comparing planes for safety

This forum is for safety-related discussions. Be safe out there!

Moderator: drseti

Bob Mackey
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:11 pm

Postby Bob Mackey » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:22 pm

Hello,

Sorry to jump in late on your conversation at this late juncture, but I agree with much that has been said, all good comments, however I can add from an insurability standpoint the CT is highly insurable. Yes, there have been some losses, many of which may be attributed to pilot error and the need for better pilot transition training, which the folks at CT have been trying to address with their distributors, dealers, and flight schools, yet if you look at the number of CT aircraft that have been brought into the US in the past few years verses other LSA types the number of accidents do not appear to be excessive. I can tell you from professional experience if the insurance companies have any reservations about the CT they will reflect it in their rates and so far I have not seen any adverse treatment of CT aircraft.

I think the folks at CT are focusing on the two things they can have the greatest impact on; transition training and cost of repairs. In both areas the folks at CT seems to be dedicated to doing their part to make sure the CT aircraft doesn't get a less than excellent reputation.

Bob
Bob Mackey
Senior Vice President
Falcon Insurance Agency
(EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan)

paulelis
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Calabasas, CA

Why is insurance so much more than a D20?

Postby paulelis » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:45 pm

According to one pilot who says he insures through your agency, the hull insurance for the CT is significantly higher than for a D20 of similar value. Should we not draw the conclusion that the analists think that the D20 is a safer airplane?

Paul Elis

Phil
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:09 am
Location: Houston, Tx

Postby Phil » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:34 pm

Well, if I see a large number of accident reports of similar nature I would certainly take that into consideration. If it's caused by pilot error or by design does not matter to me. The point is there is an issue, and I too could find myself in just such an accident. Is it a big enough issue to sway my purchase decision? Maybe, maybe not. It's something that is subjective to each individuals comfort level. I don't think there is anything wrong with someone making a personal decision about what is or is not acceptable to them and expressing that decision with the community. I would certainly like to hear anything and everything negative about an airplane. I do not balance my life on brand loyalty.

Would you jump off a bridge because everyone else did and said "I've done it a 100 times, it's a blast!". I for one would not. However, I might jump off that bridge after I made a personal informed decision about the situation and made a personal choice about the level of risk I wish to participate in. Moral of the story, it's your money, it's your life, screw what the popular vote says and make decisions for yourself! After all, you have to live with them or not. :wink:


artp: Check out the Tecnam Sierra. I'm training in that plane and she's a blast to fly! Though, I'm sure she has her flaws, hand brake comes to mind.

artp
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:30 am
Location: Odenton, Md

Postby artp » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:45 pm

Phil wrote:artp: Check out the Tecnam Sierra. I'm training in that plane and she's a blast to fly! Though, I'm sure she has her flaws, hand brake comes to mind.


That is my intention. I just got a copy of the POH and so far it looks good. I really got interested when I found I could fly IFR with it.

My CTsw was finally delivered on 11/5 but the GPS was not connected to the audio, it was not connected to the Dynon glass panel, the volumn knob on the intercom did not work, and when the transmit button was pressed on the SL40 it created a very loud noise in the earphones.

What I heard as of 11/9 was that the SL40 problem was reduced and they are waiting for a connector for the GPS to Dynon.

I may have a Sierra before they get the CTsw working.

Bob Mackey
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:11 pm

Postby Bob Mackey » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:39 pm

With light sport aircraft, similar to experimental amateur built aircraft, 70% to 80% of the overall insurance premium is dveloped by the hull insurance when you are buying all risks hull insurance, (i.e. flight, taxi, and ground). What drives up the cost for aircraft insurance faster than any other factors are; parts availability, availability of knowlegeable and capable repair shops, and repairability. When insurance comapnies look at new airplanes or airplane that are unique they see potential higher costs and administrative costs associated with a hull loss that is not a total loss. When you compare one of the new light sport aircraft to a Cessna 172, Piper Warrior, or Diamond DA-20 you will see a marked difference in the cost of hull insurance based on aircraft of equal value. Why? Becuase the insurance company is concerned about the costs and potentail hassles if the aircraft experiences a partial loss.

I have noticed several of the leading LSA Importer/Distributor business working to ensure there are parts readily available and there is good support for shops working on aircraft repairs for their aircraft. This is really a smart move becuase as the LSA community continues to develop I believe you will see some of the insurance companies softening their premiums for those LSA aircraft makes and models where the aircraft are easily reapired at competitive costs.

Bob
Bob Mackey

Senior Vice President

Falcon Insurance Agency

(EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan)

slsaowner
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:54 am
Location: WI

Cost of Insurance

Postby slsaowner » Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:14 am

What Bob says is oh, too, true! When I replaced my Skylane with a S-LSA a couple of years ago, I insured the new airplane for the same hull value as the Skylane, but the premium went up by 50%! Because of the weak dollar, the replacement cost of my aircraft has gone up by $20,000. I hate to think what replacement cost insurance is going to cost now.

