|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Lancair Builders' Mail List >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
My IV is going to become a "serviceable asset" so to speak
in the near future. As so, I started checking out the
insurance premiums from Avemco. I checked last year, and
when the cardiologists said it was OK to get going again
after my cardiac event, I was relieved to see the posts
about the options for insurance. I thought I might be in the
clear after reading them, and I set about with the tasks of
finishing the plane. However, I recently have called to
AUA and London underwriters, and it seems like they have
pulled the plug so to speak on the L4 market. No one is
willing to write a policy for the plane.
I am fairly experienced with about 1600 hours, 1200 in
retracts, 400 in multi, and of course no claims, BFR's every
six months, etc., but the plane and not the pilot has
dictated the market. It seems like we are paying for the
sins of our forefathers doing crazy stuff like flat spinning
a IV when 600 pounds over gross, modifying fuel valves and
blowing cylinders, trying maiden flights out of 2000 foot
grass strips, using automotive hose for vital firewall
forward lines, launching IFR into icing conditions, CFIT,
and so on.
I think this insurance situation is grossly unfair on
several accounts and there many players. The factory above
all has the ethical responsibility to inform the purchasing
public, as it materially affects the resale and the
operating costs. I believe the kit should be sold with the
assertation it must be built with factroy authorized parts
and engines. The fliers have the responsibility to use at
least some of the God given synapses that must exist to be
sensible. The insurance industry has the responsibility to
charge justifiable premiums based on the airplane and the
pilot, not based on some loss experience of some loose
cannon and McGyver type builder.
As much as we believe these are experimental airplanes, I
think the reasonable ones of us would agree that we don't
have the talent to experiment, nor should we, with a 300
knot airplane. Unless we are capable of proving that our
modification is justifiable to aviation authorities and
otherwise good guys like Brent and Fred, we should build
these birds exactly like the factory says, as it was flown
to Part 23 standards, with the factory being responsive and
responsible for modification as they become aware to improve
safety and efficiency.
You could argue that this approach stifles innovation. As
an experienced orthopedic surgeon who defends a lot of
surgeons in court, I see that a lot with the draping of
medical legal action for deviating from the "standard of
care". But really is you look at where the true innovations
come from, it is a select few dedicated folks that generate
these changes for the better. The other innovators change
because "getting caught is the mother of change." Other
words, beware the surgeon who is good at getting out of
trouble.
I guess the bottom line is I am more than a little pissed I
have to pay $13000 as a perfectly safe, experienced, and
competent pilot flying a well built plan built to factory
specifications by professional airframe avionics and
finishing craftsmen using all TSO'd and certified parts
because folks pulled a radiator hose off their Vega and made
it work or machined a valve so they didn't have ot switch
tanks from side to side and they killed themselves and
ruined a beautiful airplane at the same time.
I guess I just got another experience. The bottom line is
there is a virtual monopoly going on, and we are all hooked
to the wheel on this one.
Does anyone out there have any suggestions regarding
insurance?
Michael D Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|