[Username Protected]

Hello everyone,

Has anyone noticed or talked about the clause in the CAE training agreement regarding insurance? Our policy certainly does not have anywhere close to the limits being required so 1 week prior to the start of recurrent we realized we would not be able to use CAE. A previous insurance policy we had, specifically excluded Norton and named CAE as the only acceptable supplier of training. So now we are scrambling to find a way to continue operations while having a gap in training.

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up on this as you all head to recurrent. Check your policies so you don't end up in the same situation. I have included the insurance requirement clause in the training agreement below.

5.2. Insurance: Prior to the commencement of Training Services, Client will provide ECTS with a certificate of insurance
evidencing the following insurance coverage:
Aircraft
Type
Commercial use (airlines, air taxi, charter or charter
management companies) Personal use
Phenom
100
US $50,000,000 (fifty million United States Dollars) per
occurrence/combined single limit
US $20,000,000 (twenty million United States Dollars) per
occurrence/combined single limit
Phenom
300
US $50,000,000 (fifty million United States Dollars) per
occurrence/combined single limit
US $30,000,000 (thirty million United States Dollars) per
occurrence/combined single limit
5.3. All certificates of insurance required under the Agreement shall provide that:
5.3.1. The insurance policy or policies evidenced thereby may not be canceled or materially altered unless at least thirty
(30) days prior written notice of such cancellation or material alteration is provided to ECTS;
5.3.2. There will be no recourse against Indemnitees for payment of premiums;
5.3.3. Client shall obtain from the carriers waivers of all rights of subrogation against Indemnitees with respect to losses
payable under such policies, and will cause Indemnitees to be added as ''additional insured'' under said insurance
policies. ECTS has the right to carry additional and separate insurance for its own benefits at its own expense
without limiting Client's obligations and Client's insurance will be primary without right of contribution from any other
insurance which may be carried by ECTS and all other Indemnitees.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected),

I had this issue back in 2019. My CAE contact recommended "If you would like to print it out, and revise the coverage amount you agree to, and initial it, I can submit that for approval." So I revised it to $5M which was my policy at the time:



The response: "Good afternoon, I am going to attach this to your account. I got the ok to accept the amendments to the coverage."

So make sure to ask before you cancel any recurrents.

[Username Protected]

That's great advise from (Username Protected). These liability limits from CAE are completely unreasonable for a Phenom 100 owner pilot's insurance policy, which typically max out at $5,000,000 per occurrence. Have your broker issue the Additionally Insured certificate with the Waiver of Subrogation and, if CAE asks, assure them it's the highest liability limit available for your operation.

We have seen similar insurance contracts from FBOs like Atlantic, Signature, and previously Ross Aviation. Also from Pratt & Whitney when loaner engines are used. The reason they have these high requirements is to cover their back end, but they will accept much lower liability limits.

Keep pressing them and don't cancel your training slot.

[Username Protected]

I ran into this issue with my last recurrent as well. Discovered the language about 6 weeks before going in and they refused to lower it. Thankfully Norton was able to squeeze me in so I guess I'm done with CAE.

--(Username Protected)

[Username Protected]

Considering that Phenom is its a popular jet worldwide, this Training Monopoly has to stop. It is affecting operations. We are not flying to the moon, LOL.

We need to start a campaign to get EMB to allow other training facilities to support the growth with this aircraft. This starts with the corporate office in their quest to keep CAE the only game in town.

My two cents

[Username Protected]

100 percent agreed it's a monopoly which doesn't exist for lots of the CJ class of aircraft - LOFT comes to mind as an alternate to Flight Safety in certain models. The requirement from CAE on the insurance end shows complete ignorance to what is actually available in today's insurance climate. It's ridiculous to require $50m - as a good portion of 100/300's are flown/insured single-pilot and $50m is typically not even available for most risks (certain policy under fleet mgmt and other arrangements may have $50m but by and large most that are pro-flown single-pilot aren't even carrying nor can acquire $50m limits). Someone in CAE's risk management team needs a dose of today's single-pilot operated insurance (Username Protected)et reality.

[Username Protected]

We need to start a campaign to get EMB to allow other training facilities to support the growth with this aircraft. This starts with the corporate office in their quest to keep CAE the only game in town.

I don't think there is an EMB policy against someone offering Phenom training outside of ECTS. I talked to two simulator companies about building a Phenom simulator (without OEM support) and got soft quotes, but it was tough to make the financial numbers work. Will be glad to share if someone is interested in investing

I reached out to some Embraer contacts about the ECTS coverage amounts, will report back.

