X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:09:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [69.146.254.20] (HELO arilabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3103741 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:11:02 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.146.254.20; envelope-from=Kevin@arilabs.net Subject: Re: Lancair Accidents MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90C77.26E198D0" X-Original-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:10:22 -0600 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-Original-Message-ID: <7141427652BB3049A7DBF1084B67805B1E29D5@penumbra.arilabs.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Lancair Accidents Thread-Index: AckMdyU78luH8zhTTcmJ0jEmNAN6Gw== From: "Kevin Stallard" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C90C77.26E198D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >The FAA will likely (my prediction based on the rumor mill) make training mandatory for you to operate your Lancair as PIC. How much will this cost you? >Current rates run between $1000 and $3000 dollars. Are you happy yet? Normally I would be upset but since I am a CFI and I teach in the Lancair group--> I want to thank you very very much. =20 Insurance companies already require instruction before they will insure (at least AIG does). FAA is late on this one if they are pursuing new regulation. What will it change anyway? =20 =20 There are three ways to look at this: 1. Insurance companies won't insure an airplane if the PIC doesn't have the proper insurance, hence the plane stays on the ground. 2. FAA makes it illegal to fly the plan w/o proper sign off, hence the plane stays on the ground. 3. PIC doesn't care about regulation or whether or not the plane is insured and flies anyway =20 I don't see how extra FAA involvement helps anything. =20 I wonder if the better solution would be to have the insurance companies create some kind of rate schedule. Since some care about their wallet more than their safety (which is a sad state of affairs), why not create insurance plans that rewards the diligent? Kind of like some automotive plans? Those that really care and are diligent they have fewer accidents or incidents, their insurance premiums are small. =20 For those with higher risk, they pay more. In this way, folks police ourselves and take more responsibility for how they fly and care for their birds. If they screw up, they get penalized. Rate schedules may be able to insulate the responsible folks a bit more and provide incentive for the more risky guys to "straighten up and fly right". =20 Kevin =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C90C77.26E198D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>The = FAA will likely (my prediction based on the rumor mill) make training mandatory = for you to operate your Lancair as PIC. How much will this cost you? >Current = rates run between $1000 and $3000 dollars. Are you happy yet? Normally I = would be upset but since I am a CFI and I teach in the Lancair = group--> I want to thank you very very much.

 = ;

Insurance companies already require instruction before they will insure (at least = AIG does).  FAA is late on this one if they are pursuing new = regulation.  What will it change anyway? 

 = ;

There are = three ways to look at this:

1.  = Insurance companies won’t insure an airplane if the PIC doesn’t have = the proper insurance, hence the plane stays on the = ground.

2. =  FAA makes it illegal to fly the plan w/o proper sign off, hence the plane stays on = the ground.

3.  = PIC doesn’t care about regulation or whether or not the plane is insured and flies = anyway

 = ;

I = don’t see how extra FAA involvement helps anything.

 = ;

I wonder = if the better solution would be to have the insurance companies create some = kind of rate schedule.  Since some care about their wallet more than their = safety (which is a sad state of affairs), why not create insurance plans that = rewards the diligent?  Kind of like some automotive plans?  Those that = really care and are diligent they have fewer accidents or incidents, their = insurance premiums are small.

 = ;

For those = with higher risk, they pay more.  In this way, folks police ourselves = and take more responsibility for how they fly and care for their birds.  If they = screw up, they get penalized.  Rate schedules may be able to insulate the responsible folks a bit more and provide incentive for the more risky = guys to “straighten up and fly right”.

 = ;

Kevin=

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 = ;

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C90C77.26E198D0--