 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
 |
|
Very common in Alaska for pilots to go without insurance, because few
have significant assets and insurance is so expensive. A more
conservative compromise was to go liability only. As was mentioned, I
went with liability and not in motion hull, just to protect against what
could happen while plane was tied down....fire, theft, wind damage,
other planes colliding into it.
In fact, when I moved to AZ, I was able to get full liability and in
flight hull for what the liability and not in motion cost me in Alaska.
I think the not in motion coverage is a great option for homebuilders,
because if you ding it, you can fix it yourself, and from the build
experience you are well prepared for that kind of work.
I don't know if any brokers offer it, but seems to me the ideal would be
a hull coverage with a very high deductible, so they wouldn't have to
pay for hangar rash, scraped wing tip, etc, but were there if you had
substantial damage.
linn wrote:
| Quote: | -
That's something I should do too. I just never thought about it.
The bottom line is if you can stand the complete loss .... salvage
doesn't usually pay much .... or have the means to fix it, then you
should be comfortable not having insurance. Just make sure that your
assets are protected from a lawsuit.
We've all lost friends, and their friends, in airplane accidents .....
and you have to weigh the causes with an open mind .... and compare
those losses with all the successful flights we make every day. It's
a gamble, and the odds are you will live to be an old pilot if you
survive all your stupid mistakes. I've survived my share.
Best of luck to everyone ..... just be comfortable with your insurance
decision.
Linn
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:43 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Just checked with Falcon Insurance (EAA) They say no company writes $10k
deductible for aircraft insurance.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Quick follow up to this:
** New Slick mag SB comes out: "I'm not going to
do that right now.....these SB's/AD's don't apply
to us anyway and it's been running just fine.
** Van's releases tail bulkhead crack SB: "I don't
really think it's worth doing right now, after all,
we don't know that there's even a problem....only
Van's demo has had cracks"
Those are just another couple of examples of the types
of things you hear when a known problem is found.
Now if we were flying certified planes, we'd be forced
to deal with them in the way the companies think is
best. But we get a significant amount of comments
here that indicate that not everyone really cares to
deal with these things in a timely fashion, or maybe
at all...
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Tim Olson wrote:
| Quote: |
This will ruffle some feathers I'm sure, but, I really think
there are a few things that will work against it for a few years
yet.
#1. A small risk-pool. We need a lot more than the
small number of RV's that would likely sign up to get the
risk pool large enough. I know it's not RV-10's ONLY
that would be part of it, but, there are less than 200
RV-10's listed as flying, and the RV-10 is the only one
of the RV's that is looking like a real insurance hurdle.
Why the hurdle? Hull value, and 4 seats. So we're unique
in our rate problmes. Many other RV-ers will be plenty happy
to just pay their normal, many years experienced, big
corporation owned insurance policy, knowing it has a
track record. I myself even at $2,750 would be hard
to pull away from a known-good-reputation company.
The hull value is what makes the rate so high, for even
someone with > 400 hours in RV-10's now, and plenty of
total time and Instrument rating. When I compare the rates
I paid on a Sundowner, really if you adjust for the hull
value differences, I'm actually paying less. This doesn't
negate any benefits of what was proposed, but it's one of
those things that I'm not willing to switch for something
that isn't a super-firmly back and stringent plan, with
real big financial benefits. I just paid $140/yr more
for Global, just because of some little additional
benefits that I'll probably never use. I don't think I'd
be willing to give up any of the added frills for even
a $500/yr or more savings.
#2. This is the kicker for me, personally. The plan that
you guys were working on was very very open, open to all,
and it didn't screen out situations to the degree that I
would be comfortable being part of.
For instance, alternative engines, low-time pilots, and
unknown build quality. The goal of the plan was to provide
lower cost insurance, and get a large pool of RV's in it.
But, if there are going to be lots of "unknowns", and some
real, true "experimenters" in it, I'm not nearly as comfortable
with the risk. Our first RV-10 crash was an experimental
engine, and the plane was built and flown with so many
questionable issues that it was a perfect illustration. I'm
very sure that had he been around to join that insurance
plan, he would have gladly joined....and nobody would have
complained a bit about it. I'm NOT saying that
alternative engines are bad, but, if you watch the track
records of accidents, they do have more incidents in
many areas. They are for those who want to do some real
experimenting. One of the other 2 crashes involved some
pretty poor airmanship, which sounds like poor autopilot/EFIS
use, or unfamiliarity. This leads into the other half
of this issue. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN MANY cases of real
lack of standards in our own little community. I'm sorry
if one of you readers sees yourself in this comment, but
I have seen many many situations where people have had
poor wiring, unprotected wiring, have COMPLETELY ignored
calibrations of their equipment and programming of alarm
limits, completed ENTIRE FLYOFF Periods without ever
calibrating their EFIS magnetometer, Completed 70+ hours
of flying without properly configuring an engine monitor,
and then ADJUSTING THE OIL PRESSURE on the engine because
the reading was too high, rather than set the oil pressure
sensor to the proper setting. And there is just more and
more and more. Now NONE of those people were bad people,
and none WANTED to have an issue, but some of them
have LOTS of building/flying experience yet they STILL
do not follow through with things like calibrations,
and other things. It happens just way too often, almost
consistently. This is the problem in the risk pool
that we'd have to be signing up with. At least in a
certified plane, you can reasonably expect that
Cessna/Piper/Beech have calibrated and configured the
EFIS properly, and done their diligence. Heck, if you
buy a G900 system, the dealers are supposedly REQUIRED
to complete the calibrations and setup for you...they
aren't supposed to allow you to just D-I-Y. But,
we're allowed to D-I-Y on our planes for the most part,
and not everyone actually really follows through on all
of those good suggestions. Not everyone goes for real
transition training. Not everyone builds to the same
quality standard. Not everyone has a stock plane, and
any mod is allowed.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like a pretty harsh rant.
