Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance [Archive]

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 4th 07, 03:29 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Ouch. Let's use Matt's number and think about insurance rates. There
> are 800 hulls in the field, introduced 4 years ago. So say on average
> 400 hulls over 4 years.
>
> Three crashed. So 4 years of premiums for 400 hulls has got to cover
> everything, including the payout for the three crashes. I'm sure it
> was more, but if you say each payout was a million dollars, 3 millions
> would have to be spread over 1600 policy years That's almost $2000
> each, right there.

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

In the Columbia line (seperae from the Lancair kits), from what I can see,
there's not been one accident from loss of control. That's rather
interesting given the Columbia high wing loading.

One thing is that the COL400 prices out at $550-600K so you're insurance
would be higher just from that. Compared to a new A36 or Mooney, their
accident history is much better. I'm not sure how the safety features would
figure in, but the Columbia's have numerous features compared to the A36 and
Mooneys.

> I made lots of assumptions, of course. Make your own, and see what you
> get.
>
> Tina
> On Jul 2, 10:08 pm, Justin Gombos >
> wrote:
>> Question for insurance experts -
>>
>> Insurance for the Columbia 400 is absurdly high compared to other
>> similar aircraft, presumably because the premiums are loaded due to
>> lack of significant statistics. Any idea how long potential Columbia
>> buyers can expect to wait for the premium to stabilize?
>>
>> Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
>> discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
>> insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?
>>
>> --
>> PM instructions: Caesar cipher the alpha characters in my address
>> using +3 as the key.
>
>

john smith[_2_]

July 4th 07, 03:48 AM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a bunch
> more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I assume,
> over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if the
> 300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMAStatisticalDatabook.pdf

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 4th 07, 02:17 PM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 4th 07, 02:45 PM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
>> bunch
>> more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
>> assume,
>> over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
>> the
>> 300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.
>
> Reference material:
>
> http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMAStatisticalDatabook.pdf

Thanks...interesting (and shows what happens when to make generalizations
:~( )

They don't include Lancairs, which has been maknig kit planes, using the
same basic design since at least the early 90's. MOF, the distinction
forced them to change the name to Columbia. That was rather the point I was
trying to make. Bad move on my part.

Also, that may or may not be a factor in how insurance is priced.
Overwhelmingly, the insurance is going to be a factor of the pilot, not the
aircraft. Unless the aircraft has particular characteristics, such as a
converted military aircraft, I doubt (could be wrong) the insurance cost is
going to be unusual.

In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the tendancy to
go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW hours each month in an
aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$, complaining about the cost of
insurance. He never did come back with the numbers for the "comparable"
aircraft price quotes. He also didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make
a HUGH difference), nor how much TT he had.

john smith[_2_]

July 4th 07, 02:46 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
> >> bunch
> >> more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
> >> assume,
> >> over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
> >> the
> >> 300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.
> >
> > Reference material:
> >
> > http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMAStatisticalDatabook.pdf
>
> Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

It isn't.
It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
Through the end of 2006...
300's - 75
350's - 124
400's - 286
Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
Where did you get the "thousands" number?

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 4th 07, 02:50 PM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
>> >> bunch
>> >> more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
>> >> assume,
>> >> over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
>> >> the
>> >> 300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.
>> >
>> > Reference material:
>> >
>> > http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMAStatisticalDatabook.pdf
>>
>> Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.
>
> It isn't.
> It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
> manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
> Through the end of 2006...
> 300's - 75
> 350's - 124
> 400's - 286
> Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
> Where did you get the "thousands" number?

I explained in another post after reading the data. Also, ICYMI, I was
including the Lancairs.

Do you really thing those numbers are THE big difference in why his
insurance quote was so high?

Hope your ego has been sated.

john smith[_2_]

July 4th 07, 07:17 PM

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >
> >> "john smith" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
> >> >> bunch
> >> >> more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
> >> >> assume,
> >> >> over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
> >> >> the
> >> >> 300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.
> >> >
> >> > Reference material:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMAStatisticalDatabook.pdf
> >>
> >> Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.
> >
> > It isn't.
> > It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
> > manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
> > Through the end of 2006...
> > 300's - 75
> > 350's - 124
> > 400's - 286
> > Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
> > Where did you get the "thousands" number?
>
> I explained in another post after reading the data. Also, ICYMI, I was
> including the Lancairs.
>
> Do you really thing those numbers are THE big difference in why his
> insurance quote was so high?
>
> Hope your ego has been sated.

