I figure that insurance rates are based on accident rates. So why so many accidents for Mauls. Are they naturally a bad design? Probably not. Is it that when you buy a Maul you think you are a bush pilot and you get in over your head. Kind of like when a Marine gets out of boot camp he thinks he is the baddest A on the face of the earth and he goes out and gets it kicked by a sailor.

Sombody must know the answer to this question. I think a Maul would be an awsome plane to have but maybe you have to do a lot of flying to stay good at it where as in a 182B it is way forgiving. They did originally advertise the 182 as having a land-o-matic gear. And it really does land itself.

Tim

well I'm not one to be in this conversation but when I was buying my Maule I found that AIG didn't even insure Maules nor did a couple other companies. I resorted to AOPA and they found me one. Well of course, lo and behold 150 hours and a year and 2 months later I find myself repairing damage , caused by me, in a ground loop . That's not to say it was the Maules fault. I take full responsibility for all that happened. Cessna's ground loop too, or the pilots of cessnas ground loop their planes is a better way of putting it. In my case the pilot of my maule ground looped the aircraft because he came across circumstances he hadn't encountered before. Commonly called experience. I am determined now that I will not let that happen again. I know what I did wrong, or more importantly, didn't do right. The term, "fly the airplane till it's tied down" really applies to all taildraggers, and maybe a little more to the Maules as they are closer coupled than those wide gear cessnas. Maybe that's why maule offers the wide spring gear on the newer Maules. Anyway my insurance is gonna go up, but I still love the airplane as it is a fun plane to fly. Any way, Jeremy once told me that Maules land so slow it's hard for anyone to get hurt in a ground loop. I was only going about 40 when she started to go around on me, so I dug the left wing tip into the ground and tweeked the tubes under the floor. But no prop strike and no folded gear.

gmdv,
It's not a "bad" design, but they are short coupled and have a high power to weight ratio. I also think that people with more money than sense have a tendancy to gravitate towards newer airplanes because, well they have more money than sense. If Maules had gone out of production 20 or more years ago, I think the accident rate would be lower.
Is a Husky that much harder to fly than a SC? Or is their accident rate higher because they get even more people with more money than sense. I think this was true for both the Bonanza and the Malibu.
Pure theory, based on not one fact.

I don't understand the accident rate either.I learned taildraggin by myself in a maule m5.Bought it and flew it home.I was scared for awhile but never wrecked it.I owned an m6 after that and don't consider them tricky.Course you get guys who groundloop cubs and they fly themselves. Just joking,but really they are a striaght forward airplane for one who pays attention.I even landed my m5 with atotally flat tire,wobbled around a little but not close to looping her on the tar.

a64,

The Husky insurance rates are higher than the Super Cub insurance rates for two reasons:

1) The oldest Husky is 20 years old. The newest Super Cub is about the same age. There were a very few Cubs made in early 90's, but darn few. Most Cubs are VERY old, and hence hull value has been lower. Cub prices are going up, though, in large part due to Husky and Top Cub prices.

2) You can buy ANY part of a Super Cub new, and most parts are available from a couple or four suppliers. Bend the airframe? Buy a new one-there are several available in the aftermarket. New wings? No problem. There are SUper Cub fuselage jigs everywhere. There is one Husky jig. It lives at the factory. That means any repair that requires fuselage work has to either take your chances or go to the factory. The Aviat factory is the only supplier of parts for the airplanes, basically, so no competition to speak of. Hence, repairing a comparable value Super Cub and Husky will cost a lot more to fix the Husky.

It's really hard to compare airplanes' accident rates, cause you don't know how many are in actual flying condition, how many hours they are actually being flown, etc, so comparing a Husky with a Cub is tough to do, as far as accident rates go.

MTV

Kinda irratates me all these dipsticks buying Huskys and cant fly em. Runs up the rates for everybody else. Every time I turn around it seems like somebody wrecks one.

Good points Mike...your examples are directly related to loss ratios which is what determines insurance premiums and not accident rates as is the common misconception.

A loss ratio is nothing more than the amount of money lost on claims divided by the amount of money collected in policy premiums for a given aircraft type. For example: You have a prop strike in your SC and the repair cost for the engine teardown and prop overhaul is $12,000. If your annual premium is $1,500 then your loss ratio is 800%. Anything over 100% means that the insurance company is losing money. So you can see how the higher repair cost on a particular aircraft can drive the rates up in a hurry.

qmdv wrote:I figure that insurance rates are based on accident rates.

