Sparrowhawk/Apis for rent

[John]

Was following the Sparrowhawk thread and like the post concerning
sponsering a glider at a contest to gain exposure.

A perhaps better idea would be for Sparrowhawk, Apis, Silent, etc. to
loan a glider to the big soaring sites (Bermuda High, Seminole Lake,
Minden, Turf, etc.). That way many people would rent these gliders
and the glider manufactures would gain a broad exposure.

Perhaps the soaring sites would provide insurance and keep the rental
fees. The glider manufacturers would maintain ownership (and hence,
claim resale value at a future date) as well as benefit from the
advertising as people try the planes. Perhaps above a certain usage
level, the glider manufacturer would recieve compensation based on
"too many hours" (one would assume the soaring sites would be raking
in the dough for rental fees at this point).

If the numbers work out right, the manufacturers would have 3-4 planes
in rental service that would re-sale at least at cost at a future
date. So the advertising would be almost free. The soaring sites
would benefit because there is no expense in buying the plane, just
have to buy the insurance only...so profits could be more for these
"factory demonstrator" planes.

Is this not a good way to build market presence?

John

[Stewart Kissel]

http://www.windward-performance.com/

In the case of the Sparrowhawk, looks like the first
17 are already spoken for. What would be the insurance
implications if any of a commercial operator using
a non-certificated ship?

[Gill Couto]

If I could add a few words about another good way for manufacturers to
gain exposure that is very common in the foot-launched world of hang
gliders, it's yearly manufacturer demo days.

Hang glider manufacturers meet several times a year at well-known hang
gliding sites for 2-3 days to give many pilots the opportunity to test
fly their latest HG models, all at no charge. This is one of the most
successful ways for HG manufacters to gain customers. It's always the
most popular event of the year for HG in Arizona.

But, since sailplanes easily last decades, the market is probably much
less active than the HG market, where many pilots trade their hang
gliders every 2-4 years, or every year for many competition pilots.
Exposure is good, but if it doesn't lead to more sales, it's no more
than an extra expense for the manufacturers.

gill
www.gillcouto.com/hg


John wrote:
> Was following the Sparrowhawk thread and like the post concerning
> sponsering a glider at a contest to gain exposure.
>
> A perhaps better idea would be for Sparrowhawk, Apis, Silent, etc. to
> loan a glider to the big soaring sites (Bermuda High, Seminole Lake,
> Minden, Turf, etc.). That way many people would rent these gliders
> and the glider manufactures would gain a broad exposure.
>
> Perhaps the soaring sites would provide insurance and keep the rental
> fees. The glider manufacturers would maintain ownership (and hence,
> claim resale value at a future date) as well as benefit from the
> advertising as people try the planes. Perhaps above a certain usage
> level, the glider manufacturer would recieve compensation based on
> "too many hours" (one would assume the soaring sites would be raking
> in the dough for rental fees at this point).
>
> If the numbers work out right, the manufacturers would have 3-4 planes
> in rental service that would re-sale at least at cost at a future
> date. So the advertising would be almost free. The soaring sites
> would benefit because there is no expense in buying the plane, just
> have to buy the insurance only...so profits could be more for these
> "factory demonstrator" planes.
>
> Is this not a good way to build market presence?
>
> John

[Mark James Boyd]

John > wrote:
>Was following the Sparrowhawk thread and like the post concerning
>sponsering a glider at a contest to gain exposure.
>
>A perhaps better idea would be for Sparrowhawk, Apis, Silent, etc. to
>loan a glider to the big soaring sites (Bermuda High, Seminole Lake,
>Minden, Turf, etc.). That way many people would rent these gliders
>and the glider manufactures would gain a broad exposure.
>
>Is this not a good way to build market presence?

I don't know the specifics of renting experimentals, but I suspect
some of these are experimental. Also, I wonder how insurance
goes (esp for Sparrowhawk). Can one rent experimentals commercially,
or just in clubs? I honestly don't know (it's
never come up before).

