Re: insurance catch
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:35 am
The AOPA article mentions the need to "sell yourself" to the underwriters. When I bought my Sonex last July - I certainly had to do that. Despite a recent "loss" (cost of repairs exceeded hull insurance value - aircraft is now a project and will fly again) - the following all helped me:
- I take a flight review annually
- I stay phased in the FAA WINGS program
- I shared a copy of the NASA report for my loss with underwriters which included the analysis of what went wrong and how to avoid in future.
- Being candid about my tail endorsement being a while back - but helped by having prepared for and flown taildraggers intermittently since the endorsement. Tiger Moth time being the most useful.
Underwriters came back with a premium and a 10 / 10 requirement. 10 hours with CFI and 10 hours solo after CFI before passengers. 10/10 is pretty normal in any plane switch. I went back with the Sonex Transition Training Syllabus and offered to use that with a CFI, plus make the time another Flight Review at the same time. Insurers came back with 5/5. And that was fine by me.
I also had to state that the Sonex was essentially built to plans - which it is. They were very specific about anything that might have made a change from Sonex plans - specifically flight control surfaces/W&B/recommended engines.
--
I also then reflew the Phase 1 testing for my own education (not formally back in Phase 1) and didn't carry passengers till I had about 50 hours total time and felt proficient enough in the plane to be doing things automatically so I could deal with passenger distractions. Though during that 50 I did fly with one or two other qualified pilots for opinions and a "Second viewpoint".
I don't know enough about the Sonex accident history as such. But I would say the general EAA pitch for EXPERIMENTALS about keeping things standard, getting transition training and time and knocking off rust after a prolonged period not flying while building are all things that underwriters would like.
- I take a flight review annually
- I stay phased in the FAA WINGS program
- I shared a copy of the NASA report for my loss with underwriters which included the analysis of what went wrong and how to avoid in future.
- Being candid about my tail endorsement being a while back - but helped by having prepared for and flown taildraggers intermittently since the endorsement. Tiger Moth time being the most useful.
Underwriters came back with a premium and a 10 / 10 requirement. 10 hours with CFI and 10 hours solo after CFI before passengers. 10/10 is pretty normal in any plane switch. I went back with the Sonex Transition Training Syllabus and offered to use that with a CFI, plus make the time another Flight Review at the same time. Insurers came back with 5/5. And that was fine by me.
I also had to state that the Sonex was essentially built to plans - which it is. They were very specific about anything that might have made a change from Sonex plans - specifically flight control surfaces/W&B/recommended engines.
--
I also then reflew the Phase 1 testing for my own education (not formally back in Phase 1) and didn't carry passengers till I had about 50 hours total time and felt proficient enough in the plane to be doing things automatically so I could deal with passenger distractions. Though during that 50 I did fly with one or two other qualified pilots for opinions and a "Second viewpoint".
I don't know enough about the Sonex accident history as such. But I would say the general EAA pitch for EXPERIMENTALS about keeping things standard, getting transition training and time and knocking off rust after a prolonged period not flying while building are all things that underwriters would like.