Insurance

[Ed Moore]

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.

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.

I will start the ball rolling:

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but that was withdrawn in 2008 as they decided our activities were no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).

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.

[Dave Hibberd]

We managed to get insurance for the SUNSET projects through the University's experimental coverage, however this had to be negotiated to attain - initially there was no coverage, but after running a few flights not knowing this, we had a run in and then a discussion with internal QHSE and the university communications/media offices and came to an amiable agreement, enabling us to continue flying so that they could get more shiny pictures / media coverage / good things for the prospectus.

Outside of that, I've got no significant knowledge - I've moved on and got a 'real' taxable job, and as such haven't seen what the current state of affairs is. I'm sure I can ping back and ask though - it's not a problem!

I'll be back in #ukhas soon, considering the conference too (I vote for HABCon for a name...)

Regards,
Dave Hibberd

MEng Electrical & Mechanical Engineering

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UKHAS" group.
To post to this group, send email to uk...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ukhas+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ukhas?hl=en.

[Anthony Stirk]

Sorry should have given further information. I had a specialist insurance broker on the case who spent a few weeks on it last year for me.

He concluded although the risks are extremely minimal the actual "risk" they would be insuring could be enormous and no one was even willing to quote. 

Anthony

Sent from my iPhone

[Steve Aerospace]

I have got insurance several times for the TV and media work I do with HABs.
These have always been through media industry insurers (as Ed says special effects and the like).
Since 2009 (when I did my first commercial flight) insurance has risen from £275 for 4 flights
(called off against use) to this year £375 for each flight - they won't entertain a bulk arrangement.
Cover is £5M third party liability insurance only. On the times I have asked they say
they are only interested in insuring media work - I guess its an area where they understand the level of risk.

I and others have approached the BMFA for insurance - but their view is that HABing is not model flying.

Sorry to bat on about it I don't think we will get any leverage with insurance companies as individuals.

Steve

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UKHAS" group.
> To post to this group, send email to uk...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ukhas+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ukhas?hl=en.
>

Steve Randall
Random Engineering Ltd
st...@randomaerospace.com
+44 7802 242135

[Neil Baker]

Hi,

Thanks for starting up this thread on HAB insurance.

It seems that unless the risks are qualified, it is understandable why they won't insure us.

Although I've only helped out at launches of Rob,  James, CUSF, Steve payloads (and still a novice) there does seem to be a very similar launch process followed.

If there is such similarity in approach, prediction software, tracking software etc it seems to me that if there was a formal launch best practise it would propably be fairly painless for everyone to follow. If over time we could demonstrate the low risk with actual launch data while following guidelines perhaps we could get insurance. If not as individuals but as a organisation.

Perhaps if we could also show that beginners learn the ropes by helping out at other launches before they do their own launches this may also help?

I understand that as a novice what I am saying here might be total rubbish but I hope some of it helps.

Neil

[Mark Drayton]

When I applied for permission from CASA here in Australia, they strongly recommended I do it under the name of a Ltd company. Therefore any financial liability would be limited to the extent of the means of the company or organisation, as long as no criminal or grossly negligent acts were committed by any directors. 

I think the same would hold true in the UK, but obviously starting a company for the purposes of a launch is not terribly convenient . But if you are able to operate through a company/organisation (legal entity) then you are much better off than operating under your own name  - ie. you won't lose your house. Not the same as insurance, but some protection nonetheless should things go quite pear-shaped.

Mark

[Oliver de Peyer]

Maybe we really should start intentionally dumping payloads in the sea
(and see if we can recover them by boat or if swept ashore), to
greatly reduce the chance of hitting anything, ever? (Except plankton)
I'm not even kidding. Maybe it will make it easier to get CAA approval too.

[Ed Moore]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Oliver de Peyer
<go.ver...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we really should start intentionally dumping payloads in the sea

No.

