<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>

We are averaging 2+ losses per year on Lancair IV's out of a total

risk group of about 100 flying airplanes.  This is a VERY high rate.  

Much higher than 152's for the number of THAT aircraft flying. The

owners paying insurance in that group "pay for" the losses of that

group.  I've talked many times to the Insurance adjuster for AVEMCO.  

He has a strong bias against Lancair IV in part (I would suspect

mostly) because of the actual loss rate has been very high in dollar

terms.  This is his bread and butter so to speak.  He makes his

living betting that we will NOT have more accidents than his premium

rate covers.  Its as simple as that.



  We, on the other hand should be able to find more effective ways to

limit our risks if we take the effort to look at the data and ask the

right questions.  It may be our only option until the actual loss

record improves, which it eventually should....



Is there anyone out there who is or has a friend in the industry how

might have more answers?



____

Stuart Seffern

Debbie Loiselle

916 Dane Street

Madison, WI 53713



E-Mail- RTWM02A [at] Prodigy.com

Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mailing-List: lancair.list [at] olsusa.com



          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>

If the IV is having a problem with insurance coverage, then I suspect that

there are other high performance planes in a similar situation.



Has anyone considered getting these insurance orphans together to form

their own risk pool? I won't call it insurance because the government

regulates the insurance industry (to that industry's benefit).  A

civil contractual arrangement between all the parties

limiting liability

to whatever is agreed upon should at least provide coverage for true accident

situations. Things like wheels up landings, fuel exhaustion, and other brain

farts could be explicitly excluded.  Acceptance could be based upon

finishing some training course and recurring training or other measure

of proficiency.



Putting the controlling entity off shore should get rid of nuisance

regulations.  Initially make the coverage more expensive than usual to

cover the risk, and invest the funds collected in some

interest bearing

instruments. After a few years (with some luck) rates might go down for

those that "invested" the longest. It's a bit like a mutual fund only the

fund has to pay for agreed upon losses.



Because it's a fund, the money put in can be viewed as any other speculative

investment, and individuals might consider putting in $10,000 up front

even though insurance coverage (if it were available) might only cost $5,000.

The money spent on insurance is an absolute loss to us, but the money invested

in the fund could produce a profit. There might even be a small psychological

effect that would make investors (pilots) more careful about not jeopardizing

their investment, and reduce the accident rate. Properly structured, there

might even be some tax advantages for profit or loss.



Just an idea.



Bill Gradwohl

IV-P Builder

N858B