No, as you so aptly commented, it is based on pilot experience.

Justin Gombos

July 11th 07, 12:43 AM

On 2007-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> What have you been quoted, and by whom?

I haven't shopped it out, figuring it will save me some time to find
out in usenet what discounts to be aware of before I start making
calls. Newps commented in another thread that it would cost $8-10k to
insure him in a Columbia, versus $1900 in a Bonanza. That's what
prompted this thread.

> Nope. AAMOF, as a infrequent flyer, you're going to pay more. MUCH
> more. Particularly with a high performance aircraft.
>
> Have 3000+ hours, an IR, and fly 300+ hours a year and your rate
> will go WAY down.

That's the kind of info I was looking for. The cost of accumulating
3k hours outweighs the reduced insurance premium. But getting the IR
sooner rather than later may be justified.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Justin Gombos

July 11th 07, 12:45 AM

On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
> to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.

That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more interested
in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying incidents
Monday-Thursday.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Justin Gombos

July 11th 07, 01:04 AM

On 2007-07-04, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the
> tendancy to go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW
> hours each month in an aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$,
> complaining about the cost of insurance. He never did come back with
> the numbers for the "comparable" aircraft price quotes. He also
> didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make a HUGH difference),
> nor how much TT he had.

I have <200 hours. Unless there is some underdog insurance provider
who is keen to the market of infrequent pilots, and willing to take
half the risk for 3/4ths of the premium, the daily cost of owning a
Columbia will probably be unreasonable.

I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for a
weekend. I know of a couple that will, but availability is not quite
acceptible. There's a local flight club, but there are ~35 members
sharing 1 AC, and the cost is ~$85/mo. + the hourly, and I suspect the
availability is unacceptible under those circumstances.

I have yet to compare renters insurance to owners insurance. If it's
correct that pilot experience and credentials are the primary factor,
then I'm expecting renters to be comparable to owners.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Morgans[_2_]

July 11th 07, 01:25 AM

"Justin Gombos" wrote

> That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more interested
> in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying incidents
> Monday-Thursday.

You must not understand insurance.

Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you less likely
to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If not, why lower
a year's premium?

If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in possible mid-air's
with increased weekend fliers. That is the bottom line; to insure you for
cheaper, they would need to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower
risk, so cost stays the same.
--
Jim in NC

Gig 601XL Builder

July 11th 07, 02:40 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>> I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
>> to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.
>
> That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more interested
> in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying incidents
> Monday-Thursday.

But that is pretty much what they'd be doing anyway. What makes you think
that your risk flying 50 hours per year only on weekend would be any less
than the guy in the next hanger who flys 50 hours a year but on any day of
the week?

In fact since there will be more recreational pilots flying on weekend the
chance that you would run into one of them increases. There would also be
the added concern that on one of your weekend jaunts you would be more
likely to fly in worst weather because waiting until Monday isn't an option.

But it all boils down to the fact that the insurance company's risk would
not be reduced enough for you to even notice the difference.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 11th 07, 02:53 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-04, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the
>> tendancy to go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW
>> hours each month in an aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$,
>> complaining about the cost of insurance. He never did come back with
>> the numbers for the "comparable" aircraft price quotes. He also
>> didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make a HUGH difference),
>> nor how much TT he had.
>
> I have <200 hours. Unless there is some underdog insurance provider
> who is keen to the market of infrequent pilots, and willing to take
> half the risk for 3/4ths of the premium, the daily cost of owning a
> Columbia will probably be unreasonable.

There is a much easier way to reduce the insurance company's risk. Reduce
the dollar amount that they are insuraning. Of course if you have the
aircraft financed you must be insureed for the at least the finaced amount.
But if that is the case the finance company wouldn't go along with your idea
for weekend only coverage anyway. You do know that aircraft can be damaged
or destroyed while sitting in the hanger, don't you? If not I have some
photos at the house of a Citation that was broken in half when the roof of
the hanger collapsed.

>
> I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
> most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for a
> weekend. I know of a couple that will, but availability is not quite
> acceptible. There's a local flight club, but there are ~35 members
> sharing 1 AC, and the cost is ~$85/mo. + the hourly, and I suspect the
> availability is unacceptible under those circumstances.

