Bad news for our flying club

[Paul Tomblin]

The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.

I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Hogshead now has a stated policy of Not Doing Business With ****wits, which
has saved me enormous amounts of heartache over the last few months.
I recommend it. -- James Wallis, Hogshead Publishing

[zatatime]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
>won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
>any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
>confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>
>I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?


I don't know the real reason, but a Cherokee 6 isn't complex, its High
Performance. Maybe that's the hot button.

Whatever it is, I don't agree with a blanket denial of coverage like
that. Aren't they in the Insurance Business?

z

[BTIZ]

a Cherokee 6 is still a complex aircraft.. IIRC.. it only takes two of the
3.. controllable prop, flaps, gear

I'm wondering if the issue is more the 6 seats... and not the 300HP, retract
and flaps..

BT

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
> won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
> any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
> confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>
> I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Hogshead now has a stated policy of Not Doing Business With ****wits,
which
> has saved me enormous amounts of heartache over the last few months.
> I recommend it. -- James Wallis, Hogshead Publishing

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, zatatime > said:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
>>won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
>>any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
>>confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>I don't know the real reason, but a Cherokee 6 isn't complex, its High
>Performance. Maybe that's the hot button.

It might be the size and/or value, because the club that got told that
they can't insure their Lance any more has two Arrows and Avemco didn't
say anything about them. We've also got a Dakota, which is also HP.

One thing the club is going to ask Avemco if they'd insure us if we split
off the Lance as a separate membership category with restricted
membership. We currently require 350 hours total time plus a ten hour
checkout for the Lance - I just checked out in this winter.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Mission Control clears SMS-1 to Canaveral via thrust vectors, Up, Hold
Earth, right turns, expect further clearance in ten days."
http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/181561-1.html

[Rob McDonald]

zatatime > wrote in
:

> ...
> Whatever it is, I don't agree with a blanket denial of coverage like
> that. Aren't they in the Insurance Business?
>
> z

Apparently not... I had my Champ insured with them and about 18 months ago
I got a letter saying that they would not insure it after the next renewal
date. Turns out they dropped the entire Canadian aviation market.
Rob


--

[Jay Honeck]

> One thing the club is going to ask Avemco if they'd insure us if we split
> off the Lance as a separate membership category with restricted
> membership. We currently require 350 hours total time plus a ten hour
> checkout for the Lance - I just checked out in this winter.

Why don't you just tell Avemco to get screwed?

We did -- and saved ourselves money in the bargain.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:ljzrc.6841$7y5.5667@fed1read03...
> a Cherokee 6 is still a complex aircraft.. IIRC.. it only takes two of the
> 3.. controllable prop, flaps, gear

No. Prop and flaps are sufficient for a seaplane. Otherwise, you need all
three.

A Cherokee 6 is NOT a complex airplane.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
> won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
> any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
> confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.

It's almost certainly not blanket, and it's probably more to do with the
plane having 6 seats rather than being high performance/complex. We had
to insure a C210 as a 4-seat plane (removed the rear two seats) to get
it reasonable. (We could still get insurance with 6 seats but it was a
rip-off)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> No. Prop and flaps are sufficient for a seaplane. Otherwise, you need all
> three.
>
> A Cherokee 6 is NOT a complex airplane.

Nor is a jet aircraft. It doesn't have a controllable pitch propellor
<g>
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Nathan Young]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
>won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
>any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
>confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>
>I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?

Paul,

You should shop around insurance companies. You may want to use a
broker for this. I use Wenk Aviation Insurance 847-433-8370. Shannon
is my broker, and I have been very pleased with my rates for both a
Cherokee 180 and a Seneca II.

-Nathan

[Newps]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:IKArc.7472$JC5.708567@attbi_s54...
>
> Why don't you just tell Avemco to get screwed?
>
> We did -- and saved ourselves money in the bargain.




I always wanted to tell Avemco to get screwed but I never have the chance.
They are always 50% higher than everybody else. Always have been. They
wanted $1500 for my 182 this year. Ended up with Global again for $1000.

[Doug Vetter]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
> won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
> any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
> confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>
> I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?

A true shame.

Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard
wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before
they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of
their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a
"reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum
they charged.

However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the
experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before
9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping
lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now
it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few
pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring
Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots.

While insurance companies make a business out of covering acceptable
risk, and spreading out the costs such that slightly higher risks get
affordable coverage, Avemco seems to be in the business of covering only
extremely low risk parties and charging double the market rate for that
coverage. That's opposed to the way I was told it's supposed to work
from an underwriting perspective. Lowest risk should (more or less)
equal lowest cost.

Do yourself and the industry a favor and tell Avemco to screw the pooch.
There are plenty of good insurance brokers and underwriters to deal
with. Our local broker just renewed us at about 7% lower than last year
with the same underwriter. We now pay $950 / yr for the 172 insured to
$60K hull (slightly below market value -- our choice, not theirs) and
$1M smooth. Of course, we SHOULD pay less, what with two 1000 hr+
commercial pilots and a CFI on the policy. When we left Avemco many
years ago, they were charging $1200/yr - same pilots, far less coverage.

I hope market forces teach Avemco a lesson and force them out of
business - assuming they don't decline to renew coverage on their
remaining customers and do it themselves.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> > A Cherokee 6 is NOT a complex airplane.
>
> Nor is a jet aircraft. It doesn't have a controllable pitch propellor
> <g>

That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes.
However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
instead.

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
et...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
> > The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that
they
> > won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying
clubs
> > any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
> > confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
> >
> > I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?
>
> A true shame.
>
> Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard
> wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before
> they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of
> their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a
> "reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum
> they charged.
>
> However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the
> experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before
> 9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping
> lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now
> it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few
> pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring
> Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots.

Not only that but their terms are not near what other companies offer. So
even if they do insure someone at higher than industry standard rates the
coverage sucks.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes.
> However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
> instead.

I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an
APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require
a type rating?

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61
goes.
> > However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
> > instead.
>
> I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted
from an
> APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one
would require
> a type rating?

Depends on how it's used. The regs actually only require the type rating
for "turbojet" aircraft. If the thrust comes from a prop attached to the
turbine, and the aircraft is less than 12,500 pounds, and the FAA has not
specifically called out the aircraft as requiring a type rating, then no
type rating would be required.

My "turbine-powered" comment was vague out of context...the message to which
I replied specifically mentioned a jet, and I unintentionally implied that
ANY turbine-powered aircraft would require a type rating, which isn't the
case.

It does raise the question of whether every pilot who's ever flown the
jet-powered BD-5 had a type rating, or whether the experimental certificate
for the plane is even the same as a type certificate (hard to get a type
rating for an airplane without a type certificate, I would think :) ). I
assume there's some sort of regulatory process that covers this, but I'm not
an expert in the experimental side of things and don't know the specifics.

Pete

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine
>adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I
>assume this one would require a type rating?

Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html



--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Paul Tomblin > wrote:

> Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
> http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri
are made for the Radio Controlled model market.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:34:26 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>>I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine
>>adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I
>>assume this one would require a type rating?
>
>Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
>http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html


H O L Y S ......

I think that's probably the coolest thing I've seen since I fell in
love with some of the classics!!

Thanks for the link!

z

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers > said:
>> Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>> Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
>> http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
>
>Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri
>are made for the Radio Controlled model market.

Yup. If you look at the other links in the gallery on the amtjets.com
site, it's all models.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or food.
They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up again. And call
the helldesk about their password expiring. -- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki

[Shiver Me Timbers]

There's also a video clip of the Cri-Cri flying between a couple of
parked cars while a guy on a motorcycle does a ramp jump over
them at the same time.

[Jay Honeck]

> Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?

THAT is cool!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You should shop around insurance companies. You may want to use a
> broker for this. I use Wenk Aviation Insurance 847-433-8370. Shannon
> is my broker, and I have been very pleased with my rates for both a
> Cherokee 180 and a Seneca II.

I'll second Nathan's recommendation. Shannon is the best!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VoUrc.13291$JC5.1248358@attbi_s54...
> > Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
>
> THAT is cool!

There was an article a few years back in one of the UK mags
about flying that.

At one of the PFA Rallies I went to they had a Cri-cri (French
for Cricket, as in grasshopper thing) parked next to a radio
controlled Lancaster bomber. The Lancaster was bigger, at
least in wingspan, possibly in length.

Discovery Wings keeps showing a clip (in their advertising promo
thing) which appears to show a Cri-cri emerging having flown through
the middle of a C5.

Paul

[calafradulistic]

nope they are in the money making business, insurance just happens to be a
means to extract some money from the public. Paying money is not in their
language.


"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
> >The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
> >won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
> >any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
> >confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
> >
> >I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?
>
>
> I don't know the real reason, but a Cherokee 6 isn't complex, its High
> Performance. Maybe that's the hot button.
>
> Whatever it is, I don't agree with a blanket denial of coverage like
> that. Aren't they in the Insurance Business?
>
> z

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:55:03 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:44:35 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
>>won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
>>any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
>>confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.
>>
>>I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?
>
>
>I don't know the real reason, but a Cherokee 6 isn't complex, its High
>Performance. Maybe that's the hot button.

Complex = constant speed prop and electric flaps. The 6 still use the
Johnson Bar flaps?

>
>Whatever it is, I don't agree with a blanket denial of coverage like
>that. Aren't they in the Insurance Business?

Speaking of insurance... A friend is looking at a Sirrus 22. The
insurance is higher than they quoted me for a G-III first year.
Neither was cheap, but still, the Sirrus was about 1/3 the insurance
for a brand new TBM-700 while the G-III was only a quarter.

My G-III is not flying yet so it's not an issue... yet.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



>
>z

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:11:33 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:34:26 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>>>I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine
>>>adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I
>>>assume this one would require a type rating?
>>
>>Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
>>http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
>
>
>H O L Y S ......
>
>I think that's probably the coolest thing I've seen since I fell in
>love with some of the classics!!
>
If you think that's something, look up the price of those model
airplane jet engins<LOL>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Thanks for the link!
>
>z

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Roger Halstead > said:
>>I don't know the real reason, but a Cherokee 6 isn't complex, its High
>>Performance. Maybe that's the hot button.
>
>Complex = constant speed prop and electric flaps. The 6 still use the
>Johnson Bar flaps?

Not even close. Check FAR 61.31(e). Complex requires retractable gear
unless it's a seaplane. And nowhere does it specify that the flaps must
be electric.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"An NT server can be run by an idiot, and usually is." -- Tom Holub, a.h.b-o-i

[Paul Sengupta]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> If you think that's something, look up the price of those model
> airplane jet engins<LOL>

http://www.cat-ing.de/turbines/jetcatturbinen/strahlturbinen.htm
http://www.simjet.com/pricedollar.htm
http://www.amtjets.com/form_pricelist.php

Paul

[Ron Natalie]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message ...

> Not even close. Check FAR 61.31(e). Complex requires retractable gear
> unless it's a seaplane. And nowhere does it specify that the flaps must
> be electric.
>
>
Yep, got all those. Neither the flaps or the gear have any electrical components
on my plane save the "green lights" on the gear.