UK Insurance conformity

[HV_Sparks]

Morning all,

All those with insurance certificates for commercial flying, do you have stated on the certificate itself that it complies with the EC785 /2004 regulation?

My insurance company think this is an odd request to have this on the certificate and don't feel comfy in doing so and have never had to do this in relation to other non UAS regulations.

I'd of thought that it would be in our own interest to be fully compliant with the regulation and as such we are fully insured. The policy shows everything that it does or doesn't cover so surely that would be sufficient?

Our NQE says everyone else states the regulation. However looking on our manned helicopter insurance certificate, that doesn't state any regulation reference / compliance etc, so i'm scratching my head as to why it is a UAS requirement?

I'd be grateful to hear any views on this please.

Thanks.

 

[William Gaddy]

Morning all,

All those with insurance certificates for commercial flying, do you have stated on the certificate itself that it complies with the EC785 /2004 regulation?

My insurance company think this is an odd request to have this on the certificate and don't feel comfy in doing so and have never had to do this in relation to other non UAS regulations.

I'd of thought that it would be in our own interest to be fully compliant with the regulation and as such we are fully insured. The policy shows everything that it does or doesn't cover so surely that would be sufficient?

Our NQE says everyone else states the regulation. However looking on our manned helicopter insurance certificate, that doesn't state any regulation reference / compliance etc, so i'm scratching my head as to why it is a UAS requirement?

I'd be grateful to hear any views on this please.

Thanks.

What client do you have that is specifying this requirement?

 

[The Editor]

Morning all,

All those with insurance certificates for commercial flying, do you have stated on the certificate itself that it complies with the EC785 /2004 regulation?

My insurance company think this is an odd request to have this on the certificate and don't feel comfy in doing so and have never had to do this in relation to other non UAS regulations.

I'd of thought that it would be in our own interest to be fully compliant with the regulation and as such we are fully insured. The policy shows everything that it does or doesn't cover so surely that would be sufficient?

Our NQE says everyone else states the regulation. However looking on our manned helicopter insurance certificate, that doesn't state any regulation reference / compliance etc, so i'm scratching my head as to why it is a UAS requirement?

I'd be grateful to hear any views on this please.

Thanks.

EC785/2004 does not apply to model aircraft with a MTOM less than 20kg.
The whole regulation was set up for manned aircraft and to harmonise minimum insurance requirements across member states.
Some idiot somewhere decided "Oh, UAV insurance must be EC785/2004 compliant because it's a flying thing". They then went off, congratulated themselves and had a nice steak dinner somewhere at tax payers expense.
Read the EC785/2004 directive and you will see under the section 'Scope' that cover for model aircraft under 20kg are excluded from conformity.
It's only more recently that underwriters have actually woken up to what a UAV actually is but the damage is already done and some cretin (presumably in Brussels) has decided that anything written off a binding authority/line slip to cover UAV operational liability must be EC785/2004 compliant. Unfortunately, they have the power without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about.

 

[William Gaddy]

@Editor Yeech and I thought the FAA was bad...

 

[HV_Sparks]

What client do you have that is specifying this requirement?

Hi William,
It's not a client, it's our NQE, which another independent NQE also agrees and even the CAA over the phone says "yeah it'll probably be very helpful to have it stated".

 

[HV_Sparks]

EC785/2004 does not apply to model aircraft with a MTOM less than 20kg.
The whole regulation was set up for manned aircraft and to harmonise minimum insurance requirements across member states.
Some idiot somewhere decided "Oh, UAV insurance must be EC785/2004 compliant because it's a flying thing". They then went off, congratulated themselves and had a nice steak dinner somewhere at tax payers expense.
Read the EC785/2004 directive and you will see under the section 'Scope' that cover for model aircraft under 20kg are excluded from conformity.
It's only more recently that underwriters have actually woken up to what a UAV actually is but the damage is already done and some cretin (presumably in Brussels) has decided that anything written off a binding authority/line slip to cover UAV operational liability must be EC785/2004 compliant. Unfortunately, they have the power without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Exactly!! Our insurance team keep saying that it's barely relevant, especially the baggage / Pax section.

 

[HV_Sparks]

I think we'll end up submitting without the reg being stated on the insurance and if the CAA bounce it back then so be it. It's getting silly with everyone's time involved, when at the end of the day we are fully covered whether the reg is stated or not.

 

[Eyeup Aerial Solutions]

It'll get bounced. Cover drone or Moonrock appear to be the operators who are happy to make the compliance quote on their carts.

 

[HV_Sparks]

Hi thanks for suggestions. We'll definitely look at them if we don't have any joy. The insurance team & myself have both spoken the the CAA UAV Dept and the CAA wasn't sure themselves as to whether it was a requirement to state the Reg or not and it isn't documented in any CAA publication that it is either. All they could say was it might be preferable to have have it on the certificate. Bearing in mind the regulation includes manned aircraft - neither of our two helicopters have it on their insurance certificates. Not to say it isn't right, but in the tens of years we've operated them it has never been an issue.

Will keep you all posted as to how we get on. ;-)