C210_Flyer wrote:
they wont raise the rates for Chute equipped aircraft
In the US the insurance guys will tell you they do not care if the plane has a parachute. The hull value and pilot experience in general and in type are the prime consideration. Experimentals are ignored entirely especially the Lancair IV.
But a hull value for for a 210 and a Bonanza even for the same $ value will have a different premium no? It all depends on their loss experience.
So while they say they wont raise the rates for Chute equipped aircraft, wait till the numbers come in. If that class of aircraft have more damage claims and expensive claims they will have no choice but to raise the rates
Obviously all bets are off regarding future premiums – it would be daft to believe otherwise.
But at least some US GA insurers have publicly stated they will not load your future premiums if you have pulled the chute. I remember reading it several years ago. No idea if this policy is current, and what the fine print is (i.e. can you pull the chute 3 times and still have the same premium?).
Here is chute pull that almost hit a house and was a fuel emergency….thoughts?
https://twitter.com/DavidWhisenant/status/685578680890966017
USFlyer wrote:
Here is chute pull that almost hit a house and was a fuel emergency….thoughts?
Personally speaking, I’d rather have an aircraft running out of fuel descending under a parachute at 17 MPH than an aircraft out of control and hitting a house at, say, 60 mph which happened in Manchester……
Your thoughts please………
Steve6443 wrote:
Personally speaking, I’d rather have an aircraft running out of fuel descending under a parachute at 17 MPH than an aircraft out of control and hitting a house at, say, 60 mph which happened in Manchester……
Couldn’t agree more.
… I’d rather not run out of fuel in the first place. Yet, it happened to me, too. (Fuel starvation, that is, not fuel exhaustion – and thus could be resolved very quick.)
Sorry, just an association. Anyway, it depends. If I have a proven and reliable system, such as CAPS in the Cirrus or a BRS in the 182, that might be an option, depending on the surrounding landscape. Yet, if I just had some rocket tinkered into the airframe with a questionable efficiency, like witnessed in some experimentals or microlights, I’d prefer to control the aircraft, rather than having an uncontrollable aircraft without a working parachute above it.
I think Steve6443 was rather looking at it from the perspective of people on the ground.
mh wrote:
… I’d rather not run out of fuel in the first place. Yet, it happened to me, too. (Fuel starvation, that is, not fuel exhaustion – and thus could be resolved very quick.)
In neither of the two incidents I was talking about did the planes actually suffer from fuel exhaustion, the Cirrus CAPS deployment next to a house was apparently not due to fuel exhaustion but the pilot missing a number of approaches and, running low on fuel, decided to pull – at least, that’s what it sounds like. Either way, the reality is, for both the occupants of the aircraft and the people below, an aircraft descending under a parachute at 17mph will likely cause less injury and damage than an aircraft coming down at 60mph……
Well, dou did say you’d rather have an aircraft running out of fuel … and so on.
