Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Airplane insurance.

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: Airplane insurance.

Hi Jim,



 I did give this a little thought, but decided not to discuss it on the list.  But since you brought it up . . . 



 I agree with you this might be an excuse for your insurance company to deny a claim.  The way to deal with that is to be sure you understand what is covered by your insurance and what is not.  I would think any airplane insurance policy should have a section that discusses operations that are covered and the other kind.



 Another issue which comes up in this discussion is whether or not it is a good idea to have insurance at all.  I suppose it depends on each plane owner's financial condition and willingness to pay for an insurance policy which under most circumstances will never pay a dime.  After all, even with experimental home built airplanes (the most dangerous kind) the most dangerous portion of each flight will be driving your car to the airport.



 Perhaps the most interesting question is how to evaluate the dollar value of all the labor we put into our planes.  Should insurance pay to repair them?  Perhaps it should only cover replacement materials and we should put another ton of labor into a damaged plane.



 This sounds like a fertile area for a whole new thread of discussion. I guess I'll change the Subject line.



 Paul

 XL Fuselage



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  One consideration I have not seen mentioned in the debate about night flight with a Rotax:  The FAA may or may not care, in an experimental amateur built aircraft, whether Rotax gives you permission to fly at night with their engine.  But it seems to me your insurance company might, in case you care about such things.  I bend my airplane in an engine-out night landing and I would expect the insurance company to point out to me that Rotax says no night flight, and they (the insurance company) would say "tough luck".  Maybe this is not right.  Any thoughts?

  

 Jim Greenough 	
 

 -

Doug Garrou

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Location: Richmond, VA, USA

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: Airplane insurance.

I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim.  Take a look at the provocative comments here:



http://www.kingschools.com/news/BigLie.htm



Certainly you wouldn't want to compare driving with using green Scotchbrite.



--

ch601xl(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: Airplane insurance.

Nice link Douglas....

do not archive



On 7/16/06, Garrou, Douglas <dgarrou(at)hunton.com (dgarrou(at)hunton.com)> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Garrou, Douglas" <dgarrou(at)hunton.com (dgarrou(at)hunton.com)>



I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim.  Take a look at the provocative comments here: 



http://www.kingschools.com/news/BigLie.htm



Certainly you wouldn't want to compare driving with using green Scotchbrite.



--

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: Airplane insurance.

I guess the Kings know something the government statistics people don't know.



I did a little hunting on the Internet for accident statistics.  Here 

are the results:



GA accident rate last year was 6.83 accidents per 100,000 hours.



Automobile accident rate (1999) was 235 accidents per 100 million 

miles.  Dividing that by 50 mph average (my number) you get 117 

accidents per  2 million hours or 58 per million hours.

This translates to 5.8 per 100,000 hours or approximately the same 

rate per hour as general aviation.



In their piece the Kings claim GA accident rates are 7 times that of 

autos.  Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is the Kings that are 

telling the Big Lie.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  I'm from Missouri when it comes to this claim.  Take a look at the 

provocative comments here:


	


-

lwinger

Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: Tustin, CA

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: Airplane insurance.

The comparison cited, while interesting, misses a fundamental difference between the word "accident" when applied to cars and light aricraft.  

  

 The chances of walking away from that oft-mentioned auto accident "on the way to the airport" are presumably greater than the kind of "accident" you may have after leaving terra firma in a light airplane. 

  

 While not every GA accident is fatal (thankfully), it would be more appropriate to consider the relevant statistics for "Fatalities Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Driven."  An interpolation between the rate of overall accidents (235 per 100 million miles) and that of fatal accidents in autos ( 1.44 per 100 million miles) is probably more realistic.  In that light, the numbers strongly indicate -- as the Kings have said --that driving your Honda Pilot to the airport looks a whole lot safer than your activities when you become the pilot of your small plane. 

  

 Check out http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ for the fuller picture.

  

 Larry Winger

 Scratch building 601XL

 do not archive

 



 

 On 7/16/06, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net (p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net)> wrote: [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net  (p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net)>



I guess the Kings know something the government statistics people don't know.



I did a little hunting on the Internet for accident statistics.  Here

are the results:



GA accident rate last year was  6.83 accidents per 100,000 hours.



