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


Whoa, I didn't complain about the amount, only that the differences in the
rates seem arcane on the customer end. They are happy to explain different
rates for pilot skills, but turn into a black box when it comes to
explaining the difference in planes.

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.

So, that explains hull a little, but not the differences between models.
Nor does it say anything about liability. Its a good point, but doesn't
really cover what is a mystery to me.

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.


Again, a good point. What a want to know is how many years? How many
dollars? What's the correlation? I have heard lots of people saying
premiums equals claims. However, we are never allowed to see claims data.
USAA used to publish a document that gave you a good idea about claims
levels betweens models of cars. They stopped though, and I want it back,
and I want it for planes!

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.


Agreed.

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.

Not so at all. Many insurers balked at ANY coverage for some of the
composite planes for a good while. Then, they charged enormous rates
without really having any reason other than "lack of claims data". To me,
this fails to hit the mark because the rates they charge now do not seem to
correlate with incidents as it is.

Also, your example is not the best. Let's take a look at a different one.

A new 200k 172 costs about 14k per year for a school. An older model which
costs a quarter of that is about 5k. Repairs on the two models cost nearly
the same. I suspect the new ones have less incidents because they likely
have fewer incidents due to malfunction ON AVERAGE. (please spare me the
new plane problem stories).


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.


I never said the rates were not reasonable. I am talking about the
information that I believe we should be given to back up the differences in
rates on different models.

As for your car situation, Boston is a historical and lovely place. Too bad
about your government, Komrade.