Who is renting Columbia 400 as trainers?

If availability is you number one concern then buying or better yet finding
a partner that needs the plane to fly for business (they'll use it mostly
during the week) is the way to go.

>
> I have yet to compare renters insurance to owners insurance. If it's
> correct that pilot experience and credentials are the primary factor,
> then I'm expecting renters to be comparable to owners.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 11th 07, 04:36 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:9QUki.5254$nQ4.3245@trndny01...
> On 2007-07-03, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> What have you been quoted, and by whom?
>
> I haven't shopped it out, figuring it will save me some time to find
> out in usenet what discounts to be aware of before I start making
> calls. Newps commented in another thread that it would cost $8-10k to
> insure him in a Columbia, versus $1900 in a Bonanza. That's what
> prompted this thread.

He's wayyyy high, I think (I don't know his coverage or his logbook). But
then his Bo is about $100-150K (IIRC) and a newer COL400 is pushing $600K.

http://www.flycolumbia.com/.docs/_sid/1928f1870f1d3b0e6251f693dfd3abdb/pg/400/rid/10200/f/Insurance_First_Quote.pdf

(hope that wraps correctly)

Check the part about optimal pilot characteristics and see how many you fall
into.

>
>> Nope. AAMOF, as a infrequent flyer, you're going to pay more. MUCH
>> more. Particularly with a high performance aircraft.
>>
>> Have 3000+ hours, an IR, and fly 300+ hours a year and your rate
>> will go WAY down.
>
> That's the kind of info I was looking for. The cost of accumulating
> 3k hours outweighs the reduced insurance premium. But getting the IR
> sooner rather than later may be justified.

Well, you don't have to have 3000 hours, but it sounds like you fall into a
few of the "high risk" categories. An IR can save as much as 25% on your
insurance.

Check the URL'ed PDF and let us know how it went. Also, call the broker
listed at the bottom; they gave give you more specifics, and they have a
good handle on Columbia's product line.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become
dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest
authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
-- Omar Ahmad, Chairman Emeritus, Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR).

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 11th 07, 05:06 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:W7Vki.9224$ZO4.3568@trndny05...
> On 2007-07-04, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the
>> tendancy to go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW
>> hours each month in an aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$,
>> complaining about the cost of insurance. He never did come back with
>> the numbers for the "comparable" aircraft price quotes. He also
>> didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make a HUGH difference),
>> nor how much TT he had.
>
> I have <200 hours. Unless there is some underdog insurance provider
> who is keen to the market of infrequent pilots, and willing to take
> half the risk for 3/4ths of the premium, the daily cost of owning a
> Columbia will probably be unreasonable.

It will be until you get a whole bunch more hours and training.
>
> I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
> most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for a
> weekend. I know of a couple that will, but availability is not quite
> acceptible. There's a local flight club, but there are ~35 members
> sharing 1 AC, and the cost is ~$85/mo. + the hourly, and I suspect the
> availability is unacceptible under those circumstances.

Other clubs in the area? That seems like an extremely high ratio. The only
club I belonged to some years back was 9-10 AC for 85-90 members. Mostly
172's and a couple Warriors/Archers and even a couple T182's.

>
> I have yet to compare renters insurance to owners insurance. If it's
> correct that pilot experience and credentials are the primary factor,
> then I'm expecting renters to be comparable to owners.
Some other folks may be able to clarify, but IIUC, renters insurance does
not cover the airframe, the clubs insurance covers that?

Good luckm but you will have to stay away from any high-performance aircraft
with your low hours and low annual flying time.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Justin Gombos

July 12th 07, 03:09 AM

On 2007-07-11, Morgans > wrote:
>
> You must not understand insurance.

My understanding of insurance only scratches the surface; but my
understanding of math has me questioning your figures.

> Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
> less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.

> Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If
> not, why lower a year's premium?

More available flight hours generally means more hours in the air,
thus more hours at risk. If that were not the case, then one year of
insurance would transfer the same risk as two or more years of
coverage. But we know that's not true because insurers charge double
for two years of coverage.

> If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in
> possible mid-air's with increased weekend fliers.

Those insured for 365.25 days/year would share that same weekend risk.
But weekend pilots are not at risk during the week. So naturally
that's relatively less risk.

