Matt Barrow wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

Matt Barrow wrote:


"xyzzy" wrote in message
...


George Patterson wrote:


Charles Oppermann wrote:



The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
than fuel costs.


Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.


Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past

several

years, that fits.



Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
costs.


Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
deaths door?

Do you recall WHAT it did?

Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?

Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that

of

making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.

GFY.

GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.


It fits.

Now, try addressing your stupid remarks instead of trying to deflect
attention from your onw stupidity.


Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
cost of insurance for owners and pilots.


Didn't say it did. If you would bother to read what I'd said it was:

Patterson: Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium
was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.

Barrow: Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
several
years, that fits.

For your stunted brain, that means that the accident safety record has led
to lower insurance rates.


As a matter of fact one could
assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
trial lawyers.


You can't comprehend the difference between PILOT'S insurance rates, and
MANUFACTURERS insurance rates?

Suits agains PILOTS are for accidents of negligence, MANUFACTURERS suits are
for product defects, even ones that have been flying just fine for 40 or 50
years. MANUFACTURERS also have much deeper pockets than 99% of most pilots.


The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.


You are missing the point of lawsuits: PILOTS versus MANUFACTURERS.

Oh, and my insurance premiums have stay stable now for six years as I moved
from a T210, to a Beech 56, and now to a Beech 36. They have gone up $50
since 2000.


So GAFC before you try to cast aspersions. Then learn the basic language and
basic law.

Then GTFU.

Despite the screaming immaturity of your name-calling and "go ****
yourself" responses (I wonder if you run your business that way, I
assume not since you seem to be successful at it), I reviewed the thread
and realized I had misattributed, it was Charles Opperman who made the
assertion I was attributing to you and refuting, so for that error I
apologize. I don't know what GAFC stands for but I assume it's
something just as mature as GFY and its variants.

for the rest of it, while the accident rate is down the cost of repairs
from accidents is up. However all of that pales in comparison to
insurers' investment returns and the amount of competition (or lack of
it) in an insurance market in determining what rates are.