Insurability?
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:00 pm
by LarryEWaiex121
I’ve been on this forum for quite a long time but rarely visit with other commitments of time.
One thing I’ve harped on for a long time, (over ten years), is the Sonex communities ongoing dilemma with engine, fuel system failures of one kind or another.
One can debate the reasons for all the failures. One thing that’s not up to debate is the fact insurance rates on Sonex are going up and its a direct reflection of the high number of losses.
I’ve been flying my Waiex now for 10 yrs and gone to great lengths to help over half a dozen builders get their Aero-Injectors set up correctly. The exercise was a valuable lesson to me. Either I’m not a good communicator (very likely) or airplane builders are an independent bunch? Also a possibility.
Not a single builder had followed the instructions to the letter. They wandered off on a path suggested to them by some well-meaning person on a forum or a friend of a friend. You know the story.
I simply gave up any type of help because I knew it would go in one ear and out the other. That was about 3 yrs into flying my plane and I’ve avoided those situations since.
Which brings me to the point. Sorry it got so long. Too many builders have no idea how to assemble a kit engine, too many builders don’t really know anything about carbs of any type and as a result, the Sonex community has a terrible safety record and the sales prices of these craft reflect that history. Values are less than 50% of what the average guys ends up spending.
I’ve talked with a good many individuals looking for a used homebuilt aircraft but early on learned that Sonex are to not be taken seriously because of the lack of standardization in powerplants. Too many brands of backwoods engines from suspect suppliers. Too many different carb offerings that few actually understand. The result. Engine failure after failure. Same with fuel system modifications of suspect design.
My personal feeling is if this doesn’t come to a natural end it will come to an unnatural end when we can no longer find affordable insurance.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:11 pm
by Sonex1517
Well said Larry, and it’s a real issue. Bordering on a crisis…
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:42 pm
by lpaaruule
I agree that striving for better engine/carb reliability should always be the case. However, when I look at the reasons for insurance rate increases, engine issues aren’t pointed to as major factor, although turboprop engines are harder to insure. Sonex engine issues may be a special case, but I don’t have any hard data on that.
The number one issue brought up is "countless natural disasters experienced recently”
Also:
“Dramatic fatal accidents and liability aren’t the cost drivers contributing to rate hikes. It’s hull coverage”
And:
According to Richard McSpadden, executive director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Institute, the four most common causes of non-catastrophic incidents that increase rates are:
– The most costly problem in general aviation aircraft is gear-up landings and gear collapses. This currently does not include any LSA, other than amphibious seaplanes.
– Next is loss of directional control on the ground, including ground loops. McSpadden stated, “Although taildraggers are a strong contributor to overall insurance payouts in this category, the issue is not exclusive to taildraggers. Pilots lose control on the ground in nosewheel airplanes at a surprising rate.”
– Hard landings came in third in the list of non-catastrophic accidents. Notably, flight into terrain and in-flight breakups are expensive but are so infrequent that they do not affect rates as significantly.
– Ranking fourth in overall cost to insurers, but first in number of incidents, is prop strikes. Most pilots are aware that props are expensive and a prop strike means a costly examination by an aviation mechanic.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:53 pm
by Scott Todd
So it seem seems like a good way to help control rates is for insurance companies to put limitations or restrictions. Like a gear-up is half or all of the pilots responsibility. They could also exclude prop strikes not related to an emergency.
What we really want is, if it quits and we hit a fence landing on a road, we want it covered. If I land gear up or have a prop strike from nosing it over on the runway, or ground loop it, that’s all on me.
But it seems like they are all or nothing. There has to be some middle ground to keep rates reasonable.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:21 pm
by GordonTurner
What about deductibles?
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:02 pm
by pilotyoung
The problem with limitations is that we live in a sue happy world. Many times when a person buys a new or different airplane, the insurance company requires the pilot to get so many hours of dual with a CFI, some times to fly so many hours before carrying passengers, sometimes so many landings including crosswind landings, etc. Many times the insured does not comply with those requirements, has an accident, and then sues the insurance company for now paying the claim. So adding limitations may seem like a good idea, but in reality it will just increase litigation and that increases costs.
The way to lower insurance rates is less accidents.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:13 am
by Scott Todd
It may increase litigation in a few cases but limitations like a gear-up landing without declaring an emergency (pilot error) is pretty straight forward. And for the few that try to sue, the insurance company saved tons by NOT paying all those other claims so they would win in the end. The costs go to the pilots making mistakes and not the rest of us.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:21 pm
by Fastcapy
I think if they start putting limitations like gear up is not covered, etc it will be a bad precedent. Before you know it coverage will be watered down and they will charge more and more for additional coverages. It won’t be beneficial to the insured that is for sure.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:19 am
by LarryEWaiex121
The fast way to get a start on this is simple. If the plane isn’t manufactured according to the plans, i.e. your own brand of engine, modified fuel tanks and pumps, non conforming airframe modivication, then the unit doesn’t qualify as a Sonex in terms of insurance. It’s a custom and should be treated as such.
I love the freedom to experiment as much as many. The simple fact is too many unproven mods are being done, with low experience pilots doing their own test flying. Things go wrong and they are not qualified to handle the results.
Vans has vastly more airframes in the air but casual observation tells me that they have a proportionally lower rate of engine/fuel related failure than Sonex airframes. Even if the actual difference is small, the perception is hugely NOT if favor of the Sonex. I’ve heard this many times from my flying friends. The old saying is, “perception is reality”. I know locally 4 Vans owners that looked at the Sonex and passed on it because they feit the recommended engine packages were not acceptable to them.
Out West, for many the Aero-vee is a complete non starter do to density altitude most of the year.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:14 pm
by lakespookie
That density altitude and the weak power system are why I am going a different direction.
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:34 pm
by daleandee
LarryEWaiex121 wrote:If the plane isn’t manufactured according to the plans, i.e. your own brand of engine, modified fuel tanks and pumps, non conforming airframe modification, then the unit doesn’t qualify as a Sonex in terms of insurance. It’s a custom and should be treated as such.
FWIW, I tried to honor the factory request to not use their name on my build. It’s actually registered as a “Myunn” but the registration still shows the name of the kit supplier. But does this mean that everyone that added wing tanks now has to rename their plane? 
LarryEWaiex121 wrote:The simple fact is too many unproven mods are being done, with low experience pilots doing their own test flying. Things go wrong and they are not qualified to handle the results.
This is true for every modified kit plane regardless of the supplier so this point would not specifically apply to our planes.
LarryEWaiex121 wrote:Vans has vastly more airframes in the air but casual observation tells me that they have a proportionally lower rate of engine/fuel related failure than Sonex airframes. Even if the actual difference is small, the perception is hugely NOT if favor of the Sonex. I’ve heard this many times from my flying friends. The old saying is, “perception is reality”. I know locally 4 Vans owners that looked at the Sonex and passed on it because they felt the recommended engine packages were not acceptable to them. Out West, for many the Aero-vee is a complete non starter do to density altitude most of the year.
To my knowledge there isn’t a single Van’s aircraft flying with a converted VW engine (I realize the VW doesn’t make enough power) but the point is that most Van’s builders are using aircraft engines and not auto conversion engines. Still, some are using Subaru engines and such.
But your point is clear even if others do not realize the impact of it. Look and see the total number of threads all over the web about the overheating of the VW conversions (not just on these airframes) and the extreme difficulty of setting up the factory supplied slide carb. The little VW engines work well but there is a limit to how much power it can produce and how much heat it can stand. Personally I believe the 80 HP VW engine is very taxed in the hotter southern states. Some have mentioned moving the sensors to get a better CHT reading but that’s not addressing the problem.