I'm not saying the risk transfered on a Saturday equals that of a
Wednesday, nor does that have to be true to justify a lower rate.
Weekend pilots are probably higher risk per hour than a 40+ hours/week
pilot, so the premium most likely would not be reduced to 3/7ths of
the normal rate.. but even if the premium is reduced to 5/7ths of the
rate the policy would sell.

> That is the bottom line; to insure you for cheaper, they would need
> to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower risk, so cost
> stays the same.

I don't see how ~156 days of insurance is not less risk than 365 days.
Even if you figure that more of the available time is consumed on a
weekend policy, you can still expect the annual risk to be lower.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Justin Gombos

July 12th 07, 03:29 AM

On 2007-07-11, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Justin Gombos wrote:
>> On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>> I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
>>> to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.
>>
>> That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more
>> interested in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying
>> incidents Monday-Thursday.
>
>
> But that is pretty much what they'd be doing anyway. What makes you
> think that your risk flying 50 hours per year only on weekend would
> be any less than the guy in the next hanger who flys 50 hours a year
> but on any day of the week?

If insurers were counting hours, this discussion would be moot. They
may be estimating hours in their formula, but the accuracy of that
estimate is terrible if the same number is being used for a weekend
pilot as a daily pilot.

> In fact since there will be more recreational pilots flying on
> weekend the chance that you would run into one of them
> increases.

Sure, but that risk is the same for a pilot insured daily flying on
the weekend (neglecting the experience factor, which is a variable
that's already accounted for in the premium).

> There would also be the added concern that on one of your weekend
> jaunts you would be more likely to fly in worst weather because
> waiting until Monday isn't an option.

I disagree. A pilot willing to fly in unsafe weather will have more
opportunities to do so if they can fly every day. The pilot confined
to weekend travel only flies weekends for a reason. If their schedule
prevents them from flights on workdays, then being insured on weekdays
doesn't make the better weather flight time any more viable.

> But it all boils down to the fact that the insurance company's risk
> would not be reduced enough for you to even notice the difference.

That's a reasonable speculation, but I'm more inclined to think the
very small market and lack of competition is preventing insurers from
taking advantage of this. If no provider breaks the 365 day insurance
trend, all providers can collect artificially high premiums from
weekend pilots.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 12th 07, 02:00 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:d3gli.7803$475.3234@trndny04...
> On 2007-07-11, Morgans > wrote:
>>
>> You must not understand insurance.
>
> My understanding of insurance only scratches the surface; but my
> understanding of math has me questioning your figures.
>
>> Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
>> less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?
>
> I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.
>
>> Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If
>> not, why lower a year's premium?
>
> More available flight hours generally means more hours in the air,
> thus more hours at risk. If that were not the case, then one year of
> insurance would transfer the same risk as two or more years of
> coverage. But we know that's not true because insurers charge double
> for two years of coverage.
>
>> If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in
>> possible mid-air's with increased weekend fliers.
>
> Those insured for 365.25 days/year would share that same weekend risk.
> But weekend pilots are not at risk during the week. So naturally
> that's relatively less risk.
>
> I'm not saying the risk transfered on a Saturday equals that of a
> Wednesday, nor does that have to be true to justify a lower rate.
> Weekend pilots are probably higher risk per hour than a 40+ hours/week
> pilot, so the premium most likely would not be reduced to 3/7ths of
> the normal rate.. but even if the premium is reduced to 5/7ths of the
> rate the policy would sell.
>
>> That is the bottom line; to insure you for cheaper, they would need
>> to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower risk, so cost
>> stays the same.
>
> I don't see how ~156 days of insurance is not less risk than 365 days.
> Even if you figure that more of the available time is consumed on a
> weekend policy, you can still expect the annual risk to be lower.
>
You really need to get a prasp on how insurance risk is calculate for
aviation. Most every assumption you listed is actually the inverse.

Call one of the brokers and let them explain it to you. This group is NOT
the place to do your secondary research, but we can point you in the right
direction to get started.

