Who the hell knows. Unlike cars, just about everyone gets a completely
unique insurance quote. Perhaps somebody ought to start a database where
pilots can put in what kind of coverage they have and what they're paying
for it to help everybody shop around.

A good idea, but as an individual, you can compare by asking for quotes on
several planes at a time. If you are buying new, you can get the info from
many of the companies without a tail number.


Again, a good point. What a want to know is how many years?

I'd guess ten as a minimum. Just my WAG. Of course a blip of bad
accidents
in six months would be all it takes to send things through the roof.


If you need ten years data, then no one will innovate. The market will
not
bear it.

Bullfeathers. It didn't stop Cirrus or Lancair, and it hasn't stopped
homebuilding, where the picture is often (for good reason) far worse than
anything certified.


Bullfeathers to you Sir! (I like that expression, its kinda polite)

Their owners got insurance without 10 years data. So your point that it
didn't stop anyone was sort of missing the mark.


Also, my ten-year estimate is to see the effects of something subtle like
airbags.

Ahhh, now you tell me

Nobody buys airbags because it cuts their insurance premium. I got
ABS and LoJack on my car because I wanted to avoid accidents and get it
back
in case the dirtballs stole it. The fact that these cut my insurance by
about $200/year was icing on the cake.

Ahhh again, what if it tripled your rates to buy the only car on the market
with the new technology (even if the car were at a similar or better cost,
ala Cirrus vs. Mooney)


If the insurance companies actually came out and said that its a trade
secret, then we would all say they don't care about safety. Bad PR. It
would seem that one could stay in business more efficiently without
spending
too much to figure out the differences. Just treat all the retracts the
same except for the worse offenders. Its easy and its cheap.

The problem is that there aren't enough underwriters to foster real
competition in the market. Avemco (for example) looks at the situation and
says, "wow, if we covered retracts for 20% less than everyone else, we'd
corner the market." But then they think, "well, if we did that, everyone
else would just match our prices, and all it would mean is less money for
us." Market theory teaches that when it comes to the number of companies
in
a market, "four are few, and six are many." IIRC there are three or four
major GA underwriters.

Okay, I hear you. But what if Avemco only discounted the Mooneys, and
charged the same or more for the others (based on Richard Collins data being
proved out in claims)? Would they not then be more profitable than the
competition by attracting more than their fair share of the better retract
business?

Also, what you say brings up an idea. Perhaps one year is not enough data
for claims because each insurer does not have a wide enough pool. Perhaps
they all need to provide their claims data to a third party, and then buy
back the overall fleet results in order to change rates to reflect the total
fleet results.


Not just the Cirrus, even Diamond. I say "even Diamond" because if you
look
at the numbers it is an over the top revolution in safety. They will
show
you lots of little things they did to make their planes safer, and it
appears to work. However, lots of people from the other camps are saying
they are just lucky. At some point, it doesn't ring true to keep saying
that. Also, Lancair seems to have taken the note of Diamond's changes
and
incorporated many of them, including full crash cage testing on the 400.

Again, protection-of-life features do not necessarily translate into lower
costs for insurers unless they reduce hull losses too. Perhaps these new
glass panels will make IFR easier and thus reduce the number of accidents
due to disorientation. Or maybe they'll just lure more VFR pilots into IMC
with predictable results. Time will tell. Either way, rates will not come
down without a pretty substantial reduction in accident rates and no one
is
predicting that for anybody.

Hasn't Diamond had a reduced incident as well as fatality rate?


I
don't blame the insurers on the Cirrus at all. Its not the parachute,
its
the claims. The darn things were all crashing into little bits until
they
got the training regimen in place, and fixed the chutes. Now they seem
to
be doing much better, and for me, another year of Cessna level accident
records will convince me.

All of which appears to justify the "new equals bad" approach of the
insurers to modern aircraft. Had insurers treated the early Cirri like
Cherokee Sixes (both have 300HP, CS prop, fixed gear, right?) they would
have taken one hell of a bath, and they likely did anyway.


Ahhh, but they did treat Diamonds like Cessna's and appear to be making out
like fatcats. Besides, if they really do take that approach, isn't it just
proving my point that they reduce innovation, and are therefore reducing
safety?


Too few get totaled to justify the difference.

Hmm... how can you be so sure?

Well, you got me, I guess I am not that sure after all. I think I was
basing this on fatality rates, but a plane can get totaled without a
fatality. I reall do not know, so I have to admit, its a guess. Another
reason for publishing claims info.

PS I really appreciate your perspective on this, you are helping me reshape
my opinions and sharpen some of my arguments.