FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1915
1915 - 0865.PDF
Flight, November 12, 1915 S\i? J K First Aero Weekly in the World. Founder and Editor: STANLEY SPOONER. A Journal d«oted to th« Iftt"««», Practice, and Frofreti of A.riai Loeomotio. m4 Trmn.port. OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE ROYAL AERO CLUB OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. No. 359. (No. 46, Vol. VII.)] NOVEMBER 12, 1915. [-Registered at the G.P.O.T TWeekly, Prioe 3d. L as a Newspaper. J |_ Post Free, Sid- lifp&t. Editorial Office; 44, ST. MARTIN'S LANE, LONDON, W.C. Telegrams: Truditur, Westrand, London. Telephone: Gerrard 1828. Annual Subscription Rates, Post Free. United Kingdom ... lit. ad. Abroad tor. ad. CONTENTS. Editorial Comment: Small Property Insurance The Flying Services Fund Pilots The Roll of Honour Aircraft Work at the Front. Official Information The British Air Services Further Rewards for R.F.C. Officers Constructional Details ... ... ... ... ... ... Royal Aero Club. Official Notices From the British Flying Grounds Flying at Hendon London's 1915-16 Lord Mayor—Sir Charles C. Wakefield Armchair Reflections. By the " Dreamer " The Otto Biplanes Eddies. By".iEolus" Correspondence... The " Arrival " of the Aeroplane. By Algernon E. Berriman The Work of the Balloons Lighter Than Air Imports and Exports, 1914-15 ... PAGE ,. 865 ,. 866 . 366 ,. 866 B69 870 872 873 875 876 877 878 B79 885 885 EDITORIAL COMMEMT. Small Property Insurance. Without question the announcement in Parliament, on Tuesday, of the Govern ment's extension of the air-risks insurance scheme to cover the poor man's goods, will be welcomed throughout the country. Its intro duction is but a tacit acknowledgment of what we originally advocated—that damage by aircraft should be a National liability and not a penalisation upon individual members of the community. Too late this view has since dawned upon a very large section of that com munity. Had action in this direction been taken a year or more ago when we started the idea, there is little doubt that, with the influential interests which have since been brought to back up the question on the same lines, all such damage would have been regarded as a natural item to debit to the general cost of the War. As we said a month or two ago, however, it is now hardly worth while re-opening this question, since the scheme as put into operation by the Govern ment appears to have met with instant success, and after all, any surplus revenue derived from the premiums will go directly to benefit the pockets of the taxpayers in relief of taxes in other directions. Undoubtedly the absence of any insurance policy being accepted under ^100 was a blot upon the scheme. By the creation of the ^25, ^50 and ;£75 policies, this unfairness has been met, whilst the method of its administration through the Post Office is an admirable one. Most of the usual formalities of an ordinary policy are thus obviated, and we think that there is likely to be a very brisk business in these small coverings the moment the scheme is in working order. It must be remembered however slight, intrinsically, the value of the poor man's home may be, the bits and pieces which make up each household are to the individual person or family //ome, and there should be an atmosphere of greater rest from anxiety, with those seeking the benefit of these small policies, with the knowledge that destruction of their treasured household gods does not mean a fresh struggle to replace their loss. In regard to the larger policies, a question has arisen in connection with the interpretation of the clauses of the Government policy, which is a formal printed docu ment. It would appear from a correspondent to the Times that a house which was insured by him through a company under the Government scheme, was slightly damaged by enemy bombs and that the greater part of the claim was admitted. But the Government office declined to pay the balance because it related to the reinstatement of a small building in the same curtilage, though separate from the house, which was not separately insured in the policy. He states that he has reason to believe that the insurance company, which had already on its own account insured the property against ordinary fire risks, would have met the claim, although not legally liable, especially as the sum insured was sufficient to cover the small outbuilding as well as the main structure. The correspondent's suggestion is that in the light of this experience it certainly behoves property-owners to examine their policies and revise them if they have a separate structure not specially insured. It is to be hoped that there are exceptional circum stances about this particular case, as by all-round mutual arrangements, competition amongst the companies for this aircraft business was tabooed, it being suggested by the Government that the public should arrange their policies through the same office where their fire risks were covered, and that the amount should be identical
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