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:01 am

c'mon guys - who on earth can afford all this?

geez - no wonder we've lost over 200,000 certificated pilots in the last 20 years. the older ones are dying off and the students can't afford to get to checkride.

oy.
Tom

User avatar
tadel001
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:00 pm

Postby tadel001 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:44 am

Can't afford to get to checkride? How much do you think it should cost? Is $3,000 or $4,000 too much? Insurance is expensive but not the hurdle. Aircraft are expensive but not the hurdle. The hurdle is education and demand.

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:55 pm

tadel001 wrote:Can't afford to get to checkride? How much do you think it should cost? Is $3,000 or $4,000 too much? Insurance is expensive but not the hurdle. Aircraft are expensive but not the hurdle. The hurdle is education and demand.


Heck no - $3-4000 is fine. But you need a plane to fly. If there are no rental LSAs in your neck o' the woods, and if you can't afford to buy a plane, then you can't afford to get to checkride.

Where are the sport pilot students?

Argh.

Tom

User avatar
tadel001
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:00 pm

Postby tadel001 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:26 pm

That's the problem. Where are the students? Who is actively going out in your community to spread the good word? We have plenty of students but it started with a grass roots campaign. If you want the rentals, you need to spread the word.

We spread the word by going to flyins, hanging out at the airport and soon enough...the news involved. See the following

http://www.wbaltv.com/video/14641367/index.html

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:48 pm

Spreading the word! Amen!

Well, let's see. Back in summer of 2005 I went to six southern New England fbo's asking to take sport pilot lessons. The two fbo's who had heard of sport pilot told me no one should even consider being a sport pilot, as they're limited to flying within a 50 mile radius of the fbo. Wrong. When I showed them the details from EAA and AOPA, they just smiled. One told me his cfi's weren't qualified to teach sport pilot students. Wrong. However, all six fbo's would be glad to sign me up for ppl lessons, estimating the cost at between $8000 and $10,000 to checkride.

I still take brief outlines of sport pilot programs to area fbo's, but they don't want to buy new planes (LSA) and/or they're turned off by LSA insurance costs when instruction is involved. Keep in mind that of the six fbo's I contacted, five have on-line scheduling showing their planes (172s and Warriors) are rented less than four hours a week. That's not per plane - that's *total* rental hours for the fbo.

I've given details to local TV news, and one actually ran a three minute segment on the sport pilot program. But of course, the only person who wanted to talk about sport pilot was a Flight Design dealer, and there were no sport students or fbo's involved to get a "reality check" from. And the dealer actually said "you can be a pilot by having just a driver's license". Oy.

In 2006 I decided there had to be some way to get "up there", so I found a dozen other guys interested in sport pilot; two of those guys owned their own planes (172s) and were interested in buying an LSA. After about six months of planning, one of the plane owners wrote up a "club charter", which excluded students from using any planes owned by the club. And to top it all off, the local fbo hired that plane owner to be the "flight school manager" - even tho' there were only three students in the "school". Plus the fbo bought an Archer for the club to use. Not exactly an LSA.

This is a "condensed" version of my past two years; unfortunately (or fortunately?) the details were zapped when the forum was hacked. Seems there's been no success in restoring all our original posts and topics.

I still attend airshows and local EAA activities, plus promoting sport pilot at my job (New England Air Museum). Local EAA folks think sport is a great idea "for pilots who think they might lose their medical" - or for people who want to buy shiny new planes. Most of the folks I talk with are excited about the sport pilot idea, but when they learn there are no rental LSA in the area (closest is 3 hours away), they ask "so why would anybody take sport pilot lessons if they have to buy their own plane?" I think Cub Flyer's posts are especially interesting, as they indicate problems some folks have in balancing sport instruction and insurance requirements.

Geez - imagine if the 152 and Cherokee were legal for sport pilots. Some folks might think the whole idea of sport pilot was to (1) bring the ultralight fliers under FAA control, and (2) to stimulate new plane sales.

But where are the sport pilot students?

Onward through the fog!

Tom

Cub flyer
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:30 pm

tidbits

Postby Cub flyer » Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:05 pm

Since this is comparing airplanes for safety I'll add something

A good friend of mine was killed a few days ago. Crash on takeoff from Binghamton NY.

His Mooney exploded on impact with wooded terrain. Looks like engine failure right after takeoff in low IMC conditions.

I believe he probably pancaked into the trees under control but the design of the Mooney has some troubles.

Fuel is ahead of the wing spar. If the leading edges contact something solid such as a post or tree the leading edge pushes back. Collapses wing ahead of the spar. Fuel is pushed out of the wing structure at every seam and vaporizes. Wreckage stops and fuel cloud catches up to the hot parts.


Another thing is a lot of airplanes have the pilots knees under the instrument panel.

I am not a fan of either.

I was very close to being a passenger in a Allison Turboprop P210 conversion that crashed and had a similar problem with wings hitting obstructions and fire. Just lucky not to get on that flight.

With that one. No wing struts the wings came off on impact and took the heavy spar carry thru off the cabin top with them. instant covertible top.

Airplanes with struts usually don't lose the entire cabin for some reason.

I like my tanks behind the spar, not wet wing and the instrument panel not over my knees. Some things to think about when looking at LSA designs.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery


Return to “Safety Corner”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests