-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Anderson [mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com]
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

  

Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Mackey

To: 'Ed Anderson'

Cc: 'Karen Kryzaniak'

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]
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. 

 

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