And Gary Ittner or John Kemp in an Apis is gonna sell more than
having one sitting around the club. Kinda like Tiger Woods
using golf clubs. No matter what he uses, they're gonna
look like great clubs <chuckle>.



------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----

[Mark James Boyd]

In article <BYt%b.12220$qL1.6511@fed1read02>,
Gill Couto > wrote:
>If I could add a few words about another good way for manufacturers to
>gain exposure that is very common in the foot-launched world of hang
>gliders, it's yearly manufacturer demo days.
>
>Hang glider manufacturers meet several times a year at well-known hang
>gliding sites for 2-3 days to give many pilots the opportunity to test
>fly their latest HG models, all at no charge. This is one of the most
>successful ways for HG manufacters to gain customers. It's always the
>most popular event of the year for HG in Arizona.
>
>But, since sailplanes easily last decades, the market is probably much
>less active than the HG market, where many pilots trade their hang
>gliders every 2-4 years, or every year for many competition pilots.
>Exposure is good, but if it doesn't lead to more sales, it's no more
>than an extra expense for the manufacturers.
>
>gill
>www.gillcouto.com/hg

See! This is why I think the SSA (and others) should mix more with
the parachute, ultralight, and hang gliding community. There
are some really creative ideas these guys have that just don't
pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure I think they're
zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!

[acepilot]

Two problems I can think of:

As mentioned in other replies, I don't think you can use an experimental
plane for commercial (rental) purposes.

What if the pilots renting them have a variety of minor accidents due to
inexperience in make and model. The companies might get market
exposure, but it could be negative.

Scott


John wrote:

8< cut here....for brevity.



> A perhaps better idea would be for Sparrowhawk, Apis, Silent, etc. to
> loan a glider to the big soaring sites (Bermuda High, Seminole Lake,
> Minden, Turf, etc.). That way many people would rent these gliders
> and the glider manufactures would gain a broad exposure.

> Is this not a good way to build market presence?
>
> John

[Nyal Williams]

At 05:18 27 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>In article ,
>Gill Couto wrote:
>>If I could add a few words about another good way for
>>manufacturers to
>>gain exposure that is very common in the foot-launched
>>world of hang
>>gliders, it's yearly manufacturer demo days.
>>
>>Hang glider manufacturers meet several times a year
>>at well-known hang
>>gliding sites for 2-3 days to give many pilots the
>>opportunity to test
>>fly their latest HG models, all at no charge. This
>>is one of the most
>>successful ways for HG manufacters to gain customers.
>> It's always the
>>most popular event of the year for HG in Arizona.
>>
>>But, since sailplanes easily last decades, the market
>>is probably much
>>less active than the HG market, where many pilots trade
>>their hang
>>gliders every 2-4 years, or every year for many competition
>>pilots.
>>Exposure is good, but if it doesn't lead to more sales,
>>it's no more
>>than an extra expense for the manufacturers.
>>
>>gill
>>www.gillcouto.com/hg
>
>See! This is why I think the SSA (and others) should
>mix more with
>the parachute, ultralight, and hang gliding community.
> There
>are some really creative ideas these guys have that
>just don't
>pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure
>I think they're
>zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!

Stiff? In a word, illegal!

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>
> I don't know the specifics of renting experimentals, but I suspect
> some of these are experimental. Also, I wonder how insurance
> goes (esp for Sparrowhawk). Can one rent experimentals commercially,
> or just in clubs? I honestly don't know (it's
> never come up before).

We recently got an MDM-1 "Fox" Acro glider in Holllister with an
experimental cert. Right now our FBO isn't charging for instruction in
it or renting the ship. But he apparently found a way to do so by
talking to some folks at the EAA (I think).

