X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:47:30 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from asp-3.reflexion.net ([205.237.99.178] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with SMTP id 3390596 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:55:14 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.237.99.178; envelope-from=cberland@systems3.net Received: (qmail 17468 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2008 15:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO asp-3.reflexion.net) (127.0.0.1) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with SMTP; 21 Dec 2008 15:54:38 -0000 Received: by asp-3.reflexion.net (Reflexion email security v5.60.3) with SMTP; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:54:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17419 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2008 15:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO systems3.net) (98.172.79.178) by 0 (rfx-qmail) with SMTP; 21 Dec 2008 15:54:38 -0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C96384.6CDE78A1" Subject: [LML] Insurance X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:54:18 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <87C33F695961494D886EB3B6C8A476515654FC@s3server.Systems3.local> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Insurance Thread-Index: AcliqoHfq39t3uIGTu2k892/2XF2DwA0S6eQ References: From: "Craig Berland" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C96384.6CDE78A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My answers to Pat Brunner's questions.=20 This seems to imply that we are going to have another bottleneck that will be difficult to break. To indicate that only two people are able to certify the flight worthiness of our aircraft puts both the owners and the company in dire straights. =20 =20 One, who in their right minds would buy a Lancair kit with this hanging over their head? Knowing the current situation, I would not have purchased my IV-P.=20 =20 Two, the requirement for reinspection at whatever interval is onerous and expensive. Not to mention the no value added wear and tear on the plane. =20 =20 Three, what is the value of the completed and flying fleet? I can't even guess. The general economy further exacerbates the situation. Most high net worth individuals aren't willing to expose themselves to the liability side even if they are willing to self insure the hull. =20 And Four, the requirement for training seems appropriate to address the issues that the accident data reflects. How many of those payouts came from pilots they insured without the HPAT training? I have tried to get this information from the underwriters but I have not been successful. As I have said before, my instruction from Bob Jeffrey of HPAT was the best instruction I have ever received. =20 Is the company at fault for issuing coverage without assuring the training? I think the training mandate came too late. Those pilots with bad attitudes and poor piloting practices were already issued insurance and it takes time for the correction to show improvements. Unfortunately it appears other underwriters are declining to cover IV-P's even though they specifically have not been hurt let alone willing to hang around to see if the situation improves. =20 What exactly are they trying to fix with this very time consuming and expensive requirement? One example of the logic involved...IV-P turbine goes down and the fuel system is blamed. OK, we can fix that problem by looking at every Lancair on a regular basis. Piston powered IV-P's, Legacy's...shoot them all and let God sort them out. =20 Looks like a real problem is on the very near horizon. Pat, I can't agree with you on this one. My IV-P is ready for 1st flight so unless =22near horizon=22 is today, I think the problem is closer than near horizon. =20 Thoughts and comments appreciated. I tried to start a discussion on insurance several weeks ago, nobody would bite. For all the lurking insurance companies and FAA Officials, the IV-P is as safe as any plane I have ever flown, just different. For example, if I decided to fly a Super Cub in smooth air at 250 knots indicated air speed, the flight would end in disaster. Not so in the IV-P, it would be just another very safe flight. If I fly my IV-P at 60 knots indicated airspeed in the pattern, the flight will end in disaster. Not so in a Super Cub. I believe the IV-P requires more and better training and I believe that process is in place. I'm willing to take a personality test as a contingent to receiving insurance. Just two weeks ago I took a commercial flight from Phoenix to Vermont with a goal to fly a IV-P from Vermont to Colorado. There was snow on the runway and the State didn't plow. The weather then turned bad. I flew commercially back to Phoenix. I wasn't willing to be another tic point in the insurance data base. =20 Pat Brunner LNC4 /P 780 Hours=20 =20 =20 ________________________________ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C96384.6CDE78A1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <=21--=5Bif =21mso=5D> <=21=5Bendif=5D--> <=21--=5Bif gte mso 9=5D> <=21=5Bendif=5D--><=21--=5Bif gte mso 9=5D> <=21=5Bendif=5D-->

My answers to Pat = Brunner&=238217;s questions. 

This seems to imply that we are going to have = another bottleneck that will be difficult to break.  To indicate that only two people are able to certify the flight worthiness of our aircraft puts both the owners = and the company in dire straights.  

 

One, who in their right minds would buy a Lancair = kit with this hanging over their head?  Knowing the current situation, I would not have purchased my IV-P. =

 

Two, the requirement for reinspection at whatever interval is onerous and expensive.  Not to mention the no value added wear and tear on the plane.  =

 

Three, what is the value of the completed and flying fleet? I can&=238217;t even guess.  = The general economy further exacerbates the situation. Most high net worth individuals = aren&=238217;t willing to expose themselves to the liability side even if they are = willing to self insure the hull.

 

And Four, the requirement for training seems = appropriate to address the issues that the accident data reflects.  How many of = those payouts came from pilots they insured without the HPAT training?  I have tried to get this information from the underwriters but I have not been successful.  As I have said before, my instruction from Bob Jeffrey of HPAT was the best instruction I have ever received.

 

Is the company at fault for issuing coverage without assuring the training?  I think the = training mandate came too late.  Those pilots with bad attitudes and poor = piloting practices were already issued insurance and it takes time for the correction to show improvements.  Unfortunately it appears other underwriters are = declining to cover IV-P&=238217;s even though they specifically have not been hurt let = alone willing to hang around to see if the situation improves.

 

What exactly are they trying to fix with this very = time consuming and expensive requirement?  One example of the logic involved&=238230;IV-P turbine goes down and the fuel = system is blamed.  OK, we can fix that problem by looking at every Lancair on a = regular basis. Piston powered IV-P&=238217;s, Legacy&=238217;s&=238230;shoot them = all and let God sort them out.

 

Looks like a real problem is on the very near horizon.  Pat, I can&=238217;t agree = with you on this one.  My IV-P is ready for 1st flight so unless = &=238220;near horizon&=238221; is today, I think the problem is closer than near = horizon.

 

Thoughts and comments appreciated. I tried to start a discussion on insurance several weeks ago, = nobody would bite.  For all the lurking insurance companies and FAA Officials, the IV-P is as safe as any plane I have ever flown, just different.  = For example, if I decided to fly a Super Cub in smooth air at 250 knots = indicated air speed, the flight would end in disaster.  Not so in the IV-P, it = would be just another very safe flight.  If I fly my IV-P at 60 knots = indicated airspeed in the pattern, the flight will end in disaster.  Not so in a Super Cub. I believe the IV-P requires more and better training and I = believe that process is in place.  I&=238217;m willing to take a personality = test as a contingent to receiving insurance.  Just two weeks ago I took a commercial flight from Phoenix to Vermont with a goal to fly a IV-P from Vermont to Colorado.  There was snow on the runway and the State = didn&=238217;t plow.  The weather then turned bad.  I flew commercially back to Phoenix.  I wasn&=238217;t willing to be another tic point in the = insurance data base.

 

Pat Brunner

LNC4 /P

780 Hours

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C96384.6CDE78A1--