MikeOH

@takair just did. Ah, so he did. That seems to be the key phrase.

And, it would take even less time for someone already familiar with the specific reg to just cite it!

THAT was disturbing, to say the least

As I have stated many times, I know he is responsible! From what you wrote, ‘how he insures’ the work was done properly is up to him. From that I must INFER that there is NO actual REQUIREMENT to even LOOK over the work of the non A&P. Is that true?

Why? I’m not going to dig through FAA legalese to come up with the right sub paragraph. If you know, is it that hard to cite it? We’re going in circles on what it seems should be a pretty easy question for an A& P to answer. Taking it back to the event that precipitated this discussion. A non A&P dented a pushrod tube and damaged the pushrod within. The A&P that signed off this work did not catch the damage and is responsible as it’s his signature. I don’t think that is in question. The issue is if he is REQUIRED to even look over the work of the non A&P that he is signing for. Yes, or no?

Sure. But I don’t have an issue with an A&P looking over his OWN work! It’s with an A&P NOT looking over the work of the non A&P under his ‘supervision’!

100% agree. But it is not causative data. By that I mean it is NOT data that shows aircraft accidents are a result of pilots having heart attacks behind the yoke. My angst is based on premiums being set because it might happen vs actuarial data showing old pilots have had heart attacks while flying which resulted in a claim. Put another way, if there have been no such accidents/claims for pilots over 60 (or, more fairly, at a rate no higher than those under 60) then raising premiums merely based on a general likelihood of the overall population just rubs me the wrong way. I keep ‘hearing’ that claim. But insurance is a business and I just can’t see any reason for any company to continue with a ‘loss leader’ product. It’s not a supermarket where you ‘lure’ customers in and make your money with other products they buy! You either stop offering the product, sell it off, or raise the price. You don’t accept losing money ‘for decades’! I suspect you’re right. Not a good business model either way! That’s a shame. While it would be a small dataset, you are a ‘front line’ source. Don’t misunderstand me, if I truly represent a higher risk as I age I most certainly expect to pay a higher premium. It is that premiums for older pilots are raised simply because they are older, and not because they actually have a demonstrable higher claims rate is that which annoys me.

Mine burns 1 qt in 7 hours.

Yes, that’s it. Not just somebody, but the A& P that is signing off the work and airworthiness thereof inspected said work. In my naivety I assumed that was how it works. I most certainly knew, and had no issue with, non A&Ps working on my aircraft under the supervision of an A&P. What I hadn’t known was that, in the FAA’s eyes, supervision does NOT require actual inspection of the non A&P’s work! I find it hard to believe I’m the only owner that was under that impression inspection was required. But, maybe I am.

And, once again, your ignorance is demonstrated. That wall of text you cited deals with financial responsibility which is NOT an insurance mandate. Quote the text in your cite that states that insurance is required. I'll bet you cannot; prove me wrong. Telling people they are wrong seems to be your entire raison d'etre, after all. Where California law references financial responsibility, it does not mandate insurance as the exclusive means of compliance. California law does not require all aircraft owners or operators to maintain liability insurance. Instead, California employs limited, activity-based financial responsibility statutes, including provisions applicable when aircraft are rented or leased for compensation, operators engage in commercial or for-hire activities, or operators fall under specific state regulatory jurisdiction. California has not adopted an aircraft insurance regime analogous to the compulsory automobile insurance scheme found in the California Vehicle Code, reflecting a deliberate legislative distinction between motor vehicles and aircraft. Private Part 91 operations fall outside the scope of California’s insurance-triggering statutes. Aircraft are not classified as motor vehicles and are not used for routine public transportation. Courts and legislatures recognize material distinctions, including the discretionary and infrequent nature of aircraft operations, heightened pilot licensing standards, and extensive federal certification and inspection regimes. Because of these distinctions, compulsory insurance models developed for automobiles have not been extended to private aviation. That is quite apparent.

Why, then, do I see 2700 rpm on takeoff?

EXACTLY! Willing to be corrected, but for non-commercial private operations, even Kalifornia has no law requiring even liability insurance for aircraft.

THAT is NOT at all what I said. You are TWISTING my words to suit your needs! My point was that by virtue of the requirements to be a pilot, both medical requirements (Class Medicals, or even just Basic Med) and testing and currency requirements (though you may 'make fun' of them) are FAR more onerous to maintain a pilot's certificate than a State driver's license. That is what makes pilots, as a subset of the general population, a lower risk.

