Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.

Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise all
that much as airplane values rise.

Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.

For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
certainly costs more than liability insurance.

For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
insurance -- that is no exaggeration.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com




Agreed Richard. All one has to do is check the hull premiums on a Pilatus or
Lear to see that. Higher value, higher premium. The bigger COST to the
insurance company remains medical/death payouts

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey was
that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are common to
all insured high value items.
Whether insurance companies will look at lives saved by the BRS patrachutes on
Cirrus & some retrofitted Cessnas & thus lowver the total premium, remains to
be seen

John

"ISLIP" wrote in message
...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey
was
that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are common
to
all insured high value items.

How do Cirrus insurance premiums compare to other retractables with the same
declared hull value?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
"ISLIP" wrote in message
...

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear earlier. What I was trying to convey
was
that high insurance premiums are not specific to Cirrus - they are
common
to
all insured high value items.

How do Cirrus insurance premiums compare to other retractables with the
same
declared hull value?


All Cirrus are actually fixed-gear.

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

All Cirrus are actually fixed-gear.

Oops... slipped there... I should say compared to other "comparable
aircraft." It was in this thinking mode because it is hard to come up with
another example of a fix-gear single which insurers treat with strict
undewriting requirements.




--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article , ISLIP wrote:
Agreed Richard. All one has to do is check the hull premiums on a Pilatus or
Lear to see that. Higher value, higher premium. The bigger COST to the
insurance company remains medical/death payouts

Not only does a Lear hold more people than say, a C140, and costs a lot
more, when it crashes lots more stuff (and people) are likely to get
broken.

It didn't really surprise me when looking at NTSB reports, trying to
find out how people crashed C140s, so I didn't do something similar and
crash mine after I bought it was that there were so few injury
accidents. If you crash slowly, you're less likely to be hurt. Crash in
a Lear and for many types of crashes, you'll probably kill or seriously
injure everyone on board. This makes the 'fixing people' bit rather more
expensive.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Richard,

Well, perhaps they are paying off with no injuries, but keep in mind that
hull insurance is much more expensive than liability insurance and keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.


Uhm, you think it would help insurance rates if these people were dead and
the planes totalled? Sorry, can't follow your logic.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Uhm, you think it would help insurance rates if these people were dead and
the planes totalled? Sorry, can't follow your logic.

I do not think anyone has any clear answer on what the long-term track
record of the Cirrus will be from either an economic or a safety
perspective -- this is all open for discussion and there will no doubt be
many viewpoints around for quite some time.

If the parachute is used in situations which would have caused serious or
fatal injury without the parachute, then of course it will turn out to be a
terrific device long-term.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the parachute is used often in
situations which may well have been recoverable with no airplane damage and
no injury, then the increased cost to insure the Cirrus could become
impractical.

The question really comes down to how often will the BRS be engaged in
situations which were doomsday scenarios vs. how often will it be engaged in
situations which are typically recoverable in a conventional airplane. No
one know the answer to this yet -- not you, not me, not anyone. It will be
worthwhile to observe and see how the statistics bear out.

Unfortunately, the initial Cirrus statistics show a much higher accident and
fatality rate for the Cirrus vs. competing airplanes -- no one knows for
sure yet if this is a function of the airplane, the pilots, the mission
profiles the airplane is used for, or whatever other reason. Again, no one
knows for sure... but it is very worthwhile to keep an eye on this and see
how the long-term statistics turn out.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com