dirtstrip wrote:

OregonMaule wrote:I think all the GREAT pilots in history have bent one at one time or another.

Good day

Are you great yet

Ya me too. Renewing insurance on Monday anybody had or used a carrier named Chartis? Just did a Google search and I see it was AKA AIG.

[/quote]

I have Chartis. It was a lot less money for the same coverage but I am experimental. 100 deductible for all of North America, Don't make me name Alaska,Canada, Mexico and gulf islands, On airport landings or off all perils,140,000 hull, 1,000,000 liability/occurrence, 100,000 liability/person, Medical expenses 3000/person. Premium 3358 and I had about 100 hrs in type when I applied. Never carried insurance before. PM for more info.

So far happy with the company and, yes I have tested it.

The topic "Unimproved Landings" seemed to be an appropriate thread to repost your question.[/quote]


Dirtstrip...... Are you insuring a 701 ? or are you flying another type of experimental?

The reason I axe is $140,000 hull value for a 701 is ... well.. let me put this nicely... Un frigging believable... <GG>

Ben.

Ben,
I sold the 701 back in the fall of '06 and did a factory assist on a Dream Aircraft Tundra. I chose my hull value based on the price one sold for, completed and similarly equipped, so it is approximately a replacement value.

Another happy Chartis customer here. I got NationAir back when I had an RV-4. I kept them when I completes the S-6. NationAir chose Chartis for me and I've been pretty happy with them.

dirtstrip wrote:Ben,
I sold the 701 back in the fall of '06 and did a factory assist on a Dream Aircraft Tundra. I chose my hull value based on the price one sold for, completed and similarly equipped, so it is approximately a replacement value.

That's a sharp looking plane. How would you compare it's short field abilities to the 701?

My 701 weighing in at 520 lbs empty vs. the Tundra at 1430. Ok that seems fair enough. Sort of like an apples to oranges comparison but after giving it some thought the theory of flying both have some interesting parallels. I have landed the 701 in 100 feet,without power on a relatively calm day and take off about 90. The Tundra, with constant speed prop and 180hp takes about 400 to takeoff and can be landed in that too without power and 25 degrees of flaps. It will do less than that but I have not mastered that yet. I don't think either plane can be landed with no power and full 40 degrees of flaps. On the 701 there is not enough momentum to get the nose up and arrest the high sink rate before you would belly in. I am still exploring that with the Tundra and thats where the two planes are similar. The similarity is the steep rate of descent of both because of sink rate, and the fact that throttle becomes important in control of sink rate. Also I think that because of power control and the fact that the wings on both planes almost do not stall, like I have read of the Helio Couriers, it is easier to drop the flying speed in to the area of flying behind the power curve. Every plane delays the stall with the use of power but the 701 and the Tundra can do this really well. With full flaps both planes finally stall at about 30-32 mph. At really low speeds, instead of a break to a stall with no power they begin to sink at a high rate and you add power to control the speed of descent. Of course, that comes with some risks because you need to get the nose down fast if you are that slow and the engine quits. I don't feel comfortable in the Tundra yet to make that slow of a landing but others on this site have done it with theirs or been with instructors that have. I'm not there yet.

My insurance is coming due and I decided to switch brokers. While discussing options I asked about off-airport and maintenance exclusions. The broker told me that some have off-airport exclusions and some don't, they did say the Chartis does have an exclusion that says is it does not have an FAA identifier then your not covered. I have them looking into which companies do not have the exclusions and will report back what I find.

note: I had a lousy flying year and only logged ~25hrs. By switching brokers I will likely save over $200 for the exact same coverage. I figured the place I was using before was gouging me a little but I didn't think it was that much.

Whee,
I have Chartis. All risks on airport and off in all of North America. Zero deductible in motion or not. Hangared or not. FAA identifier or not. Plus mine is experimental and hangared on the farm. I do have dirt roads and the last two years a grass strip but not on any map. As for unimproved landings, I have made only one of those that led to an off airport excursion like you mention. Sorry, did you say excursion or exclusion?

whee wrote:My insurance is coming due and I decided to switch brokers. While discussing options I asked about off-airport and maintenance exclusions. The broker told me that some have off-airport exclusions and some don't, they did say the Chartis does have an exclusion that says is it does not have an FAA identifier then your not covered. I have them looking into which companies do not have the exclusions and will report back what I find.

note: I had a lousy flying year and only logged ~25hrs. By switching brokers I will likely save over $200 for the exact same coverage. I figured the place I was using before was gouging me a little but I didn't think it was that much.