@Paul Thomas Thanks for that summary. I've been an AOPA member for nearly 50 years. They are definitely NOT the advocate for the 'little guy' they were decades ago. Your story infuriates me. I can't think of a more appropriate use of AOPA resources; that they wouldn't lift even a virtual finger (send out emails) is unconscionable and unacceptable! Frankly, I'll likely not renew next year based on this. My EAA membership seems better suited to my GA flying.

What @Shadrach said. I'm very happy with the extra 20 HP in my F. It definitely improves climb and altitude performance.

While NOT true of aviation insurance, yet, here in Kalifornia it is a law that you MUST purchase automobile insurance. Yeah, I'd blame 'regulation'!! Pretty naive to think insurance lobbyists weren't involved in getting that law passed! Or to think being FORCED to buy a product doesn't affect rates! NOT what'd I'd call free-market capitalism at work.

@SilentT NOT referring to you! You have been nothing but very polite.

Look, at the end of the day companies are generally free to price however they want. OTOH, if we were seeing higher rates based on race, creed, sex, without actuarial data supporting those rate discrepancies I would hope everyone would be outraged. Yet, it appears that basing rates on age without data is perfectly acceptable and brushed off with "don't overthink it" or "It's capitalism", don't like it, don't buy it attitude. Basing pricing on "feeling" doesn't seem like a good business plan to me. But, it looks like most here are perfectly ok with the status quo for aging pilots, so I'll drop it. (For now, anyway)

In his case, I appear to be blind in both eyes 100% agree!

While there is certainly not the same quantity of data, I find it hard to believe there is not aggregate GA claims data vs. age. I.e., I doubt automotive or aircraft claims ratios need to be broken down into make & model to establish a statistically causal link between age and accidents. Because claims data establishes a higher claims ratio! Therefore, higher premiums are logical and justified. And, there's the rub: the "ASSUMPTION" that if older drivers have a higher claims ratio, then ergo, older pilots MUST AUTOMATICALLY be a higher risk, assigned higher premiums or canceled, WITHOUT supporting data! I posit, admittedly without any hard data of my own, that the subset demographics of older pilots (health and mental acuity) are vastly superior to those same attributes of the general older driver population. Thus, there are GOOD reasons to think the same skills do NOT deteriorate in the same fashion/rate as drivers. If data exists to establish a higher claims ratio then higher rates are logical and justified, as with automobiles. If not, it's simple age discrimination, IMHO. It is hard to believe no data exists. So, my cynicism suggests two paths for underwriters: 1) We've made a boatload in premiums for decades and we'll eliminate any and all risk by canceling older pilots whose livelihoods no longer even rely upon being a pilot. 2) We will soak rich older 'hobby' pilots because they'll continue to pay. @Parker_Woodruff You've been in the biz for a while, now. What have you observed in your book of business? Pick an arbitrary age, say 60. Do you see a higher claims rate in the group over 60 vs. those pilots younger than 60? Obviously, need to look at the number of insureds in each group so as to not skew the results, but even that limited data set might prove interesting.

No, I do not. I'm interested in insurance actuarial data which I doubt we will ever see. Absent such data showing a higher claims rate my cynicism suspects insurance companies are merely taking advantage of older pilots. IOW, I agree with you: whatever they can get away with

Well, that's an interesting study but take heed of this part of the report: I would really be interested in insurance company actuarial data showing a statistically significant increase in claims ratios for older pilots.

I have no idea how the aircraft insurance industry is regulated but higher rates/cancellation of older pilots based solely on age, without data to back up higher claims ratios, seems pretty discriminatory to me. With automobile insurance women pay less than men because the DATA shows they have lower claims ratios; perfectly understandable premium model to follow the data. Where's the data showing older pilots have higher claims ratios???

I appreciate your patience on this, but I'm still not clear on if INSPECTION is REQUIRED by an A&P (or IA) after a NON A&P performs work on an aircraft. I don't how much clearer I can make my question. The real point of my question is that while I've always assumed non A&Ps may well work on my aircraft while in a shop, certified repair station, or not, I've also assumed that an A&P (or IA) INSPECTED their work BEFORE signing off the work in my logs as airworthy/approved for return to service. This discussion has raised the ugly question, IMHO, if that isn't even required??? Which bothers me considerably as what happened here poignantly illustrates! Maybe I'm the only one so naive to have not realized no inspection of a non-certificated mechanic's work is even required.

Am I to understand, in either case, that NO inspection by an A&P post work is actually required? That is, if the A&P, or repair station, chooses to sign off the non A&P's work WITHOUT inspecting it, that is perfectly legal?