Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:25 AM - Re: Forget Obummer and Mac (Roger Kemp MD)
2. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Forrest Johnson)
3. 10:32 AM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
4. 03:46 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Forrest Johnson)
5. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Forget Obummer and Mac |
We can put you in touch with ACORN. I think the number is 1800VOTFRAUD. With
their help you can vote 80 or more times!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Elliott
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Forget Obummer and Mac
Doug for YOU, I will vote at least three or four times!
Tom Elliott
CJ-6A NX63727
702-595-2680
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of doug sapp
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 5:34 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Forget Obummer and Mac
Group,
I have never asked for much from you guys, so if you feel like it here is
your chance to pay me back and it won't cost you a dime, only your support.
http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=357563
<http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=357563&altf=EPVH&altl=TBQQ>
&altf=EPVH&altl=TBQQ
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
cs.com
matronics.com/contribution
>Checked 1719 - Release Date: 10/10/2008 4:08 PM
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
I totally agree. I always enjoy your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
The nice thing about owning your own airplane is that you can do pretty much
anything you want with it, especially if it is in the Experimental catagory.
Probably the biggest waste of time on record is for one pilot to tell
another pilot what he should or should not do to his own aircraft, or how he
should fly it.
This applies to both of us Forrest.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Auto-pilot is a greattool to releive the pilot but was never intended to be
the brains of the airplane. It needs to be monitored all the time.
Complacency and to much dependancy can lead to big problems especially
when IFR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
So Forrest, how do you feel about auto-pilots? :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug. Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck. If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500 and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now. In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Thank you Forrest, but my opinion and $2 won't even buy coffee
now-a-days.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Sat 10/11/2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
I totally agree. I always enjoy your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
The nice thing about owning your own airplane is that you can do pretty
much
anything you want with it, especially if it is in the Experimental
catagory.
Probably the biggest waste of time on record is for one pilot to tell
another pilot what he should or should not do to his own aircraft, or
how he
should fly it.
This applies to both of us Forrest.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
Auto-pilot is a greattool to releive the pilot but was never intended to
be
the brains of the airplane. It needs to be monitored all the time.
Complacency and to much dependancy can lead to big problems especially
when IFR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
So Forrest, how do you feel about auto-pilots? :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you
put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever
for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug.
Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the
rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not
likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear
warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the
accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck.
If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree
angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount
is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will
save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the
majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based
on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500
and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to
making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which
over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot
of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just
appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to
the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero
risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now.
In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original
purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours
of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to
me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to
drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across
the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system.
Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could
enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to
suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may
be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Next time I see you I will buy the coffee. It will probably only cost $2 at
Starbucks and I won't be able to afford it the way things are going, FLY
SAFE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Thank you Forrest, but my opinion and $2 won't even buy coffee now-a-days.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Sat 10/11/2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I totally agree. I always enjoy your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
The nice thing about owning your own airplane is that you can do pretty much
anything you want with it, especially if it is in the Experimental catagory.
Probably the biggest waste of time on record is for one pilot to tell
another pilot what he should or should not do to his own aircraft, or how he
should fly it.
This applies to both of us Forrest.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Auto-pilot is a greattool to releive the pilot but was never intended to be
the brains of the airplane. It needs to be monitored all the time.
Complacency and to much dependancy can lead to big problems especially
when IFR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
So Forrest, how do you feel about auto-pilots? :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug. Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck. If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500 and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now. In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system. Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review |
Thanks Forrest. Take care.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Sat 10/11/2008 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
Next time I see you I will buy the coffee. It will probably only cost $2
at
Starbucks and I won't be able to afford it the way things are going, FLY
SAFE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Thank you Forrest, but my opinion and $2 won't even buy coffee
now-a-days.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Sat 10/11/2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
I totally agree. I always enjoy your comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
The nice thing about owning your own airplane is that you can do pretty
much
anything you want with it, especially if it is in the Experimental
catagory.
Probably the biggest waste of time on record is for one pilot to tell
another pilot what he should or should not do to his own aircraft, or
how he
should fly it.
