to
assume that bad things happen more to dumb pilots. Truth is that HG is
inherently dangerous in the sense that if something bad happens, the chances
of major injuries are enormous. When you are riding a bycicle the risks of
accident are enormous too, but the risk of extensive injuries isn't
necessarily so. IMO, HG is pretty safe, as long as no accident happens, if
an accident happens then it is either minor or fatal...

For instance: the reason why I acquired a policy in first place was because
I started to travel too much by airplane for business purposes, and it was
making me uneasy during flights. One could argue that airplane flying is the
safest method of transportation and therefore I should not worry. But to me
an airplane is safe as long as no accident happens, if it happens then
that's it: you're gone 99% guaranteed. After I got my policy I fly with a
lot more confidence. It's purely psicological but that's the way it is.

So, for HG I follow the same reasoning: you are never going to see me in a
HG without apropriate life insurance. If I find out that it's impossible to
get life cover from my policy in HG activities then the dream of returning
to HG is over to me. Period. I mean I can risk my own life as much as I
want, but the thought of leaving my family unattended is just too much to
bear.

BTW, I flew HGs for about 2 years, totaling about 60 hours of air time and I
never ever had an accident or even a scratch !

Fabiano

"sniffer" <nospam@any.com> wrote in message news:3cbd44df@212.67.96.135...
>
> "Mark Jones" <heliosstudios@att.net.SpamDefense!> wrote in message
> news:AK0v8.29658$Rw2.2226894@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Wow, Robert took that hook-line-and-sinker... thanks. FWIW, I feel HG
> > safety is directly proportionate to the pilot's common sense and learned
> > safety practices. Dumb pilots who do dumb things typically get hurt or
> > killed, while wise pilots who follow the rules and play it safe,
> > typically have few if any accidents. This is not true in all cases of
> > course, but I'd wager that the vast majority follow this pattern.
> >
> > Some folk have even flown since the 70's without a single scratch, so
to
> > say that HG is inherently dangerous is like saying that driving a car is
> > suicide. The car's not dangerous, it's the operator who is dangerous.
And
> > unfortunately, the dumb pilots who do dumb things give our sport a bad
> > name (hence public skepticism and lack of insurance coverage...)
> >
> > Sure, bad things sometimes happen to good people, and insurance is a
> > tool to help out in this event, but I feel that with enough knowledge,
> > attention, and dedication, you can fly a glider just as well as you
drive
> > a car, if not better. I'm curious, what does Sniffer have to say about
> > insurance?
>
> Hi Mark,
> I agree with what you said Dumb pilots who do dumb things and that is who
I
> think needs insurance. I tend to go along with the thought that having
> insurance is a false sense of security and in some people having it makes
> them careless. Everyone should fly as though they have no insurance.
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: GPS units, Mike Coupe
Next message: Re: Airea balance "dangerous design" ?, sniffer
Next message in thread: Re: hang-gliding x insurance companies, Steve Uzochukwu
Previous message in thread: Re: hang-gliding x insurance companies, sniffer