SonexBuilders.net

I've been on this forum for quite a long time but rarely visit with other commitments of time.
One thing I've harped on for a long time, (over ten years), is the Sonex communities ongoing dilemma with engine, fuel system failures of one kind or another.
One can debate the reasons for all the failures. One thing that's not up to debate is the fact insurance rates on Sonex are going up and its a direct reflection of the high number of losses.
I've been flying my Waiex now for 10 yrs and gone to great lengths to help over half a dozen builders get their Aero-Injectors set up correctly. The exercise was a valuable lesson to me. Either I'm not a good communicator (very likely) or airplane builders are an independent bunch? Also a possibility.
Not a single builder had followed the instructions to the letter. They wandered off on a path suggested to them by some well-meaning person on a forum or a friend of a friend. You know the story.
I simply gave up any type of help because I knew it would go in one ear and out the other. That was about 3 yrs into flying my plane and I've avoided those situations since.
Which brings me to the point. Sorry it got so long. Too many builders have no idea how to assemble a kit engine, too many builders don't really know anything about carbs of any type and as a result, the Sonex community has a terrible safety record and the sales prices of these craft reflect that history. Values are less than 50% of what the average guys ends up spending.
I've talked with a good many individuals looking for a used homebuilt aircraft but early on learned that Sonex are to not be taken seriously because of the lack of standardization in powerplants. Too many brands of backwoods engines from suspect suppliers. Too many different carb offerings that few actually understand. The result. Engine failure after failure. Same with fuel system modifications of suspect design.
My personal feeling is if this doesn't come to a natural end it will come to an unnatural end when we can no longer find affordable insurance.

Well said Larry, and it’s a real issue. Bordering on a crisis....

I agree that striving for better engine/carb reliability should always be the case. However, when I look at the reasons for insurance rate increases, engine issues aren't pointed to as major factor, although turboprop engines are harder to insure. Sonex engine issues may be a special case, but I don't have any hard data on that.

The number one issue brought up is "countless natural disasters experienced recently”

Also:

“Dramatic fatal accidents and liability aren’t the cost drivers contributing to rate hikes. It’s hull coverage”

And:

According to Richard McSpadden, executive director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Institute, the four most common causes of non-catastrophic incidents that increase rates are:

-- The most costly problem in general aviation aircraft is gear-up landings and gear collapses. This currently does not include any LSA, other than amphibious seaplanes.
-- Next is loss of directional control on the ground, including ground loops. McSpadden stated, “Although taildraggers are a strong contributor to overall insurance payouts in this category, the issue is not exclusive to taildraggers. Pilots lose control on the ground in nosewheel airplanes at a surprising rate.”
-- Hard landings came in third in the list of non-catastrophic accidents. Notably, flight into terrain and in-flight breakups are expensive but are so infrequent that they do not affect rates as significantly.
-- Ranking fourth in overall cost to insurers, but first in number of incidents, is prop strikes. Most pilots are aware that props are expensive and a prop strike means a costly examination by an aviation mechanic.

So it seem seems like a good way to help control rates is for insurance companies to put limitations or restrictions. Like a gear-up is half or all of the pilots responsibility. They could also exclude prop strikes not related to an emergency.

What we really want is, if it quits and we hit a fence landing on a road, we want it covered. If I land gear up or have a prop strike from nosing it over on the runway, or ground loop it, that's all on me.

But it seems like they are all or nothing. There has to be some middle ground to keep rates reasonable.

What about deductibles?

The problem with limitations is that we live in a sue happy world. Many times when a person buys a new or different airplane, the insurance company requires the pilot to get so many hours of dual with a CFI, some times to fly so many hours before carrying passengers, sometimes so many landings including crosswind landings, etc. Many times the insured does not comply with those requirements, has an accident, and then sues the insurance company for now paying the claim. So adding limitations may seem like a good idea, but in reality it will just increase litigation and that increases costs.

The way to lower insurance rates is less accidents.

It may increase litigation in a few cases but limitations like a gear-up landing without declaring an emergency (pilot error) is pretty straight forward. And for the few that try to sue, the insurance company saved tons by NOT paying all those other claims so they would win in the end. The costs go to the pilots making mistakes and not the rest of us.

I think if they start putting limitations like gear up is not covered, etc it will be a bad precedent. Before you know it coverage will be watered down and they will charge more and more for additional coverages. It won't be beneficial to the insured that is for sure.

The fast way to get a start on this is simple. If the plane isn't manufactured according to the plans, i.e. your own brand of engine, modified fuel tanks and pumps, non conforming airframe modivication, then the unit doesn't qualify as a Sonex in terms of insurance. It's a custom and should be treated as such.
I love the freedom to experiment as much as many. The simple fact is too many unproven mods are being done, with low experience pilots doing their own test flying. Things go wrong and they are not qualified to handle the results.
Vans has vastly more airframes in the air but casual observation tells me that they have a proportionally lower rate of engine/fuel related failure than Sonex airframes. Even if the actual difference is small, the perception is hugely NOT if favor of the Sonex. I've heard this many times from my flying friends. The old saying is, "perception is reality". I know locally 4 Vans owners that looked at the Sonex and passed on it because they feit the recommended engine packages were not acceptable to them.
Out West, for many the Aero-vee is a complete non starter do to density altitude most of the year.

That density altitude and the weak power system are why I am going a different direction.