Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3187342 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:52:11 -0400 Received: from EDWARD (clt25-78-058.carolina.rr.com [24.25.78.58]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i3O1q8Sn009146 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601c4299e$c3544d30$2402a8c0@EDWARD> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Fw: Auto conversions Insurance??? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:52:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C4297D.3C10A0B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C4297D.3C10A0B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageAttached, is a series of e mails I exchanged with Bob Mack of the = EAA staff, who appears to have a good understanding of the Insurance = problem. While he does not at this time offer any pancreatic solution, = he does offer some suggestions and does indicate it is not impossible to = find insurance. Read from Bottom message UP if you want the correct time sequence. Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bob Mackey=20 To: 'Ed Anderson'=20 Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: RE: Auto conversions Insurance??? Good Afternoon Ed! It's been a couple of busy weeks! Last week at the 2004 Sun 'n Fun EAA = Fly-In and this week working to catch up..... Yes, you definitely have my permission to post my response to your = questions regarding Mazda based engines, both complete packages and = "roll-your-own" designs. Please, if you can, remind everyone each = situation is different, which is one of the great things about = experimental aviation, however there is a down-side, which we've already = discussed. Thanks for allowing me to try and help. I that was the case! Happy building and flying! Bob -----Original Message----- From: Ed Anderson [mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:26 PM To: Bob Mackey Subject: Re: Auto conversions Insurance??? Hi Bob, just got back from Sun & Fun 2004. We had five rotary powered RV aircraft there. One averaged 216 = MPH with a wooden fixed pitch prop and automobile muffler hanging in the = slipstream. It was a great week. I want to thank you for taking the time for such an informative = response. We truly appreciate such actions taken by EAA and Falcon, but = frequently and unfortunately we only hear about the failures to obtain = insurance and not the successes. We have a couple of "associations" that have dozens of members who = are interested or flying rotary powered aircraft. More and more = individuals are deciding to put the rotary in their aircraft because of = its inherent reliability. There is no question the rotary is more = reliable than any reciprocating engine, however, while the engine is = just about bullet proof, the ancillary systems (fuel, ignition, cooling, = etc.) are indeed highly dependent on the individual installer and I = would imagine that is exactly the problem the insurance companies have = with "roll-you-own" installations. At Sun & Fun we invited a Swiss company to share our Rotary Engine = Forum Tent with us. They have developed an engine that is intended for = eventually certification in the US. As you know, that is a somewhat = expensive and time consuming process, so in the interim the are = considering selling to experimenters. The engine is impressive as it = has been modified to accommodate the normal accessory packages that you = would expect on an aircraft engine such as propeller governor and vacuum = pumps, etc. I happen to know one of the vice presidents of the company = as well as their chief engineer. They are currently working with Emery = Riddle and have installed the engine in a Cessna for testing. But, unfortunately, while I am certain they have a wealthy of engine = data, they do not have (as yet) any meaningful flight time behind it. With your permission, I would like to post your response to a couple = of e mail lists focused on the rotary engine. I think it helps us all = to have a clear picture about what is really happening - I think it = especially pertinent that members understand the role of the agent in = this and not to quit trying just because they get a "No" from one or = two. About the only thing I can think of that we individuals can provide so = far as data is a compilation of "N" numbers and hours flown of the = flying rotary aircraft. I am one of the early rotor fliers and have = been flying a rotary since 1997, a friend of mind (and clearly the = leader in hours) has been flying an RV-4 since 1994 and has over 1300 = hours in one. So we naturally feel that the rotary auto conversion is a = viable (and reliable) source of propulsion for experimental aircraft. Again Bob thanks for taking the time to make such a informative = response to my e mail Best Regards Ed =20 Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bob Mackey=20 To: 'Ed Anderson'=20 Cc: 'Karen Kryzaniak'=20 Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:15 AM Subject: RE: Auto conversions Insurance??? Good Morning Ed! Thank you for your email! Your concerns for insurance availability = for builders who chose to use auto engine conversions are shared by both = EAA and Falcon Insurance Agency..... You are absolutely right, it isn't easy to obtain insurance (full = coverage, liability with passenger coverage, and hull - physical damage = coverage) for aircraft using auto engine conversions, but it isn't = impossible either. Just a few weeks ago we obtained a quote for a = builder that created their own installation of a highly modified Mazda = based engine using a Cozy Mark IV. Yes, there were limitations to the = insurance being offered, however we did get an underwriter to propose an = insurance option. This is just one example. We have successfully = obtained insurance for many aircraft with auto engine conversions. I think one of the biggest problem is, your average aviation = insurance agent doesn't want to put in the TIME and EFFORT necessary to = get a quote on these difficult accounts.. It takes a bunch of time, = maybe several days. many phone calls, and numerous emails before you can = finally obtain a quote from an underwriter. (At the same time you are = trying not to aggravate the underwriter!) Some agents simply throw up = their hands and go on to an easier account. One of the commitments = Falcon made when EAA selected Falcon was that we would take on the hard = accounts and put forth the effort it takes to get insurance for EAA = Members. Are we successful every time? No. We sometimes can't find = insurance, or the insurance we find isn't what the EAA Member desires, = nonetheless we try not to give up. You asked what can builders do to help. I'm happy to hear you say = that because it clearly shows you want to be part of the solution, not = part of the problem. You also mentioned you though you could insure = anything through places like Lloyds of London. First off, Lloyds is a = place