Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

Ec120, What Do We Need To Know?

Recommended Posts

If you declare your insured value on a Jetranger at $500,000 and your 120 is probably $1,000,000 and your paying, say 4%...my guess is that its going to be near double.


That's not the formula our insurance company uses to calculate the rate. I can assure you that the insurance rate increase is not a deterent to buying the A/C new.

Not in our case anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not in the insurance industry, so I can't speak for them, but I'm sure a modern aircraft with many more safety features probably looks better in the eyes of liability payout, which, correct me if i'm wrong, is where the big bucks get paid out in an accident. That possible payout reduction likely is reflected in the rates.

The fenestron, coupled with the safest seats and the crash resistant fuel tanks are all features I'd prefer to have over an old out of date, half million dollar jetbox. To me the bigger investment is worth it today, tommorrow and for years to come. Anyone think customers will join me in those thoughts?

Go on admit it, when two cabs pull up at the same time to pick you up, ones brand new with airbags, nice all season radials, the other looks like it came straight from AAA Taxi in high level, you'd pay the guy driving the new one an extra 5 bucks for the ride home.

Edited by PerfectTrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the discussion I've had with our insurance people, rates are based on several factors with the major ones being associated with where is highest risk. Company history is huge, how many losses in previous years. What kind of work are you doing and with who on board, heli-skiing is a great example, with relatively higher risk flying with passengers that are often wealthy, that are not covered by WCB while on board. When a loss occurs and the lawyers get involved, firefighters, loggers, rig pigs etc. are covered by WCB, skiers are not, therefore the insurance company cannot deflect the claim. Wealthier people typically have a better legal team than than the cook at the ski lodge who is just bumming a ride.

Pilot experience, employee turnover and company culture do often come in to play as well. Believe it or not, insurance people are very in touch with industry rumors and hearsay so they can keep a good feeling who the high risk players are.

The majority of insurance underwriters then base your hull rate on what YOU declare the value of the aircraft to be and as for a new a/c having a better rate than an older one...its pretty hard to beat the 206B statistic that places it as the safest single engine aircraft per hour flown for manufacturer errors. If you have a loss and have the hull value too low to replace the a/c you're S.O.L. If you have the value too high the insurace underwriters will force the a/c to be rebuilt instead of paying you out your declared value. New a/c are a bit of a double edge sword, technology may make it safer mechanically but suffer a loss and the payout is huge. Pilots cause most accidents in Canada anyway, so new equipment doesn't always matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right about all those factors Vortex. Incedently, it's nobody's business but the rate we're getting is for the full value of new A/C. We don't do heliskiing.

One big factor is that our insurers came to pay us a visit all the way from London, England and they were very happy with what they saw. This in turn is being reflected in the rate we pay.

Also, they were very supportive at the idea of us buying new a/c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to continue this insurance deal, but I just have to, it's such a juicy topic.


I won't argue the 206 statistically is a very safe aircraft, it has 30+ years of stats to back it up, but that does not automatically deny any new aircraft that status, give the 120, or any other manufacturer that same 30 years and we'll do a comparison and see where it all unfolds.


The way I look at it is also from a typical pilot induced error. Say a 206 full of people is taking off from a cut block, the pilot elects to manouver to the edge to get a run out of the block, doing his turn, he strikes a tree with the tail rotor, the aircraft loses control lands hard and rolls over. An ensuing fire destroys the aircraft. Thats $500,000 right there. Say all the passengers die, the ensuing lawsuits could easily top the million dollar mark. Even if the passengers all survive, with injuries of varying degrees from all aspects of the accident, seats, fire etc, the payouts to them will still be high, if not higher depending on the severity.


Now take that same scenario with a new generation aircraft, that initial tail strike may not have been detrimental, however, should it have become one in the same with the subsequent hard landing and roll over, the passengers likely would have been spared serious injuries from the better crash protection offered by the seats. and the lack of post crash fire, thanks to the crash resisitant fuel cell, means that the chances are much higher that everybody walks away under their own power. End loss, one aircraft slightly over a million dollars.


So yes, the dollar values are high in both cases, but I can still bet that an insurance company would still be more interested in insuring a new aircraft, with a much higher chance of survivability. In the end though, thats the risk insurers have to take, and believe me, they know what they are up against.


If I was an owner, I'd be comfortable with a higher premium on a new aircraft, and I'd sleep better at night too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good helicopter as long as you dont make it work too hard,damper rod-end and the lateral hammer dont like it. Easy to have the VEMD memorize an overtorque if kick pedal to keep the ship strait while close to max torque (close to 10% torque go to the fenestron at max). The 500Hrs inspection take around 80Hrs to complete, the 100Hrs is 6Hrs to complete. Snags? Yes ,we nicknamed it the Colibreak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A couple of guys in UK tell me that it is slightly underpowered, has a difficult C of G (it's easier to use standard loads that don't change much) and does not cool down sufficiently to enable a start within at least half an hour of shutting down (you have to keep opening then engine cowlings). Good for private work, but not for charter.


And of course, product support....



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...