Some notes from SkySmith, my favorite AvInsurance broker, on what NOT to do during an engine failure (i.e. land gear-up to get the engine paid for): Let me apologize for the length of this reply but it doesn't work that way and can cause a lot of problems for the pilot/insured who tries it. Let's put this in another perspective......if your car is burning a lot of oil, would you target a telephone pole at a high speed (risking a lot of damage) just so the insurance company would rebuild the engine?  As a person that has rebuilt wrecked cars for fun, I can tell you a "pole kit' was an easy fix.  Although, the associated head and facial injuries from the windshield and airbag are not.


An insurance company only has to pay for returning the aircraft to the condition it was, prior to the accident (or claim).  ALL aviation insurance policies are good at describing what they will and won't cover.  Getting new upgrades and improvement from a claim is usually called "betterment", and that is something that insurance companies don't do.  They are happy to put it back in a condition similar to what it was prior to the accident.   I think it is quite naive to think that aviation insurance underwriters and claims investigators have not seen this type of "logic" before.   Anyway, I had a customer that had an aircraft with a run out engine (past TBO) when the nose gear collapsed.  The collapse caused a prop strike that required the engine to be inspected.  Yes, the insurance company paid for the tear down and inspection, but they did not pay for the replacement engine (since TBO).  The mechanic, in this case, would not put the engine back together as a run out (past TBO) engine and the owner opted to rebuild. The rebuild was cheaper than normal because the insurance company paid for the teardown and reassembly.


Maybe a better example...I had a twin engine customer that had one of his two engines go bad during flight.  He landed short of the airport in gear up situation. (sounds like what is being recommended?).  There was no damage to the bad engine because it had quit running prior to the gear up.  The insurance company paid for the damage caused by the gear up and off airport landing.  But since the engine failed due to a mechanical break down, it was not covered.  Any damage to the wind milling prop would be covered (it was caused by the accident) but not to the failure of the engine.


Another way to think of this, if he would have landed and taxied to the hanger with one bad engine, would insurance have paid for the engine repair? No, insurance companies do not pay for wear and tear or mechanical failures.


If there was damage to the engine from the prop strike, that would be covered by the insurance.  But if it was already worn, broken or damaged prior to the prop strike, they would not have to pay for those repairs.  Again, don't think that the claims people haven't seen it all.  They use forensic labs and elaborate test facilities, if needed, to establish a cause of failure.  There is no way that an engine that drops a valve or blows a hole in a piston is going to be covered up by a prop strike on a gear up landing.


Additionally, from the Lancair, Glasair or even Cirrus aircraft perspective, damage history is not something I would want on my aircraft.  My background is from the FBO and aircraft sales and I will accept a metal or tube and fabric  aircraft with damage history if the repairs have been completed correctly.  I will take the damage into account  and I will pay a price for an aircraft based on the history.   Composite?  I am not sure I would want  any damage history to a composite aircraft I am considering buying or brokering. (And I worked in a fiberglass factory for years!)


I also do not think the market (general aviation buyers) will consider damage history on a composite the same as on a Piper or Cessna.  Gearing up an aircraft and having the risk of damage (however minor) on the aircraft is not worth the cost of the engine, in my opinion.


My experiences from people that have made or attempted to make gear up landings, (most try their best to do everything correctly), often end up with more damage to the aircraft then expected.  Often it slides off the runway and cartwheels, catches a crack in the cement and breaks in half or hits a rut in the grass and tears the wings off.  And that's just a few of the recent ones.  I can not imagine that an engine rebuild is worth the risk of major damage to the aircraft or the risk of injuring your passengers or yourself.


Besides the associated costs and record of damage, a gear up could potentially keep the aircraft in a repair shop for months and months and the owner would still be paying the associated costs yet not be able to use the aircraft.  An insurance company might opt for a repair shop, not an owner repair and that would increase the down time even more.  Plus, maybe the owner will not want the aircraft back after the botched gear up...but because of the insured value and the type of damage, it is rebuilt over the next year and returned to the owner. Sorry for the ramble.  In summary, it is not worth the risk to gear up an aircraft with the hope that the insurance company will pay the cost of an engine failure.  Remember, every aviation application asks about any history of loses or claims and the gear up will follow the pilot and the owner of the policy forever.  Also, the NTSB and FAA will investigate a gear up with the risk of certificate action.  I know there are probably people that won't agree with me, but there is way too much at stake compared to the cost of an engine.  I would not doubt that there are cases that people have done what you are mentioning, but it is a basis for insurance fraud and it could cause more problems than the engine failure.   Hope that helps.


Scott Sky Smith

  

   Subject: [LML] Re: What would you expect your insurance co to do ???
   Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:42:18 -0400
   From: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
   Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
   To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>


My insurance guy says when you have an engine failure to go in gear up if  you want the engine covered.   Silly, but that's the way it works...  I guess it depends on the company, too.