The way I look at it personally would be to install with the idea of never
having to deploy. Just dummy up and don't tell the insurance company squat.
Should you ever end up in situation where it had to be deployed you could
then at least be alive to argue with the insurance meatheads at a later
da
joe wrote:
> If one is really concerned, then lose some weight and install
> a BRS. From what I have read they have a %100 successful
> personal safety rate and in most cases the aircraft can be
> reconstituted.
>
> Has anyone ever read any information that contradicts this
> claim.
They're only
If one is really concerned, then lose some weight and install
a BRS. From what I have read they have a %100 successful
personal safety rate and in most cases the aircraft can be reconstituted.
Has anyone ever read any information that contradicts this
claim.
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
be
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..
5 matches
Mail list logo
