My stmts concerning insurance were based ONLY on a verbal communication with my NON-AVEMCO insurance customer service dept. concerning the phrases
“…known inoperable safety equipment…”
and
“…standard airworthiness certificate in full force and effect…”
in the EXCLUSIONS section of my policy contract, which I indeed DID read before making the phone call.
(Emphasis in the quotes added to stress why I was asking in the first place.)
The legal meaning of the phrase “force and effect” isn’t the same as the normal dictionary meaning of the three words taken individually, apparently.
However, since I’m obviously too uneducated [:@] to pass on an opinion synthesized from other expert sources, I’ll crawl back under my rock and let you more wordly gentlemen continue the discussion.
Re your conclusions below, one item is absolutely clear.
I guess the placarding issue all really does boil down to:
(1) is UNRELIABLE the same thing as INOPERABLE?
(2) is the CAPS really a VFR-day type certification equipment item?
(3) is the CAPS required under 91.205?
(1) As the manufacturer was careful to NOT identify the CAPS as Inoperable, I see no reason why I’d argue with them. See previous post.
Therefore, the issue would only arise if the PIC or his A&P were to placard the CAPS as Inoperable. Then per your (2), the CAPS is absolutely required for VFR and IFR Flight, DAY or NIIGHT per the Kinds of Operation Equipment List pg.2-12 of the POH as referenced FAR 91.213(d)2(ii).
But, (2) is mute as long as you don’t go out and placard the CAPS as Inoperabe.
I did not intend my post as a flame… only an insurance agent who believes that the only thing most policyholders read is the named insured (to insure their name is correct) and the premium being charged… it is just a personal thing.
Your post to which I initially responded, was not written as specifically (or eloquently I might add) as the post to which I am now respond.
As to the Airworthiness Certificate being in full force and effect. Not following an SB from the manufacturer should not affect the airworthiness of an airplane, until such time as the FAA sees fit to issue an AD, and not following THAT would void your insurance coverage in most cases.
“known inoperable safety equipment”… I am not aware of that wording in any of the policies I deal with on a daily basis.
What companies policy, and on what page is that wording present. I would love to read and evaluate that. I have never seen that wording on a policy before. Perhaps it is I who needs to get under a rock…lol.
I’d add to this that issuing a generic SB that says there might be a problem with some CAPS units out there is very different to e.g. flying with an ADF that is specifically known to have a sticky needle. The vacuum pump disclaimer is a good example - we all know, and the manufacturer confirms, that vacuum pumps in general are prone to premature failure, but nobody can tell you in advance if your particular vacuum pump is going to fail prematurely, so there is no reason to placard it as inoperative.
I thought my policy (London Aviation Underwriters) was much more generic than what I read in other postings, so I checked:
“This policy does not apply under any coverage
a) to any aircraft while in flight when it does not bear a valid and currently effective “Standard Category” Airworthiness Certificate issued by the FAA (unless so declared by endorsement);”
(Anyone know what they mean by “Standard Category”?)
So, it revolves around what makes an airworthiness certificate not “effective”. The CAPS is required and it is operable. (Although, wonder how you test operability?) Ergo, the aircraft is covered.