[Username Protected]

Embraer is a partner with CAE in the training and sim business. They should know the practical limits, but on the other hand, their motivation to allow Norton (which I think is often better) is limited by their profit motive.

[Username Protected]

Also Jeff Mossy (310-966-7655) is an option for in-aircraft training which is approved by insurance companies like W Brown and potentially Starr upon request and underwriter approval.

[Username Protected]

I had the same issue, I took the info from CAE to my insurance company and they said they would not even write those kinds of limits for a part 91 operator. They then told me to skip CAE and gave me approval to do my recurrent with Norton. Cheaper, Faster and more convenient than a trip to Dallas anyhow. CAE attorneys will protect them right out of the training business with these policies.

[Username Protected]

So does this mean that if you don't own an aircraft, or don't own one YET, that you can't train with CAE?

I'm surprised that they would even require insurance, being is that you're just sitting in a classroom and a simulator with them and not in an aircraft.

[Username Protected]

I thought the same thing, but if there were an incident, going after the training as a contributing cause seems like a move that any lawyer would do.

[Username Protected]

I posed the same question to them with no reply. Their explanation was they fear being sued from an accident where lack of proper training may be cited as an actionable cause in a lawsuit. I'm not aware this has ever happened, but like everything else in aviation the attorney's make sure the deepest pockets are picked.

[Username Protected]

I posed the same question to them with no reply. Their explanation was they fear being sued from an accident where lack of proper training may be cited as an actionable cause in a lawsuit. I'm not aware this has ever happened, but like everything else in aviation the attorney's make sure the deepest pockets are picked.

it is one thing for CAE to wish to be insulated additional insured/waiver on the trainee's policy - which most if not all trainers require anyway. It's another thing to have insurance requirements which are completely out of touch with insurance (Username Protected)et reality in the aviation space. THAT is the issue not so much that they are requiring to be listed on your policy.

[Username Protected]

it is one thing for CAE to wish to be insulated additional insured/waiver on the trainee's policy - which most if not all trainers require anyway. It's another thing to have insurance requirements which are completely out of touch with insurance (Username Protected)et reality in the aviation space. THAT is the issue not so much that they are requiring to be listed on your policy.

I completely understand any trainer doing in aircraft training asking for an also insured rider. I would ask for the same protection. But I don't think the same thing should be a requirement for sim training. I have never been asked for anything even close to this from Flight Safety. Some common sense litigation limits and maybe a jury or two finally saying no to awarding huge judgments against parties with little to no direct involvement in aviation accidents would do more to revive aviation than any other single action.

[Username Protected]

1. When I asked ECTS they replied - in writing - that requirement was for in-aircraft training only, n/a for sim training.

2. As for other providers (for sim training), A couple thoughts:
- Embraer probably will never (my guess) open that door as long as they own ECTS with CAE.
- Embraer can never stop you from training with any provider you and your insurance agree to that will accept you for training. (Remember Flex uses SimCom and Netjets uses FSI.)

(Username Protected)
https://www.(Username Protected)aviation.com

[Username Protected]

fwiw, I negotiated a change to the agreement for my initial to reflect my actual insurance limits and didn’t get any pushback. That said, they never requested the proof of insurance, has anyone here ever been forced to provide it?

[Username Protected]

I completely understand any trainer doing in aircraft training asking for an also insured rider. I would ask for the same protection. But I don't think the same thing should be a requirement for sim training. I have never been asked for anything even close to this from Flight Safety. Some common sense litigation limits and maybe a jury or two finally saying no to awarding huge judgments against parties with little to no direct involvement in aviation accidents would do more to revive aviation than any other single action.

Correct (Username Protected) - for simulator providers such as FSI, LOFT, Simcom, Legacy etc I have yet to see them ask for additional insured/waiver when training in the sims. I have seen Simcom and Legacy ask for it when a portion of the training is in-airplane to your point. Bot(Username Protected) line is CAE's requirement is overreaching and absurd considering today's insurance envi(Username Protected)ment/limit availability for most operators.

[Username Protected]

fwiw, I negotiated a change to the agreement for my initial to reflect my actual insurance limits and didn’t get any pushback. That said, they never requested the proof of insurance, has anyone here ever been forced to provide it?

I insure a lot of Phenom clients and it's actually not very common that we provide CAE with certificates of insurance. Curious as to how these requests for limits are being requested from CAE to owners? I just spoke to W Brown and Starr and neither of them are familiar with this request from CAE....

[Username Protected]

I'm on my 5th training event at CAE and have never been asked once for proof of insurance. So this is all a bit confusing.

