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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
There are three insurance tales that are repeated from time to time in
various aviation forums: 1) If you own an experimental and don't power it with a certified engine, you may not be able to find insurance. In the latest iteration of this tale, the difficult to insure engines included Lyclones and rebuilt Lycomings that were not "certified" rebuilds. Does anyone have first hand experience with an insurance company refusing to write a policy (or increasing the premium) because your airplane didn't have an FAA certified engine? Let's leave the Subaru, Mazda, Ford, and other conversions out of this discussion. 2) If an airplane (certified or experimental) crashes and all the paperwork isn't up to date, the insurer will deny your claim. 3) If an airplane crashes with a pilot at the controls who isn't 100% within FAA regs (i.e. out of date medical, taking benadryl, etc), the insurer will deny your claim. I don't believe any of these three tales, but I only have experience with #1, and my insurer didn't have any qualms about insuring my airplane with a Lycoming I rebuilt... Again, I'm seeking first hand experience, not "A guy down at the field told me he had a buddy who met a guy at Osh one time who...." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
There are three insurance tales that are repeated from time to time in various aviation forums: Well, this is not a direct response to your question, but I did have a very difficult time finding a company that would write a policy on my Wright Brothers machine. It seems that all of the major carriers won't insure a one-off or one of a kind aircraft because there's no statistical insurance data to base the rate on. Even Cannon, who insures all of the warbirds, MiG's etc. wouldn't touch it. I finally got a policy through American Specialty Insurance for liability only. They wouldn't cover the hull. But then, I didn't really expect them to either. Harry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
Kyle Boatright wrote:
There are three insurance tales that are repeated from time to time in various aviation forums: 1) If you own an experimental and don't power it with a certified engine, you may not be able to find insurance. In the latest iteration of this tale, the difficult to insure engines included Lyclones and rebuilt Lycomings that were not "certified" rebuilds. Does anyone have first hand experience with an insurance company refusing to write a policy (or increasing the premium) because your airplane didn't have an FAA certified engine? Let's leave the Subaru, Mazda, Ford, and other conversions out of this discussion. 2) If an airplane (certified or experimental) crashes and all the paperwork isn't up to date, the insurer will deny your claim. 3) If an airplane crashes with a pilot at the controls who isn't 100% within FAA regs (i.e. out of date medical, taking benadryl, etc), the insurer will deny your claim. I don't believe any of these three tales, but I only have experience with #1, and my insurer didn't have any qualms about insuring my airplane with a Lycoming I rebuilt... Again, I'm seeking first hand experience, not "A guy down at the field told me he had a buddy who met a guy at Osh one time who...." I can't quote 'chapter & verse' but I suppose you've heard the story of the guy with the Long-eze who made some (by legal definition) major changes to a system on the plane, logged it, changed it back, logged it, never notified the FAA or the insurer (Avemco). The plane later crashed due to a problem unrelated to the changes the owner made. It did serious damage (multiple hundreds of thousands$) to stuff on the ground. Story is Avemco refused to pay on the liability based on the plane . After hearing he story I spoke face to face with an Avemco rep at the next SNF, & he did not deny the story; he attempted to defend Avemco's actions. FWIW... Charlie |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
Richard Riley wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:12:26 -0600, Charlie wrote: I can't quote 'chapter & verse' but I suppose you've heard the story of the guy with the Long-eze who made some (by legal definition) major changes to a system on the plane, logged it, changed it back, logged it, never notified the FAA or the insurer (Avemco). The plane later crashed due to a problem unrelated to the changes the owner made. It did serious damage (multiple hundreds of thousands$) to stuff on the ground. Story is Avemco refused to pay on the liability based on the plane . After hearing he story I spoke face to face with an Avemco rep at the next SNF, & he did not deny the story; he attempted to defend Avemco's actions. I was there. The pilot was Bill Davenport. The real reason he was denied, and that they won in court, was that he lied. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA180& akey=1 He certified it with a fuel pump. He later took it off - and told everybody around what he was doing. He did his first flight with it off, and did a low, high speed pass on his first circuit around the field. The engine sputtered. Instead of taking it back up and gliding around (like Dick Rutan used to do in the Long EZ Airshow) he tried to set down in the middle of his high speed pass. Of course he couldn't stop, he even had flying speed at the end of the runway. So he took off, did a lollypop turn and crashed into a garage. At first he claimed he'd certified it without a fuel pump. Then, when Dick Rutan (hired as a consultant) found the imprint of the fuel pump on the firewall, he manufactured a set of logs showing that he'd certified it without the pump, installed one, and took it back out. The Judge said each time he'd done that, he should have put it in a test period. Since he didn't his airworthyness cert was void, and the insurance didn't have to pay. I am very glad I am no longer at the field where he flies. He unfortunately has another Long EZ. It's appearance defied description. Interesting. I wonder why the Avemco rep didn't mention that. Regardless, consider that for all practical purposes you cannot have an accident in a plane without violating at least one FAR unless the FAA inspector is your brother-in-law. Has anyone's auto liability insurance refused to pay if they ran a stop sign & caused a wreck? Charlie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
"Richard Riley" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:12:26 -0600, Charlie wrote: I can't quote 'chapter & verse' but I suppose you've heard the story of the guy with the Long-eze who made some (by legal definition) major changes to a system on the plane, logged it, changed it back, logged it, never notified the FAA or the insurer (Avemco). The plane later crashed due to a problem unrelated to the changes the owner made. It did serious damage (multiple hundreds of thousands$) to stuff on the ground. Story is Avemco refused to pay on the liability based on the plane . After hearing he story I spoke face to face with an Avemco rep at the next SNF, & he did not deny the story; he attempted to defend Avemco's actions. I was there. The pilot was Bill Davenport. The real reason he was denied, and that they won in court, was that he lied. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...LA180& akey=1 He certified it with a fuel pump. He later took it off - and told everybody around what he was doing. He did his first flight with it off, and did a low, high speed pass on his first circuit around the field. The engine sputtered. Instead of taking it back up and gliding around (like Dick Rutan used to do in the Long EZ Airshow) he tried to set down in the middle of his high speed pass. Of course he couldn't stop, he even had flying speed at the end of the runway. So he took off, did a lollypop turn and crashed into a garage. At first he claimed he'd certified it without a fuel pump. Then, when Dick Rutan (hired as a consultant) found the imprint of the fuel pump on the firewall, he manufactured a set of logs showing that he'd certified it without the pump, installed one, and took it back out. The Judge said each time he'd done that, he should have put it in a test period. Since he didn't his airworthyness cert was void, and the insurance didn't have to pay. I am very glad I am no longer at the field where he flies. He unfortunately has another Long EZ. It's appearance defied description. Richard, do you know why he removed the fuel pumps in the first place? Everyone should read the NTSB report on this crash. It reads like a laundry list of how to do things wrong. Apparently, the builder removed *both* fuel pumps, despite a call out in the plans for 2 pumps (one mechanical and one electric) and despite emphasis being placed on this in the Canard Pusher newsletter. The builder also installed fuel tank vents in a bad location. And re-plumbed the fuel tanks and selector valve in a manner other than what was in the plans (and in a manner that conflicts with good design practice). To top it all off, the builder didn't properly install the hard points for the seatbelt restraint system. He is lucky to be alive... KB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...
: "Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. Richard, do you know why he removed the fuel pumps in the first place? Everyone should read the NTSB report on this crash. It reads like a laundry list of how to do things wrong. Apparently, the builder removed *both* fuel pumps, despite a call out in the plans for 2 pumps (one mechanical and one electric) and despite emphasis being placed on this in the Canard Pusher newsletter. The builder also installed fuel tank vents in a bad location. And re-plumbed the fuel tanks and selector valve in a manner other than what was in the plans (and in a manner that conflicts with good design practice). To top it all off, the builder didn't properly install the hard points for the seatbelt restraint system. He is lucky to be alive... I wonder what "Lou' thinks of all this? He seems to believe that changing the plans is a good thing so he must have an opinion about this builder. " I can't tell you how many times I've posted because I want to try something different, and the number one answer for the self appointed experts is "follow the plans". Some answer for an experimental group. Lou" Comments "Lou"? Rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vietnam Joyride? Or Urban Legend? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 5 | September 8th 04 07:06 PM |
review: new magazine "Bomber Legends" | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 7 | April 24th 04 06:00 PM |
Urban Will Be Pleased to Know | Larry Smith | Home Built | 20 | October 23rd 03 11:47 PM |
Question for Urban... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 7 | August 13th 03 07:50 AM |
The urban legend of the buried spitfire parts | MBannister | Military Aviation | 1 | July 28th 03 01:15 AM |