Not true on the Chartis info, my better half (way better) is a senior claims adjuster for them, and I've been insured by them since 2003, and they'll cover me wherever I'm stupid enough to land. They can deny coverage if you don't have a BFR or an annual, but they won't deny you coverage for being stupid.

Hafast wrote:

Not true on the Chartis info, my better half (way better) is a senior claims adjuster for them, and I've been insured by them since 2003, and they'll cover me wherever I'm stupid enough to land. They can deny coverage if you don't have a BFR or an annual, but they won't deny you coverage for being stupid.

What he said...unless things have changed since I left the business last year, most basic pleasure and business (P&B) insurance policies do not exclude off airport operations...there are some exceptions, but the majority do not have an exclusion. Often times agents simply assume that it would be excluded and prefer to err on the side of caution. When in doubt, read the policy. If an agent says that it is excluded, ask them to show you the policy wording to that effect.

lowflybye wrote:If an agent says that it is excluded, ask them to show you the policy wording to that effect.

This is the key. Having just been through the exercise when I bought my first plane, it was pointed out to me that all the internet research and broker commentary in the world isn't worth as much as actually reading the sample policy.

My compromise was saving tons of money by going with a policy that excluded most of Alaska (by latitude as MTV pointed out) and the caribbean. I bring this up because it's also worth noting that things are negotiable. My company was willing to add the caribbean for no extra cost, but with a higher deductible for losses in that area after I asked the question. Was a compromise I was willing to live with and resulted in some of the most beautiful flying I've ever done (http://is.gd/XAAWyP).

So far this agent has been great and very helpful. I expect to hear back today after they have read through a couple policies.

dirtstrip wrote:My 701 weighing in at 520 lbs empty vs. the Tundra at 1430. Ok that seems fair enough. Sort of like an apples to oranges comparison but after giving it some thought the theory of flying both have some interesting parallels. I have landed the 701 in 100 feet,without power on a relatively calm day and take off about 90. The Tundra, with constant speed prop and 180hp takes about 400 to takeoff and can be landed in that too without power and 25 degrees of flaps. It will do less than that but I have not mastered that yet. I don't think either plane can be landed with no power and full 40 degrees of flaps. On the 701 there is not enough momentum to get the nose up and arrest the high sink rate before you would belly in. I am still exploring that with the Tundra and thats where the two planes are similar. The similarity is the steep rate of descent of both because of sink rate, and the fact that throttle becomes important in control of sink rate. Also I think that because of power control and the fact that the wings on both planes almost do not stall, like I have read of the Helio Couriers, it is easier to drop the flying speed in to the area of flying behind the power curve. Every plane delays the stall with the use of power but the 701 and the Tundra can do this really well. With full flaps both planes finally stall at about 30-32 mph. At really low speeds, instead of a break to a stall with no power they begin to sink at a high rate and you add power to control the speed of descent. Of course, that comes with some risks because you need to get the nose down fast if you are that slow and the engine quits. I don't feel comfortable in the Tundra yet to make that slow of a landing but others on this site have done it with theirs or been with instructors that have. I'm not there yet.

Just to give a little help maybe??
This is from WilgaBeast, and I'll pass it on as I went out and gave it a try with the WilgaBug!
70 KTS is how fast you have to descend with full flaps to have enough energy to flare the landing!
This approach actually looks almost as steep as the auto rotation in my ol Enstrom Shark~!!!
It will (stall)(does not stall, just sinks) with power around 35. Just needs lots of energy to make the flare!!
Have fun!!
GT

The Wilga and the 701 and the Tundra are all very different aircraft. Not many years after I had my 701 Zenair eliminated the 40 degree setting on their flaps because it was nearly impossible to maintain enough airspeed at that angle of descent with no power to arrest sink and still get the nose up to flare with nothing more than momentum without exceeding the recommended airspeed for full flaps. I don't know what their CH750 does. With 40 degrees, 50 mph is the max recommended airspeed on the Tundra. At 25 degrees, 70 is the max. So far for me, 25 degrees is where I would go with no power and 70 mph for the momentum. As of today 40 degrees flaps is still a with-power stol landing but I am by no means the last word on this. Will swap a ride in the Tundra for one in a Wilga.

Insurance is wasted if you don't use. Try to waste it.

One thing I noticed in my fine print. If you do a forced landing, they will pay to haul it to the nearest shop. Didn't know that before. They don't mentioned how far in the backcountry that extends?!?!?!?

Nosed over in an irrigated alfalfa field recently. Key word is irrigated. Chartis covered the prop, engine overhaul, body work and extraction. Good people to deal with. Premium did not increase next go around. Paying about 1200 with 800hrs TW time without instrument rating. Steve

Going with chartis, I was wrong about the exemptions. Agent going to try to get them to match another companies quote.