"Dude" wrote in message
...
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.

Cars are safer but car insurance rates keep going up, and that's a much more
competitive market than GA.

The fact is that neither parachutes nor airbags do anything to protect the
airplane, and that is the main thing that is being insured. Neither of these
makes accidents less likely. This is quite different from, say, ABS and
traction control in cars, which actually reduce the odds of metal getting
bent in the first place. Also, the car insurers have tons of data to analyze
to see what's really going on. It will take years before a clear picture
emerges whether airbags actually help reduce, say, liability claims.

The one thing which does reduce the likelihood of an accident in an airplane
is training, and the insurance companies are quite responsive in this area.
In many cases you cannot get any insurance without it, and in others there
are programs that can help you reduce your rates.

As for new planes and engines, they're not reluctant, they just charge a lot
of money. Remember when you look at those rates that you are talking about
insuring some $300-400k of machine. If a $50,000 Skyhawk costs $1000/year to
insure we should not be surprised that an SR-22 costs $6000 or more. FWIW I
pay over $1000 to insure a $3500 car in Boston (no collision) so from that
perspective airplane insurance seems like a reasonable deal. And before you
say anything, my record is crystal-clear and no, I can't call Geico, because
they're not allowed to do business in this infernal state.

-cwk.