SonexBuilders.net

I was unaware of the availability of the $400 liability policy only (as was my insurance broker OR the Sonex rep I spoke with) and will check that out. But if that IS a viable alternative, why doesn't Sonex promote it or at least steer customers such as myself to it?
In response to Bruce: you missed the point of the post if you read that I was worried about $25k investment. I'm strictly concerned about the possibility of hurting someone other than myself in the event of an accident.
As i mentioned: I was involved in a plane crash. I experienced how quickly the lawyers get involved looking to ''blame' someone. And if you are unfortunate enough to perish in the crash, do you REALLY want your family left with ANY legal mess?
Our crash occurred THREE hours after returning the craft to flight status. No corners were cut. Approximately $150k was invested in nothing but the best parts and services. Yet we had a mechanical failure nonetheless proving that STUFF happens no matter how careful or skilled you are. And after going through once, only a fool would risk it again.
I have no friends who own Sonex' in which to log time so that's not an avenue to explore. But until or unless the Sonex factory (and many others) step up to help builders, I fear the whole industry will be negatively impacted.
I know it has caused me to re-think it and I'll probably go back to a Van's product.

I have a couple of hundred hours in a Sonerai IIL. Numbers very similar to a Onex, same wing area etc. Maybe that will count for something w the insurance company but ya never know. This has def given me reason to pause tho we shall see.

I don't know why insurance companies insist transition time needs to be with an instructor. The most important thing is to get stick time and practice. I think one can get that with someone who has, say, a minimum of 100 hours in the type and so knows the plane pretty well. Barring that, it might be good if Sonex could come up with a list of aircraft similar enough in flight characteristics so that insurance companies will accept that as being similar enough.

Price went up a little to $500 a year for liability only but here is the link.

http://www.firstflightinsurance.com/Sit ... sports.asp

Keith
#554

Most insurance will ask for Time in Type. Go fly with a Sonex friend, log the time as PIC (which is totally correct for the portion of the flight you're on the controls), and then report your time to the insurance. Dual time is fine, but time in type counts almost as much. You could even get really crazy and take a little road trip to drive a few hours to find someone. Even with a hotel stay, gas money, lunch and AVGAS for your friend, it still isn't that hard or expensive.

Jeff

It would be interesting to know what's acceptable under time in type...ie does it have to be a Sonex...I'll have to ask that question.

I had the same problem when I bought my sonex, but I had lots of accumulated tailwheel time in various makes, was just rusty. Before flying the Sonex I got my bi-annual signoff in a 172, then got with an aerobatic instructor (I also had lots of aerobatic time, just rusty) in a Decathlon for an hour to get my tailwheel and aerobatic feel back. This guy also had flown a Sonex. After flying with him he said I shouldn't have a problem with the Sonex and to go for it so I just got in the Sonex and flew it a couple hundred miles home, making one stop along the way. Upon landing in my home field the engine died on final approach, so my second landing in the Sonex was dead stick. (Best landing I ever made.) The reason the engine died was vapor lock, which we solved later, but that is for another thread.

The Sonex is an easy to fly honest tail dragging airplane. However, it took me some time to learn to land it smoothly, as I tended to bounce a couple of times. Finally, I learned the secret is to bring it in slowly, about 60-65 mph over the numbers, using only one notch of flaps. Also, the pitch sight picture on landing is same as taxiing. When I learned to land a tail dragger I was taught to pull the stick all the way back into my gut for a stall landing. However, with the Sonex that did not work for me. I learned to land with the pitch angle same as taxiing, not pull the stick all the way back. Makes for a smoother landing.

As for insurance, the way I solved that issue was to title the airplane in an entity other than myself and purchased non owner flying insurance (renters insurance) to cover me. Cost was about $160. Covers me in the event I damage anything or anyone, including the Sonex, which I rent from the entity. Very simple.

After a few hours flying the Sonex, some practice landings I have a good handle on it. I just wish we could keep the bird flying, as we are always having issues with the airplane, not the pilot.

Ron

Hello SonexBuilders.net,

Sonex is very aware of the current insurance situation, and we are working on many fronts to find solutions. By-far the best solution available today is that posted by Keith regarding First Flight Insurance Group’s USUA program. Thank you very much Keith for the post, as we were not aware that USUA had an insurance solution for aircraft in the Light Sport specifications territory.

