@Peter, fixed gear twins include the Partenavia/Vulcanair P68, which might be a reasonable plane to compare to the DA42 (?) as its also a light and unusual twin. Somehow I don’t think it was the basis for this comparision 
Also the (certainly less directly comparable) Cessna 336.
Peter wrote:
Did you compare similar fixed-wing and retractables?
I submitted the Cirrus SR22T, The Diamond DA42-VI, and the Mooney Acclaim. Both retractables had a 30% premium due to the gear. The underwriters said it doesn’t matter what pilot ratings or TT are; it’s about the gear itself. They have too many payouts just based on gear failure, gear maint. issues, landing with gear up, and retracting the gear inadvertently during taxi or when sitting on the ramp.
As an added side note. Underwriters do not give a premium break for the CAPS parachute. The theory being once the chute is pulled the plane is assumed totaled.
Also, the underwriters are not interested in insuring experimentals, especially a $1.5 million dollar plane like the Lancair Evolution.
The perception of insurers with respect to RG vs fixed will vary a little from the preference of a pilot. The insurer sees the possibility of landings with the gear selected to the wrong position – particularly in amphibians, which have no direct warning system. I see RG as giving a choice for a forced approach, in that I might prefer to slide it on wheels up, if the surface is unwelcoming, or water.
I assess risk based upon my experience and knowledge of other’s events. Nearly always, my perception of risk (that which I worry about mitigating) begins at the moment the plane stops moving on the surface. It is from that point, until you’re safe, dry and warm, where your risk increases.
I have never known a pilot who has been killed, nor even seriously injured conducting a forced landing – and I know a bunch of us who have done it. The two pilots I know who died after an engine failure in a single, both tried to turn back the runway, and failed to reach it or survive the foolish attempt.
The other high risk I am very aware of is most anything done in a plane shortly after the pilot says: “watch this” or “let me show you…”
Both retractables had a 30% premium due to the gear. The underwriters said it doesn’t matter what pilot ratings or TT are; it’s about the gear itself.
I think it’s worth pointing out the differences between US and European insurers. When we bought our present retractable gear aircraft in 2011, I was a 300 hours VFR PPL with zero hours in rg aircraft and the insurers just shrugged their shoulders. My co-owner had a higher TT, but also minimal hours in rg aircraft. We had 3 offers and went for Generali via a German broker (about 1.200 Euros liability and 900 Euros hull insurance per year).
OTOH, the insurance rates were not reduced when I did my CPL/IR/MEP ratings, as it may have been the case in the US.
They have too many payouts just based on gear failure, gear maint. issues, landing with gear up, and retracting the gear inadvertently during taxi or when sitting on the ramp.
Gear maintenance issues are not covered by insurance.
Retracting the gear inadvertently during taxi or when sitting on the ramp – how? All common GA types have squat switches. Probably, it would involve deliberately disabling the squat switches and then operating the gear lever. It could happen in a maintenance scenario but then the person is an idiot to not have the aircraft on jacks when doing that sort of gear work. I know it can be done on certain homebuilts, where squat switches are optional. I also read of a twin turboprop Commander doing it but that one didn’t have squat switches, IIRC. The only other method I can think of is to taxi with the gear lever UP and taxi over a bump which momentarily operates the squat switches.
I think the insurer you spoke to was an idiot, or your TT is way too low to be appropriate for say a DA42 and it was their way of telling you they don’t want your business. Since you fly a Flight Design (CTLS?) and asked about insuring a DA42, it is probably the latter reason.
kwlf wrote:
A few years ago when I was fixated with the LongEZ design I ran through the whole NTSB database. I don’t recall the exact figures, but your chances of surviving an off-airport landing were <50%. For Piper Cubs they were close to 100% provided you didn’t spin in.
An off airport landing isn’t a CFIT, though. I think most would define a CFIT as unexpectedly hitting terrain in cruise flight (such as smacking into the side of a mountain while flying in IMC) or otherwise getting into a situation where you can’t avoid smacking into the ground.
A forced landing on the other hand is a completely different beast altogether and it isn’t just touch down speed. The Long Ez’s stall speed (55kt) isn’t absurdly high, only 3 knots more than a Beech Bonanza. Of course having a lower energy touch down in something like a Cub will make the probability of a good outcome from a forced landing much better, but other factors that are against a good outcome in a Long-Ez are: (and why you’d be better off in a comparable landing speed aircraft like a Bonanza)
Peter wrote:
Gear maintenance issues are not covered by insurance…insurer you spoke to was an idiot
You misunderstand, the gear maint issues were connected to gear failure. Pilot TT and rating don’t relate to the retractable issue. I have 580 TT but the more important number is time in category and type – at least in the US.
So US aviation insurance carriers are idiots now? Laughing…
Of the 39 accidents affecting the PC 12 fleet there have been five as a result of engine failure, none of which resulting in injury. Two of the forced landings were to an airport, one from 40 miles away, the others were off airport with one ditching.
The main reason for fatal accidents were due to spatial disorientation at night or in IMC, although not sure if any of these were in the NG with Honeywell Apex glass cockpit. Other fatal accidents were due to CFIT, un stabilised approaches or go arounds in IMC, flap asymmetry, fuel imbalance, and an instructor unsuccessfully demonstrating an impossible turn after a simulated EFATO. One recurring feature in some of the spatial disorientation batch was A/P disconnect and the pilot, usually a PPL, not able to hand fly in IMC.
The lack of injury in forced landings was a nice surprise.
alioth wrote:
Flapless wing – difficult to fly a steep but slow approach (I bet the Long-Ez doesn’t slip well). Steep approaches make it easier to clear obstacles and make a precision touchdown.
Fragile nosewheel assembly. High probability of nosewheel collapse compared other nosewheel aircraft.
Not much structure in front of the pilot to absorb the energy when the nosewheel does collapse.
I wouldn’t use ‘CFIT’ for a forced landing either, but that aside it’s still pertinent.
The Long-EZs have speed-brakes and if you use both rudders you can apparently get quite a good rate of descent.
That said, I’ve had another look through the NTSB statistics:
For Lancairs {all models} there are 10 forced landings, 2 of which caused fatalities and 2 of which {non-fatal} were on runways
For Cassut racers, there were 7 forced landings involving no fatalities
For Long-EZs there were 22 forced landings with 4 fatalities *
For Cubs {PA- and ’cub’} there were a lot of fatalities that involved caribou antlers mounted externally, drunk student pilots setting out on night flights, getting distracted whilst trying to fly and shoot things at the same time. But out of about 300 accidents before I got bored, I couldn’t find a fatality due to a forced landing – excepting a stall-spin event. Granted, there were a few unexplained accidents – wreckage found many years after the event, etc…
Why the big difference for Long-EZs this time and the last time I looked? Last time my question was, ‘what are the chances of surviving an engine failure’ and I included a few accidents such as John Denver’s which I didn’t think it appropriate to include here: he was distracted and flew into terrain. Lancairs also seemed to have a lot of stall-spin accidents and if you kept in control all the way to quite rough terrain, your chances seemed better than I would have expected.
* I recall you can get more data by looking for more variants LongEZE, Long-EZ
