GA bias in "general" insurance?

[Greg Farris]

Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
disability. The insurance covered accidents at home or at work, and there
were very few outright exclusions. Of the eight or so exclusions they
listed, two were different ways of saying "self-inflicted" or deliberate
injuries or suicide attempts. Two were wartime or insurrection
exclusions, and one was specific to use of nuclear weapons. All of the
other exclusions were related to general aviation or air sports "of any
form". They include all activity related to aviation other than "flying
as a paying passenger on a scheduled airline".

Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
"acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out. I
visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

GF

[kontiki]

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
> see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
> great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
> higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular problem.
The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically incorrect.

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
> "acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out.

GA is far more dangerous than flying as a passenger on a commercial
airline. It is apparently dangerous enough that insurance companies
are sometimes worried about it. Ask Cory Lidle's family about it.

> I visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
> years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
> were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
> was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
> insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
> houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

Visit the cemetery instead. Look for wealthy people who died young or
in good health, especially people who had to travel a great deal.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular problem.
> The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically incorrect.

Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jay Honeck]

> Visit the cemetery instead. Look for wealthy people who died young or
> in good health, especially people who had to travel a great deal.

Why?

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
> reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
> disability. The insurance covered accidents at home or at work, and there
> were very few outright exclusions. Of the eight or so exclusions they
> listed, two were different ways of saying "self-inflicted" or deliberate
> injuries or suicide attempts. Two were wartime or insurrection
> exclusions, and one was specific to use of nuclear weapons. All of the
> other exclusions were related to general aviation or air sports "of any
> form". They include all activity related to aviation other than "flying
> as a paying passenger on a scheduled airline".
>
> Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
> "acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out. I
> visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
> years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
> were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
> was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
> insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
> houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.
>
> I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
> see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
> great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
> higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.
>
> GF


I suspect the main reason is all the famous figures who have died in GA
crashes. Even though they may represent a small fraction of the GA
population, they probably have huge claims which distorts the average
claim made by pilots. On the other hand, I doubt many famous figures
spend much time on the road or have any involvement with city gangs and
drug wars.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> kontiki writes:
>
>> There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular
>> problem. The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically
>> incorrect.
>
> Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
> fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
> restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.

Absolutely 100% INCORRECT.

I asked my friends the actuaries about this.

The most vocal and experienced of the group said that it is in the hands
of the underwriter as to what inclusions and exclusions are in the
contract. The underwriters are people that make decisions based on the
facts and statistics that they observe. But they are people, and many of
their decisions are based on their human emotions, beliefs and opinions.
Otherwise, all insurance contracts would read the same.

Actuaries pretty much just figure out things like how much they need to
charge and how they need to invest money to ensure that the company
continues to be profitable every year after the "expected" amount of
capital gains, payouts, and revenue.

Interestingly enough, he said that in his experience, it was more likely
to find insurance companies that would exclude a Commercial Pilot than a
Recreational Pilot. He believed that even Airline Pilots would be included
in the category of Commercial Pilot.

I told him that statistically speaking, it would seem that Airline Pilots
are probably safer than GA Commercial Pilots or Recreational Pilots, but I
told him not to tell any underwriters that he works with because rather
than relieve the burden on Airline Pilots, they would probably just make
it harder for Recreational Pilots too...

It was not clear which category Sim Pilots fall into.

If you have any conversations with experts in the insurance industry that
you would like to share to back up your statements, I would be most
interested in hearing about them.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>
>> kontiki writes:
>>
>>> There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular
>>> problem. The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically
>>> incorrect.
>>
>> Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
>> fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
>> restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.
>



>Absolutely 100% INCORRECT.
>
>I asked my friends the actuaries about this.
>

>
>If you have any conversations with experts in the insurance industry that
>you would like to share to back up your statements, I would be most
>interested in hearing about them.



You've got it all wrong - the experts are supposed to listen to him.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>

>
>Why?
>
>Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
>--


Haven't you ever been in a cemetary?
Surely you're not suggesting you haven't noticed the scads of dead GA
pilots there. . .

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
>
>
>>Why?
>>
>>Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
>>--
>
>
>
> Haven't you ever been in a cemetary?

No, what is a cemetary?

Matt

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> No, what is a cemetary?
>
> Matt

That must be where they bury the survivors.

[Aluckyguess]

Motorcycles, I think they would be the exclusion. Has to be more dangerous
than GA.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Absolutely 100% INCORRECT.

Yes, sir!

> Interestingly enough, he said that in his experience, it was more likely
> to find insurance companies that would exclude a Commercial Pilot than a
> Recreational Pilot. He believed that even Airline Pilots would be included
> in the category of Commercial Pilot.

Commercial pilots are safer per hour, but they fly more hours.

> It was not clear which category Sim Pilots fall into.

An advantage of simulators is that they have virtually no risks
associated with them.

> If you have any conversations with experts in the insurance industry that
> you would like to share to back up your statements, I would be most
> interested in hearing about them.

I used to work in the industry, so I didn't need to look for expert
conversations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Why?

Wealthy people are more likely to buy their own aircraft, or to fly in
general aviation (as passengers or crew).

GA is a rich man's hobby, and some wealthy people depend on GA for
personal transportation.

> Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?

More than there should be, at least in general aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

I'm pretty sure they're about the same risk.

mike

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Motorcycles, I think they would be the exclusion. Has to be more dangerous
> than GA.
>

[Jim Macklin]

V35 Bonanza, AKA Forked-Tailed Doctor Killer, reflects on
doctors on lawyers.
Motorcycles, mostly crotch rockets/races.choppers AKA Donor
cycles

Some people are careful and can operate motorcycles and
airplanes for decades with nothing serious.

Some people are over confident and fail to take reasonable
precautions in unfamiliar circumstances.

Consider if the CFI who was flying with Casey Lidle had
taken the time to learn the NYC area, visited facilities,
taken a training flight himself, they might both be alive
today.

If Casey had not put his full faith and trust in the CFI,
but exercised his own PIC caution and done those things
himself, ditto.


"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
| I'm pretty sure they're about the same risk.
|
| mike
|
| "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Motorcycles, I think they would be the exclusion. Has to
be more dangerous
| > than GA.
| >
|
|

[Jay Honeck]

> > Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
>
> More than there should be, at least in general aviation.

And this is based on...what?

Flying light airplanes carries about the same risk as riding a
motorcycle, statistically. I don't see any insurance companies that
exclude motorcycle riding, although I suppose they may exist.

As with riding, when flying you can make things MUCH safer by taking a
few relatively easy steps.

Or are you saying that rich people who use GA for transportation are,
to a large degree, doofuses, along the lines of the legendary
overworked Bonanza-pilot-doctors (thus the nick-name,
"Fork-Tailed-Doctor-Killer") who used to kill themselves with alarming
regularity?

(In case you didn't know, Bonanzas were the original Cirrus, meaning
that wealthy, busy, high-powered professionals often bought them, flew
them too little, but often under tight schedules. This occasionally
got them in deep doo-doo when they flew into conditions that exceeded
their limited skills under the reasoning that they "had" to make that
meeting.)

Personally, I don't think GA flying is prohibitively dangerous, or I
certainly wouldn't have put my family in the plane over 600 times.
You've just got to be vigilant and careful at all times.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
> reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
> disability.

I'll say again, I've never seen a GA exclusion on any insurance that I
have. Group life and AD&D insurance through work even covers me if I am
instructing. Just for kicks, I looked into extra life insurance with
USAA a while back, and they don't have an exclusion either. It seems
that you're looking in the wrong places.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> And this is based on...what?

The relatively high risk of GA, compared to commercial airlines.

> Flying light airplanes carries about the same risk as riding a
> motorcycle, statistically.

Riding a motorcycle is pretty risky.

> As with riding, when flying you can make things MUCH safer by taking a
> few relatively easy steps.

Yes, but the insurance company cannot be sure that you will take those
steps. And many people obviously don't, whence the high accident
rates.

> Or are you saying that rich people who use GA for transportation are,
> to a large degree, doofuses, along the lines of the legendary
> overworked Bonanza-pilot-doctors (thus the nick-name,
> "Fork-Tailed-Doctor-Killer") who used to kill themselves with alarming
> regularity?

No. Rich people aren't any less intelligent than poor people.
However, having money provides access to general aviation,
irrespective of intelligence, so stupid rich people are more able to
fly than stupid poor people. Thus, one may encounter lots of stupid,
rich pilots.

> In case you didn't know, Bonanzas were the original Cirrus, meaning
> that wealthy, busy, high-powered professionals often bought them, flew
> them too little, but often under tight schedules. This occasionally
> got them in deep doo-doo when they flew into conditions that exceeded
> their limited skills under the reasoning that they "had" to make that
> meeting.

And in so doing they skewed the safety statistics for general
aviation. People like Cory Lidle, John Denver, and John F. Kennedy,
Jr., are still doing that today.

> Personally, I don't think GA flying is prohibitively dangerous, or I
> certainly wouldn't have put my family in the plane over 600 times.
> You've just got to be vigilant and careful at all times.

I agree. Take good care of your plane and good care of yourself, and
be careful and cautious even when it's inconvenient, and the risk of
flying will be very low indeed. Under such conditions I certainly
wouldn't hesitate to put my family in a plane. But careless pilots
flying ill-maintained aircraft are just asking for trouble.

I think one big part of it is that, in general aviation, you cannot
simply jump into the plane and fly whenever you wish ... not if you
want to be safe, at least. If the weather is unsuitable, or if
there's any problem with the aircraft, you have to wait. But some
people don't like to wait.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:


> Commercial pilots are safer per hour, but they fly more hours.

Do you mean Commercial GA Pilots fly more hours than Airline Pilots?

> An advantage of simulators is that they have virtually no risks
> associated with them.

Obesity? Obesity holds a much higher risk than flying, even according to the
insurance underwriters.

> I used to work in the industry, so I didn't need to look for expert
> conversations.

Were you an Underwriter or an Actuary?

I used to work in the industry, too. That's how I know the experts that I
asked. If you used to work in the industry, certainly there is someone you
could ask who might be able to provide you a legitimate answer based on
factual information, instead of forming opinions based on your own limited
experience.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Do you mean Commercial GA Pilots fly more hours than Airline Pilots?

Any commercial pilot flies more hours than the vast majority of
private pilots; after all, it's her job.

> Obesity? Obesity holds a much higher risk than flying, even according to the
> insurance underwriters.

Yes, but flight simulators don't make you obese.

In fact, and just incidentally, I find that I eat less when flying a
simulator than when doing other activities at home. The time flies
by.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>I'll say again, I've never seen a GA exclusion on any insurance that I
>have. Group life and AD&D insurance through work even covers me if I am
>instructing. Just for kicks, I looked into extra life insurance with
>USAA a while back, and they don't have an exclusion either. It seems
>that you're looking in the wrong places.

I wasn't looking at all - just received this ad in the mail, and because
they spent about half the document finding different ways of saying they
wouldn't have anything to do with private aviation, I figured they must not
be the only ones. I was surprised they went on and on about this
one particular thing. We all do things that are potentially dangerous - I
think my chances of being disabled are much greater in my car, for two
reasons. First, though I admit the type of flying I do is more dangerous by
any reasonable measure than the type of driving I do, I spend many more
hours in the car. Secondly, sorry to say, if I should be foolish or
unfortunate enough to have a serious accident in an airplane, my chances of
being killed are probably as high as my chances of disability, which is not
the case in the car(1). This particular insurance only pays to the injured
party (not to a third party) in the case of disability. If you die, they
have no obligation. Therefore, I believe this particular underwriter
suffers from an unfair, anti-GA bias.

GF

(1) (I don't have any proof of this, and would be interested in hearing if
others - with knowledge of the subject, that is - believe this is true)

[Jay Honeck]

> I think one big part of it is that, in general aviation, you cannot
> simply jump into the plane and fly whenever you wish ... not if you
> want to be safe, at least. If the weather is unsuitable, or if
> there's any problem with the aircraft, you have to wait. But some
> people don't like to wait.

Well put. In fact, with that paragraph I believe you have summed up
the reason for the majority of GA crashes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:53:42 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>GA is a rich man's hobby, and some wealthy people depend on GA for
>personal transportation.

I beg to differ. Yes, you can spend a LOT of money at the upper end
(and yes, even the middle) of the GA spectrum, but you can also buy a
good used plane for less than the price of the average new car... and
a lot less than "average" guys spend on boats. Airplanes hold their
value far better, too.

Is this perceived high cost of aviation what keeps you in your
basement playing sims?

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resist militant "normality" -- A mind is a terrible thing to erase.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:54:43 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>And in so doing they skewed the safety statistics for general
>aviation. People like Cory Lidle, John Denver, and John F. Kennedy,
>Jr., are still doing that today.

Lidle and Kennedy are classic cases of inexperienced pilots goofing in
their new planes. John Denver was a very experienced pilot who goofed
flying an unfamiliar aircraft.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resist militant "normality" -- A mind is a terrible thing to erase.

[Mxsmanic]

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:

> I beg to differ. Yes, you can spend a LOT of money at the upper end
> (and yes, even the middle) of the GA spectrum, but you can also buy a
> good used plane for less than the price of the average new car... and
> a lot less than "average" guys spend on boats. Airplanes hold their
> value far better, too.

What kind of airplane can you get for $10,000?

> Is this perceived high cost of aviation what keeps you in your
> basement playing sims?

It is one of several reasons, yes. The simulator only costs about
$40.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dana,

> John Denver was a very experienced pilot who goofed
> flying an unfamiliar aircraft.
>

John Denver was not a certificated pilot at the time of his crash,
IIRC. Let alone an experienced one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> John Denver was a very experienced pilot who goofed
>> flying an unfamiliar aircraft.
>
> John Denver was not a certificated pilot at the time of his crash,
> IIRC. Let alone an experienced one.

You recall incorrectly. From the NTSB report, Denver had nearly 3000 hours
of flight time at the time of his fatal accident, holding a Private Pilot
certificate with airplane ratings for single- and multi-engine land,
single-engine sea, and gliders, as well as a Lear Jet type rating and an
instrument airplane rating.

I'm not sure what you consider "a certificated pilot" or "an experienced
one", but I'd say by most standards he was both.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> You recall incorrectly. From the NTSB report,

I recall half-correctly. The FAA had revoked his medical and asked him to send
in his certificate because of alcohol abuse. Whether any of the two letters
the FAA sent to that effect reached him is unclear (but I have an idea about
how it might have been handled). But, as it says in the NTSB report: "The
letter informs the pilot that based on the above information, he did not meet
the medical standards prescribed in Part 67 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, and a determination was made that he was not qualified for any
class of medical certificate at that time."

I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
pilot in command at the time of the flight. A pilot needs a certificate AND a
medical for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

You can get a decent Taylorcraft for 10 to 15 thousand. Ercoupes are also in
that price range. There are also many quality homebuilts in that price
range.

I paid $17,500 for a 4 seat Tripacer.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>
>> I beg to differ. Yes, you can spend a LOT of money at the upper end
>> (and yes, even the middle) of the GA spectrum, but you can also buy a
>> good used plane for less than the price of the average new car... and
>> a lot less than "average" guys spend on boats. Airplanes hold their
>> value far better, too.
>
> What kind of airplane can you get for $10,000?
>
>> Is this perceived high cost of aviation what keeps you in your
>> basement playing sims?
>
> It is one of several reasons, yes. The simulator only costs about
> $40.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

He's probably referring to the story that he was supposed to have turned in
his certificate for a drunk driving charge, IIRC.

mike

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> John Denver was a very experienced pilot who goofed
>>> flying an unfamiliar aircraft.
>>
>> John Denver was not a certificated pilot at the time of his crash,
>> IIRC. Let alone an experienced one.
>
> You recall incorrectly. From the NTSB report, Denver had nearly 3000
> hours of flight time at the time of his fatal accident, holding a Private
> Pilot certificate with airplane ratings for single- and multi-engine land,
> single-engine sea, and gliders, as well as a Lear Jet type rating and an
> instrument airplane rating.
>
> I'm not sure what you consider "a certificated pilot" or "an experienced
> one", but I'd say by most standards he was both.
>
> Pete
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
> pilot in command at the time of the flight. A pilot needs a certificate
> AND a
> medical for that.

Whatever.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:39:32 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>What kind of airplane can you get for $10,000?

An ultralight. However, I said "average new car", which is well over
$10K. As Mike pointed out you can get a decent T-Craft or similar in
the mid teens; even a brand new T-Craft is around $60K, well within
the reach of people who are not "rich" (sadly not including me).

However, don't rule out ultralights either... they're a far cry from
the perceived (sometimes but not always unjustly) death traps of years
ago. Well under $10K used or even new at the low end, and blurring
into "standard" GA aircraft at the high end.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I learn the innermost secrets of the people around me, they reward me in many ways to keep me quiet.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:23:49 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>I would thus modify my statement to say that he was not legal to fly as a
>pilot in command at the time...

I seem to recall that as well. However, it's irrelevant to my point
that as an experienced pilot (which he was), his accident was
different from Lidle's and Kennedy's classic low time blunders.

Nor, BTW, despite the FAA's action, was alcohol a factor in Denver's
crash.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I learn the innermost secrets of the people around me, they reward me in many ways to keep me quiet.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dana,

> his accident was
> different from Lidle's and Kennedy's classic low time blunders.
>

I don't even think those too are similar enough to compare. Just as one
difference, Lidle had a flight instructor with him.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)