Good luck with whatever you do.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 12th 07, 02:03 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:%lgli.6962$lY4.6432@trndny07...
> On 2007-07-11, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Justin Gombos wrote:
>>> On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
>>>> to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.
>>>
>>> That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more
>>> interested in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying
>>> incidents Monday-Thursday.
>>
>>
>> But that is pretty much what they'd be doing anyway. What makes you
>> think that your risk flying 50 hours per year only on weekend would
>> be any less than the guy in the next hanger who flys 50 hours a year
>> but on any day of the week?
>
> If insurers were counting hours, this discussion would be moot. They
> may be estimating hours in their formula, but the accuracy of that
> estimate is terrible if the same number is being used for a weekend
> pilot as a daily pilot.
>
>> In fact since there will be more recreational pilots flying on
>> weekend the chance that you would run into one of them
>> increases.
>
> Sure, but that risk is the same for a pilot insured daily flying on
> the weekend (neglecting the experience factor, which is a variable
> that's already accounted for in the premium).
>
>> There would also be the added concern that on one of your weekend
>> jaunts you would be more likely to fly in worst weather because
>> waiting until Monday isn't an option.
>
> I disagree. A pilot willing to fly in unsafe weather will have more
> opportunities to do so if they can fly every day. The pilot confined
> to weekend travel only flies weekends for a reason. If their schedule
> prevents them from flights on workdays, then being insured on weekdays
> doesn't make the better weather flight time any more viable.
>
>> But it all boils down to the fact that the insurance company's risk
>> would not be reduced enough for you to even notice the difference.
>
> That's a reasonable speculation, but I'm more inclined to think the
> very small market and lack of competition is preventing insurers from
> taking advantage of this. If no provider breaks the 365 day insurance
> trend, all providers can collect artificially high premiums from
> weekend pilots.

You can speculate from heere to forever, but most everyone you've listed is
falt out wrong.
>

Do you understand why pilots that fly a lot of hours ( > 250 hrs / year)
have greatly reduced insurance rates?
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

john smith[_2_]

July 12th 07, 02:29 PM

Reading Justin's posts, he sounds just like the kind of buyer Cirrus is
looking for.

Justin Gombos

July 13th 07, 12:17 AM

On 2007-07-12, john smith > wrote:
>
> Reading Justin's posts, he sounds just like the kind of buyer Cirrus
> is looking for.

Please explain why. I've been planning to study Cirrus models,
because I know they have the side stick, and IMO, the side stick is an
uncommon but superior design. I have yet to fly one, but conceptually
it makes more sense than a center stick or a yoke.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 13th 07, 01:00 AM

On 2007-07-12, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> Do you understand why pilots that fly a lot of hours ( > 250 hrs /
> year) have greatly reduced insurance rates?

I'm not sure I understand how an insurer would even know how many
hours a pilot is flying for the current policy year. I can see how an
insurer would value air time logged in the *past* (which I assume is
already factored into the rate quote for the following term). Do
pilots update their insurers mid-term to get mid-term rate reductions?

At the risk of being wrong, I'm going to speculate that there is a
sweet spot amount of airtime where a pilot has achieved enough
experience to be considered substantially skilled and current, and the
benefit of experiencing many more hours beyond that point probably
tapers off and simply becomes more risky because they're in danger
more often and not learning and improving at the same rate. I would
not expect the learning curve of piloting to be exponential or even
linear, but rather logarithmic.

Suppose someone has 3k+ hours under their belt, and they're going to
cut back and just fly weekends. If I were their insurer (who
admittedly knows very little about aviation insurance) I would be
tempted to favor the weekend situation over the situation where the
same pilot continues to fly 40+ hours/week, because they're already
well experienced and current; so in all those additional expected
hours I would expect the pilot to encounter more incidents, and
relatively fewer opportunities to improve.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Tina

July 13th 07, 01:19 AM

You may want to think about insurance costs this way. Each company
will want to charge a fee that their experience indicates will provide
them a profit.

They have data and experience across many pilots and many airplanes,
they roll the statistical dice, and hope their bets are good ones. You
can argue theory and 'it-ought-to-be's' for ever, but in the end as an
individual you're going to either buy a proffered policy, or not.

You are really too small an account to have leverage or to have a
Lloyd's 'name' step forward for you.

The reality is, private ownership probably makes sense if the airplane
is going to see something like 250 or so hours or more a year of use.
Less than that, and you are probably better off being a member of a
club or maybe a partnership.

You can surely present your arguments here, but why not do what you'd
have to do in the final analysis and contact the several companies and
ask them for a quote. Further, you might ask what might be done to
reduce the quote.

