Insurance for Acro planes?

A man came into Boulder today in his Sukhoi 26 acro plane so I went down to talk to him. I didn't get much detail but when I asked two questions, here is what he said:

No, it was not hard to fly,
But it was hard to get insurance for.

He said they required 25 hours in type, which is common to many planes; but also 500 hours of tailwheel time!
asked who he had insurance with, and he sort of mumbled something that was not very clear.

I have not heard of any such requirement just for a tailwheel airplane, has anyone else?

And it is just single seat, no passenger exposure.

The Sukhoi population is small. I believe that they are all Experimental Exhibition certified. The performance is huge and different.

I have not looked at insurance for a -26 or a -31, but the SU-29 is 2 seats so I would guess that you could buy 25 hours in one if you know an owner (I do). Sukhoi parts come through only a handful of sources so if you break one, fixing it may cost more $$ than a Cessna.

The number of insurance brokers who know aerobatic airplanes is not large. Northwest is one. Falcon. Forrest. I insure my Pitts with Avemco but they might not do a Sukhoi.

The 500 tailwheel hours sounds high but maybe not as Suk's are very blind on the ground. The new generation of pilots seems to think that you need to see the runway in order to land on it. And they may be more likely to run over something when taxi-ing as S-turns for taxi seem to be a disappearing skill. A friend accidentally drove his Pitts into the tail of a Citation that he failed to see ahead of him on the ramp.

For insurance risk, once you progress beyond the Decathlon, aerobatic airplanes start being higher performance, smaller in numbers for each type, and flown a lot harder than your average aircraft. So the underwriters want more pilot experience or lots more premium $$. If you have an incident, even if it is not your fault, more $$ and time are usually involved. Example - A friend bought an Extra, An ultralight taxi-ed around the corner of a hangar and drove into his rudder, chewing it up with the ultralight's propeller. The new rudder had to be fabricated in Germany. When it got here the mechanic discovered that a design change since the airplane had been built caused the new style rudder to not fit to the older vertical fin. So the factory in Germany had to fabricate a vertical fin to match the new rudder. It all had to be fitted and painted. So multiple months later the airplane was flying again. If I understood correctly, the total bill to the insurance company for parts and labor was over $100K. And my friend was standing next to the airplane, parked at the gas pump, when the collision occurred.

So I would believe the story and suggest that the pilot mumbled perhaps because he wasn't insured.

Oh, while Sukhoi's are not hard to fly, I am told, by someone who goofed, that you have to be careful pulling G's. They LIKE going to 12G's and your body might not have the same level of durability. Be warned when you pull or push the stick.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

If you think getting insurance in an Acro is hard look at this: I was looking around for another insurance carrier (I am currently insured and have been for almost 20-years) so I asked AOPA to get me a quote. The replay came this morning, saying because OF MY AGE (82) and that I had a prop strike 3-years ago they won't quote me. Goodby, AOPA !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilfred

If you think getting insurance in an Acro is hard look at this: I was looking around for another insurance carrier (I am currently insured and have been for almost 20-years) so I asked AOPA to get me a quote. The replay came this morning, saying because OF MY AGE (82) and that I had a prop strike 3-years ago they won't quote me. Goodby, AOPA !!!!

---

The insurance industry is one of those areas where age discrimination is alive and well with no signs of disappearing.

Don

Well, for better or worse, insurance companies employ lots of mathematicians (actuaries) who compile data into statistics that generally suggest how likely a population of individuals are to have experiences that result in insurance company payouts. So if you look at the pilot population by age, and the insurance experience with different age groups, those mathematicians offer numbers that are interpreted as the general risk that the insurance company will make loss payouts. Every population has individuals who are much better risks and who are much worse risks. The insurance companies essentially look at the averages. So some folks do not get the service that they would like and probably deserve.

That said, speaking for myself, I see that as we age, we need less insurance. Life insurance for example is less needed if your children are on their own and the house mortgage is paid off. When I get to be 80 and I am still flying, I will likely be flying a less expensive airplane and not bother with in-motion hull insurance. Hopefully I will have the experience to avoid crashing by then and what I will worry about is a hangar fire, hurricanes, and someone else running into my parked airplane. And at 80, I see the reality that if I do crash, I won't be as resilient as I was at 30 so I suspect that I won't be flying after that.

A friend who was a flight test pilot for many years once said that "Getting old is not for sissies." I am starting to see his point.

On the topic of statistics, being politically incorrect, another friend came up with "What's the difference between and actuary and a Sicilian?" His answer was "An actuary can tell you how many people are going to die today.... A Sicilian can tell you their names."

Go fly. Be happy.

Wes
N78PS