Insurance discount for Flarm?

While I completely agree with Scott's reasoning, I am afraid that if insurance companies will go by accidents statistics, the high time/commercial/CFIG will pay the highest rates, while low times will get the highest discount.

Ramy

I SERIOUSLY doubt statistics exist that show experienced pilots are more dangerous than inexperienced pilots.

No common sense in that logic.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:47:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I SERIOUSLY doubt statistics exist that show experienced pilots are more dangerous than inexperienced pilots.



No common sense in that logic.

well one data point may be that the insurance company doesn't give a reduced rate based on more experience...they apparently feel the risk is at least equal.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:47:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I SERIOUSLY doubt statistics exist that show experienced pilots are more dangerous than inexperienced pilots.



No common sense in that logic.

You haven't been following accident reports did you?

Checking the NTSB reports for US fatal glider accidents in 2011 and 2012 reveals the following statistics for 2011/2012:
CFIG/Commercial - 9 fatalities!!!
Experienced - 3 fatalities
unknown - 3 fatalities
inexperienced - 1 fatality

Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/

Ramy

Well would you look at that! The old adage "good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment" has been proven to be FALSE!!

Who'd a thunk that?!

Perhaps we should let those who are inexperienced teach those with experience how to become safer pilots? Or, could it be, that there is more to these accidents and additional information to factor into each of their statistics? Hmmmm....

What may be missing from an appreciation of insurance discounts for qualifications is that incidents are the outcome of exposure to number of events or time at risk, as well as expertise. And expertise can bring its own risk – e.g the triple fatality in a 2-seat glider last year could not happen to a just-solo pilot, only to a passenger carrier or instructor. I would expect CFIGs in the USA and commercial instructors elsewhere to often be doing many more flights and more hours at risk than many non-instructors.

Coming back to Flarm, while as a strong advocate of that technology I would love to see a discount for it, what are the figures for payouts resulting from collisions versus other accident causes? Were the 9 CFIG/commercial fatalities in the USA reports mostly other than collision? Collision was a significant cause of fatal accidents in several European countries before Flarm, and I understand is now much less. There have been almost no collisions between Flarm/Flarm-operating gliders since it has become widespread on this side of the pond. In the UK it is too soon to be sure it has reduced collisions significantly, though here too almost none have occurred between Flarm/Flarm-operating gliders. It needs longer to see if our recent absence of fatal collisions is a statistical blip or a trend.

Flarm is not a panacea that will prevent every possible collision – there is a double blind spot issue (I think one in Finland last year) and in big gaggles it cannot overcome all risks apparently, but it is very good. To have an effect on insurance premiums, however, the collisions that it helps prevent would have to figure large in the overall statistics. I am not aware of any such discounts in UK yet. Dunno about continental Europe.

Chris N

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:02:17 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Well would you look at that! The old adage "good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment" has been proven to be FALSE!!



Who'd a thunk that?!



Perhaps we should let those who are inexperienced teach those with experience how to become safer pilots? Or, could it be, that there is more to these accidents and additional information to factor into each of their statistics? Hmmmm....

There was quite a bit of safety discussion and pilot experience in the 1980 in Robert Gaines column in Soaring. Dig around in the archives. I seem to recall there was a 'bump' in accidents around 450-550 hours PIC in gliders. I vaguely recall some discussions about another possible bump around 1000-1100 hours. No time to dig around for that. Perhaps some others can elaborate. There are some breakouts on insurance payouts by glider types and I took a quick search and 1-26's had the highest number of claims and dollars paid out in that chart. The LS 1,3,4 series was close behind. But this probably relates more to the numbers flown also. There was another chart, but it mentioned 400-1000 hours experience, so I don't think much can be interpreted without digging deeper. For many years, about 4/5 of the accidents have tended to be in the landing phase. Collisions remain a statistically low number.

Now, back in the 1970's in the UK, the glider insurance pool stood on its own. A Silver C earned a 50 UK pound discount per pilot. I was a member of a four pilot syndicate and three had the silver C, so we saved 150 pounds annually, which was $300 in those days. However, Tenerife and DC-10 Paris happened and the Lloyds and other insurance members were threatened with unsustainable losses, so all of the aviation insurance pools were pulled into a single pool and our glider discount disappeared forever. In the UK, an FAI Silver C was required to become a BGA instructor, perhaps it still is. The US FAA has no such standard.

Which would have the greater impact on reducing claims, measured cross country experience (including successful outlandings), or FLARM?

In the US, which is predominating aero tow, is the higher cost of tows leading experienced pilots to become less current, especially those that have retired and are on a fixed income? Does this result in more or shift the accidents happening, or is it just a statistical blip? It's still such a small sample, it's hard to say.

Frank Whiteley

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:02:08 PM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:

No common sense in that logic.
Snip
Checking the NTSB reports for US fatal glider accidents in 2011 and 2012 reveals the following statistics for 2011/2012:

CFIG/Commercial - 9 fatalities!!!

Experienced - 3 fatalities

unknown - 3 fatalities

inexperienced - 1 fatality
One thing I would add to this would be to take a look at Block Hours flown in a typical season. Most of the CFI-Gs that I know fly substantially more than the casual beginner. To keep things statistically consistent, more air time would equal more exposure.
I received a discount on my insurance for my power qualifications but I do not use Costello.

We're also forgetting that while fatality is most expensive to the pilot, non fatal, and in fact non-injury accidents are most expensive to the insurer. There are lots lots more broken tailbooms than mid-air collisions.

And yes, the altimeter was a joke!

John Cochrane

Early in my Air Force career, I was told that, at about 500 hours total
time, I was the most dangerous that I'd ever be. It has to do with thinking
you're better than you really are and that you know everything.

I see that attitude in a lot of CFIs...


wrote in message
...
I SERIOUSLY doubt statistics exist that show experienced pilots are more
dangerous than inexperienced pilots.

No common sense in that logic.