BTW, Mark if you haven't been up in the Fox yet, you really need to go
for a ride. It's easy to fly. I did my first 360 degree rolls in it a
few weeks back. :-)

Jeremy

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Jeremy Zawodny > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know the specifics of renting experimentals, but I suspect
>> some of these are experimental. Also, I wonder how insurance
>> goes (esp for Sparrowhawk). Can one rent experimentals commercially,
>> or just in clubs? I honestly don't know (it's
>> never come up before).
>
>We recently got an MDM-1 "Fox" Acro glider in Holllister with an
>experimental cert. Right now our FBO isn't charging for instruction in
>it or renting the ship. But he apparently found a way to do so by
>talking to some folks at the EAA (I think).
>
>BTW, Mark if you haven't been up in the Fox yet, you really need to go
>for a ride. It's easy to fly. I did my first 360 degree rolls in it a
>few weeks back. :-)
>
>Jeremy

Yes, it sounds like a blast. I'm guessing they may have applied for,
and gotten, a waiver. There are folks who have done this.
There's a guy in Florida who does twin training in a Leza AirCam,
for profit, with an exemption this way.

So dual training sounds like at least an exemption, but what
about solo rental, for example? I haven't heard of this,
but again I haven't looked too close yet...

[Mark James Boyd]

Nyal Williams > wrote:
>At 05:18 27 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> There
>>are some really creative ideas these guys have that
>>just don't
>>pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure
>>I think they're
>>zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!
>
>Stiff? In a word, illegal!

The gliding community is illegal? Hmmm... where did THAT
come from. Demos of aircraft by salesmen, seem to be OK under
61.113 (f).

If you have references making any of this illegal, let me know and I'll
pass it on to Van's and our local Cirrus and Cezzna dealer, since they
demo airplanes all the time...

As a side note, 61.113(g) seems to say a PPL is excepted from
restrictions on compensation for glider towing. Hmmm...hadn't seen
that before. Interesting...

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:40411bd3$1@darkstar...
>
> As a side note, 61.113(g) seems to say a PPL is excepted from
> restrictions on compensation for glider towing. Hmmm...hadn't seen
> that before. Interesting...

61.113(g) says nothing about compensation. That said, you are not the
only one confused on that point and it is covered in the part 61 FAQ
http://www.soaringsafety.org/FAQ_Glider.doc. See below:

Vaughn


"
QUESTION: I have reviewed your question in which you asked
whether a private pilot may receive compensation while towing gliders, in
accordance with the new §61.113(g).



ANSWER: The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive
compensation for towing a glider.



The intent, and the wording of the new §61.113(g), was to permit a private
pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 of this part to “. . . act as
pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of logging
pilot in command (PIC) time. The new rule was never intended to conflict
with the FAA’s long standing legal interpretations and policies on
compensation for private pilots. And the wording of the new §61.113(g) only
addresses the issue that permits a private pilot to “. . . act as pilot in
command of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of permitting a
private pilot to log pilot in command time. As you recall, the wording of
the old §61.69 permitted a private pilot to act as a PIC but was moot on
logging the time. The new §61.113(g) was issued to correct it.



However, we agree the wording of the new §61.113(a) may be confusing. In
the next go-around on correcting some of the wording mistakes, we have
recorded it as a candidate for correction to conform the intent and the
wording of §61.113(g).

{q&a-72}"

[Mark James Boyd]

Vaughn > wrote:
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:40411bd3$1@darkstar...
>>
>> As a side note, 61.113(g) seems to say a PPL is excepted from
>> restrictions on compensation for glider towing. Hmmm...hadn't seen
>> that before. Interesting...
>
> 61.113(g) says nothing about compensation. That said, you are not the
>only one confused on that point and it is covered in the part 61 FAQ
>http://www.soaringsafety.org/FAQ_Glider.doc. See below:
>
>"
>QUESTION: I have reviewed your question in which you asked
>whether a private pilot may receive compensation while towing gliders, in
>accordance with the new §61.113(g).
>
>ANSWER: The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive
>compensation for towing a glider.
>
>The intent, and the wording of the new §61.113(g), was to permit a private
>pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 of this part to “. . . act as
>pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of logging
>pilot in command (PIC) time. The new rule was never intended to conflict
>with the FAA’s long standing legal interpretations and policies on
>compensation for private pilots. And the wording of the new §61.113(g) only
>addresses the issue that permits a private pilot to “. . . act as pilot in
>command of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of permitting a
>private pilot to log pilot in command time. As you recall, the wording of
>the old §61.69 permitted a private pilot to act as a PIC but was moot on
>logging the time. The new §61.113(g) was issued to correct it.
>
>
>
>However, we agree the wording of the new §61.113(a) may be confusing. In
>the next go-around on correcting some of the wording mistakes, we have
>recorded it as a candidate for correction to conform the intent and the
>wording of §61.113(g).