I suspect it's unrealistic to own a newer hull, or even an older one,
if you expect to fly an hour a week., even if it's between 8 and 9 AM
Sunday.

Let us know how you do when you talk with actual insurers. We would
all like to be wrong about the costs.

Robert M. Gary

July 13th 07, 01:54 AM

On Jul 11, 7:09 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
> On 2007-07-11, Morgans > wrote:

> > Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
> > less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?
>
> I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.

Inverse. The more you fly the lower your insurance rates. A guy who
only occassionally flys on the weekend is quite a large risk compared
to the semi-pro filying day in and day out.
f
-Robert

Morgans[_2_]

July 13th 07, 03:44 AM

o9090
"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:qEyli.17302$t05.10409@trndny09...
> On 2007-07-12, john smith > wrote:
>>
>> Reading Justin's posts, he sounds just like the kind of buyer Cirrus
>> is looking for.
>
> Please explain why. I've been planning to study Cirrus models,
> because I know they have the side stick, and IMO, the side stick is an
> uncommon but superior design. I have yet to fly one, but conceptually
> it makes more sense than a center stick or a yoke.

Figures.

Cirrus is getting the reputation that the V tail Bonanza used to have, and that
is of a "Doctor Killer."

That is the general name given an airplane that attracts people that have the
desire (and the money) to get into an airplane that is too fast and too complex
for their level of experience, and end up killing themselves.

I question if it is for you, though, because of the money. (you seem to not have
enough of it, if you are trying to save on insurance by only buying for 3 days
of the week)
--
Jim in NC

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 13th 07, 04:12 AM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:Bgzli.7101$CJ4.6431@trndny08...
> On 2007-07-12, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>> Do you understand why pilots that fly a lot of hours ( > 250 hrs /
>> year) have greatly reduced insurance rates?
>
> I'm not sure I understand how an insurer would even know how many
> hours a pilot is flying for the current policy year.

They ask you (and it's essentially an affirmation under oath...plus they MAY
ask for your logs)

>I can see how an
> insurer would value air time logged in the *past* (which I assume is
> already factored into the rate quote for the following term). Do
> pilots update their insurers mid-term to get mid-term rate reductions?

Experience.

You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a thumpin'.

Morgans[_2_]

July 13th 07, 04:36 AM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote
>
> You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a thumpin'.

I'm beginning to think that we have a troll, or someone that who has MXS as a
hero.
--
Jim in NC

Justin Gombos

July 13th 07, 05:48 AM

On 2007-07-13, Morgans > wrote:
> o9090
>>
> Cirrus is getting the reputation that the V tail Bonanza used to
> have, and that is of a "Doctor Killer."

Good to know.. that's kind of eye opening for me. I never would have
figured a single engine piston aircraft would get that sort of
reputation for delivering more speed or complexity. I figured it was
just the multi-engines that were notorious for killing doctors.

> That is the general name given an airplane that attracts people that
> have the desire (and the money) to get into an airplane that is too
> fast and too complex for their level of experience, and end up
> killing themselves.

I don't think twice about hoppin' on a GSX-R 1000, so speed will
certainly bait me. Though initially I was only looking at the
Columbia for the side stick.

> I question if it is for you, though, because of the money. (you seem
> to not have enough of it, if you are trying to save on insurance by
> only buying for 3 days of the week)

I haven't decided yet whether or not to blow a large chunk of what I
have on it, or to be frugal. A Columbia will take a lot out me,
particularly if insurance is 5 figures/year. Renting is the better
value, but it's not viable where I am. And from what I've seen in
other cities, the rental industry isn't exactly teeming with options.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 13th 07, 06:04 AM

On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand how an insurer would even know how many
>> hours a pilot is flying for the current policy year.
>
> They ask you (and it's essentially an affirmation under oath...plus
> they MAY ask for your logs)

How often do they collect that information? I would expect them to do
that upon establishing or renewing a policy, but mid-term? If you
reveal in the middle of a policy year that you have not logged any
hours, do the rates increase?

>> I can see how an insurer would value air time logged in the *past*
>> (which I assume is already factored into the rate quote for the
>> following term). Do pilots update their insurers mid-term to get
>> mid-term rate reductions?
>
> Experience.
>
> You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a
> thumpin'.

