I’m a great believer in statistics, properly applied.
If I were an insurer, I’d be interested in factors that imply a relationship between accidents and particular plane. These would include low average time in type, the plane’s possibly attracting low-time pilots, the plane’s parachute possibly causing a false sense of security, etc. If the insurance companies want to charge for these things, fine (well, not really fine) but it’s absolutely positively not relevant to my personal assessment of the risk.
I’ll be a low time in type pilot of any new plane I buy. I can control whether I fly differently with the chute. Etc.
There are two, and only two accidents that even hypothetically could impact my personal risk assessment: the bad landing in Springfield (I saw pix of the plane - incredible that they survived) and the recent tragic accident in Syracuse. Possibly, these could be indicitave of a hard to land plane, a stall/spin prone plane, or a hard to recover from spin plane. (For the record, I’m not actually very worried about these items, although I am mindful of the possible risk.)
I’m equally prone to flying into a storm in any airplane. I’m a zero time in type pilot in any new plane. I’m a 630 total hours pilot in any plane. VFR pilot in IMC isn’t relevant for me in any plane. My mechanic not putting the oil plug back correctly is the same risk in any plane.
Andy’s two cents worth!