Low Time and Insurance - Cessna P206

[Shawn]

I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
broker's time.

I obviously am not interested in buying into a plane I won't be able
to fly. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?

Thanks much.

[Max T, CFI]

I wouldn't worry about wasting the broker's time--that's their job to provide
info on what they can and cannot do. Rates definitely vary based on
number of hours and type of experience, and I wouldn't be surprised if they
had a minimum of at least 125 hours, and/or a number of hours of dual
instruction in the airplane. If the other partners are high time pilots, and you are
added to the insurance, the rate will almost certainly increase by a very significant percentage.
If the partner doesn't want to call the broker, call him yourself or call any insurance
broker. The rates and minimum hours will vary somewhat from company to company,
but it will give you a good idea of what the hurdle will be.
Max T, MCFI

Shawn > wrote in message om...
> I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
> am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
> Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
> contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
> their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
> private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
> broker's time.
>
> I obviously am not interested in buying into a plane I won't be able
> to fly. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?
>
> Thanks much.

[Phil Verghese]

(Shawn) wrote in
om:
> The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
> broker's time.

It's the broker's job. Ask if you can talk to the broker yourself.

> I obviously am not interested in buying into a plane I won't be
able
> to fly. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?

A P206 is quite a lot of airplane for a new pilot. Even if you
waited until after getting your private certificate, you probably
would have a hard time getting affordable insurance (some
underwriters may not even cover you).

Here's some experience I've had. I own a Mooney M20J with two other
pilots. In 1999 when partner #3 bought in, he had about 200 hours
and no instrument rating. Our insurance premium increased by $1,000.
After he got his instrument rating, the premium dropped back down.
We've been trying to get a $1M smooth (no per-person sublimits)
policy, but the cost has been prohibitive (extra $800 I think) until
partner #3 gets 500 hours total time. He'll be there at the next
renewal.

My suggestion would be to get your private *and* instrument done
before buying into the P206. By that time you'll have a lot more
hours and will be easier to insure in that plane. You may have to
rent for a while, or find a simpler plane to buy into. However,
that's just based on my limited experience with insurance companies.
I would discuss this with the broker yourself. Ask him what it would
take to get insured. Also ask about the current liability limits on
the policy, and if those limits would need to change if you were
added.

If you are able to get insured for the P206, talk to the other
partners about how they want to deal with the insurance payment. For
our partnership, we just split it 3 ways even though two of us are
commercial pilots/CFIs with a lot more hours than partner #3. I've
heard of others that get a per-pilot quote from the broker, and each
pays a non-equal share based on how much they personally added to
the liability premium.

Phil
www.pfactor.com

[Mike Rapoport]

"Phil Verghese" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> (Shawn) wrote in
> om:
> A P206 is quite a lot of airplane for a new pilot. Even if you
> waited until after getting your private certificate, you probably
> would have a hard time getting affordable insurance (some
> underwriters may not even cover you).


Why? It is a relatively slow, fixed gear airplane. The main addition to a
a 172 is a CS prop and two more seats. I don't understand why a new PP
would be difficult to insure.

Mike
MU-2

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Shawn > wrote:
>I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
>am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.

It is going to be really hard to get insured at around 60 hours (which
is where I'd guess you'll finish). A lot of underwriters will want
250tt and an instrument rating and will want 15-25 hours in type
before you solo. However, there is probably *some* underwriter that
will cover you for a large premium, but you'll need a broker to
negotiate that for you. Absolutely request a *quote* if you are
serious. I got a few brokers to estimate for me but when I finally
got quotes the actual premiums were significantly different (lower,
luckily) and came with different training requirements.

One other thing you need to do is call Avemco directly. They are
the only underwriter that doesn't work through brokers. They seem
willing to write unusual risks (at alarming rates) and will pro-rate
a reduction in your premium as you satisfy risk-lowering requirements.
For example, if you bought a plane and got a hangar in 6 months you
could get their 10% hangar discount for the last 6 months of the policy.
As you get more time in type, complete your instrument rating, complete
some recommended safety courses you can get the discounts immediately
rather than waiting until your next renewal.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ben Jackson]

In article t>,
Mike Rapoport > wrote:
>
>Why? It is a relatively slow, fixed gear airplane. The main addition to a
>a 172 is a CS prop and two more seats. I don't understand why a new PP
>would be difficult to insure.