Automobile accident rate (1999) was 235 accidents per 100 million

miles.  Dividing that by 50 mph average (my number) you get 117

accidents per  2 million hours or 58 per million hours. 

This translates to 5.8 per 100,000 hours or approximately the same

rate per hour as general aviation.



In their piece the Kings claim GA accident rates are 7 times that of

autos.  Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is the Kings that are

_________________
Larry Winger
Tustin, CA
Plans building 601XL/650 with Corvair
Installing fuel system
www.mykitlog.com/lwinger

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

Interesting figures. I drive a motorcycle, so it  appears I can take off in an aircraft that's already on fire and still be safer  in the air!

 [quote]   ---

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

After looking at the referenced table, I am led to believe that you are more likely to be in an auto accident, but more likely to be killed in a general aviation accident than in a car.  (I noticed a little arithmetic error in my earlier post - the GA accident rate should be about half the auto rate when based on 100,000 hours)



 I don't want to sell the King's point of view short.  There is certainly need for pilots to be aware of risks to their passengers and themselves.  This is even more obvious when you consider the vast majority of aircraft accidents result from pilot error.  I didn't see any equivalent statistics on auto accidents, but I presume the most common auto accident is a collision with another auto which implies the other driver is just as likely to be at fault as you are.  I know most airplane accidents are not collisions with other airplanes.



 Perhaps the most interesting issue in this whole story is the helplessness passengers in either an auto or airplane have with regard to accidents.  In either case they can only hope their number is not up yet.  At least the pilot or driver has at least some control over his destiny.



 Paul

 XL fuselage



 do not archive



 At 10:48 PM 7/16/2006, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  The comparison cited, while interesting, misses a fundamental difference between the word "accident" when applied to cars and light aricraft.  

  

 The chances of walking away from that oft-mentioned auto accident "on the way to the airport" are presumably greater than the kind of "accident" you may have after leaving terra firma in a light airplane. 

  

 While not every GA accident is fatal (thankfully), it would be more appropriate to consider the relevant statistics for "Fatalities Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Driven."  An interpolation between the rate of overall accidents (235 per 100 million miles) and that of fatal accidents in autos ( 1.44 per 100 million miles) is probably more realistic.  In that light, the numbers strongly indicate -- as the Kings have said --that driving your Honda Pilot to the airport looks a whole lot safer than your activities when you become the pilot of your small plane. 

  

 Check out  http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ for the fuller picture.

  

 Larry Winger

 Scratch building 601XL

 do not archive



 

  

 On 7/16/06, Paul Mulwitz < p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net (p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net)> wrote: 

   --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz < p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net  (p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net)>



  I guess the Kings know something the government statistics people don't know.



  I did a little hunting on the Internet for accident statistics.  Here

  are the results:



  GA accident rate last year was 6.83 accidents per 100,000 hours.



  Automobile accident rate (1999) was 235 accidents per 100 million

  miles.  Dividing that by 50 mph average (my number) you get 117

  accidents per  2 million hours or 58 per million hours. 

  This translates to 5.8 per 100,000 hours or approximately the same

  rate per hour as general aviation.



  In their piece the Kings claim GA accident rates are 7 times that of

  autos.  Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps it is the Kings that are 

 	
 

  ---------------------------------------------

 Paul Mulwitz

 32013 NE Dial Road

 Camas, WA 98607

 ---------------------------------------------

jpellien

Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Basye, Virginia

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

I think you should re-check your math.  I get 12 accidents per 100,000 hrs

for automobiles using your starting figure of 235 accidents per 1-- million

miles and an average speed of 50 mph.



However the average speed is probably closer to 25 mph, considering signals,

stops, traffic jams, city driving etc.  Which brings the number up to 24

accidents per 100,000 miles, about 4 times the GA rate.  



I would venture that what the Kings are talking about is the fatality rate.

It seems to make sense that the fatality rate for an airplane would be far

higher than for an auto. 



