Its not that they are against safety, just that they do not seem to be to
responsive to adjusting their premiums to reward safety improvements. Also,
by their reluctance to cover new planes and engines, they make it harder to
justify the costs of innovation.

I would love them to be more transparent. It would really help everyone,
from the manufacturers to the pilots and owners make better decisions.

I think that most of the people in the insurance companies are good people,
trying to do the right things, but sometimes the nature of the institutions
works against them.

I dunno what CJ meant, but that is my take on it. Overall, the insurers are
likely an advantage to safety, but in a few areas, it seems they hurt us.



"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" writes:

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Couldn't they do it like Cirrus, Diamond, and Lancair have done it?


They have not done it yet. Cirrus and Diamond have not nearly recouped
their
investment. All three manufacturers have had to ask their investors for
more
money. Lancair darned near didn't make it.

I think it is an outrage. Right now the biggest impediment to aviation
safety has to be the FAA, followed closely by the insurance companies and
the trial lawyers.

How are the insurance companies against safety?

-jav