Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.19.112.15; envelope-from=jwvoto@itlnet.net
Message-ID: <380-2200685401540254@itlnet.net>
From: jwvoto@itlnet.net
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA Sport Aviation
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 19:15:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I dropped EAA several years ago, figured the $40 could be better
spent=2E However, Some good might have been done with the sport pilot
license=2E  I also dropped the Avemco insurance on my project when I
became aware that I couldn't get coverage for the first flight=2E  More
$ saved to go to project=2E

Wendell

---- Original Message ----
From: eanderson@carolina=2Err=2Ecom
To: flyrotary@lancaironline=2Enet
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA Sport Aviation
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:02:08 -0400

>MessageI ensured my Rotary powered aircraft with AVEMCO from 1997
>until 2004=2E  Even though I continued to add hours to my "experiment"
>and my own personal flying hours=2E  The price continues to increase
>significantly each year despite the fact that increase in operational
>flying hours would normally have indicated that risk was reduced=2E
>
>Switched to SkySmith and AIG and my premium dropped 1/2 with the same
>coverage=2E
>
>There is no doubt that the EAA certainly does not support or foster
>the true experimenter any more=2E  The Magazine has become useless from
>the standpoint of providing a  means of learning what the "average"
>experimenter is doing=2E  I mean when the EAA cover presents an
>restored "Pink" Cessna aircraft =2E=2E=2E=2E=2E Well, what more can I sa=
y=2E  Its
>not that EAA has attempted to include these none experimenters, its
>that is completely abandoned the folks that made it successful=2E
>
>Back to the door hydraulic work=2E
>
>Ed
>  ----- Original Message -----=20
>  From: Russell Duffy=20
>  To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20
>  Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:36 AM
>  Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA Sport Aviation
>
>
>  That makes sense=2E Why would EAA help insure an Experimental
>aircraft=20
>  with Experimental engine=3F
>
>
>  For the record, I'm as unhappy with the EAA as many of you are, but
>unless the EAA organization becomes large enough to directly insure
>aircraft, they will not have much control over the insurance
>situation=2E =20
>
>  As it was explained to me, the original deal between the EAA and
>Avemco was to insure every aircraft for at least liability coverage,
>and most for full coverage=2E  It would seem that Avemco didn't think
>this through very well, and found themselves being asked to cover
>aircraft that were just way too risky to insure=2E  As time went on,
>Avemco started saying no to more and more people, and the EAA
>reminded them of their promise=2E  At that point, Avemco said fine,
>then we just won't be your insurance program anymore=2E =20
>
>  Of course Avemco is just like every other insurance company, in
>that they don't want to insure something they aren't convinced is a
>good risk=2E  That means the EAA had to move on to the best option they
>had, which certainly doesn't include any promise to insure everyone=2E=20=

>
>
>  As usual, the true bad guy is the insurance company=2E  BTW, State
>Farm just increased all FL homeowners policies by 53%!!!  Yippee=2E=2E=2E=

>
>  Cheers,
>  Rusty (hate paying $500/mo for all my insurance)
>   =20
>
>
>