Accident rates are very deceiving. Just because an accident rate is low an a particular airplane does not mean that the insurance loss ratio also follows the same trend. A prop strike does not have to be reported to the FAA as an accident and therefore will not show up on the accident rate table. You can bet your dinner that it will show up on the loss ratio at the insurance company as they will be paying for an engine teardown and a prop overhaul / replacement.

The correlation (or lack thereof) between accident rates and loss ratios is a common area of misunderstanding in the aviation world and causes a lot of confusion when it comes to understanding insurances rates for specific aircraft types.

Good points Mike...your examples are directly related to loss ratios which is what determines insurance premiums and not accident rates as is the common misconception.

A loss ratio is nothing more than the amount of money lost on claims divided by the amount of money collected in policy premiums for a given aircraft type. For example: You have a prop strike in your SC and the repair cost for the engine teardown and prop overhaul is $12,000. If your annual premium is $1,500 then your loss ratio is 800%. Anything over 100% means that the insurance company is losing money. So you can see how the higher repair cost on a particular aircraft can drive the rates up in a hurry.

If loss ratios are what determine insurance rates, then Maule's must have an extremely high accident rate compared to Cessna's. One of the top selling points for a Maule is how much cheaper Maule parts are. If that's the case, and insurance companies charge nearly 60% more to insure a Maule over a comparable Cessna, then the Maule claim (accident) rate must be through the roof.

I'm not bad-mouthing Maule's...shoot, I might even buy one. But if insurance companies charge based on what a given airplane costs them, and if Maule parts are as much cheaper than Cessna parts as Maule advocates want us to believe, then where does the cost come from?

ravi wrote:

Good points Mike...your examples are directly related to loss ratios which is what determines insurance premiums and not accident rates as is the common misconception.

If loss ratios are what determine insurance rates, then Maule's must have an extremely high accident rate compared to Cessna's. One of the top selling points for a Maule is how much cheaper Maule parts are. If that's the case, and insurance companies charge nearly 60% more to insure a Maule over a comparable Cessna, then the Maule claim (accident) rate must be through the roof.

You are using accident rate and loss ratio synonymously and they are 2 completely different things...accident rates can be very low as Maule claims, but how many ground loops and prop strikes have been repaired by the insurance companies that were never reported as an accident? The cost of an engine teardown and prop overhaul is not related to what type of airplane it is mounted on....an O-360 cost the same to overhaul on a Maule as it does on a SC, Swift, etc. Keep in mind as well that although Maule parts are relatively cheap, it is harder to find a good A&P / shop that has the experience to work on them. Most any shop has experience with Cessna airframes.

Loss ratios are grouped according to aircraft type...the more of them there are flying the larger the group and therefore the harder it is to effect the loss ratio with a claim. It's the law of large numbers.

lowflybye,

Excellent explanations. This stuff is quite a mystery to most of us, myself included.

Your point on engine teardown is particularly important. Right now, the FAA says ANY prop TOUCH, let alone strike, suggests an engine tear down. While this is not mandatory for Part 91 operators, I know of a couple of shops who've had an airplane come in with pretty light prop damage, and the shop owner said they would not sign it off as airworthy without an engine teardown. Put the liability on the engine guys, is the modus operandi.

And, frankly, any more, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to do the same if it were mine.

As noted, those will never show up in the databases, because by definition, they are not ACCIDENTS, but rather incidents.

MTV

mtv wrote:lowflybye,

Excellent explanations. This stuff is quite a mystery to most of us, myself included.

I get these type of questions all the time so you are among good company if you are a little confused on the issue...

I wrote this little article for a recent edition of our magazine...it may help explain things a little further.

-Low

Accident -vs- Insurance Claim

Have you ever wondered why the NTSB accident report list shows a particular aircraft to have a very low accident rate, but the insurance companies tell you that it is not a favorable aircraft to insure? This is due in part to the fact that a claim does not have to be an accident to be reported to the insurance company. This helps to explain why often times the aircraft that looks the safest on the NTSB reports may be the same one that (within it’s class) will cost the most to insure. Claims such as hail damage, wind damage, liability lawsuits, and other forms of damage will not show up on the accident reports, but the insurance company will sure feel the sting. It may surprise you to know of the many other types of losses that may be reported to an insurance company, but do not have to be reported as an accident. Losses such as a prop strike, FOD, damage as a result from taxiing into an object, hangar rash, damage from bird strikes, and gear up landings with no structural integrity damage may never show up on an NTSB report if it does not fall within the scope of the accident definition.

