Aside from the hypotheticals, where is the verifiable data to support your assertion?JimParker256 wrote:How about applying some logic to the situation?Wm.Ince wrote:Can you provide us some verifiable data which supports your assertion?Warmi wrote:. . . . at least theoretically, there is a greater risk involved with a plane that could have been potentially modified in ways that don't necessarily promote safety . . .
The S-LSA must be maintained in accordance with published specs and data, using factory-supplied manuals and procedures. All the maintenance and inspections must be performed by a licensed mechanic (LSR-M, A&P, or A&P/IA). That means the risks are well understood.
An E-LSA (such as the one I own and fly) is just like any other Experimental airplane. Literally ANYONE can work on the airplane, and the inspections can be signed off by any of the above, or by the owner/operator – provided they attend the training and receive the LSR-I rating (as I just did). Unlike the S-LSA, if I want to remove the Rotax 912ULS and install a Jabiru 3300 or even a Harley-Davidson motorcycle engine, I can do so without consulting or gaining approval from the airplane's designer / manufacturer. If I want to change the flap mechanism from a "johnson-bar" to electric, I can do that also. If I had a plane with balanced ailerons and I decided to replace them with unbalanced ones, I could to so. (It would be purely stupid, but I could legally do so, as long as I flew off the 5-hour test period specified in my Operating Limitations).
So, which of the above incurs more risk to an insurer? Clearly, the E-LSA carries the potential for significantly higher risk. That doesn't necessarily mean that the "actuarial history" proves the risk is real, but the insurance underwriter has to make their "best guess" about what will happen in the future, and base their rates upon that.
My E-LSA has higher insurance premiums than it would if it were an S-LSA, and I'm fine with that.
If you cannot provide that data, just say so.