[Username Protected]

I am interested in a Phenom 300 sim. It would be interesting to learn how many others are as well. We might be able to convince someone who has experience in the area (such as Aviatek) to make a number of these sims for $x amount per unit.

[Username Protected]

I'm on my 5th training event at CAE and have never been asked once for proof of insurance. So this is all a bit confusing.

Sounds like this subject has been over exaggerated. CAE doesn't require a COI for sim training. This has been confirmed by two of my underwriters...

[Username Protected]

Also Jeff Mossy (310-966-7655) is an option for in-aircraft training which is approved by insurance companies like W Brown and potentially Starr upon request and underwriter approval.

Alas Jeff Moss and other Phenom specialist CFIs are not a solution. I know...having done my type rating in my former Phenom 300 with Mossy, my insurance (Starr at the time) required me to still go to CAE within the first year for recurrent, and also required that anyone including Mossy performing instruction in the aircraft go to CAE at least annually.

I don't have any idea how these folks deal with the liability requirements, because they don't own or operate airplanes. They just teach in them.

pmf

[Username Protected]

Sounds like this subject has been over exaggerated. CAE doesn't require a COI for sim training. This has been confirmed by two of my underwriters...

Either way CAE/ECTS needs to clean up their paperwork and communication on this matter. I have fired off some emails pointing them to this thread.

[Username Protected]

I didn’t easily find it with one search, but wasn’t there an announcement at the last NBAA at their “GA pavilion” where there was a discussion of a in-plane training + CAE + insurance “solution” for these challenges?

[Username Protected]

Below is the document CAE asked me to sign. Perhaps they never actually ask for the cert even though they say it is required. In any case, I wasn't going to arrive in Dallas and have the whole trip go to waste on the chance they asked for it. I consider it serendipitous, my training at Norton was great.

[Username Protected]

Below is the document CAE asked me to sign. Perhaps they never actually ask for the cert even though they say it is required. In any case, I wasn't going to arrive in Dallas and have the whole trip go to waste on the chance they asked for it. I consider it serendipitous, my training at Norton was great.

This was also the contract I was asked to sign. They told me this was a standard contract and it was for SIM training. I told them I would not sign a contract stating I was doing something I had no intentions to do. I'm sure many folks signed it without looking close. I don't believe this is being exaggerated as I spent several weeks trying to get this contract modified or the insurance clause removed. It was my insurance provider after reviewing the contract that decided to not utilize CAE.

[Username Protected]

100 percent (Username Protected) - (Username Protected) the original poster on this thread is a client of mine and when he advised me of this liability limit requirement I suggested there must be some error. My experience like most others is CAE has NEVER asked for a cert for any type of sim training and I have been doing this for 20 years through thousands of 'events' at the CAE facilities. Sure as heck (Username Protected) produced the same paperwork you posted here but his required $50m limits if I recall on first blush. It's amazing an organization like this is so disorganized and completely inconsistent in their message to the client.

(Username Protected)- Are you in touch with Marc Parent?

[Username Protected]

The following is an excerpt from an email I received from a senior legal advisor on December 22, 2022 in regards to my questioning the need for liability limits as proposed in the CAE contract they wanted me to sign for SIM training. I removed any names as I do not have specific permission to share this email.


Hi XXXXXX, it sounds like your client does not understand why we require that our clients have aviation or comprehensive general liability insurance in place when they are training in simulators, not airplanes. His concern is understandable. The answer is that this requirement is necessary to assure that the client has adequate liability insurance, and has added CAE as additional insured, for any post-training airplane accident or incident. The separate requirement of workers comp and employers liability insurance is intended to cover client injury at the training center, including during simulator training. Because the fees CAE charges for its training services are disproportionately low compared to potential liability from an airplane accident, CAE requires that its clients carry this insurance and include us as additional insured. Were it otherwise, CAE would have to carry more insurance at far greater cost, which we would have to pass on to our clients as higher prices.

[Username Protected]

I began looking for an initial training slot in January, was told CAE was a year out and I was put on a waiting list. After quite a bit of back and forth I was able to get an initial slot at Simcom Orlando in June. They have some kind of agreement where if CAE is booked out, you can go to Simcom. Seems like it's not very well known.

Considering that Phenom is its a popular jet worldwide, this Training Monopoly has to stop. It is affecting operations. We are not flying to the moon, LOL.

We need to start a campaign to get EMB to allow other training facilities to support the growth with this aircraft. This starts with the corporate office in their quest to keep CAE the only game in town.

My two cents