where insurance groups (foreign) come together to accept portions = of insurance risks, (i.e. an insurance broker comes in and goes around = to various representatives of these insurance groups asking if the = insurance group will accept some portion of a large insurance risk, like = a fleet of ships, trucks, or airplanes). Here in the US we have 9 = insurance companies that offer insurance for airplanes. Because of the = legal environment here in the US foreign insurance groups will not offer = insurance for general aviation accounts, including individual owners, = flight schools, fixed base operators, charter operators, etc. That = leaves us to do what we can with the insurance companies we have = available. Here are my suggestions. One, before you buy or build, find out if = you will be able to obtain insurance and if so what it will cost. I = cannot begin to tell you how frustrating it is when you can't satisfy a = customer. In too many cases the airplane owner blames the agent for = high premiums, unsatisfactory terms, or no insurance. Trust me we are = trying to help. Two, if you plan to use an auto engine conversion weigh = to pros and cons of using a firewall-forward conversion verses a = one-of-a-kind conversion. If you go with the one-of-a-kind auto engine = conversion your insurance, if you can get it, will be more expensive and = will most likely have limitations such as no passenger coverage or no = hull coverage. Again look before you leap! Three, talk to the agent. = Don't take the word of anyone else. You'd be surprised how many time we = hear someone say that they were told by another builder that their = insurance cost this amount and there were no limitations. Again, talk = to the agent. Last, document, document, document..... If you document = your one-of-a-kind auto engine conversion it may help secure insurance. = All this being said, there is a "dark-side". The "dark-side" is auto = engine conversions using V6 or V8 engines. Right now it is impossible = to find insurance for airplanes using these engines. There are very few = airplanes using V6 or V8 engines and there have been several known and = unknown accidents resulting from engine problems. I really don't know = if this situation will ever change. Regardless, if an EAA Member called = Falcon today we'd try to find insurance. One last comment. Just so you know. A little over a month ago we = contacted nine auto engine conversion manufacturers or designers. We = asked for details and information that would help us make insurance = available for aircraft using these engines. We've heard back from four = of these companies, three provided manuals and materials, one promised = to send information but nothing came in so far. Unfortunately, five = companies have not responded what so ever. That's disappointing and = it's also too bad builders don't know what we are doing to make = insurance available and how some manufacturers seem disinterested in = helping make insurance available. I'll be at Sun 'n Fun next week and = I'll try to visit with principals from all nine companies. I'll say = thanks to three, check the status with one, and try to reinforce the = importance of what we are trying to do to the other five. Frustrating? = You bet. But that's our job! Ed, Thank you for your email. I hope you didn't mind the long = response. Yes, I'll take you suggestion and see what I can write to = publish so other builders will learn how they can obtain insurance and = avoid the insurance hassles. Have a great day flying! Bob -----Original Message----- From: Ed Anderson [mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:16 PM To: bmackey@falconinsurance.com Subject: Auto conversions Insurance??? Bob, First, thanks for the understandable explanation of Aviation = Insurance. Second, I would like to propose a topic for you to address = in the future. While the EAA/FALCON insurance program is indeed a well structure = system that covers the needs of most of the EAA members, one group is = conspicuously omitted. I realize that the EAA has shifted its focus = from its early beginning from the experimenter to General Aviation and = continues to support all aviation groups, which is good. =20 However, I fly a Mazda Rotary Powered RV-6A and I find myself and = many like me left out of the EAA scope of the program. I understand = that Falcon will insure some "FWF" auto conversion packages provided = they are produced by a commercial entity such as Eggenfellers fine = Subaru engine package. However, that does nothing for us folks who = "roll our own". I understand that from an insurance company perspective why they = might think "home rolled" packages may present more of a risk compared = to a "standardized" and tested commercial package. Given that there is = little if any data out there on risk in the use of the Mazda rotary = engine (an engine by the way which is inherently more reliable engine = than any reciprocating engine). Even thought we have accumulated = thousands of flying hours on Mazda Rotary powered homebuilts (and to my = knowledge - with only one fatality), many are finding it difficult to = locate even liability insurance much less hull - at any price. I have been told that Lloyds of London will ensure just about = anything for the right price to match the assumed risk, we do not seem = to have an equivalent view here. So needless to say, this inability to = acquire insurance certainly does not foster experimentation which is = what the EAA was all about (at one time). In any case, I think if you could more fully explain why we are = orphaned by the insurance companies in one of you excellent articles, it = would be great. More to the point, it would be very useful for us to understand = what data might be presented to an insurance company through the EAA = that would provide a sound basis for them making actuary decisions about = risk and costs. We certainly understand that risk drives the cost of = insurance policies. Fortunately, I do have insurance as I obtained a policy before the = drawback by insurance companies from the homebuilt aviation arena - but, = many of the newer flying rotary powered aircraft are unable to obtain = insurance at any cost. Certainly, this applies to more than must the Mazda rotary powered = aircraft and indeed to all experimenters. So, it would really be = helpful to understand what it would take to convince the EAA and Falcon = that there should be a category for the true experimenter in the = insurance program. Thanks for you time Sincerely Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C4297D.3C10A0B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Attached, is a series of e mails I = exchanged with=20 Bob Mack of the EAA staff, who appears to have a good understanding of = the=20 Insurance problem.  While he does not at this time offer any = pancreatic=20 solution, he does offer some suggestions and does indicate it is not = impossible=20 to find insurance.
 