Let’s look at the definition of an accident as defined by the NTSB in 14 CFR Section 830.2

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered ``substantial damage'' for the purpose of this part.

You are using accident rate and loss ratio synonymously and they are 2 completely different things...accident rates can be very low as Maule claims, but how many ground loops and prop strikes have been repaired by the insurance companies that were never reported as an accident?

I guess "accident" has a very specific meaning in the worlds of the FAA and insurance companies. But to me, if there is a prop strike or a ground loop, there has been an accident!

If we replace the term "accident" with "damage resulting from unintended manuvering", does it stand to reason that Maule's have a higher rate because they get bent more often than other planes?

Ravi,
Either what you say is true, or the insurance industry really is run by a bunch of crooks. It stands to reason that a Maule costs the insurance companies more to insure than a Cessna. The claim amount in $ has to be more for a Maule per year than a Cessna. Whether it's because there are more claims or the claim amount is higher, I have no idea. I suspect it's both, but that is just a guess.
I don't know what you are wanting to hear, It costs more in insurance money to insure a Maule than most other aircraft, we know this is true. So the amount of payout for a Maule for the insurance companies has to be more than most other aircraft. It doesn't really matter why, because, I don't think it is likely to change any time soon. I don't think it's just the pilot's lack of training or the design or the places and manners in which they are flown. I think that the percentage of Maules flown in the bush is higher than the percentage of Cessna's, but what I think doesn't mean squat.
If you choose to insure your aircraft, then the insurance cost have to be factored in to the cost of ownership and if you choose to own a Maule and apparently a Husky, then be prepared to pay. I don't like it, I don't like paying $4 a gl. for Avgas either.

ravi wrote: If we replace the term "accident" with "damage resulting from unintended manuvering", does it stand to reason that Maule's have a higher rate because they get bent more often than other planes?

Not necessarily. It is very hard to find neutral ground for an apples to apples comparison. There are many other factors to keep in mind such as fleet size and the hours flown on the fleet. Maules do seem to "go around" more frequently than other tailwheels for various reasons, but there is much more to the loss ratio than just one damaged airplane. All the loss ratio tells us is what the insurance companies must charge (per aircraft insured) to TRY to keep the ratio below 100%. The larger the fleet of a certain make & model aircraft that a particular company has insured, the more of a hit they can take from a given loss or the less they can charge without effecting the loss ratio as severely.

It is the law of large numbers again...lets stay with the prop strike example from before.

Assuming that the teardown and prop overhaul cost is equal on both aircraft at $15,000 and lets also assume that each model has 5 prop strikes in a given year. This means a total of $75,000 in claims cost for each aircraft type (Cessna & Maule) in a given year. Now if an insurance company writes 50 Cessna aircraft at $1,500 total annual premium for each policy, they have just broken even for the year. The loss ratio is at 100%. Keep in mind that we have not taken into account any other forms of losses or lawsuits.

Now let's assume the same scenario with the Maile only this time the same company only has a fleet of 25 aircraft. The company will have to charge $3,000 for each Maule in order to break even on the same number of losses. This is why some companies can charge less for a particular model and why some companies will write a particular model when others won't. It's all in the numbers.

So as you can see, numbers can be decieveing without being able to see the entire picture. There are a lot of numbers that go into the loss ratio equation for the rates of aircraft insurance. Cost of parts, cost of repair, accident rates, lawsuits, number of aircraft insured, etc. etc. It is not as easy as simply pulling a rate out of thin air if you want remain in business, much less make a profit at it.

I am confused If this insurance thing is all about loss ratios how come my Scout insured for 110,000 is less than $1200.00 per year?

My FISDO buddy said Maule Accidents/Incidents 98-07 was 36 In Alaska 5 in Idaho 180s at the same time were 19 Idaho 105 in Alaska.

A Buddy with a 180 pays about what I do.

It would seem since there are relatively few Scouts mine should be much higher.

There must be more to the story.

It almost seems to me you Maule guys need to revolt Or start your own Maule owners insurance group.