[Steve Aerospace]

On 20 Jul 2012, at 14:38, Oliver de Peyer wrote:

> Maybe it will make it easier to get CAA approval too.

Not unless you plan to launch from the sea as well.

Steve

[MikeB]

Certainly an important subject.

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. 

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.

MikeB

[Neil Baker]

"It will only take one high profile uninsured 'incident' to kill HAB in the UK stone dead."

I totally agree. 

Just incase it helps, it only costs £35 to setup a company in the UK (or It did 5 years ago). Then £30 a year. I don't think you need to submit full accounts if your aren't trading or dealing with large sums of money. 

Yes a company does protect the directors from being sued if they have shown due diligence, but if they haven't obtained insurance where there is a risk of liability, then they haven't shown due diligence. 

However as a company, or organisation registered as a company, it may make it easier to obtain insurance and also enable a blanket insurance policy for all members who follow certain standards, checks, etc. 

Although I have only setup and run a very small company, I don't mind helping out if this is a route we decide to investigate further. 

Neil

--

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.

[Russ Garrett]

I have quite a lot of experience in setting up legal structures for
voluntary/membership organisations, and I totally wouldn't mind
helping get UKHAS set up and handling the admin (which should be
fairly minimal).

I think the aim should not be to run launches under the UKHAS legal
entity, but provide a lightweight structure which can be used to
obtain insurance for its members.

I should be coming to the UKHAS conference this year so I'm more than
happy to carry the discussion on there.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[stea...@gmail.com]

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.  

Thanks,

Dan

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Adam Greig]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Adam

[go.ver...@googlemail.com]

And the situation with pico launches would be particularly odd, since that's basically akin to letting go of a party balloon by accident
------------------

[Mike Bessant]

I like Adam's faith in human nature. What's important is not the real risk involved (as I think we agree its pretty minimal) but what people might claim it is. We live in an increasingly litigation happy society and if someone claims your payload caught his cornfield on fire you will probably have to pay to prove it didn't.   

[Ed Moore]

My feeling were the same, broadly still are, but if there was an
option to pay £50/yr (say) to get all my flights covered for 3rd
party, I'd pay it. Not much money, added piece of mind if someone
decides to kick up a fuss if it lands in their garden, which has
alsmot happened to me on a couple of occasions (managed to talk them
out of it each time but that's not that reliable). Anything more
onerous than that would be not worth the trouble, to me. I don't think
we *have* to have insurance, my view so far has been really that if
you need insurance then get it, if you can't well then life is unfair
anyway, find another hobby.

What I do fear is what sometimes happens in situations like this where
someone suggest that approaching an insurer as a larger group (eg
UKHAS) and someone else then says "Yah OK so let's formalise UKHAS I
volunteer to be chairman who will be treasurer and what is my annual
stipend oh and can someone design membership cards no I don't like
that logo i need passwords to all the servers and that thing there is
DANGEROUS [risk distributions are binary to these people] so i hereby
ban you from using it" and soon you'll end up with UKRA, which seems
to be composed at a council level of a large proportion of people
without any proper employment and so with a lot of time on their hands
to hold bitter arguments with each other about inconsequential things
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law ). Whilst I caricature it,
I've already seen that kind of tendency from a couple of places when
the topic has been brought up before. Assuming I remain interested
enough in ballooning, having , I would/will probably fight the above
to the death.

So, a very affordable insurance policy that you have to do some
example flight to get in the style of the BMFA of UKRA (you can still
fly as before uninsured), and with probably a few grandfather rights
to old timers, and no other encroaching on my ability to try things,
and I'd be receptive to the idea. But if it comes at the cost of
'councils', which as I say some seem to extrapolate from the (on its
own sensible) suggestion that going as a group might be easier for
insurance, then I have reservations.