Yesterday, I had a great phone conversation with Dawne Witmer (formerly Fay) at First Flight Insurance Group. Dawne is the Program Manager for the USUA program: http://webengine2.artizan.com/Site/375021952/airsports.asp

They started their USUA program 15 years ago, and the aircraft limitations are tailored to European microlight rules as Sport Pilot wasn’t in existence at the time (sound familiar?), with a max takeoff weight of 1,150 lbs and stall speed of 45 mph (speed in landing configuration is okay, according to Dawne). This is 3rd party liability insurance only. There is no hull insurance available and no passengers are covered, but this is a great opportunity for Sonex pilots to get insurance for their Phase I flight test period until they have enough flight time to qualify for insurance through Falcon or other insurance companies to cover passengers and purchase hull insurance if desired. Some Onex pilots may wish to stay with First Flight Insurance Group permanently. Dawne said that they are very flexible, and love working with pilots. They do require 5 hours in-type, but it doesn’t have to be with a CFI, so flying with another Sonex owner would suffice, and time in a similar aircraft is also acceptable. Defining a "similar aircraft" is pretty flexible as-well. Annual premium is currently $496.46 including tax. There is no charge for a second pilot on the policy, and no charge for adding additional insured landowners. USUA membership is required, which is only $40 per year: http://www.usua.org

Dawne invited any Sonex builders interested in First Flight Insurance Group to contact her directly. See “Dawne Fay” at: http://www.firstflightinsurance.com/Site/375021952/Staff.asp

With regard to the Sonex T-Flight program, Sonex was the only kit aircraft manufacturer aside from Velocity to offer its own transition training program. Unfortunately, we’ve found that running a flight school does not fit within the kit aircraft manufacturer business model very well. It is a source of unacceptably high insurance costs and significant liability exposure. Sonex has made the decision to eliminate T-Flight in the best interests of the core manufacturing business.

As we’ve communicated to Falcon, the thought that Sonex going back to being like everyone else in the industry by not offering in-house transition training is now somehow holding our customers hostage with regard to insurance availability is ludicrous. Unfortunately, T-Flight spoiled Falcon’s insurance underwriters such that they are now requiring time with a CFI in-type, or PIC time in-type. If you are a CFI that is willing to offer instruction for the purposes of transition training in a Sonex, like the posting made by Jerry Hain, please let us know. We’d like to keep a database of such CFI’s as a resource for customers.

The kit industry needs more private CFI’s with LODAs to give transition training in experimental aircraft of all types, and this is a push that I am personally making in my current role as president of the Aircraft Kit Industry Association (AKIA). We are working with EAA to reach more CFI’s who have an interest in experimental aircraft, and are continuing to work with the FAA and the insurance industry to make the climate for LODA holders better. If the FAA, NTSB and insurance industry wants more transition training to take place, it is our contention that they must do more to make it more feasible for that training to take place.

It’s also important to note that, increasingly, alternative engine installations are becoming more of an insurance roadblock with underwriters. Although most customers have choices for insurance once they get PIC time in type, those choices are limited by not having a factory-supported engine installation.

As-always, please feel free to contact Sonex staff directly with your questions, comments or concerns.

Best Regards to All,
-Mark
--
Mark Schaible
General Manager
Sonex Aircraft, LLC
phone: 920-231-8297
fax: 920-426-8333
http://www.SonexAircraft.com
http://www.AeroConversions.com

Sales Info: sales@sonexaircraft.com
Orders: orders@sonexaircraft.com
Accounting: accounting@sonexaircraft.com
Tech Support: tech@sonexaircraft.com

Mark,
This may sound dumb but what other engines are supported by Sonex beside Aero Vee ? I know Sonex offers motor mounts for UL ,Rotax, Jabiru, but does that count as factory support when it comes to buying insurance?
Thanks.
Ben

Concorde wrote:Mark,
This may sound dumb but what other engines are supported by Sonex beside Aero Vee ? I know Sonex offers motor mounts for UL ,Rotax, Jabiru, but does that count as factory support when it comes to buying insurance?
Thanks.
Ben

It does. These are engine packages that we approve for our airframes based on their basic engineering parameters, fleet history, and level of manufacturer support. Take Rotax for example: It's well known to anyone whose followed our company for any length of time that we're not the biggest fans of the Rotax architecture and level of complexity, however, the 912 platform is prolific. There is lots of support for the engine worldwide, many customers want the engine (particularly in overseas markets), it produces an appropriate amount of power for the design and fits within the less-than 200 lb firewall-forward installation weight limit of our airframes. Other engines on the market may fit within the basic engineering parameters of power and weight, however, the factors of fleet history, total engines in-service and level of support all have to be weighed, not to mention level of actual customer demand for the engine. Over-time, more engines may mature in their development and fleet histories and have enough customer demand to be added to the Sonex lineup.