Floyd

This is interesting the way the insurance companies separate each make and model of aircraft.

If I’m not mistaken my home insurance went up and I got a note with the increase from the insurance company saying it was due in part to help cover losses from hurricane Katrina. May be it is my imagination but every time there is a flood or hurricane my car and house insurance go up and my agent, who is a good friend says it is to cover the storm losses.

Since I fly a Maule, I wish airplane insurance were more like house insurance. I know it is comparing apples to oranges. I thought the idea of insurance was to share and spread the risk.

Question: does a plane being used in, say Alaska off airport, commercially, pay more than, oh lets say $600.00 per month.

Lowflybye, who do you think, statistically is more likely to have a claim. The operation I just described or a fair weather flyer with 100 hours and 300 landings in a Maule. Regards…Rob

The companies categorize aircraft for the purposes of accounting and risk management. How else would they be able to track what is making money and what is costing money? The total risk is ultimately shared by all of the aviation accounts that a particular company writes in much the same way that houses and cars are. Your homeowners and car insurance follows the same underwriting techniques, but most people do not think twice about it. A $300,000 homeowner in Florida in the hurricane region will pay more than the same homeowner in Tennessee. Try putting a 17 year old with a speeding ticket on his record in a new Corvette and compare the price to putting that same person in a Honda Accord. Or compare the rates for identical ages, records and vehicles between a Male driver and a Female driver...the female usually pays less.

I have tried to explain just one small area of aircraft insurance to you fellows...just the small piece of the pie that applies to one specific make and model. Basically the same thought process that goes into determining rates for a specific model then applies to the next level up and then the next level until you reach the category of aviation risk in general. Maule - Tailwheel - Single Engine - Piston - Non-Commercial - etc. There is loss ratio's for each category which allows the companies to track the profitability of each one...it's just good business.

What always amazes me is that people will think it is a travesty that they have are paying $2,500 per year for a Maule valued at $60,000 and carrying $1,000,000 in liability coverage. Try insuring a car at $60,000 with a million dollar liability limit and see what your premium is. Most people do not even carry a $500,000 liability limit on their car, let alone a $60,000 value.

To answer your question on the Alaska risk...that is a risk category all on its own. Many of the companies that write in the lower 48 will not insure in Alaska. The commercial operator will pay more operating in Alaska than the weekend flyer in the lower 48. Commercial operations always pay more because of the liability, not so much the aircraft hull coverage. If you are being paid for a service the courts will hold you to a higher degree of care owed to your clients than the average Joe taking a friend for a ride. Alaska risks are more costly to insure for a number or reasons...have an accident in the bush...obviously more costly for search & rescue, recovery, etc. not to mention the after accident survivability rate compared to the lower 48 in general. Add in winter conditions and the problems just multiplied.

Who is more likely to have an accident? Coin toss on your example...the 100 hour fair weather flyer in the lower 48 has less hazardous conditions to work with and is still new enough to be nervous and attentive on landings. The old hat commercial operator in Alaska has a much harsher environment to work in, money riding on go / no-go decisions, and has built up a confidence in his skills that temps him to push the limits more so than the weekend warrior.

Keep in mind though that the accident rate does not play near as big a factor as the loss ratio for these risks...it is not which one is more likely to have an accident, but which one is more likely to have a claim and (more importantly) how costly will it be? If the weekend warrior has a claim it will most likely be a ground loop or a propstrike at a local airport...the claim will entail only minor (if any) injuries and the cost of fixing minor damage to the aircraft. The commercial operator in Alaska is more likely to have a costly claim...bend it up in the bush and the same damage claim as before will now cost a lot more to recover and repair, not to mention injuries and the inevitable lawsuit.

Sorry for the long response...I hope it helps to clear up some of your questions. We could talk for days on insurance and I would still not be able to explain it all to you.

Lowflybye, thank you for your expertise. None of us like to pay the premiums. That is until we have a problem.

We also need to remind ourselves that a lot of good people just like us make there living working in the insurance industry. That is a good thing. regards...Rob

RobBurson wrote:None of us like to pay the premiums. That is until we have a problem.

An insurance policy is nothing more than a very expensive stack of paper with a lot of confusing words written on it...until you have a claim or lawsuit.

until you have a claim or lawsuit.

At which time all those confusing words will be clarified by a lawyer and you will discover that your policy was not valid whenever the key is in the ignition.