[Steve Aerospace]

Actually thats not strictly the case in the UK Dan (its a real mess) - people can just take out BMFA insurance and fly upto M class rockets (or larger with CAA approval) without joining UKRA or being certified. I won't go into it here other than to say the vast majority of UK amateur rocket people are sensible and join UKRA and to fly under UKRA rules including the certification scheme.

When I discussed HAB insurance with the BMFA their main concern was the uncontrolled nature of the landing spot. With rockets in the vast majority of cases the landing spot should be within the bounds of the launch site - or not that far away - typically downwind.  Not so with HABing. 

Steve

[Steve Aerospace]

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.

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.

[Russ Garrett]

On 22 July 2012 01:42, Steve Aerospace <st...@randomaerospace.com> wrote:
> 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.

And this is what specialist underwriters excel at. I think insurers
will be a lot more receptive to insuring 10-20 flights a year than
just one.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[John Graham-Cumming]

What happened when the payload landed on rail?

John.

[Mike Bessant]

Ed, 

I understand your concerns but I think we should be clear than nobody is suggesting that UKHAB evolve into an OfCom type agency that polices HAB activity. It should be run along the lines of the BMFA, with flyers joining if they feel more comfortable about having insurance but non-members would of course still be free to do their own thing. The idea would be to create choice not restrictions.

MikeB

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:53 AM, John Graham-Cumming <j...@jgc.org> wrote:

What happened when the payload landed on rail?

John.

[Neil Baker]

I too would expect this to be something that could be joined volenterily if people wanted to. I suspect that to be covered by any insurance that was arranged for members, that a certain set of rules would have to be drawn up and followed by members to maintain the insurance cover.   

I dont invisage this stopping anyone from launching independently. It'll hopefully enable insurance to be obtained if we are lucky and differenciate launches by members following rules from launches by individuals (should anything unfortunately happen). 

I'm not saying that individuals would be reckless , just that by being a group following rules it may enable us to distance ourselves from any one off incident by a non member. 

Just ideas. 

Neil

[MikeB]

Neil

The following details about BMFA insurance conditions may be of interest...http://www.bmfa.org/about/insurance.html

You certainly have to agree to some rules to get insurance cover but I have never found them to be enforced (at RC field or UKRA launch sites) in an officious or unhelpful  manner. A few sensible rules seems like a good trade-off for peace of mind. 

I'm not sure from the description of the BMFA cover whether a member that is not flying at a club, but adhering to the rules, is still insured. I think they maybe.

MikeB

 

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:03:26 PM UTC+1, Neil Baker wrote:

I too would expect this to be something that could be joined volenterily if people wanted to. I suspect that to be covered by any insurance that was arranged for members, that a certain set of rules would have to be drawn up and followed by members to maintain the insurance cover.   

I dont invisage this stopping anyone from launching independently. It'll hopefully enable insurance to be obtained if we are lucky and differenciate launches by members following rules from launches by individuals (should anything unfortunately happen). 

I'm not saying that individuals would be reckless , just that by being a group following rules it may enable us to distance ourselves from any one off incident by a non member. 

Just ideas. 

Neil

On Sunday, July 22, 2012, Mike Bessant wrote:

Ed, 

I understand your concerns but I think we should be clear than nobody is suggesting that UKHAB evolve into an OfCom type agency that polices HAB activity. It should be run along the lines of the BMFA, with flyers joining if they feel more comfortable about having insurance but non-members would of course still be free to do their own thing. The idea would be to create choice not restrictions.

MikeB

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:53 AM, John Graham-Cumming <j...@jgc.org> wrote:

What happened when the payload landed on rail?

John.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UKHAS" group.
To post to this group, send email to uk...@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=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UKHAS" group.
To post to this group, send email to uk...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ukhas+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[MikeB]

Yes, a good suggestion but I still think there would be a better chance of success if the approach was made by a group that agreed to work to a set of safety of rules. Therefore, should we first think about how best to make UKHAS a legal entity? 