It's not meant to discourage the people from looking
for better insurance opportunities, and it's certainly
not intended to offend anyone. I've made some
mistakes too, and forgotten things. It can happen
to anyone. But some things like not calibrating
your EFIS for 40+ hours are just plain ridiculous
in my mind, and show a real lack of common sense.
Those aren't "oops I forgots"...they're "I just really
want to get this baby flown off" things, that are the
same exact attitudes that kill people from flying
through thunderstorms. And don't even get me started
on people who don't read the manuals, watch videos,
or get to know their new EFIS systems that we all
put in our homebuilts... It's all part of being a
diligent builder and flier. Unfortunately, with
some of the flexibility we are given in building,
equipping, and and maintaining, I think there are
some valid reasons why companies are reluctant to cover
us at any real low cost. And while we aren't in the
same accident statistic category as the Lancair builders
seem to be, we still have 3 total losses with 4 fatalities
in the first 150 or so flying RV-10s, and it would be
nice if we don't see any more.
So if we had a maybe more cohesive group, that would
do some things like cross-inpections of eachother's planes,
and had some variable rates for variable risk levels
and pilot experience, then I think after we get maybe
500 flying RV-10's we may have a good opportunity.
The catch is, as in #1 above, the benefits have to be so
absolutely guaranteed that it would make even the most
happy-to-pay AIG/Global RV-10 builder jump ship and
get on board.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Bob Kaufmann wrote:
> That could be but until we get shown support it ain’t going to happen.
>
>
>
> Bob K
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *gary
> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
> on the policy
>
>
>
> As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were
> doing something, but I was still building and had my mind on other
> things. Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect
> others are more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and
> near flying, it might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10
> community again and see if now the time is right. I know it is a lot
> of work, but it might be well worth it.
>
>
>
> Gary Specketer
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Kaufmann
> *Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
> *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots
> on the policy
>
>
>
> A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
> these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
> because the community of RV 10s wouldn’t support it for about $2500 a
> year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
>
>
>
> Bob K
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
> *To:* Matronics RV10 - List
> *Subject:* Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
> the policy
>
>
>
> Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Kevin
> 40494
> tail/empennage
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:52 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Although we don't condone the don't know and don't care attitude, we
understand the difference between an AD and an SB in the certified world.
SBs are still optional there for not for hire aircraft. I have examined the
SB for the slick mags and determined that one mag is outside the widest
envelope and the other is in the first two weeks of the earliest date.
Knowing the mentality of the lawyers,I am taking a wait and see approach and
checking to see if timing changes dramatically which will indicate the need
to do something. With respect to the Van's issued SB on the tail, We are
again watching the situation. Certified airplanes don't attract an SB for a
single airplane problem. If the problem is super serious an emergency AD
will be issued. We have had the Van's patch analyzed by friends who are
stress engineers at the big airplane company. Until they can suggest a means
to actually fixing the problem (if it exists in more than their prototype)
we inspect. Incidentally where Van's calls for AN3 bolts we are using
Hilocks which have an interference fit and have no play in the hole. So
although we have not accomplished the SBs we have seriously examined them
and will comply if we see signs of problems or the engineers come up with a
real fix rather than the doublers.
A couple of A&Ps and a couple of stress engineers.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nukeflyboy
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Granbury, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Tim,
You are right on target. Time and time again we have seen builders in this forum with "better" ideas on aircraft construction than the engineers at Van's. Most don't understand the difference between tension and compression and couldn't do a stress calc if their life depended on it.
"I don't have to do the AD because it doesn't apply to experimentals".
"That SB is too much trouble and isn't necessary." They are reckless in my mind. Caveat emptor to anyone that buys an experimental.
The FAA gives us enough rope to hang ourselves. That's why insurance companies have so many restrictions. It's all about risk management and they know that FAA legal doesn't mean squat. Three fatal crashes out of 200 flying is horrible. A $2500 - $3000 policy on a $150,000 aircraft is cheap when you consider that virtually ever crash results in a lawsuit. If you don't like the cost then blame the lawyers and the crappy pilots that fly the airplanes, not the insurance companies.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Dave Moore
RV-6 built and sold
RV-10 built and flying |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