Great catch, Vaughn. The wording DEFINITELY doesn't match the
interpretation. The standards guys really mucked this one up.
The whole section talks about the exceptions of how PPLs
can recieve compensation, except section (G), which is
really just about PIC? I'll tell you, if I was a PPL and
got violated for towing and getting paid, I'd run this laundry up a big
flagpole with the dirty stain AND the author's name on it. ;O

I read a bit more about this, and it seems all this started when a
few clubs were using PPLs to tow gliders. There was some argument
about whether building flight time alone was considered
compensation. So some clubs just had those pilots simply not
log any of the time (so there was "no" benefit). This ran afoul
because these pilots then couldn't log the time to keep tow
currency. So the FAA came back that there should be no other compensation,
except that PIC flight time could be logged by a PPL and that would be
fine.

How this got written as the wording we now find, I have NO idea...
It seems clearer to simply add at the end of (G) ...but may receive no
other compensation or hire...

How hard would that be?

Does anyone else have a better, firsthand account of how this developed?
The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...
Any glider regulation historians out there?






--

------------+

Mark Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

listarchives.his.com/dcpilots-l/dcpilots-l.0112/msg00151.html

has an FAQ that seems to be clear...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Tim Traynor]

> The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...

A bit off topic here, but the Palouse Soaring Society doesn't exist anymore,
I wish it did because I would fly a whole lot more. Any lurkers in the
Pullman/Moscow interested in getting a club together PLEASE contact me!

Tim

[Nyal Williams]

At 23:00 28 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>>At 05:18 27 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>> There
>>>are some really creative ideas these guys have that
>>>just don't
>>>pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure
>>>I think they're
>>>zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!
>>
>>Stiff? In a word, illegal!
>
>The gliding community is illegal? Hmmm... where did
>THAT
>come from. Demos of aircraft by salesmen, seem to
>be OK under
>61.113 (f).
>
>If you have references making any of this illegal,
>let me know and I'll
>pass it on to Van's and our local Cirrus and Cezzna
>dealer, since they
>demo airplanes all the time...
>

No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
is illegal.
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
> is illegal.

=======
Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate --
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
=======

(1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?

Marc

[Jim Phoenix]

I think Marc is going down the right road here.

I worked for a company that rented a 747-200 to a major engine manufacturer
for a series of experimental flight tests. The 747-200 was placed in
experimental category for 6 days, then returned to Standard.

It was not illegal - and it was very profitable. Note that we did not carry
persons or cargo for compensation or hire. We rented it to these guys and
they flew it for a while, had some fun tinkering with it - but I doubt they
did any thermaling with it.

I think it would be a problem is you tried to sell rides in an experimental
aircraft - but I thought I saw the EAA occasionally using an RV-6 for their
fly a million kids program - non-profit type of deal set up by clever EAA
guys I'm sure.

Jim

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
> Nyal Williams wrote:
> > No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
> > is illegal.
>
> =======
> Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
> limitations.
> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
> certificate --
> (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
> =======
>
> (1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
> I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
> persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
> or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?
>
> Marc

[REMOVE TO REPLY.pdb]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>
> Does anyone else have a better, firsthand account of how this developed?
> The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...
> Any glider regulation historians out there?