Read from Bottom message UP if you want = the correct=20 time sequence.
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bob=20 Mackey
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: Auto conversions Insurance???

Good=20 Afternoon Ed!
 
It's been a=20 couple of busy weeks!  Last week at the 2004 Sun 'n Fun EAA Fly-In = and this=20 week working to catch up.....
 
Yes, you=20 definitely have my permission to post my response to your questions = regarding=20 Mazda based engines, both complete packages and "roll-your-own" = designs. =20 Please, if you can, remind everyone each situation is different, which = is one of=20 the great things about experimental aviation, however there is a = down-side,=20 which we've already discussed.
 
Thanks for=20 allowing me to try and help.  I that was the = case!
 
Happy=20 building and flying!
Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed = Anderson=20 [mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, = 2004=20 5:26 PM
To: Bob Mackey
Subject: Re: Auto = conversions=20 Insurance???

Hi Bob, just got back from Sun & = Fun=20 2004.
 
    We had five rotary = powered RV=20 aircraft there.  One averaged 216 MPH with a wooden fixed pitch = prop and=20 automobile muffler hanging in the slipstream.  It was a great=20 week.
 
   I want to thank you for = taking the=20 time for such an informative response.  We truly appreciate such = actions=20 taken by EAA and Falcon, but frequently and unfortunately we only hear = about=20 the failures to obtain insurance and not the successes.
 
 We have a couple of = "associations" that=20 have dozens of members who are interested or flying rotary powered=20 aircraft.  More and more individuals are deciding to put the = rotary in=20 their aircraft because of its inherent reliability.  There is no = question=20 the rotary is more reliable than any reciprocating engine, however, = while the=20 engine is just about bullet proof, the ancillary systems (fuel, = ignition,=20 cooling, etc.) are indeed highly dependent on the individual installer = and I=20 would imagine that is exactly the problem the insurance companies have = with=20 "roll-you-own" installations.
 
 
At Sun & Fun we invited a Swiss = company to=20 share our Rotary Engine Forum Tent with us.  They have developed = an=20 engine that is intended for eventually certification in the US.  = As you=20 know, that is a somewhat expensive and time consuming process, so in = the=20 interim the are considering selling to experimenters.  The engine = is=20 impressive as it has been modified to accommodate the normal accessory = packages that you would expect on an aircraft engine such as propeller = governor and vacuum pumps, etc.  I happen to know one of the vice = presidents of the company as well as their chief engineer.   = They=20 are currently working with Emery Riddle and have installed the engine = in a=20 Cessna for testing.
But, unfortunately, while I am = certain they have=20 a wealthy of engine data, they do not have (as yet) any meaningful = flight time=20 behind it.
 
