X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:37:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from esmtp.cave.com ([66.35.72.5] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c3) with ESMTP id 742950 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:29:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.35.72.5; envelope-from=lancair@ustek.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([70.60.5.123]) by esmtp.cave.com (VisNetic.MailServer.v7.2.4.1) with ASMTP id CQN38002 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:28:48 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <433D67BD.5060708@ustek.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:28:45 -0400 From: N301ES Reply-To: lancair@ustek.com Organization: USTEK Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Insurance References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060306050703090003020508" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060306050703090003020508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/30/2005 10:23:36 A.M. Central Standard Time, > lancair@ustek.com writes: > > But I'll be flying soon and the clock is > ticking. I have a broker looking elsewhere now for options less > heinous. > > Mr. Simon, > > You make this AIG/ Lancair insurance thing sound like a conspiratorial > plot between Lancair and the entire aviation insurance industry to > corner the market and keep you and others from flying. *** As far as I have seen there is no "plot" as you call it involving Lancair and any company beyond AIG. And I do not see any such collaboration as a means to preclude builders from flying. The immediate effect seems to be merely that aircraft which could have easily been insured (Legacy and ES) must now comply with additional restrictions and pay higher premiums. This is perhaps the trade-off that Lancair made in an effort to get the IV-PT insured. As promulgated and advertised it in no way benefits the rest of us. *** > Your statements here lead me to conclude that you do not want or need > training *** Then you have missed repeated references to my having ALREADY booked training time with Pete and the HPAT group. Re-read the earlier posts. *** > You do those people at Lancair a disservice by offering your uniformed > views here. *** Uninformed views come from one's being uninformed so perhaps that comment is valid. Repeated e-mails and calls to Lancair had gone unanswered until the list of requirements that I received 2 days ago. And as for my requests to Lancair for lists of approved trainers (beyond HPAT), of approved initial inspectors, of approved DARs, of approved builders for conditionals, and of approved parts - STILL WAITING. *** Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES --------------060306050703090003020508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/30/2005 10:23:36 A.M. Central Standard Time, lancair@ustek.com writes:
But I'll be flying soon and the clock is
ticking.  I have a broker looking elsewhere now for options less heinous.
Mr. Simon,
 
You make this AIG/ Lancair insurance thing sound like a conspiratorial plot between Lancair and the entire aviation insurance industry to corner the market and keep you and others from flying.
***  As far as I have seen there is no "plot" as you call it involving Lancair and any company beyond AIG.  And I do not see any such collaboration as a means to preclude builders from flying.  The immediate effect seems to be merely that aircraft which could have easily been insured (Legacy and ES) must now comply with additional restrictions and pay higher premiums.  This is perhaps the trade-off that Lancair made in an effort to get the IV-PT insured.  As promulgated and advertised it in no way benefits the rest of us. *** 


Your statements here lead me to conclude that you do not want or need training 
***  Then you have missed repeated references to my having ALREADY booked training time with Pete and the HPAT group. Re-read the earlier posts. ***


You do those people at Lancair a disservice by offering your uniformed views here.
***  Uninformed views come from one's being uninformed so perhaps that comment is valid.  Repeated e-mails and calls to Lancair had gone unanswered until the list of requirements that I received 2 days ago.  And as for my requests to Lancair for lists of approved trainers (beyond HPAT), of approved initial inspectors, of approved DARs, of approved builders for conditionals, and of approved parts - STILL WAITING.  *** 


Robert M. Simon,  ES-P N301ES

 --------------060306050703090003020508--