Comparing S-LSA to E-LSA insurance rates

[Wm.Ince]

. . . . 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 . . .

Can you provide us some verifiable data which supports your assertion?

How about applying some logic to the situation?

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.

Aside from the hypotheticals, where is the verifiable data to support your assertion?
If you cannot provide that data, just say so.

[ShawnM]

As with Stan's example below, everyone I have talked with and have seen them post their insurance rates after converting all are within $100 to $200 give or take of the S-LSA quote. I even know two people here in Florida whose insurance went down when they converted for whatever reason. See Eddie's example below for one of those reasons.

A 77% increase? Something's not stirring the kool-air here.

[Warmi]

Can you provide us some verifiable data which supports your assertion?

How about applying some logic to the situation?

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.

Aside from the hypotheticals, where is the verifiable data to support your assertion?
If you cannot provide that data, just say so.

Your assertion that there is no difference is just as hypothetical but it has some additional flaws of its own - complete ignorance of basic logic nad common sense being most prominent here.

Not hard data but here is just another guy exercising his common sense..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qopOMGPiGZ4

[FastEddieB]

Jumping back in for a moment...

I agree that with an EXPERIMENTAL, there's no guarantee regarding the quality of the work performed or the appropriateness of modifications made.

However, in my experience to date the same thing can be said for "certified" planes and S-LSA's. Lots of very shoddy work out there and "pencil-whipped" annuals. Maintenance-Induced-Failures are hardly unique to EXPERIMENTALS.

I think I spend a lot more time agonizing over little things on my Annual Condition Inspections than the average paid mechanic would.

But That's Just Me!™

[Warmi]

As with Stan's example below, everyone I have talked with and have seen them post their insurance rates after converting all are within $100 to $200 give or take of the S-LSA quote. I even know two people here in Florida whose insurance went down when they converted for whatever reason. See Eddie's example below for one of those reasons.

A 77% increase? Something's not stirring the kool-air here.

Yes, that 77% bump doesn't seem likely to be solely due to LSA -> ELSA but the basic assertion that given all other factors being equal , attempting to insure a ELSA plane will end up being more expensive seems very logical to me.

Given that insurance business is driven by data and sophisticated modeling , it only make sense to assume that airplanes that have a higher rate of failures ( which is to say experimental - and that's hard data ) will cost more to insure.
What we need to factor in is that majority of accidents have not much to do with mechanical failures but rather are due to various human factors ( or rather flaws ) and thus , while ELSA insurance will most likely increase , there are other factors that will influence your total cost a lot more ( your experience , overall and in the type , history and so on )

[Wm.Ince]

How about applying some logic to the situation?

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.

Aside from the hypotheticals, where is the verifiable data to support your assertion?
If you cannot provide that data, just say so.

Your assertion that there is no difference is just as hypothetical but it has some additional flaws of its own - complete ignorance of basic logic nad common sense being most prominent here.

Not hard data but here is just another guy exercising his common sense..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qopOMGPiGZ4

That's crap. I made no such assertions.

Mike Ojo is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as you are, but he is far from being an authority on aircraft insurance.
Still no verifiable data on your original assertion.

[JimParker256]

Still no verifiable data on your original assertion.

I wasn't arguing against the idea of verifiable data, but rather attempting to apply logic to the situation as a substitute for the unavailable data you keep requesting.

In my opinion (again, not verifiable data), you're unlikely to find anything you would accept as "verifiable data" pertaining to this discussion, because there is no mandate to report actual annual flying hours for the GA, EAB, SLSA, or ELSA fleet, and thus no true "base" to provide the denominator in the accident statistics (accidents per hours flown, or fatalities per hours flown) that are used in the aviation industry. The FAA (and anyone else reporting such "data") use estimates that are someone's best guess about how people use airplanes. And those are assumptions that can create HUGE swings in the data.

I know four guys who built very similar airplanes about two years ago. One has flown almost 400 hours in his ELSA . Another has accumulated over 200 hours in his EAB. The other two have barely made it out of Phase 1 test flight status (55 hours on one ELSA, 75 on another EAB). If I make the assumption that these guys are representative of the Experimental fleet, I would come up with an average annual utilization of 182.5 hours per year... But my gut tells me that number is wrong – likely way too high because I just happen to know that one guy who flies his airplane every single day... Leaving him out, I get an average of 110 hrs/year. Is that the number to use? Again, it feels like it's too high to me. We did a poll in my EAA chapter, and the average annual utilization of both EAB and Certified airplanes (by those who own them, not including any renters or non-flying folks) came out to be around 50-55 hours per year. That "feels" more accurate, but it's still just a SWAG, not verifiable data.

So good luck in your quest. Meanwhile, talking to your insurer might be the best way to find out how to reduce your rates. Unfortunately, for some of us, the only solution to lower our rates would be to "get younger"... And if you figure THAT one out, you'll be able to afford the insurance on any airplane you care to fly!

[FastEddieB]

“The plural of anecdote is not data.”

[drseti]

“The plural of anecdote is not data.”

Don't you mean the plural of anecdote are not data?

[Warmi]

Whatever ... all that mental masturbation is not really worth the trouble ..

Since there is no verifiable data and since many members on this forum have vested interest in supporting this thesis , we shall just decree that experimental planes are just as easy to insure as certified and LSAs .. so now go on and get one

[ShawnM]

Whatever ... all that mental masturbation is not really worth the trouble ..

Since there is no verifiable data and since many members on this forum have vested interest in supporting this thesis , we shall just decree that experimental planes are just as easy to insure as certified and LSAs .. so now go on and get one

Well said Warmi.

[fatsportpilot]

“The plural of anecdote is not data.”

Don't you mean the plural of anecdote are not data?

I know data is plural but I think he's right. "The plural of sheep are not sheeps" is wrong and "the plural of sheep is not sheeps" is right.

[JimParker256]

Just when I thought it was safe to get back in the water... SIgh. You kids behave yourselves!

[MrMorden]

I converted my SLSA to ELSA a few years ago. The insurance change was $0 with AIG.

[Dave C]

I converted my SLSA to ELSA a few years ago. The insurance change was $0 with AIG.

About how much are you paying? I got quotes last fall for switching to ELSA and it would have meant a 75% increase for me.