Well that is interesting. That seems to me akin to insurance costing more for cars with airbags than without.... Which we know doesn't make any sense.
I don't quite follow their logic... The way I see it, the need to deploy a BRS is either a) an unrecoverable situation (spin, DEEEP stall, etc..) or b) a structural failure. In either of the two cases, the pilot has no real control over when he's going to hit REGARDLESS of whether or not he deploys the BRS... So in the end, the BRS only helps save the life of pilot/pax... Maybe they just don't want to pay for the medical payments and such... It's cheaper for them to let the life insurance people handle it??? Matt --- Brant Hollensbe <bhollen...@mchsi.com> wrote: > The insurance guru, Sky Smith, is a member of our > local EAA chapter. He > presented a insurance program, one meeting, in which > he told us that when > insurance companies caculate premim rates, they > figure that if you deploy > the BSR chute while in flight, the aircraft will be > a total loss. They > believe the sudden deacceleration stresses (160 mph > to zero in a matter of > seconds) of chute deployment and your random landing > on whatever terain is > below you (trees, rocks, mountains, houses), is so > unpredictable that they > must assume the worst and the airraft will be > totaled. Your airplane > insurance premiums will be higher with a BSR, than > an identical airplane > that has none. > > Brant Hollensbe > bhollen...@mchsi.com > DSM Iowa > > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at > http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at > http://www.krnet.org/info.html > ===== ------------------------------------------------- Matthew Elder Orangeburg, SC http://www.infinigral.com/melder My Airplane Project: http://kr1.infinigral.com