Jim



Jim Pellien

Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes

Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)

Basye, VA

www.MASPL.com

703-313-4818

 



--

_________________
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
703-313-4818
703-851-9375
www.MASPL.com
"Learn-2-Fly-in-1-Week"

frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

I think you have to take into account reporting thresholds and criteria.  If 

I scrape the auto next to me when pulling out of a parking spot,it is an 

accident in the data, while if I pull my airplane out of a hangar and catch 

the next airplane's wing, I don't have an accident which will be shown in 

the statistics.  Some accident data have dollar damage thresholds also, and 

shifts in those thresholds can dramatically alter the number of reported 

accidents.  What seldom changes are fatalities, although even those are 

reported differently by various transportation modes.  Some report 

fatalities only in the 24 hours following the accident, others can count any 

fatality within the following year.



Another issue in analyzing general aviation accident rates is that some 

types of flying do not translate well using aircraft-miles as a measure of 

exposure.  Pattern work and aerobatics are two quick examples.



I think the Kings were onto something in the article cited in this thread.  

If 85% of all accidents are human factor related, then we have to address 

human factor accidents in order to have an effect on overall safety.  We 

could also address survivability, and there have been some good ideas there, 

but obviously the real action is in hman factors.



What can we do to improve human factor accident rates?  First, we can try to 

understand the various causes.  One very promising model breaks human factor 

accidnets into lapses, mistakes and violations.  A lapse is when a pilot 

fails to do something he knows he should and is trying to do, for example, a 

pilot can forget to check the fuel during preflight.  A mistake is when the 

pilot believes he has taken the correct action, but has misperceived some 

rality, for example, the pilot checks the fuel level, but does not see the 

level correctly, and accts on an incorrect comprehension of the fuel level.  

A violation occurs when a pilot deliberately ignores a safety rule, for 

example, a pilot decides to fly with a ten minute fuel reserve, even though 

a longer reserve is required.



Violations are the easiest to cure in our own flying.  Just don't violate 

your rules, whether imposed by external entities such as the FAA or the 

insurance company, or by yourself.



Some lapses can be cured by adhering to fixed procedures.  If you use a 

checklist to do a preflight, and don't take off until each box is checked, 

you can avoid some lapses like forgetting to check the fuel level.  What 

used to be a lapse caused accident will now take a violation, which is 

easier to avoid.



Some lapses and mistakes are facilitated by design.  This is an area where 

manufacturers can help improve safety.  Gauges can be easier to see and less 

ambiguous.  Fuel tanks can be easier to check, perhaps with access steps for 

high-wing aircraft.



Finally, some lapses and mistakes are due to distraction.  Here the 

regulatory bodies can help.  A lot of airspace restrictions take pilot 

attention at critical phases of flight.  Simpler procedures could help avoid 

distractions.  There are lots of other distractions, and to the extent 

possible we should work to reduce them.



Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com






I think you should re-check your math.  I get 12 accidents per 100,000 hrs

for automobiles using your starting figure of 235 accidents per 1-- million

miles and an average speed of 50 mph.



However the average speed is probably closer to 25 mph, considering signals,

stops, traffic jams, city driving etc.  Which brings the number up to 24

accidents per 100,000 miles, about 4 times the GA rate.



I would venture that what the Kings are talking about is the fatality rate.

It seems to make sense that the fatality rate for an airplane would be far

higher than for an auto.



Jim



Jim Pellien

Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes

Sky Bryce Airport (VG18)

Basye, VA

www.MASPL.com

703-313-4818

--

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

Hi Frank,



I agree with everything you said.  I like the notion of considering 

violations and working to push more of the routine pilot functions 

into this realm.



I would suggest another way to look at the accident statistics is to 

consider the ones that, in my opinion, are the most common and the 

most avoidable.  This is the "Flight into IMC"  and flight while 

under the influence of alcohol.  I realize the likelihood of alcohol 

related accidents seems to be limited to younger pilots, but there is 

just no excuse for this problem.  The flight into IMC is much more 

difficult to deal with.



I am lucky that my wife is also a pilot.  She doesn't have my level 

of skill or experience, but she has a very good eye for bad weather 

up ahead.  I can remember times when she got me to turn around when I 

might have kept going.  I don't know how to translate this into a 

principle for other pilots, but I still think the flight into bad 

weather accidents are the most insidious.  This kind of accident is 

both avoidable and often fatal.



