Re: Avemco and their data??

David A Froble

Ric Lee wrote:


I can't for the life of me see what Avemco is talking about. Is it
possible that all of the "hundreds" of canard accidents went unseen
by the FAA and the NTSB. What's the story folks?

You will see that our beloved canards are not a factor on this list.
(Source NTSB)

-Frank Pullano Jr
Varieze N500EZ
(Snip big table of Data)
I found three canard accidents in the list provided,
1 Dragonfly
1 Velocity
1 Veri EZE
Certainly nothing to panic the insurance companies. Look at how
many Lancairs were reported.
And there you may be starting to see some of the problem. What are used Lancairs selling for? Pretty expensive if I remember correctly.

I can see the insurance companies being put into a bad situation. There are probably quite a few people buying plastic airplanes, and then to protect their investment, buying hull coverage. Little/No experience, high performance aircraft, little tolerance for errors, the result, damaged aircraft.

Now, where does the insurance company turn to for repairs on the damaged plastic airplane? Not a lot of options there that I'm aware of. Repairing a plastic aircraft is a lot more chancy than an aluminum airplane. Yeah, repairs may not be a big issue, but, inspection to find what needs to be repaired can be a lot more difficult. Just look at what the NTSB is specifying for Airbus rudders. Ultrasound inspections. Aluminum is much easier to inspect for damage. Composites can easily have hidden damage. Repair shops don't want the responsibility (liability) of having missed hidden damage, therefore you don't have a composite repair station at every airport. So, to settle the claim, they 'total' the aircraft. This leaves them no room for cost savings. A plastic airplane gets damaged, and regardless of the damage, for the insurance company it's 100%.

Back anybody into a bad situation, and they're going to react. At some point the insurance executives see higher average payouts for plastic airplanes, ask why, and don't like the answers they get. So, they decide that plastic airplanes are a bad deal, and walk away from them. Who can blame them?

As for other experimentals, how many people are insuring their lower performance, lower cost aircraft? I'm guessing the real activity is at the top end, not the bottom, with respect to the value of the aircraft. Less performance, less energy to dissipate, less damage. Pretty simple.

The above is conjecture, but I think that it may be some of the problem.

Original builders may be less likely to carry hull coverage. They know that money cannot replace their effort to build the aircraft. For proof, look at the low selling price of many canards. It's the buyers who look at the purchase price, and want to protect that. They're also the least likely to repair a damaged aircraft, therefore the most expensive customers for the insurance industry.


David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: davef@...
T-Soft, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Join to automatically receive all group messages.