Rotax 912 & 100LL

[comperini]

Hi SSDriver,
If I'm wrong then let me know. If you get the insurers name I'll make the call. I would love to talk to them if this was really the case. The FAA might be willing to chat with them too.

Obviously, I also disagree with any insurance company that mandates things like 100LL, but I have not found one that does that yet. But you know what? Insurance companies surely can do whatever they want, or make whatever restrictions they want, and I doubt the FAA has anything to say about it. Its a free country. If they don't "mandate" 100LL, I'm sure they're taking all those risks (like mogas) into account, when quoting premiums anyway.

About the only restrictions I've seen first hand, are prohibition on landing at airports with unpaved surfaces, or lengths less than 2000 feet.

But I'm still glad he mentioned this... if this type of thing is really happening, we all need to look closely at our policies, and shop around, if we don't like what they say.

[Jack Tyler]

Roger, I'm struggling to follow the logic of your post. Could you say a bit more...? Does not Rotax specifically permit the use of 100LL, as well as recommend operational requirements (use of an additive) and maintenance requirements (25 hr oil changes, etc.) for 100LL?

If that's true, then how do we jump to the conclusions that there is a FAA violation and/or a liability assumption by the insurer if requiring 100LL for bound coverage to be in effect? I understand that, as a mechanic & owner, you would prefer to not use 100LL in a Rotax 912. But help me understand how you got to: "No insurance company will override how an aircraft Mfg wishes to have their aircraft maintained and or subvert specified maint procedures" as it relates to 100LL use in a Rotax.

[roger lee]

Hi Jack,

I think you may have misunderstood my post and I may not have stated it very well. Let's say Rotax gives permission that auto fuel is acceptable (and 100LL) and recommended over 100LL when possible because of the leading. Rotax freely admits that 100LL is not great for the engine's longevity compared to unleaded auto fuel. Many aircraft Mfg's go along with what Rotax advises and give the owner the permission to use either auto fuel or 100LL. This is normal throughout the industry. Same for GA aircraft. Some have permission to use either fuel.
So now steps in the insurance company and mandates the use of only 100LL which means the insurance company is dictating what fuel an owner can use which may over ride the the engine and plane Mfg recommendations. That would set up the insurance company for liability by more or less saying they know more about this engine or aircraft than both the other Mfg's.
It wouldn't be a good legal position for the insurer to be in.

It is not an FAA violation with the insurance company and I'm sorry if I made it look that way, but only of interest to the FAA and hopefully someone might be willing to call the insurance company and ask why.

The insurance company can do what ever they want, but at some time will have to defend that decision, either with its clients or in court.

They are like us and the IRS. You can claim anything, but may have to defend that decision sooner or later and it may not be pretty.

I hope I was a little more clear. Sometimes my thinking and writing don't match up. I know what I'm thinking, but not saying it clearly.

[Jack Tyler]

Thanks for the added explanation, Roger. Yes, it is a clearer and we agree there's no FAA violation involved here.

Often, the view one holds depends on the lens thru which one views an issue. In this case, here's the lens I think applies: An insurance policy is a contract and each party is free to agree (or not agree) to the conditions stipulated in the contract. It is inaccurate to claim the insurer, in this case, is 'mandating' use of 100LL fuel for the aircraft. The owner is free to use lighter fluid if s/he wishes. Instead, the insurer is (reportedly; we are all still waiting for more info on this) agreeing to provide insurance coverage in exchange for, among other things, the use of a standard aviation fuel approved by the engine & aircraft mfgrs. that is handled in ways it is familiar with. This distinction may seem like a bit of sophistry but, as is usually the case in contract law, it's the little distinctions that sometimes can have the biggest influence. And as you note, the insurer's 'fuel stipulation' is consistent with the mfgr's stated recommendations (if not its preference).

As mentioned earlier, the insurer may stipulate the pilot must land on runways >2000' or on paved runways to be covered...but this doesn't 'mandate' where the pilot may land the plane. It only establishes an agreement between the insurer and the insured about when coverage is bound. I don't see how the condition to use 100LL is any different.

Now...is this something any of us would like to agree to? The easy answer for us, as we sit in on this discussion, is 'Heck, no!' But for the flight school's owner, who's looking at his balance sheet and perhaps a low quote from this particular insurer, and who also faces compliance with local code related to storing mogas in his hangar and with no on-field mogas source, this could conceivably be the necessary choice. My point: It's not hard to imagine where the cliamed 100LL stipulation by the insurer is understandable, legal and - unfortunately - perhaps the only viable option for the school's operator.

As for the liability issue, as you note this is always present. Given the above potential circumstances - and given that as with any contract the parties were free to agree on the conditions of the contract upfront - I don't see any unique exposure in this case. But any party is always free to claim otherwise after something bad happens...