Light Twins - Again - Why is the insurance so high?

[Doodybutch]

I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance (1
Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.

The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance rates
for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at about
$2800.

There is only one reason for this disparity in price. The insurance
companies only care about their wallets. They are not emotionally involved
owners.

The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance rates
would be lower. It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with > 4 passengers,
and many of those are singles.

A great irony, isn't it?

DB

[Kyler Laird]

"Doodybutch" > writes:

>The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance rates
>would be lower.

That's quite a leap.

>It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
>through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with > 4 passengers,
>and many of those are singles.

Are you also claiming that it costs the same or less to repair a light
twin that's been landed gear up as it would to fix your R182? Do you
have data to support that claim?

>A great irony, isn't it?

Mmmmm...I'm not seeing it yet.

--kyler

[Michael]

"Doodybutch" > wrote
> I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance (1
> Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.

A C-182 RG is an incredibly docile airplane, very forgiving of pilot
error. We worry a lot about mechanical failures (especially in night
and IFR flight) but the truth is that most pilots fly and train so
little that pilot error is far and away the biggest cause of
accidents. Of course a more forgiving airplane is going to have
better safety statistics.

I assure you that a high performance retractable single like a Bonanza
worth $120K is going to cost significantly more to insure - most
people I know with Bonanzas are paying around $2500. And have you
looked into insuring a Bellanca 14-19 lately? Of course a Bonanza
with the big engine or a 14-19 will keep up with my twin - a C-182RG
will not. The docile handling of the C-182RG comes at the cost of
speed.

> The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance rates
> for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at about
> $2800.

I pay $2500, and that wasn't the lowest quote (I didn't like the high
deductible for gear collapse on the lower quote, and this is a known
issue with PA-30's).

So really there is no disparity, once you start comparing apples to
apples.

Michael

[Mike Rapoport]

I pay $1915 for liability on a nine seat airplane which is probably
comparable (roughly) with most airplanes/pilots on a per seat basis. Hull
coverage, which I don't carry, would be about $25,000 which reflects the
cost of repair.

Mike
MU-2


"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
. net...
> I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance
(1
> Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.
>
> The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance
rates
> for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at
about
> $2800.
>
> There is only one reason for this disparity in price. The insurance
> companies only care about their wallets. They are not emotionally involved
> owners.
>
> The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance
rates
> would be lower. It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
> through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with > 4
passengers,
> and many of those are singles.
>
> A great irony, isn't it?
>
> DB
>
>
>
>

[Jay]

Since when did a corpoaration care about anything other than
maximizing profits and return on its stock for it's share holders?

Besides market forces such as collusion or competition there may be
some physics reasons for the disparity is prices as well.

Being larger and faster, the twin is carrying more than twice the
energy into a crash. So crashes, when they do happen, tend to be more
destructive.

Another market force may be that people that can afford a twin, have
more money and are willing to pay more when billed. Nothing to do
with safety.


"Doodybutch" > wrote in message >...
> I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance (1
> Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.
>
> The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance rates
> for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at about
> $2800.
>
> There is only one reason for this disparity in price. The insurance
> companies only care about their wallets. They are not emotionally involved
> owners.
>
> The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance rates
> would be lower. It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
> through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with > 4 passengers,
> and many of those are singles.
>
> A great irony, isn't it?
>
> DB

[SeeAndAvoid]

For what it's worth...
I'm refinancing my airplane, and my lender wont even finance twins anymore.
This is an aviation lender, too. I'd like to move up to a Seneca someday,
but the banks and insurance aren't making it feasible. So, since I'm not
independently wealthy or with rich-soon-to-be-dead parents, it'll never
probably happen.
Chris

"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
. net...
> I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance
(1
> Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.
>
> The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance
rates
> for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at
about
> $2800.
>
> There is only one reason for this disparity in price. The insurance
> companies only care about their wallets. They are not emotionally involved
> owners.
>
> The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance
rates
> would be lower. It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
> through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with > 4
passengers,
> and many of those are singles.
>
> A great irony, isn't it?
>
> DB
>
>
>
>

[Kyler Laird]

"SeeAndAvoid" > writes:

>I'm refinancing my airplane, and my lender wont even finance twins anymore.
>This is an aviation lender, too. I'd like to move up to a Seneca someday,
>but the banks and insurance aren't making it feasible. So, since I'm not
>independently wealthy or with rich-soon-to-be-dead parents, it'll never
>probably happen.

I had a loan with US Aviation Finance
http://www.usaviationfinance.com/index2.html
on about 80% of the appraised vallue of my Aztec for awhile. They made it
easy. I recommend giving them a call if you're serious about getting a
Seneca. They certainly don't seem to shy away from multis.
http://www.usaviationfinance.com/prefli/

For insurance, call Andy Facer.
http://www.facer-ins.com/

I'd appreciate a report if either of them turn down your application.

--kyler

[CriticalMass]

Doodybutch wrote:

>The light twins crash more often.
>


And, not incidentally, cost the insurance companies much more when they
have to settle.