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>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: 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
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: 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
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: 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
