David Megginson wrote
But they do have better statistics about accidents than we can get
publicly. They know a lot about their individual policy holders, both
the ones who get in accidents and the ones who don't.

Yep. Therefore, the things that do (and don't) get you lower rates
are telling.

There are two PA-30's on my home field now. I own one of them. Both
are insured. I pay about 35% of what the other guy is paying for the
same coverage. There are reasons.

My PA-30 has Stormscope, autopilot, and backup AI. His has none of
these things. However, the insurance companies don't care. They
don't even ask. Further, I agree with their logic. I do not believe
any of these items is a significant safety advantage. However, each
provides a utility advantage.

Backup AI - unlike most people here, I've had an AI failure in night
IMC, on the climbout, during a reroute. No big deal flying partial
panel. Also no big deal flying the AI on the passenger side. But
having the extra AI meant I was legally able to complete my flight,
rather than calling it off and coming home.

Autopilot - great workload reducer for those long days in the cockpit.
Spending 10 hours in the seat without it means being worn down to the
bone by about the ninth hour. If the last two hours of the flight are
going to be night-IMC with bad weather and a circling approach, I'll
bag it and stay the night somewhere. But my new MO is to have the A/P
fly the boring enroute segments in good weather, while I listen to
tunes, watch the scenery, eat a sandwich, and save the hand flying for
the bad weather. Then I hand fly the last couple of hours, fresh as a
daisy.

Stormscope - means I can launch into areas of scattered T-storms and
go around the cells. As I've gained experience with it and learned
the fine points of interpretation, I've discovered that it can be used
as a predictive device (contrary to some opinions expressed here).
I've completed many flights with it that would otherwise be no-go.
RADAR would be nice, but it's about 5% more capability at ten times
the cost.

On the other hand, there are things the insurer does want to know. In
addition to the usual (total time, multi time, make and model time)
they're starting to really pay attention to recurrent training.
Nobody (including me) is covered in my airplane unless, within the
past 12 months, he has had an IPC which includes single engine ops -
in make and model. Just being legally curent for IFR no longer cuts
it, and neither does an IPC in a simpler airplane. I can get a policy
without this restriction - for $1300/year more.

The implication is clear. Rather than spending your time and money on
gadgets, go for high quality recurrent training. It will make far
more difference than any gadget.

Electric AI (backup)

There is no electric AI out there that is reasonably reliable at a
reasonable price. RC Allen is junk. Further, for what you pay for
that backup, you can take recurrent training in partial panel
operations every three months. If you keep your partial panel skills
honed to a fine edge, I assure you that loss of an AI will be no big
deal, especially in a Warrior.

Then there's the issue of the vacuum pumps. Vacuum pumps are
extremely reliable, last longer than the engine, and fail gracefully
with plenty of warning. Of course I mean wet pumps. Dry pumps are
unmitigated junk. They fail catastrophically, with no warning, on a
regular basis - if you need one, you really need two. Also, since
they have an infant mortality rate, prophylactic replacement is really
not a solution. The solution is replacing the dry pump with wet.
There are wet pumps made for most engines, especially the O-320.

Engine monitor (i.e. EDM 700)

Engine monitors are great for maintenance - they immediately tell you
which jug is bad. Problem is, you can't do anything about it in the
air anyway, and you're going to know that SOMETHING is wrong without
one. They're great for efficiency - with one of those and GAMI's you
can run lean of peak and save on fuel. Of course it will take
hundreds of hours to make up the costs of the equipment and
installation. Frankly, I'm not too impressed by an engine monitor as
a safety item.

HSI (slaved)

Nice to have. Not particularly important unless your scan is poor or
things happen very, very fast.

IFR GPS (non-moving-map, at this price)

In 3+ years of flying IFR regularly, not having one forced me to
divert to a nearby airport and complete the remaining 11 miles of the
trip VFR - ONCE. Other than that, a VFR unit is dramatically cheaper,
has a better user interface, and, given the electrical systems of the
airplanes we're talking about, far more reliable. Yes, more reliable
- because it will run off backup battery power. Sure, you could do
that for an IFR GPS - if the FAA would let you. They won't.

Michael