MikeB

On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:09:17 AM UTC+1, PhilipM wrote:

It strikes me (no pun intended) that a good approach might be to see who underwrites BMFA insurance. Typically the trail will lead back to a big insurance name. Approaching them with the pitch of "you insure against rocket impacts, how about less risky balloons?" might work. The trick is giving them a benchmark, and since they have already priced the risk of rockets...

Hope this helps.

[Ed Moore]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM, MikeB <mikebes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, a good suggestion but I still think there would be a better chance of
> success if the approach was made by a group that agreed to work to a set of
> safety of rules. Therefore, should we first think about how best to make
> UKHAS a legal entity?

I don't see how it follows ('Therefore') that we should set up a legal
entity from your assertion that "the approach was made by a group that
agreed to work to a set of safety of rules". The two are not
particularly related, and as I set out in some detail above I fear the
kind of reflex that some people have, to go straight for legalism and
formal structure, unable to see that there are other ways.

Russ, who has some experience setting up hobby organisations like the
London Hackerspace, said earlier in this thread:

"I think the aim should not be to run launches under the UKHAS legal
entity, but provide a lightweight structure which can be used to
obtain insurance for its members."

The objective here is to get cheap insurance, not to form a legal
entity. A legal entity *might* end up being the only way to achieve
that, but we're not there yet. I only go on about this at length
because I have seen, a depressingly large number of times before,
people unable to abstract the problem they're trying to solve and
blindly charging headlong into legal structures and napoleonism and
bitter feuds and pompously grave circular emails to 'Dear Members Of
The Council Of UKHAS' full of CAPITALISED WORDS because they are
REALLY CONVINCED that everyone MUST do what they are suggestion.
People who have been frustrated in the Real World (tm) often seem to
be drawn these tiny ponds, where there exists no natural meritocratic
mechanism to get rid of them (eg if they were a business they'd have
gone bankrupt). It's pure Midsommer Murders. It should be a last
resort, if a properly convincing case has been made that it's worth
the price.

>
> MikeB
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:09:17 AM UTC+1, PhilipM wrote:
>>
>>
>> It strikes me (no pun intended) that a good approach might be to see who
>> underwrites BMFA insurance. Typically the trail will lead back to a big
>> insurance name. Approaching them with the pitch of "you insure against
>> rocket impacts, how about less risky balloons?" might work. The trick is
>> giving them a benchmark, and since they have already priced the risk of
>> rockets...
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>

> --
> 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/-/EBTo6zXbbmoJ.

>
> To post to this group, send email to uk...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> ukhas+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Dave]

----- Original Message -----

>Yes, a good suggestion but I still think there would be a better chance of success if the approach was made by a >group that agreed to work to a set of safety of rules. Therefore, should we first think about how best to make UKHAS a >legal entity? 

>MikeB

Oh great. More legal stuff...

 

How many of you, out there, who did this first thought that best way to have fun and experiment with high altitude balloons was to sit round a table and agree a set of rules, regulations, codes of practice and get insurance? My guess would be that non of the original minds on here thought about any of this.

 

Maybe, I'm guessing here because I'm a newbie, the original people knew that 1) there were some regulations about size of balloon and flight paths that they had to comply with and 2) they had to be careful about how they put their systems together and on collecting the payload back.

 

Now, as a professional Electrical Enginner, I've cringed at some of the stories I've heard about overhead lines, but it's not my business to tell people what they can and cannot do, but I'll offer my opinion if it is asked for.  If they get electrocuted then that is their problem, not mine. I am not my brothers keeper.

 

So, if you legislate you have to be sure you cover *every* eventuallity, otherwise, and I've seen this in professional life, the landsharks will be all over you, or you could just make each person responsible for their actions, as the law expects them to be, and they take their own decisions...

 

DAve (Morseman - G0DJA)

[Matthew Brejza]

Not that I wanted to get dragged into this, but here goes.

 

Everyone (well most) who have responded in this thread seems to have ignored to look at how the law works.