Once upon a time the SSA had an exemption that permitted
towing by Private Pilots at SSA clubs where the pilot could
charge for the tows to cover the costs. The exemption had to
be renewed every two years by the SSA, much like the current
data plate exemption. IIRC, the pilot was prohibited from
logging the time for the purposes of additional ratings but
could recover the actual cost of the tow, including fuel and
maintenance, etc.

In or around 1997 when Part 91 was rewritten, Sec.
61.113(g) was written to eliminate the biannual need for the
exemption renewal which took up unnecessary time and money
from both the FAA and the SSA every two years.

My presumption is that the rule means what its plain
language says, notwithstanding the typically tortured syntax
of FAAspeak.

A few years ago at the Portland SSA convention, this exact
question was pitched to John Lynch of the FAA who had had a
significant hand in the rewrite of Part 61. John's response
was somewhat oblique to the effect that pilots should not
try to infer more than the language says and that if its not
prohibited by the regs, its not prohibited.

61.113 is pretty clear as currently written, even if the FAA
had second thoughts about the regulation change after the fact.

My favorite Bob Wander quote may apply here. With respect to
the FARS,

If it says you can, you can.
If it says you can't you can't.
If it doesn't say, you can.




Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
...
> I think Marc is going down the right road here.
>
> I worked for a company that rented a 747-200 to a major engine
manufacturer
> for a series of experimental flight tests. The 747-200 was placed in
> experimental category for 6 days, then returned to Standard.
>
> It was not illegal - and it was very profitable. Note that we did not
carry
> persons or cargo for compensation or hire. We rented it to these guys and
> they flew it for a while, had some fun tinkering with it - but I doubt
they
> did any thermaling with it.
>
> I think it would be a problem is you tried to sell rides in an
experimental
> aircraft - but I thought I saw the EAA occasionally using an RV-6 for
their
> fly a million kids program - non-profit type of deal set up by clever EAA
> guys I'm sure.
>
> Jim
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Nyal Williams wrote:
> > > No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
> > > is illegal.
> >
> > =======
> > Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
> > limitations.
> > (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
> > certificate --
> > (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
> > (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
> > =======
> >
> > (1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
> > I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
> > persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
> > or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?
> >
> > Marc
>
Renting an experimental is not carrying persons or property for compensation
or hire. I've see at least one commercial operation with an experimental
standard class glider for rent, likely for proficiency flying in preparation
for racing.

Many Young Eagles were flown in experimental aircraft and Phillips 66
contributed about $1/gal to the cause for some time. Not a compensation
flight.

Frank Whiteley

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:403e8a7d$1@darkstar...
> In article <BYt%b.12220$qL1.6511@fed1read02>,
> Gill Couto > wrote:
> >If I could add a few words about another good way for manufacturers to
> >gain exposure that is very common in the foot-launched world of hang
> >gliders, it's yearly manufacturer demo days.
> >
> >Hang glider manufacturers meet several times a year at well-known hang
> >gliding sites for 2-3 days to give many pilots the opportunity to test
> >fly their latest HG models, all at no charge. This is one of the most
> >successful ways for HG manufacters to gain customers. It's always the
> >most popular event of the year for HG in Arizona.
> >
> >But, since sailplanes easily last decades, the market is probably much
> >less active than the HG market, where many pilots trade their hang
> >gliders every 2-4 years, or every year for many competition pilots.
> >Exposure is good, but if it doesn't lead to more sales, it's no more
> >than an extra expense for the manufacturers.
> >
> >gill
> >www.gillcouto.com/hg
>
> See! This is why I think the SSA (and others) should mix more with
> the parachute, ultralight, and hang gliding community. There
> are some really creative ideas these guys have that just don't
> pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure I think they're
> zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!
>
They don't mix with each other much either. The HG and Parasailing
communities are merging and now debating name of the resulting organization,
future insurance, publications, and so on.

The Air Expo theme at the SSA is an attempt to provide a venue for these
other activities. Very little participation this year.

Frank Whiteley

[Mark James Boyd]

I noticed on my Avemco insurance that "closed course racing"
is not covered by my policy.