One other pilot skill issue I have mentioned several times before on 

this list is the question about landing procedures normally used by 

pilots.  Those pilots who normally approach runways with the power 

off get lots of practice flying without using the throttle to make 

the runway.  Those pilots who choose to always use power for their 

approaches deny themselves the practice.  I wonder how many of the 

serious accidents related to loss of engine power could be avoided if 

the pilots were "Up to speed" on power off landing techniques.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  What can we do to improve human factor accident rates?  First, we 

can try to understand the various causes.  One very promising model 

breaks human factor accidnets into lapses, mistakes and violations.

frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: Airplane insurance.

I can't see how alcohol related flight is anything but a violation, using 

the lapse, mistake, violation model.



Continued VFR flight into IMC is a little more challenging.  If the pilot 

does not get a weather briefing, or deliberately continues into clouds, then 

we have a violation type of accident.  If a pilot misunderstands a weather 

briefing, or the weather briefing is inaccurate, we could have a mistake, if 

the pilot could not avoid the clouds.  More common would be if the pilot 

thought that the weather was not going to worsen, and continued into 

conditions that did.  Again this is a mistake, and may even get to the point 

of violation.   If the pilot adopts a self imposed limitation that requires 

a precautionary landing at the first available airport, then continuing the 

flight would be a violation, and easily avoidable.  Night flight into IMC 

could be inadvertent if the pilot had no warning of clouds, and definitely 

would be a mistake, and much harder to avoid.  Clearly then, night flight 

should be a violation if the pilot cannot handle brief periods of instrument 

flight.  It is less obvious whether the correct response to unexpected 

clouds at night is a 180 or continued flight.  In general the 180 seems 

safer, however the pilot needs to know where he is for terrain avoidance 

when doing a 180.  Way too many pilots have made their 180 to the west over 

the Hudson river, hitting the Catskills, instead of flying over the 

flatlands on the East side of the river.



I am also unsure as to how to categorize the power off approach as an 

everyday technique.  My inclination would be to discourage it as an everyday 

technique, especially for some of the lighter aircraft, like the 701, and 

rather to enourage the pilot to practice power-off approaches regularly, but 

not on every landing.   There is a substantial risk in a power-off approach 

in aircraft with poor gliding characteristics.  The flare must be much more 

precise, and each landing adds risk.  I certainly proved that personally in 

a Piper Colt, when I did a less than completely successful power-off 

approach in an airplane with an airspeed indicator reading higher than 

actual.  At the time I was a student pilot on my fourth solo, and I had not 

flown the Colt in question before, so I did not have the benefit of 

instructors' advice.  They had been telling students to land that particular 

Colt at 85 mph indicated on final, when the other Colts landed at 65 mph 

indicated on final.  My guess is that the erroneous reading had been caused 

by low pressure at the static port under the instrument panel, caused by a 

bent door which reduced cabin pressure.  The apparent airspeed was hard to 

detect at that point in my training, as the wind noise was about right, as 

was the ground speed on the hot windless day.

Reply-To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com






Hi Frank,



I agree with everything you said.  I like the notion of considering 

violations and working to push more of the routine pilot functions into this 

realm.



I would suggest another way to look at the accident statistics is to 

consider the ones that, in my opinion, are the most common and the most 

avoidable.  This is the "Flight into IMC"  and flight while under the 

influence of alcohol.  I realize the likelihood of alcohol related accidents 

seems to be limited to younger pilots, but there is just no excuse for this 

problem.  The flight into IMC is much more difficult to deal with.



I am lucky that my wife is also a pilot.  She doesn't have my level of skill 

or experience, but she has a very good eye for bad weather up ahead.  I can 

remember times when she got me to turn around when I might have kept going.  

I don't know how to translate this into a principle for other pilots, but I 

still think the flight into bad weather accidents are the most insidious.  

This kind of accident is both avoidable and often fatal.



One other pilot skill issue I have mentioned several times before on this 

list is the question about landing procedures normally used by pilots.  

Those pilots who normally approach runways with the power off get lots of 

practice flying without using the throttle to make the runway.  Those pilots 

who choose to always use power for their approaches deny themselves the 

practice.  I wonder how many of the serious accidents related to loss of 

engine power could be avoided if the pilots were "Up to speed" on power off 

landing techniques.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  What can we do to improve human factor accident rates?  First, we can try 

to understand the various causes.  One very promising model breaks human 

factor accidnets into lapses, mistakes and violations.


	




http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

http://wiki.matronics.com

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum