Exactly. My experience is that german insurers are very generous.
One point i will have to clarify. If I had an engine failure and chose to use the CAPS system to come down and the plane was totalled, which is very likely to happen … would they pay for the whole plane, or the plane minus the engine? It’s interesting that insurances treat cases like that differently.
would they pay for the whole plane, or the plane minus the engine?
My guess is that they would pay out on the market value of the plane. The MV would in turn be adjusted for how far the engine was to TBO – same as if you were selling your plane etc.
I don’t know what happens in SR22 chute pull cases (why should they be treated differently to any other forced landing?) but I do know that the engine % of TBO comes into this with UK insurers who will not pay for betterment and I would be amazed if any insurer anywhere did so because it opens up an obvious avenue for insurance fraud.
The way we view life and deal with e.g. risks has to do with our personality. Some take only calculated risks, others don’t even calculate but still take risks and there are those that shy away from any risk (they don’t even fly, for example). Some follow rules strictly, while others by their nature are wired different and think rules are there to be broken. A lot of the successful business people I know have taken risks and certainly not only once to then get lucky. Those that take risks but calculate carefully first are intrinsically motivated in a different way than those that take risks but don’t calculate them that much. Both can be successful in their own way. You can of course judge others as you would not take that kind of risks or a certain decision yourselves, but it is in their nature to be what they are.
Now back to insurance companies. I am no expert but have very good experience with the one company I use here in Holland. If there is no risk, then there is nothing to insure. It is in the nature of the risk that insurance companies can survive. That being said, it is not my experience that insurance companies do not pay out if you make a mistake.
I have been told over the many years, that insurance pays out for accidents, omissions, and some negligence. It is very unlikely to pay out for something associated with a deliberate act, which was a factor in the claim. Happily, I have never made a claim, so I have no first person knowledge. I have helped to recover a lot of wrecks though, there is often “talk”.
So if you forget something, and there’s an accident, the insurer will probably pay out. If you do something you know that you should not have, or at least should have asked about, they may not pay out. So, flying a plane with an obvious unapproved mod is far up the list of a deliberate action. I have been flying for many decades, and it would really un nerve me to try to explain to an insurer why I thought they should pay out after I modified a plane, with no approval, and it went wrong – and I approve mods to planes for a living!
By flying an insured plane, you are entering into an agreement with the insurer, that you will exercise due diligence for that flight [which you expect them to insure]. Is flying with a known unapproved mod due diligence in terms of fulfilling your obligation to fly an “airworthy” aircraft? And as a refresher, “airworthy” for a certified aircraft is defined as: “Conforming to its approved type design, and fit and safe for operation”.
And yes, I have been told, that if the engine fails, and there is a subsequent claim for the whole aircraft, the engine itself would not be paid out. I asked the question, and that was the answer.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Is flying with a known unapproved mod due diligence in terms of fulfilling your obligation to fly an “airworthy” aircraft? And as a refresher, “airworthy” for a certified aircraft is defined as: “Conforming to its approved type design, and fit and safe for operation”.
Show me 10 random GA aircraft and I will come up with 100 discrepancies that technically render them unairworthy… This “unapproved mod” argument is too generic to make much sense in real life. I have 4 ashtrays in my Cessna which are standard equipment. I have removed them and use the mount to hold the headset controller. I’m pretty sure that qualifies as a deliberate unapproved mod. I also transport my cargo without the Cessna original baggage net, I’ve actually never seen one. My gear mirror has no EASA approval but only the biggest a**hole imaginable would object to it in which case I would simple remove it.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
“Conforming to its approved type design, and fit and safe for operation”.
My take is “Conforming to its approved type design in all relevant areas, fitter and safer for operation than if it was fully confirming.”
Having dealt with Medical insurance for yrs professionally as well as liability and Auto insurance. I can say that Aviation insurance is like a breath of fresh air when you are dealing with a claim with them. Whereas the non-aviation insurance tries desperately to find ways to minimize or not pay out right claims with aviation insurance that is not the case. I havent had a person experience where they even questioned the claim. Yes there are instances where they in my opinion not pay period. Like the guy who forgets 3x in 5 yrs to put the gear down. Really.
My own experience has been with prop. The first instance on landing at night I hit a deer. Had enough airspeed pull up over it but the prop tip sliced up the backbone and the main gear hit it. No damage to the aircraft and the gear was fine but the engine and prop had to be pulled. The insurance paid without a complaint or premium increase.
Next incident was a brand new prop and engine on run up the mechanic without watching where he was running up picked up a nice sized stone which caused a huge nick in the brand new prop. The insurance paid to have it pulled and replaced without going after the shop or raising my premiums.
If that had happened with my car insurance my premiums would have gone up without doubt.
I guess the reason aviation insurance may be different is because you dont have to have it. Only time its not an option if you have a bank loan. With all the used airplanes around you would think most people dont have hull. In the US your not even required to have Liability. I have a strong suspicion if it does become a requirement, as in a law, the premiums would be much, much higher.
The two cases where i needed insurance:
1. My neighbour in the hangar overlfies my Warrior, parked on the ramp with the door open, in 10 ft with his R44 … The door is almost torn out, door and cowling damaged, € 14.000 damage. Although CLEARLY gross negligence the insurance paid every penny
2. My friend who i gave my Warrior to fly it overprimes the engines last winter. The engines starts burning and he (it was his first flight with his new PPL!) reacts the wrong way and leaves the airplane … € 16.000 damage, all paid by the insurance without asking much. In my view a normal mistake, especially when you don’t have much experience ..
Although CLEARLY gross negligence the insurance paid every penny
By the helicopter or by the pilot leaving the door open? 
I guess the reason aviation insurance may be different is because you dont have to have it.
You do in the EU, although you don’t need hull cover.
achimha wrote:
Show me 10 random GA aircraft and I will come up with 100 discrepancies that technically render them unairworthy…
I’d take you up on that with a wager, but since we would probably start with YOUR airplane then there’s a good chance that we wouldn’t have to inspect any others to get to 100 … 
