and also supplied them to Mr Beach who is a Cirrus guy who trawls the internet for any negative publicity (he didn’t believe it at first).
Peter, that doesn’t seem very friendly, given that you invited me as a director of COPA to join EuroGA.org.
Cheers
Rick
After the first UK pull, the owner’s premiums went through the roof. … Publicly, of course, the insurers cannot say any of this because it’s a competitive market and Cirruses are a very big market segment, doubly so because being new or new-ish their high hull values mean that the premiums are high. In the USA, IIRC, they publicly state that a chute pull will not increase your premiums. That’s definitely not the case over here.
Seems that the insurers in different markets make different business decisions. In the US market, some insurers are quite happy with a survivable chute pull and do not apply an excess charge (in other terminology a deductible). As one VP of an insurer of a large number of Cirrus aircraft, “Pull the CAPS handle. We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate.”
None of them promise not to increase your premiums
Although some will forgive your first accident claim if you have demonstrated commitments to safety, such as recurrent training. However, the increase after a chute pull is often 10-15%, which isn’t through the roof.
From your info and other sources about European insurers, their practices seem quite different. As are many other things . . .
Cheers
Rick
In Germany i pay the same rate for my SR22 as for my old Warrior, no difference.
I think this is a myth, just like “the Cirrus needs CAPS because it will not recover from a spin” and other stupid propaganda.
I agree he does good safety work, but he does pop up in forums defending the aircraft. That is not something I would criticise. I defend the TB20 in the same way, for example.
You mean you see yourself as “a Socata guy who trawls the Internet looking for any negative publicity”?
Interesting: I had thought better of you. And of this forum.
You are welcome here, Rick 
Apologies for sounding unfriendly!
Flyer59 – we had a thread here on insurance premiums a while ago. I got some actual figures from the UK insurers. IIRC, the figures were not particularly higher (for the same hull value, obviously) than a TB20 but training was stipulated. I can’t find the thread right now (there are quite a few similar ones). One notable thing was that the “fixed gear = lower premiums” is incorrect information over here, and from what I hear, in the USA also.
As one VP of an insurer of a large number of Cirrus aircraft, “Pull the CAPS handle. We would rather keep you as a customer than deal with your estate.”
That’s a very warm public position but financially it is an empty statement because the pilot and his estate don’t get a payout if he kills himself! And since almost nobody crashes (as a % of the market) the shrinkage of the market as a result of crashes is miniscule, so the insurer has no real financial incentive to keep the customer alive. Also a large % of pilots give up flying permanently after a major incident which they survived (I know quite a few cases – they tend to lose their passengers anyway; their family especially prob90 won’t fly with them again) so their insurance premiums are lost. And 3rd party casualties/damage in GA are exceedingly rare. So it comes down to passenger liability, and the (usually much smaller) payout of the aircraft market value.
In the UK you can insure for an “agreed value” but AFAIK that is rare (not available?) in the USA and anyway a passenger claim will dominate.
Interestingly, in the UK, passenger liability exists only if the pilot is found negligent (the UK Civil Aviation Act)… I don’t know how the insurers here deal with that.
I have no connection with Socata, or with any user group of theirs, Jonzarno Actually I had no idea Mr Beach is officially involved with Cirrus; I thought he was just an enthusiastic owner who appears in some of their videos. Apologies for any confusion!
Actually I had no idea Mr Beach is officially involved with Cirrus; I thought he was just an enthusiastic owner who appears in some of their videos. Apologies for any confusion!
Peter, that doesn’t seem very friendly, given that you invited me as a director of COPA to join EuroGA.org.
Apology accepted, but confusion remains.
“While the plane is very docile and easy to fly its complex and powerful systems (compared to your old Cessna) require a thorough checkout.”
The statement seems to be about new versus old. But I am wondering about Cirrus versus other types.
I have given checkouts on and designed training syllabi and questionnaires for Cirrus, Ovation, Piper 6XT, DA-40D and C172S/G1000. I have also flown the Cessna 400 (ex Columbia, now TTX). They are all complex regarding systems. They all have glass cockpit and multi-axis autopilot.
The Piper 32 and the Mooney takes slightly more practice to learn to land well that the other types. Other than that, they are all well-mannered types, of course with different personalities.
The systems are about the same level of complexity, with the Mooney perhaps taking the edge, and the Cirrus having the parachute. What sets them apart most is the electrical systems. The number and arrangement of batteries, generators, buses and load shedding schedules are different on every single type. Although the systems give added redundancy, in order to get the safety benefit the pilot should know at least the basics of the electrical system in order to understand the “electrical trouble” part of the emergency checklist. But I would say the Cirrus is in the middle of the pack regarding complexity. It is more a question of “generation” and equipment package than of which manufacturer.
I think it is very good advice to go to an instructor with good knowledge, experience and preferably genuine interest for the type and equipment package he is instructing on, when having a checkout, not least when the airplane has these newer systems. Additionally I always make sure I know the accident pattern for the type before starting to give instruction on it.
But I am still wondering why that advice is given so explicitly regarding the Cirrus, and so rarely regarding the other types. Yes, the Cirrus training program has reduced the accident rate. So it did for the Malibu. I am sure it would work for other types too.
The advice is given so explicitely inside the population of Cirrus owners because it proved to be important and right. I have no idea what other owner groups do.
But I am still wondering why that advice is given so explicitly regarding the Cirrus, and so rarely regarding the other types. Yes, the Cirrus training program has reduced the accident rate. So it did for the Malibu. I am sure it would work for other types too.
The advice is given so explicitely inside the population of Cirrus owners because it proved to be important and right. I have no idea what other owner groups do.
In reality, it is bad for business if a type gets a reputation for being dangerous. Owners groups are also (quite rightly) incentivised to do all they can to improve safety. There are both selfish and altruistic reasons for this.
The Cirrus one is probably the best organised owners group. I get emails all the time about some event or something and I am not even an owner; I think I had some emails with their European HQ about the population size, a few years ago.
I don’t know about the USA (e.g. the Beech group out there has loads of activities) but in Europe nothing comes close to what COPA Germany seems to be doing.
Re the other query, I can’t find the emails right now but certainly everyone in the known universe would have been invited when EuroGA was starting because I had about 3k addresses from 10 years of aviation correspondence.
