The Deception about the Inception Rule: Coverage for VFR Pilots in IFR Conditions

Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Dec 1994

By Michael G. McQuillen, Published on 01/01/94

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=jalc

The Deception about the Inception Rule: Coverage for VFR Pilots in IFR Conditions

Journal of Air Law and Commerce The D eception about the Inception Rule: Coverage for VFR Pilots in IFR Conditions Michael G. McQuillen 0 0 Michael G. McQuillen, Th e Deception about the Inception Rule: Coverage for VFR Pilots in IFR Conditions, 60 J. Air L. & Com. 179 (1994) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol60/iss1/3 - Article 3 THE DECEPTION ABOUT THE INCEPTION RULE: COVERAGE FOR VFR PILOTS IN IFR CONDITIONS MICHAEL G. MCQUILLEN* * J.D., John Marshall Law School; Partner, Adler, Kaplan and Begy, Chicago, Ill. VI. VII. INTRODUCTION 1992 a total of 1662 general aviation' aircraft accidents loccurred with an average of one fatal accident per day.2 I The phrase "general aviation" refers to "[a] 11civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and nonscheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire." FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AIRMAN'S INFORMATION MANUAL G-1, May 27, 1993 [hereinafter AIM]. (Pilots are required to have obtained instruction on the use of the AIM during their private pilot training. 14 C.F.R. § 61.105 (a) ( 1 ) (1993)). Recent legislation proposing a federal statute of repose defines a "General Aviation Aircraft" as an aircraft with a maximum seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers that was not, at the time of the accident, engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations. H.R. Rep. No. 3087, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. § b (1993). 2 AOPA AIR SAFETY FOUNDATION, JOSEPH T. NALL GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REPORT, 2 (1992). Although the causes of the accidents were numerous, weather-related accidents accounted for at least forty percent of the general aviation fatalities.' The leading weather-related cause was "VFR flight into IMC. '' 4 A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 5 report concluded that VFR (Visual Flight Rules) 6 flight into IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) 7 was a factor in 361 general aviation accidents between 1983 and 1987 that resulted in 583 fatalities.8 These statistics indicate that most VFR-into-IMC accidents yield disastrous results. 9 When a non-instrument rated pilot is involved in this type of accident, a dispute frequently develops between the pilot (or his estate) and his insurer on the issue of whether liability coverage exists for the occurrence. This article analyzes the judicial decisions that discuss the issue of whether a non-instrument rated pilot, who is allowed to fly only under Visual Flight Rules, is properly rated for a flight when he suffers an accident after flying into s Id. at 11. 4 Id. at 21. The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent agency of the United States charged with investigating civil aircraft accidents and determining the probable cause thereof. 49 U.S.C. app. § 1902-03(a) (1988). 6 See infra notes 10, 12-19 and accompanying text. 7 See infra notes 20-26 and accompanying text. 8 GeneralAviation Accidents Involving VisualFlightRules Right Into Instrument Meteorological Conditions, National Transportation Safety Board, Report No. NTSB/SR-89/ 01, February 8, 1989, at i [hereinafter NTSB Report]. This report indicates that the typical VFR-into-IFR conditions accident involves a 35 to 54-year-old non-instrument rated private pilot who crashes his own single engine aircraft after encountering low visibility conditions during daylight hours in the cruise portion of a pleasure flight. Id. at 15, 17, 18, 21, 25. In most cases the pilot has less than 500 total hours, with less than 200 hours in the type of aircraft involved and less than 10 hours of instrument experience. Id. at 19-21, 23. For a general discussion of the VFR-into-IFR accident, see Thomas A. Horne, The VFR-Into-IMC Accident, AOPA PILOT, July 1993, at 111 ("[M]ost pilots know the dangers of attempting VFR flight in instrument meteorological conditions. That goes double for taking on low ceilings and visibilities without the benefit of an instrument rating."); Thomas A. Horne, VFR Into IMC, AOPA PILOT, January 1992, at 91 ("In most cases, the pilot has prior knowledge of the possibility of low visibilities and/or ceilings from a preflight weather briefing."); John M. Likakis, VFR-to-IFR PilotsFace Deadly Odds,AVIATION SAFETY, April 1, 1988, at 1 ("One of the most prominent characteristics of the VFR-into-IFR accident is the propensity for pilots to press on into the weather ... in full knowledge of the danger."). weather conditions requiring the application of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). During the past twenty years, only a handful of cases have discussed the issue. As demonstrated below, some of those cases have held that where the insurance policy denies coverage if the pilot is not properly rated for "the flight" involved, the weather conditions prevailing at the time and place of departure will determine whether the pilot was properly rated for the flight. Courts have reached this conclusion even where the pilot, after a VFR takeoff, encountered and crashed in IFR conditions. This rule is known as the "incept (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=jalc

Michael G. McQuillen. The Deception about the Inception Rule: Coverage for VFR Pilots in IFR Conditions, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 1994, Volume 60, Issue 1,