This applies to both of us Forrest.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
Auto-pilot is a greattool to releive the pilot but was never intended to
be
the brains of the airplane. It needs to be monitored all the time.
Complacency and to much dependancy can lead to big problems especially
when IFR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
So Forrest, how do you feel about auto-pilots? :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Forrest Johnson
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
<flushjohnson@charter.net>
What happened to good logic and check list? Todays younger pilots want
something else to do their thinking for them. The more technology you
put
into an airplane the more chances you have for some sort of failure. You
want an airplane with all the bells and whistles go buy a new What Ever
for
a hell of a lo.t more money.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
I'd love to hear your logic on why the UPCHARGE is necessary Doug.
Given
that the amount that insurance people pay OUT is directly tied to the
rates
we are charged to have it in the first place, this practice is not
likely in
any way to change. Insurance companies are there to make a profit. In
order to lower insurance rates because of the installation of gear
warning
systems, it would have to be shown that a certain percentage of the
accident
payouts were due to gear up landings or gear being raised on the deck.
If
the majority of the insurance payout is due to other factors such as the
"WING OFF" light coming on, or approaching the deck at a 90 degree
angle,
then no one is going to be interested in giving us a discount.
Again, the only real way insurance people will give any kind of discount
is
if it is a proven fact that installing the gear warning systems will
save
them MORE MONEY than not having it INCLUDING the discount.
So that said.... right now... with no gear warning system in the
majority of
our aircraft, the insurance company is charging us a certain rate based
on
aircraft value and accident statistics. Period. Asking us to pay MORE
right now means that they simply make MORE profit. If we cough up $1500
and
install the system, they give us back the UPCHARGE and are back to
making
what they were before PLUS the benefit of less accident rates, which
over
time... if successful and if people don't wreck their aircraft for a lot
of
other reasons SHOULD EVENTUALLY see us getting better insurance rates.
As it appears to me, an UPCHARGE done in the method you suggest just
appears
to me to be a method of using us, the customer to provide insurance to
the
insurance company that their profits remain completely stable with zero
risk
to them. Of COURSE the insurance company would like that idea. Who
wouldn't?
Just as an aside, I have owned my YAK-50 for just short of 10 years now.
In
that period of time, I have paid out just about 50% of the original
purchase
price of the aircraft in insurance. Admittedly the first two years my
insurance rates were simply off the chart because I only had 100 hours
of
tail dragger time and zero time in type. That's a rate that is about 5
times higher than my home insurance. That said, I'd be interested in
hearing why an upcharge would be a good thing.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of doug sapp
Sent: Thu 10/9/2008 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: RED ALERT - Safety Review
Guys,
As Elmar and Mark pointed out, it's already been built, it has been
available for years. The sticking point is the $1250.00 uninstalled
cost
and to a somewhat lesser degree the mentality that "it won't happen to
me".
TJ and I have talked about all this before. But if we are going to to
drag
this horse out and beat it some more I would like to restate my opinion,
knowing full well that with it and $1.50 you can get a cup of coffee.
At the risk of being drug out of my office and summarily tarred and
feathered I would (somewhat cautiously suggest) that if we REALLY want
to be
proactive on this gear warn issue IMHO the only way to enact it across
the
board is a UP charge on our insurance premiums. This upcharge would be
refunded upon the installation of a acceptable gear warn system.
Reading
TJ's curent email I also assume that once it was installed we could
enjoy a
reduction of our annual premiums also. As unpopular as it may be to
suggest
yet another increase in our flying expenses, I honestly think this may
be
the only way to get everyone's attention and have a real impact on the
problem of gear up landings.
Retracting the gear on the ramp is yet another issue and must be delt
with
in another manner.
Always Yakin,
Doug
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Tim Gagnon <NiftyYak50@fuse.net> wrote:
tjyak50 wrote:
> We've gone around and around on this subject for years.
> There is always a way to find a reason why each system isn't perfect.
>
> So nobody does anything.
Build it and they will come.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 7999#207999
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|