With your permission, I would like to = post your=20 response to a couple of e mail lists focused on the rotary = engine.  I=20 think it helps us all to have a clear picture about what is really = happening -=20 I think it especially pertinent that members understand the role of = the agent=20 in this and not to quit trying just because they get a "No" from one = or=20 two.
 
About the only thing I can think of = that we=20 individuals can provide so far as data is a compilation = of "N"=20 numbers and hours flown of the flying rotary aircraft.  I am one = of the=20 early rotor fliers and have been flying a rotary since 1997, a friend = of mind=20 (and clearly the leader in hours) has been flying an RV-4 since 1994 = and has=20 over 1300 hours in one.  So we naturally feel that the rotary = auto=20 conversion is a viable (and reliable) source of propulsion for = experimental=20 aircraft.
 
Again Bob thanks for taking the time = to make such=20 a informative response to my e mail
 
Best Regards
 
Ed
  
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bob Mackey
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 = 9:15=20 AM
Subject: RE: Auto conversions = Insurance???

Good=20 Morning Ed!
 
Thank you=20 for your email!  Your concerns for insurance availability for = builders=20 who chose to use auto engine conversions are shared by both EAA = and=20 Falcon Insurance Agency.....
 
You are=20 absolutely right, it isn't easy to obtain insurance (full coverage,=20 liability with passenger coverage, and hull - physical damage = coverage) for=20 aircraft using auto engine conversions, but it isn't impossible=20 either.  Just a few weeks ago we obtained a quote for a builder = that=20 created their own installation of a highly modified Mazda based = engine using=20 a Cozy Mark IV.  Yes, there were limitations to the insurance = being=20 offered, however we did get an underwriter to propose an insurance=20 option.  This is just one example.  We have successfully = obtained=20 insurance for many aircraft with auto engine=20 conversions.
 
I think=20 one of the biggest problem is, your average aviation insurance = agent=20 doesn't want to put in the TIME and EFFORT necessary to get a quote = on these=20 difficult accounts..  It takes a bunch of time, maybe several = days.=20 many phone calls, and numerous emails before you can finally obtain = a quote=20 from an underwriter.  (At the same time you are trying not to = aggravate=20 the underwriter!)  Some agents simply throw up their hands and = go on to=20 an easier account.  One of the commitments Falcon made when EAA = selected Falcon was that we would take on the hard accounts and put = forth=20 the effort it takes to get insurance for EAA Members.  Are we=20 successful every time?  No.  We sometimes can't find = insurance, or=20 the insurance we find isn't what the EAA Member desires, nonetheless = we try=20 not to give up.
 
You asked=20 what can builders do to help.  I'm happy to hear you say that = because=20 it clearly shows you want to be part of the solution, not part of = the=20 problem.  You also mentioned you though you could insure = anything=20 through places like Lloyds of London.  First off, Lloyds is a = place=20 where insurance groups (foreign) come together to accept portions of = insurance risks, (i.e. an insurance broker comes in and goes around = to=20 various representatives of these insurance groups asking = if the=20 insurance group will accept some portion of a large insurance = risk,=20 like a fleet of ships, trucks, or airplanes).  Here = in the US=20 we have 9 insurance companies that offer insurance for = airplanes. =20 Because of the legal environment here in the US foreign = insurance=20 groups will not offer insurance for general aviation accounts, = including=20 individual owners, flight schools, fixed base operators, charter = operators,=20 etc.  That leaves us to do what we can with the insurance = companies we=20 have available.
 
Here are=20 my suggestions.  One, before you buy or build, find out if you = will be=20 able to obtain insurance and if so what it will cost.  I cannot = begin=20 to tell you how frustrating it is when you can't satisfy a = customer. =20 In too many cases the airplane owner blames the agent for high = premiums,=20 unsatisfactory terms, or no insurance.  Trust me we are trying = to=20 help.  Two, if you plan to use an auto engine conversion weigh = to pros=20 and cons of using a firewall-forward conversion verses a = one-of-a-kind=20 conversion.  If you go with the one-of-a-kind auto engine=20 conversion your insurance, if you can get it, will be more = expensive=20 and will most likely have limitations such as no passenger coverage = or no=20 hull coverage.  Again look before you leap!  Three, talk = to the=20 agent.  Don't take the word of anyone else.  You'd be = surprised=20 how many time we hear someone say that they were told by another = builder=20 that their insurance cost this amount and there were no = limitations. =20 Again, talk to the agent.  Last, document, document,=20 document.....  If you document your one-of-a-kind auto engine=20 conversion it may help secure insurance.  All this being said, = there is=20 a "dark-side".  The "dark-side" is auto engine conversions = using V6 or=20 V8 engines.  Right now it is impossible to find insurance for = airplanes=20 using these engines.  There are very few airplanes using V6 or = V8=20 engines and there have been several known and unknown accidents = resulting=20 from engine problems.  I really don't know if this situation = will ever=20 change.  Regardless, if an EAA Member called Falcon today we'd = try to=20 find insurance.
 