 

Very confusing the law is, you can’t just sue someone and expect to win because they made your day a bit crap by perhaps, as they see it, you caused damage to their car

 

Even Apple's lawyers can’t arbitrarily successfully sue for anything, there are a set of rules set in law that dictate what you can litigate for.

 

Rather then talking to insurance companies who will insure against anything they can make money out of, you should really be talking to a lawyer to see if you are liable.

 

Given that, I had a brief conversation with someone I know who has just completed her law degree, and while not an expert in this field, it does seem pretty fundamental stuff.

 

Overpassing that, this is what she had to say:

"

Now As long as you do what is 'just and reasonable' in legal terms to mitigate against any potential danger, ie in notifying air people, I personally think you'd be okay.

 

Now If it is 'so unlikely so as to not be in the reasonable contemplations of the person committing the tort' you'd be okay ... So if it's highly unlikely (which you said the odds were with that analogy!) and you've obviously taken stringent precautions, I personally think that you'd be more than okay.

 

As that's the test for negligence, which is the highest burden of proof if you were being sued for damage.

 

Got to remember it's all to do with the principle of 'force majeure' which is a freak/act of god event.

 

Indeed you would not be releasing the balloon next to a road anyway.

 

Very far removed is the likelihood of it causing the car to swerve from your contemplation in releasing the balloon that you could not possibly be expected to take any extra precautions over and above what you already make, you are not the factual cause because you didn't satisfy the but for test.

 

Even on the off chance that a court of law WOULD find you satisfied the test, the next stage of the burden of proof of negligence is to prove legal causations, & there is a 'novus actus interveniens' (intervening act) in a gust of wind blowing your balloon off course (point of law established in the court of appeal).

 

You see so even in worse case scenario there would never be a hope in hell of anything ultimately succeeding.

"

 

Of course if you still have unresolved issues, probably best to talk to someone who does this every day. Could even call an 'accident at work/no win no fee' accident lawyer and say you damaged your car due to something falling from the sky, and see what they have to say.

 

Unfortunately if you decide to talk to a solicitor they may decide to charge, but perhaps you could get a brief conversation

 

Ultimately you could compare to other situations. In the same way as you don’t need insurance to walk out of the house, just in case a car swerves because they think you’re about to run across the road when you just stepped out from behind a car, you don’t need insurance for a HAB. Another comparison would be needing insurance for a cat in case they run across a road.

 

Probably should bear in mind you could still be negligent, no launching bricks, no payload boxes covered in knives etc and you'll be fine :)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UKHAS" group.

To post to this group, send email to uk...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ukhas+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Dave]

 

----- Original Message -----

>Not that I wanted to get dragged into this, but here goes.

You just did ;-)

 

Forgive me if I missinterpreted anything, and I'm sure that you will come back if I did, but it seems to boil down to if a payload lands on someone, or something, then that person has to prove that you meant to hit them or their property or that you were in someway negligent in they way that you allowed the payload to be released and that it then hit them or their property.

 

Once released, it is at the mercy of the winds, so we are into the script of the film where a person who owns a boat seeks to sue God under the 'acts of God' clause in many insurance contracts.

 

Forgive me, I'm a simple engineer, but I can't see how I can be held directly accountable for releasing a balloon and small box into the wind if that then ends up falling, several miles away, in a place I had no idea that it would fall.  Otherwise, many of the things we all do, kicking balls, putting out washing or even dropping litter (which maybe of itself illegal anyway) could mean that you need insurance...

 

Dave (Morseman - G0DJA)

 

 

[Steve Aerospace]

Matthew - its a good point you make - we should probably seek a formal legal opinion on our activity and how liable we are. I know someone who has done exactly that for similar situations in amateur rocketry at the cost of several £Ks.

So what would happen if a case was brought against a HABer - who will pay the legal fees to fight the case if you are not insured?

Steve