Insurance Urban Legends (or not)...

[Kyle Boatright]

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FAA regs (i.e. out of date medical, taking benadryl, etc), the insurer will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...."

[wright1902glider]

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

[Charlie[_2_]]

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

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Personal experience with item 3. U.S Navy Flying Club airplane crashed
killing two on board. Pilot had student's license only. All coverage was
denied. Hull, liability, the entire banana. Ex Flying Club President.--
Read your policy carefully. Ours had a clause stating that any violation of
any FAA rules and regulations would nullify the insurance coverage. Try to
fly any aircraft that they can't find some variation in the rule compliance.

Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Charlie" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[Charlie[_2_]]

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?ev_id=20001207X03484&ntsbno=LAX95LA180&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

[Kyle Boatright]

"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?ev_id=20001207X03484&ntsbno=LAX95LA180&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

[Richard Isakson]

: "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