Insurance?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Marc W

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
649
Location
Colorado
I have liability only with Avemco on my Thatcher CX4. They are the only company that would sell me any kind of insurance when I bought the plane. I recently called them to ask if they would cover me if I changed the VW engine to Yamaha. They said I am already paying $10 extra for the VW and that would not change.
 

pfarber

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
749
Location
Pennsylvania
The result is auto conversions tend to have many more problems, and much higher failure rates.
Tim
Citation please?

After a $15k+ overhaul, a certified engine's most dangerous time is the first 500 hours. These are certified mechanics working on cookie cutter motors that have, by law, a prescribed rebuild procedure.

Insurance co's have actuarial tables on everything... they won't show them because it will prove that they are in business TO MAKE MONEY and you do that by revenue > expenses.

The number of flight hours must be a large factor in the math,

331 people in 2017
amateur-built aircraft 33 in 2017

All of GA 2017
0.935 accidents per 100,000 flight hours

Experimental AC 2017
2.63 per 100,000 hours

BUT

"Experimental aircraft were involved in 44 fatal accidents during the fiscal year, with amateur-built aircraft accounting for 33 of those "
 

Kyle Boatright

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
1,185
Location
Marietta, GA
Citation please?

After a $15k+ overhaul, a certified engine's most dangerous time is the first 500 hours. These are certified mechanics working on cookie cutter motors that have, by law, a prescribed rebuild procedure.
You wanna argue *that*?
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,754
Location
CT, USA
Insurance co's have actuarial tables on everything... they won't show them because it will prove that they are in business TO MAKE MONEY and you do that by revenue > expenses.
Well, of course they're in business to make money. Why else would they be in business?

Insurance is just legalized gambling. You're betting you're going to crash, or die, and the insurance company (bookie) is betting you won't. The odds set the price, and as always, they favor the house so it can stay in business.

Hmmm, maybe you can buy insurance from a bookie? 🤔
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,387
Location
Memphis, TN
When insurance was normal, the company I worked for had a incident that required a claim. If you ran the numbers, the option was take no claim and eat it or rise in rates to pay the same amount off in five years. It wasn’t a total so we ate it, got repair parts for cost, and no claim kept everyone else’s rates from going up. Net zero either way.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,694
Location
Seattle, WA
The result is auto conversions tend to have many more problems, and much higher failure rates.
Citation please?
My ears were suddenly burning.

Ideally, we'd take the number of accidents involving traditional-engined or auto-engined homebuilts, divide them by the number of total homebuilts carrying a traditional engine or auto engine, and get a nice rate.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work. About 12% the homebuilts in the registry are listed as having "AMAT/EXP" engines. Another 10% don't list an engine make/model at all. Are some of these auto engines? Undoubtedly. But some are traditional engines as well, the builder ensuring the AD police can't track them down.

It makes a difference. If you just go by the engines listed as "Ford" in the FAA registry, there are only 76. Only 50 GM engines... and that includes Corvairs.

So how else might we compare the safety record of auto engines to that of traditional engines? What I do is compare compare how many fixed-wing aircraft accidents affecting each type were due to the loss of engine power due to mechanical or undetermined reasons.

Here's the results:

Engine Type
Percentage that are Loss of Power​
Traditional Certified
17.5%​
Aftermarket Traditional
18.8%​
Foreign Engine
26.9%​
Non-Cert 4 Stroke
25.8%​
Auto Conversion
46.5%​
Two-Stroke
40.0%​
Turbine
32.3%​
Engine Not Categorized
26.6%​
So what we're looking at here is that 17.5% of all homebuilt accidents involving homebuilts with traditional certified engines are due to failure of engine power. The percentage for auto conversions: 46.5%. It certainly looks like auto engines are less reliable than traditional engines.

Keep in mind that this data ISN'T saying that "auto engines have twice the accident rate as traditional engines." The largest accident cause is pilot error, and mechanical issues are a distant second. Not QUITE as distant in the auto-engine case, but you get what I mean.

I think this bit of data is telling, as well. It tells us *when* those engine failures are happening.
1612665876542.png
Note that almost 20% of all auto-engine homebuilt accidents occur in the first ten flight hours.

The insurance companies are just as capable of making these sorts of analyses as I am. I'm not surprised they're getting scared of auto engines.

The number of flight hours must be a large factor in the math
It certainly is. The problem is its accuracy.

The hour estimates come from the FAA's annual GA activity survey. If you own a Cessna 172, the FAA assumes you fly 100 hours per year. If you build an RV-10 and sell the Cessna, the FAA now assumes you fly only 40 hours a year.

Here's a breakdown of the hours flown as estimated in the 2018 FAA survey. You can see that the homebuilts were overwhelmingly operated for personal flying...while the majority of GA hours are more professional in nature. It's not really a fair comparison, but it's built into the process.

1612666258032.png
Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,898
Location
US
It wasn’t a total so we ate it, got repair parts for cost, and no claim kept everyone else’s rates from going up. Net zero either way.
A diversion...
To a lesser extent, the same situation exists with homeowner's insurance now. Insurers often raise future rates after a claim, or two, is filed, even if you have a long claims-free history with the company. Moreover, claims get entered into the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (CLUE) database and stay there for up to 7 years, so all the other insurers will be aware of them and charge accordingly if you shop elsewhere for coverage. And, the CLUE record stays associated with the house, and can make it impossible for a new owner to get insurance (obviously, depends what the claim(s) were for). Try selling a house that a buyer can't insure... It makes a lot of sense to get a copy of the CLUE report for any house you might consider buying.
For these reasons, it is prudent to give a lot of consideration to just paying for small damage out of pocket rather than file a claim. And, once you've decided that, it makes sense to make sure your policy deductibles are set as high as you can comfortably tolerate. No sense in paying for insurance you won't use.
 

TXFlyGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
2,029
Location
Republic of Texas
Just got my policy renewal premiums.

150K Hull Coverage (in-flight / GNIM), plus 1 million liability, with passenger coverage -

$8,300.00

That is steep, but I will most likely buy it.

GNIM alone was $4,200.00

My current policy which expires next month, with the same underwriter, is $5,400.00, for all of the above. And I thought that was expensive.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,621
Location
Port Townsend WA
The time in type, total time, etc., is not the problem. As stated, 14 months ago a nice policy was issued for my plane, with me as the pilot. No problems at all.

Today it is NLA.
Why did they reverse the no longer available decision?
 
Top