I also seem to recall experimental aircraft that I "borrow"
are excluded from the "non-owned coverage"
I'm normally extended by the policy.

Does anyone have any comments about whether regional competitions
are excepted by their coverage?

How about borrowed experimentals? This one isn't terribly
restrictive since it's usually easy enough to just get
added by name onto the borrowed aircraft insurance. Sometimes
for free, sometimes for 10% additional premium or so,
in my past experience...


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

At 23:42 09 March 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

>I noticed on my Avemco insurance that 'closed course
>racing'
>is not covered by my policy.

I suppose it depends on how they define 'closed course.'
For stuff I've been involved in, that's where the competitive
arena is off-limits to non-competitors. Since soaring
contests are conducted in open, public-access airspace,
I'd hope its excluded.

> I also seem to recall experimental aircraft that I
>
> 'borrow' are excluded from the 'non-owned
> coverage' I'm normally extended by the policy.

That's one of the reasons I don't find those renter
policy thingies to be too terribly useful.

Bob K.

[Tom Seim]

Ask Avemco for a definition of a "closed course". It probably doesn't
apply to glider contests.

BTW: Avemco's interpretation is the only one that matters, including
mine.

Tom

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Tom Seim > wrote:
>Ask Avemco for a definition of a "closed course". It probably doesn't
>apply to glider contests.
>
>BTW: Avemco's interpretation is the only one that matters, including
>mine.
>
>Tom

Well, if they say a soaring competition is an excluded event,
then I would definitely switch companies before participating.

So the opinions and exclusions of other insurers are important here
too. Have any of you old guys (how about that guy who's "66")
inquired about this for Avemco or other insurers?


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<404eae3c$1@darkstar>...

> So the opinions and exclusions of other insurers are important here
> too. Have any of you old guys (how about that guy who's "66")
> inquired about this for Avemco or other insurers?

Mark,

I've never heard of any exclusion for glider racing, as normally
practiced. We just had Pat Costello give us an excellent talk about
the aviation insurance business at our monthly ASA meeting, and the
subject didn't come up - and I'm sure Pat was aware that half of the
pilots in the audience were regular racers. And since most gliders
(or at least a large number) are licenced "EXPERIMENTAL - RACING" I'm
sure the subject would have come up if it was an issue.

Just don't plan on taking your Lingus to Reno!

Interesting question, though. I just went back through my policy, and
while it does contain a reference to "Closed Course Racing" in the
Exclusions, it also has a coverage amendment that specifically states
that "The definition of non-commercial use includes participation in
soaring competition or meets." So at least Costello (and AIG, the
underwriter) understands glider insurance needs (which makes sense,
since it's the SSA group insurance plan).

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Kirk Stant > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<404eae3c$1@darkstar>...
>
>> So the opinions and exclusions of other insurers are important here
>> too. Have any of you old guys (how about that guy who's "66")
>> inquired about this for Avemco or other insurers?
>
>Mark,
>
>I've never heard of any exclusion for glider racing, as normally
>practiced. We just had Pat Costello give us an excellent talk about
>the aviation insurance business at our monthly ASA meeting, and the
>subject didn't come up - and I'm sure Pat was aware that half of the
>pilots in the audience were regular racers. And since most gliders
>(or at least a large number) are licenced "EXPERIMENTAL - RACING" I'm
>sure the subject would have come up if it was an issue.
>
>Just don't plan on taking your Lingus to Reno!
>
>Interesting question, though. I just went back through my policy, and
>while it does contain a reference to "Closed Course Racing" in the
>Exclusions, it also has a coverage amendment that specifically states
>that "The definition of non-commercial use includes participation in
>soaring competition or meets." So at least Costello (and AIG, the
>underwriter) understands glider insurance needs (which makes sense,
>since it's the SSA group insurance plan).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kirk
>66

Thanks Kirk! What a fantastic response. Appreciate the extra effort
on your part!



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA