With the recent JC fly-in just having ended this seems like a good time to post the article. Thanks to those of you who sent me some great back country shots...sorry I could not use all of them.

This is my most recent article written due to many common questions that I have been asked regarding off airport landings. Hopefully it will be interesting as well as informative to you.

http://www.aviationinsurance.com/files/ ... enPath.pdf

-Chris

Great article lowflybye! I really enjoyed reading it.

That was a good write up Chris and it's timely because my brother Yellowbelly and I were just discussing this very issue over a few beers in the hangar.

The 'off airport' activity is very much like float plane activity in that you are landing in a place that might be completely undocumented. Granted, many places that are designated strips might not be well maintained (or maintained at all) but there is at least some amount of information available. The problem with the 'off airport' moniker is that well, it could be anywhere. This is the problem with seaplane ops, and the insurance issue. You can presumably land a floatplane anywhere on a body of water so that leads people into all sorts of trouble because they go into places for which there is no information. There could be underwater barbed wire fences or anything that you just wouldn't know about.

Hell, in some places there might be unexploded ordinance and a sign down on the road two miles away warning you. There could be anything.

I'm not bringing this up to make everyone paranoid but - from an insurance perspective these 'off airport' activities do generate a higher risk and a higher accident rate. This translates to everyone's pocket who happens to be insuring a Maule or a Supercub or, in fact, any taildragger, weather they participate in 'off airport' activity or not. In my opinion the higher incident rates of conventional gear aircraft isn't because of the configuration, it's because of the type of use they encounter.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that the bad rap that taildraggers have is really overblown and maybe a bit unjustified. I mean really, they aren't THAT bad!

I mean, the only reason they still exist is because we love 'em so much

Silvaire,

You are correct to a point. The other point where off airport accidents and seaplane accidents both make the insurance industry cringe is that they typically occur in places where the cost of salvage is VERY high. Seaplanes are some worse, in that they are almost guaranteed to be very wet as well, which means avionics, etc will generally be total toast after an accident. In any case, I've argued to float students for years that EVERY operation they conduct in that seaplane is, by definition, an off airport evolution, even if it's at a charted seaplane base.

There are LOTS of variables in both off airport and seaplane operations, which is why many of us prefer them, of course .

Nevertheless, when I hear people complaining about the cost of insurance, it is simply a reminder that we are operating in a higher risk environment.

Stay safe.

MTV

Well written!

Where is the beach scene - looks great !

Somewhere along the lower-48 coast...

Somewhere along the lower-48 coast...

it's OK - I won't be trying to fly in to it...just looks a little more inviting than the one I've used over here [photo gallery]

...speaking of "Off The Beaten Path", I just got back from a 30 day "OFF AIRPORT" trip to Alaska. I posted some pictures under a new album: 2008 Alaska Trip. John

Nice pics John...I especially like this one...it would have been a good contender for the article.

Clay wrote:Somewhere along the lower-48 coast...

Where? Can it hurt to let us know where?