My answers to Pat Brunner’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’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.
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’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…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.
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 “near
horizon” 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’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.
Pat Brunner
LNC4 /P
780 Hours