FWIW (again) my insurance on my 120 HP tail wheel airplane had a very small increase over last year (~$20) and my overall cost is under a grand for a newbie tail wheel pilot, 25K in hull, and the standard liability. I’ve read how WW worked with insurance companies to get approval for his conversions on experimental aircraft. When I applied for my insurance policy I was very upfront about the type of engine I had, the factory stance on the FWF weight limit, and the fact that I had increased the gross weight over the factory recommended limit by ~8%. They thanked me for my candor and noted these things on my policy.
Dunno if this helps …
Dale
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:20 pm
by LarryEWaiex121
I believe I stand with a considerable number of people involved in the Sonex community that not only has a vested financial interest in the planes image but a larger interest in slowing the accident rate because of the human toll it takes.
It pains me to read about events that probably in large part could have been avoided with more refinement and care in building and maintenance. More sets of eyes reviewing and confirming whats been done. Qualified advisors and not just well wishers that eat all your chips and drink your beer.
The engine and fuel system “has to work”. Till a builder has time on the stick and knows his aircraft, this is no place to experiment. My personal feeling. There is enough pressure to sort out a new plane without dealing with a firewall forward mystery world. If a person does go this direction, I feel it behooves them to have an experienced test pilot fly the plane for the first flights. If something is going to go to “you know where” it’s likely going to be in the early running.
Case in point. This last week at my home airport we had a guy with a brand new $60,000 gyro wad it up. First flight, second landing. Came in too steep, flared late and cratered it into the runway hard enough to rip off the tail, collapse the right gear, tip the whole unit over and wiped out the main mast, blades and everything in-between.
Got his add on rating in a similar type of gyro but no actual experience in that type. Huge insurance claim. Basically totaled. Not to mention the image it creates about those pesky little “experimental” aircraft. The airport was closed and it kept the Citations and Gulfstreams parked. Boy that pissed off the high dollar crowd.
Larry
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:27 pm
by Scott Todd
I agree Larry. I’m an EAA Flight Advisor and like helping people get ready for a first flight. But more often than not, I recommend a Test Pilot. I’ve flight tested a dozen new homebuilts but always recommend a qualified person. I did a test flight on a newly restored Kitfox a few weeks back and had an engine fail (actually a prop) on takeoff. I made the ‘impossible’ turn back to a parallel runway much to the surprise of onlookers. But I pointed out I have 1000 hours in that exact M/M and engine so I was prepared and knew my point of no return. I was fully aware of my speed/pitch attitude the ENTIRE time. Mostly because I have done it hundreds of times, in practice and training. This is where we need help. Training, training, training. Just like your Gyro pilot example. Its no wonder rates are so high.
No matter what the failure, the resulting stall/spin are what usually kills people. Training, training, training…
Re: Insurability?
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:41 am
by lpaaruule
Last I heard, GA pilots average around 20 hrs a year.
I realize that I may be sounding like a contrarian, or just a jerk, but more training isn’t going to happen. Sure some people will train more, but those people probably aren’t the ones affecting insurability.
We are often told that if we don’t make changes ourselves, the FAA will force changes. I don’t disagree with that, but I suspect if that happens, many pilots will simply give up, and find another hobby. Any FAA enforcement would require hiring an instructor to ride along while training/practicing; an honor system is unlikely.
I try to perform a stall or two every couple flights, and my EAA chapter has challenges like losing the least altitude on an simulated engine out 180. We report out numbers the following meeting.
While simplicity is often touted as being superior, I wonder if that’s still the case when fuel injection being so ubiquitous.
Speaking simply for myself, I would be less likely to change the design of a fuel system if no one was having problems with “burps”, high and uneven EGTs, cold starts, and tuning in general. As it is, I copied Jeff Schulz’s fuel system design, and have never has a single “burp”.
A supported fuel injected firewall forward option that is designed and tested by the kit manufacturer, I believe could help. I can think of a couple engine outs that would have been prevented, and maybe a couple deaths. I sure wouldn’t have wanted the Rotec TBI that I never ended up using, which has been the cause of several forced landings.