![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:24:16 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote: And therein lies the rub. Insurance is run off of statistics. As a whole, insurance says experimental is a bad risk, because some (a few) use homedepote valves, and that will cause problems, (sometimes) and there goes the risk up. On the other hand, the well done experimentals you mentioned are safer (as an individual case) than a spam can that has been pencil whipped, but because fewer spam cans are poorly maintained in that manner, they are a better risk. (as a whole category) The insurance company does not go out and inspect each individual experimental, or each spam can. Too bad they do not have the ability to inspect each one. That would be a great incentive for change, and make insurance a much better bargain for the safe builder. It would probably make general aviation a much safer "place", too. I agree on the statistics thing, but it's no different than your house or car - you are in a group. A well built RV is in there with the ultralight with a motorcycle engine, Home Depot cables, and Ace hardware bolts. I seriously doubt that an insurance company has the expertise to know how well an aircraft was built even if they could look at each one. Something to think about is the great Steve Whitman and his wife died because he used improper materials to cover his aircraft and used hardware store stuff in the aileron hinges. The reality is Steve was flying an un-airworthy aircraft because of the way he built it. If you couldn't trust Steve to build one right, who can you trust? Do you think an insurance company could tell he used regular dope on Ceconite instead of what the Ceconite STC calls for? I'm and A&P and IA and I couldn't. With any aircraft, you have to trust the builder and maintainer. Those two things are generally known on certified aircraft. Someone here asked me why should I let insurance companies run my life. It's very simple. I die in an RV and the wife gets zip - nada from the life insurance company. I think that our society is becoming so self-centered that we forget about all the folks around us and how our actions effect them. It's a symptom of our feel-good mentality - do it because it feels good to me. I'm sure, with enough money I could get the coverage, but we have to balance all the factors and decide what makes the most sense. I can rent a nice fast Mooney once in a while for less all-up cost than building something comparable. Of course, I didn't have the fun of building. There are times during the interior completion of a new corporate aircraft that we test fly them prior to the interior STC being issued. They have EXPERIMENTAL plastered by the door, a ferry permit in the holder, and my insurance doesn't cover me. During the flight I did yesterday, the new Gulfstream G-550 I spent six hours flying around in was in same group to my life insuranc carrier as a homebuilt. I took the risk because of all the deep pockets involved. At least my wife had someone other than Bob the first time builder to sue if I would have become a smoking hole. Don |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prop balancing and assorted observations - long | Dave Hyde | Home Built | 10 | June 27th 04 01:08 AM |
Observations on the War | No SPAM, Please | Military Aviation | 2 | March 16th 04 04:41 AM |
17 Dec 03 -- Some Observations | Jim Weir | General Aviation | 0 | December 28th 03 10:25 AM |
Observations about oil leaks | Ben Jackson | Owning | 5 | October 9th 03 11:03 PM |
And they say the automated Weather Station problems "ASOS" are insignificant because only light aircraft need Weather Observations and forecasts... | Roy | Piloting | 4 | July 12th 03 04:03 PM |