Insurance - UKHAS | Google Groups

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Insurance
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of st...@randomaerospace.com designates 193.238.81.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=193.238.81.223;
Subject: Re: [UKHAS] Re: Insurance
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Disposition-Notification-To: steve <st...@btinternet.com>
From: Steve Aerospace <st...@randomaerospace.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGHxhMvZupoF2FduhmZE3sY=E73zCVRH6GteoSAy-am9Ne-teQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 01:42:59 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E3802A6-891B-49BA-B35A-048A528D6723@randomaerospace.com>
References: <CAN4VLDCN_goSRwAmBvM0dySDsJoTuQ4AXGYB3zAPX9HJjmH-kQ@mail.gmail.com> <73d498ac-6d2c-497a-bdc3-875f3e15c240@googlegroups.com> <987EE926-9C50-4D91-A38E-37ED7C890A3C@gmail.com> <CAGHxhMvZupoF2FduhmZE3sY=E73zCVRH6GteoSAy-am9Ne-...@mail.gmail.com>
To: ukhas@googlegroups.com

I don't believe the risks are "vanishingly small".  Small yes - but not =
vanishingly so - and the impact can be large.
Take the scenario of a payload landing in a road that someone swerves to =
avoid - potentially fatal.=20

Some rough math and observation would suggest that the chances of any =
flight landing on an A road are circa 0.1% (see below) and in front of a =
vehicle - perhaps 5% of that.

I know at least one instance where a payload has landed on railway track =
in East Anglia - there is a lot less of that than road.

	Steve

Math:   Lets assume that we keep the flight well away from motorways and =
that B roads aren't a concern. There are 48,164 km of A roads in the GB =
- lets say they are all 6m wide. Thats 289 sq Km of road surface. The =
total area of GB is 243,610 sq km - so the probability of a payload =
landing randomly in GB on an A road is a little over 0.1%.
We could probably argue about whether this average is appropriate for =
the areas in which we land - but I doubt that it is wildly out.
Take a look at an A road in google maps to get an appreciation of the =
occupancy during daylight hours.

On 21 Jul 2012, at 19:22, Adam Greig wrote:

> I don't want to get too involved in this discussion because I don't
> think it's very productive, but I want to point out that the risks
> we're talking about here are vanishingly small -- especially once you
> start using the predictor to avoid built up areas. Our launches
> themselves present essentially no danger (especially compared to model
> aircraft or rockets), planes would win in a collision, and soft
> polystyrene cases landing at 5m/s will not damage a wide array of
> objects. There are obviously extreme(ly unlikely) situations where
> problems could arise, but the same can be said of any activity.
>=20
> The met office launch two balloons a day from multiple sites around
> the country and have done for years, without heed to predictions, and
> have had no incidents. Met offices in most countries do likewise.
>=20
> I don't agree that one high profile incident would end the hobby,
> either -- plenty of other hobbies survive severe incidents and without
> specific legislation being passed or guidance issued to prohibit what
> we do, I don't see any reason we'd have to stop launching HABs.
>=20
> Pretty much the only useful reason to obtain insurance is for working
> with organisations that require it for whatever reason -- for example
> media companies or the ESA, the two situations that people have
> already been able to obtain insurance for.
>=20
> Given that, I don't see that formalising a members' organisation for
> the purposes of arranging insurance (or qualifications in aid thereof)
> would really be beneficial. Maybe that's the direction all hobbies
> evolve as more people take them up, and if so then so be it, but I'd
> rather it be for reasons other than trying to make insurance easier to
> obtain (a premise we still don't know about, anyway).
>=20
> A parting thought: insurers exist to make a profit, not to provide a
> public service. Given the very low volume of HAB launches and the
> relatively very low cost we could bear to pay, it would take a heck of
> a lot more launches for it to be worth them being particularly
> interested. I don't see many people flocking to pay hundreds of pounds
> per hobbyist launch -- it would instantly become the most expensive
> part of a launch, to protect against an extremely rare failure, and
> that cost alone would kill the hobby quicker than any one incident
> might.
>=20
> Adam
>=20
> On 21 July 2012 18:59, steamf...@gmail.com <steamf...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> One thing that might make a difference in insurance risk assessment =
is that
>> the rocket groups have rigorous certification levels that are =
'required' of
>> people before using higher power rockets.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>=20
>>=20
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>=20
>> On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:54, MikeB <mikebessant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Certainly an important subject.
>>=20
>> I have never really understood why the BMFA offers insurance for =
model
>> rocketry but will not consider doing the same for HAB flights. Some =
of the
>> high powered rockets are potentially very dangerous. I would much =
prefer to
>> be hit around the head by a small foam box than a pointy lump of =
carbon
>> fibre.
>>=20
>> It does seem that it will continue to be difficult for individuals to =
obtain
>> HAB insurance but that the economies of scale associated with a
>> group/organisation approach would be more successful. If MMFA can't =
help,
>> what would be involved in setting up a HABFA? Lots of paperwork and =
other
>> unpleasantness I expect but then it is probably the only way to go =
for the
>> long-term survival of the activity. It will only take one high =
profile
>> uninsured 'incident' to kill HAB in the UK stone dead.
>>=20
>> MikeB
>>=20
>> On Friday, July 20, 2012 2:35:40 PM UTC+1, Ed (eroomde) - CUSF wrote:
>>>=20
>>> In order to get some discussion points for the conference, and to =
save
>>> the conference thread getting side-swiped off topic, I thought I =
might
>>> start a new discussion.
>>>=20
>>> If you have successfully (or unsuccessfully but having learned
>>> something useful on the way) got insurance for a balloon flight,
>>> please post your experiences here.
>>>=20
>>> I will start the ball rolling:
>>>=20
>>> 1) CUSF used to get insurance via the university insurance =
department
>>> but that was withdrawn in 2008 as they decided our activities were =
no
>>> longer covered. (We didn't change what we did, they changed their
>>> interpretation of the rules).
>>>=20
>>> 2) I got insurance as a private individual (i.e. in my name) for the
>>> CUSF ExoMars parachute testing project. I got this from Falcon
>>> Insurance in texas, talking to a broker who specialised in
>>> experimental aviation stuff and had previously helped out armadillo
>>> aerospace. He is no longer with them sadly, and the broker who dealt
>>> with the contract subsequently did not give the impression that it =
was
>>> something they particularly wanted to continue with new customers
>>> given economics. The coverage was for 3 flights of our esa drop
>>> vehicle (or subsections of it). I spent a *very* long time =
explaining
>>> to them what we were doing and why we wouldn't be able to afford
>>> whatever they would quote us (i.e. please make a special exemption
>>> because we're not for profit and our project is awesome). You need =
an
>>> actual human contact in order to do this. In the end it cost us
>>> $5000USD for 3 flights, a bill we passed on to ESA. I had tried 4 or =
5
>>> people before that, including some of the insurers that I know have
>>> covered HAB flights for TV work for other ukhas members before, but
>>> they were quite specific that it had to be only for tv stuff, =
(special
>>> effects), even though we were doing the same actual hab activity. =
You
>>> can imagine, given my reputation for patience and understanding in =
the
>>> face of the irrational, that I loved every moment of these
>>> conversations. I am firmly of the opinion that people in the =
insurance
>>> industry and taken straight from Joseph Heller novels.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Friday, July 20, 2012 2:35:40 PM UTC+1, Ed (eroomde) - CUSF wrote:
>>>=20
>>> In order to get some discussion points for the conference, and to =
save
>>> the conference thread getting side-swiped off topic, I thought I =
might
>>> start a new discussion.
>>>=20
>>> If you have successfully (or unsuccessfully but having learned
>>> something useful on the way) got insurance for a balloon flight,
>>> please post your experiences here.
>>>=20
>>> I will start the ball rolling:
>>>=20
>>> 1) CUSF used to get insurance via the university insurance =
department
>>> but that was withdrawn in 2008 as they decided our activities were =
no
>>> longer covered. (We didn't change what we did, they changed their
>>> interpretation of the rules).
>>>=20
>>> 2) I got insurance as a private individual (i.e. in my name) for the
>>> CUSF ExoMars parachute testing project. I got this from Falcon
>>> Insurance in texas, talking to a broker who specialised in
>>> experimental aviation stuff and had previously helped out armadillo
>>> aerospace. He is no longer with them sadly, and the broker who dealt
>>> with the contract subsequently did not give the impression that it =
was
>>> something they particularly wanted to continue with new customers
>>> given economics. The coverage was for 3 flights of our esa drop
>>> vehicle (or subsections of it). I spent a *very* long time =
explaining
>>> to them what we were doing and why we wouldn't be able to afford
>>> whatever they would quote us (i.e. please make a special exemption
>>> because we're not for profit and our project is awesome). You need =
an
>>> actual human contact in order to do this. In the end it cost us
>>> $5000USD for 3 flights, a bill we passed on to ESA. I had tried 4 or =
5
>>> people before that, including some of the insurers that I know have
>>> covered HAB flights for TV work for other ukhas members before, but
>>> they were quite specific that it had to be only for tv stuff, =
(special
>>> effects), even though we were doing the same actual hab activity. =
You
>>> can imagine, given my reputation for patience and understanding in =
the
>>> face of the irrational, that I loved every moment of these
>>> conversations. I am firmly of the opinion that people in the =
insurance
>>> industry and taken straight from Joseph Heller novels.
>>=20
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google =
Groups
>> "UKHAS" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ukhas/-/0yrN1tZD-jYJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to ukhas@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ukhas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ukhas?hl=3Den.
>>=20
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google =
Groups
>> "UKHAS" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to ukhas@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ukhas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ukhas?hl=3Den.
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google =
Groups "UKHAS" group.
> To post to this group, send email to ukhas@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to =
ukhas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at =
http://groups.google.com/group/ukhas?hl=3Den.
>=20

Steve Randall
Random Engineering Ltd
st...@randomaerospace.com
+44 7802 242135
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