Underwriters look at accident history. A 206 is a travelling plane.
When people crash it they've loaded 6 people into it and flown it into
weather they/it can't handle because they need to Get There. The crashes
are due to errors in judgement rather than skill. A 206 requires a lot
more judgement than a 172, even if not much more skill.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
(Shawn) wrote:

> I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
> am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
>

How large a family? A 6 seater does not mean you can always fill 6
seats. Or a four seater for that matter.

Edward

[C J Campbell]

You will not be wasting the insurance broker's time by talking to him. That
is his job and if he doesn't like it then it is time to look for a new
broker. You need to find out what the insurance company requires for you to
be covered as a named pilot and then start jumping through the hoops. "No"
is not an answer. "Ten hours with an instructor" is an answer.

The Cessna 206 is a high performance airplane with a constant speed prop. It
is very easy to fly and some pilots learn to fly in them. It requires a
little more advance planning when entering the pattern and it is very nose
heavy, but it is not so fast that a low time pilot is going to get very far
behind it.

[C J Campbell]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:jdXkb.827639$YN5.865583@sccrnsc01...
| In article t>,
| Mike Rapoport > wrote:
| >
| >Why? It is a relatively slow, fixed gear airplane. The main addition to
a
| >a 172 is a CS prop and two more seats. I don't understand why a new PP
| >would be difficult to insure.
|
| Underwriters look at accident history.

Fine. If you look at the accident history of the Cessna 206 you will find it
has a much better than average safety record, comparable to that of the
Cessna 172 and 182. The most common accident in the 206 is dropping it on
its nose when landing -- not often a fatal mistake, but it does damage the
nose gear.

[C J Campbell]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
. net...
| In article >,
| Shawn > wrote:
| >I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
| >am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
|
| It is going to be really hard to get insured at around 60 hours (which
| is where I'd guess you'll finish). A lot of underwriters will want
| 250tt and an instrument rating and will want 15-25 hours in type
| before you solo.

My own experience is that insurance companies are demanding five to ten
hours of dual and no minimum time for a 206.

[Mike Hammock]

Who thinks insurance requirements really make any sense these days??
When we wanted to take in a new partner on our 78 Piper Archer II,
the insurance co. said minimum of 150 hours and 25 in type. This was for
a PP with 85 hrs, mostly in Cessnas. A 206 may be a 'basic' airplane, but
it is sure a bit more of a plane than the Archer....
Mike Pvt/IFR PA28-181 N44979 at RYY


Mike Rapoport wrote:

>"Phil Verghese" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
>
>
(Shawn) wrote in
om:
>>A P206 is quite a lot of airplane for a new pilot. Even if you
>>waited until after getting your private certificate, you probably
>>would have a hard time getting affordable insurance (some
>>underwriters may not even cover you).
>>
>>
>
>
>Why? It is a relatively slow, fixed gear airplane. The main addition to a
>a 172 is a CS prop and two more seats. I don't understand why a new PP
>would be difficult to insure.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>
>
>

[Newps]

Edward Todd wrote:

> How large a family? A 6 seater does not mean you can always fill 6
> seats.

It does with a 206.

[JerryK]

Don't give up. The first 2 brokers I talked to would not touch me when I
upgraded to a twin. The third broker worked hard and got me insurance.

Best of luck,

jerry

"Shawn" > wrote in message
om...
> I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
> am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
> Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
> contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
> their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
> private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
> broker's time.
>
> I obviously am not interested in buying into a plane I won't be able
> to fly. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?
>
> Thanks much.

[Snowbird]

(Shawn) wrote in message >...
> I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
> am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
> Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
> contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
> their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
> private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
> broker's time.

@#!!!!

1000 violins play "my heart bleeds for the poor broker"

It's his JOB to spend his time finding insurance coverage
for people. Let him do it or move over and give the job
to someone who will.

Don't be discouraged if one broker won't work with you.
When we bought a plane we wanted 1 million smooth coverage
from USAIG. The local broker basically laughed at us and
said w/ low time and few hours in make and model we couldn't
get 1 million smooth from anyone and USAIG wouldn't insure
us.

So I called another broker (in another city) used by
a friend. He laughed--at the first broker. And got
us a favorable quote for 1 million smooth from USAIG,
zero deductable.

As he said "I don't get where the first broker you spoke
with was coming from. This is our profession, finding
workable insurance for pilots and owners is what keeps
the lights on for us"

Cheers,
Sydney

[C J Campbell]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| And I never saw much difference between a 172 and a 182 except that the
182
| is considered "high performance" and the 172 isn't. We all know that
"high
| performance" as for the endorsement is a poor joke foisted on the aviation
| set by politicos with no judgement or sense. When a 180 HP RV-4 that
does
| over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance" and
my
| poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day at
| 100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to wonder.
| Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)
|

There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines that
are not considered high performance.

[Robert Perkins]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:27:38 -0500, "Highfllyer" >
wrote:

>When a 180 HP RV-4 that does
>over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance" and my
>poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day at
>100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to wonder.
>Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)

Is "Your Stinson has a lot more left turning tendency" a wrong answer?

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Ben Jackson]

In article >, Highfllyer > wrote:
>"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
>news:jdXkb.827639$YN5.865583@sccrnsc01...
>> Underwriters look at accident history. A 206 is a travelling plane.
>> When people crash it they've loaded 6 people into it and flown it into
>> weather they/it can't handle because they need to Get There.
>
>But it compares VERY closely to a 182, which is very cheap to insure and
>often flown by new private pilots with no penalty.

Compares closely in what way? Almost all airplanes are subject to the
same kinds of accidents, but in different proportions.

I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
that kill everyone aboard.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <4Lfmb.8797$275.16267@attbi_s53>, (Ben Jackson)
wrote:
> I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
> of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
> them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
> for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
> seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
> that kill everyone aboard.

Plenty of VFR into IMC in 172s, 182s, Cherokees, and just about every
other light single.



JKG

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Highfllyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> |
> | And I never saw much difference between a 172 and a 182 except that the
> 182
> | is considered "high performance" and the 172 isn't. We all know that
> "high
> | performance" as for the endorsement is a poor joke foisted on the
aviation
> | set by politicos with no judgement or sense. When a 180 HP RV-4 that
> does
> | over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance"
and
> my
> | poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day
at
> | 100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to
wonder.
> | Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)
> |
>
> There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines that
> are not considered high performance.
>
Such as...?

[Tom S.]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:4Lfmb.8797$275.16267@attbi_s53...
> >> Underwriters look at accident history. A 206 is a travelling plane.
> >> When people crash it they've loaded 6 people into it and flown it into
> >> weather they/it can't handle because they need to Get There.
> >
> >But it compares VERY closely to a 182, which is very cheap to insure and
> >often flown by new private pilots with no penalty.
>
> Compares closely in what way? Almost all airplanes are subject to the
> same kinds of accidents, but in different proportions.
>
> I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
> of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
> them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
> for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
> seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
> that kill everyone aboard.

In which aircraft? The 182, the 172, or the 206?

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Tom S. > wrote:
>"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
>news:4Lfmb.8797$275.16267@attbi_s53...
>>
>> I looked at accidents before I posted my comment.
>
>In which aircraft? The 182, the 172, or the 206?

In 1998 (because the ntsb's search defaults to 1/1/98 as the start)
there were 20 206 accidents, 8 fatal (one killing 7!), which is 40%.
That same year there were 69 182 accidents, 16 fatal, or 23%. Anyone
know the relative fleet sizes of the 182 vs 206? I'm betting a lot
more than 3.5x more 182s.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[C J Campbell]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
| >
| > There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines
that
| > are not considered high performance.
| >

Even the lowly Seminole and Duchess (180 hp engines) are fairly fast but are
not high performance.