One last=20 comment.  Just so you know.  A little over a month ago we=20 contacted nine auto engine conversion manufacturers or=20 designers.  We asked for details and information that would = help=20 us make insurance available for aircraft using these = engines. =20 We've heard back from four of these companies, three provided = manuals=20 and materials, one promised to send information but nothing came in = so=20 far.  Unfortunately, five companies have not responded what so=20 ever.  That's disappointing and it's also too bad builders = don't=20 know what we are doing to make insurance available and how some=20 manufacturers seem disinterested in helping make insurance = available. =20 I'll be at Sun 'n Fun next week and I'll try to visit with = principals from=20 all nine companies.  I'll say thanks to three, check the = status=20 with one, and try to reinforce the importance of what we are trying = to do to=20 the other five.  Frustrating?  You bet.  But that's = our=20 job!
 
Ed, Thank=20 you for your email.  I hope you didn't mind the long = response. =20 Yes, I'll take you suggestion and see what I can write to publish so = other=20 builders will learn how they can obtain insurance and avoid the = insurance=20 hassles.
 
Have a=20 great day flying!
Bob
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: = Ed Anderson=20 [mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, = April 08,=20 2004 8:16 PM
To: = bmackey@falconinsurance.com
Subject:=20 Auto conversions Insurance???

Bob,
 
    First, thanks = for the=20 understandable explanation of Aviation Insurance.  Second, I = would=20 like to propose a topic for you to address in the = future.
 
While the EAA/FALCON insurance = program is=20 indeed a well structure system that covers the needs of most of = the EAA=20 members, one group is conspicuously omitted.  I realize that = the EAA=20 has shifted its focus from its early beginning from the = experimenter to=20 General Aviation and continues to support all aviation groups, = which is=20 good. 
 
However, I fly a Mazda Rotary = Powered RV-6A=20 and I find myself and many like me left out of the EAA scope of = the=20 program.  I understand that Falcon will insure some "FWF" = auto=20 conversion packages provided they are produced by a commercial = entity such=20 as Eggenfellers fine Subaru engine package.  However, that = does=20 nothing for us folks who "roll our own".
 
I understand that from an = insurance company=20 perspective why they might think "home rolled" packages may = present more=20 of a risk compared to a "standardized" and tested commercial=20 package.  Given that there is little if any data out there on = risk in=20 the use of the Mazda rotary engine (an engine by the way which is=20 inherently more reliable engine than any reciprocating = engine).  Even=20 thought we have accumulated thousands of flying hours on Mazda = Rotary=20 powered homebuilts (and to my knowledge - with only one fatality), = many=20 are finding it difficult to locate even liability insurance much = less hull=20 - at any price.
 
I have been told that Lloyds of = London will=20 ensure just about anything for the right price to match the = assumed risk,=20 we do not seem to have an equivalent view here.  So needless = to say,=20 this inability to acquire insurance certainly does not foster=20 experimentation which is what the EAA was all about (at one=20 time).
 
In any case, I think if you could = more fully=20 explain why we are orphaned by the insurance companies in one of = you=20 excellent articles, it would be great.
 
More to the point, it would be = very useful=20 for us to understand what data might be presented to an insurance = company=20 through the EAA that would provide a sound basis for them making = actuary=20 decisions about risk and costs.  We certainly understand that = risk=20 drives the cost of insurance policies.
 
Fortunately, I do have insurance = as I=20 obtained a policy before the drawback by insurance companies from = the=20 homebuilt aviation arena - but, many of the newer flying rotary = powered=20 aircraft are unable to obtain insurance at any cost.
Certainly, this applies to more = than must the=20 Mazda rotary powered aircraft and indeed to all = experimenters.  So,=20 it would really be helpful to understand what it would take to = convince=20 the EAA and Falcon that there should be a category for the true=20 experimenter in the insurance program.
 
Thanks for you time
 
Sincerely
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary = Powered
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW = Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews,=20 NC
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C4297D.3C10A0B0--