Whatever concept I'm missing, feel free to explain it to me like I'm a
two year old. I'm a noob. Give me whatever thumpin' I need to
understand you. AFAIK, my knee-jerk analysis of it tells me only
logged airtime in the past can work to reduce my insurance bill. I
see hours/days in the future as risk, and I'm surprised to hear that
an insurance company would not hold the same view.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 13th 07, 06:16 AM

On 2007-07-13, Morgans > wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote
>>
>> You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a thumpin'.
>
> I'm beginning to think that we have a troll, or someone that who has
> MXS as a hero.

I don't think Barrow was out of line there. He was just warning me he
is about to unleash his firehose of information if I continue to press
forward with my questions. Your accusation that he's trolling is
indeed the first ad hominem to enter this thread. As a matter of
etiquette, you ought to have more certainty than that before making
insulting accusations. So far Barrow has been an asset to this
thread.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Morgans[_2_]

July 13th 07, 01:36 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote
>
> I don't think Barrow was out of line there.

You missed it, as usual. I'm accusing you
--
Jim in NC of starting to act like MXS. So is he, in a way.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 13th 07, 01:44 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:RJDli.7129$CJ4.6231@trndny08...
> On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand how an insurer would even know how many
>>> hours a pilot is flying for the current policy year.
>>
>> They ask you (and it's essentially an affirmation under oath...plus
>> they MAY ask for your logs)
>
> How often do they collect that information? I would expect them to do
> that upon establishing or renewing a policy, but mid-term?

Typically, on renewal (annually). If you were originally claiming 50 hours a
year, and somehow managed to put in 250 hours, you could call your broker
and have him update/modify the policy.

> If you
> reveal in the middle of a policy year that you have not logged any
> hours, do the rates increase?

Not in the middle of the year, but possibly on annual renewal. If your hours
are in the "minimum" category, there's little room to move DOWN.

>
>>> I can see how an insurer would value air time logged in the *past*
>>> (which I assume is already factored into the rate quote for the
>>> following term). Do pilots update their insurers mid-term to get
>>> mid-term rate reductions?
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a
>> thumpin'.
>
> Whatever concept I'm missing, feel free to explain it to me like I'm a
> two year old. I'm a noob. Give me whatever thumpin' I need to
> understand you. AFAIK, my knee-jerk analysis of it tells me only
> logged airtime in the past can work to reduce my insurance bill.

That's already been explained to you.

As for the two year-old noob, you apparently have a hard time grasping the
reality of how these things work. Did you read the PDF from Columbia about
insurance?

> I see hours/days in the future as risk, and I'm surprised to hear that
> an insurance company would not hold the same view.

Why don't you call an insurance broker and he will offer you good advice.

Since there's a good probability he'll make money, he'll be more than happy
to spend hours explaining things to you than most people that have bought
car insurance have already figured out at the fundamental level. As
mentioned, these points have already been explained. Deal with it.

Morgans[_2_]

July 13th 07, 01:47 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote

>
> I don't think Barrow was out of line there.

Messed that up. I'll try again.

You missed it, as you have missed all of what has been told to you about
insurance. I believe Matt was also warning you that he was about done being
nice.

You truly are starting to act like MXS.
--
Jim in NC

Tina

July 13th 07, 01:50 PM

You may want to reconsider the type airplane you'd like -- there's a
huge difference in ease of flying between something like a 172 and a
Columbia, and that really matters for pilots who don't have a lot of
experience and are not likely to fly 100 plus hours a year.

What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like insurance,
get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300 hours a year its
availability will not be an important issue, either. 200 hours a year
is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days a week at most.

You already pointed out there are several clubs in the area spreading
the use of one airplane over many members. If some of those are
frustrated with not having the bird when they want it there may be an
opportunity to get the pilots you need without a lot of effort.

Tina

July 13th 07, 01:56 PM

Oh, a minor point to add. If you are senior partner you may want to
recruit another pilot who only wants to use the airplane for business
during the week. If effect then, you'd be paying for 3.5 days of
insurance, sort of what your goal was.

Of course there might be times you want the airplane on a weekday, and
your partner, on the weekend. Those are easy conflicts to work out.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 13th 07, 03:09 PM

"Tina" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> You may want to reconsider the type airplane you'd like -- there's a
> huge difference in ease of flying between something like a 172 and a
> Columbia, and that really matters for pilots who don't have a lot of
> experience and are not likely to fly 100 plus hours a year.
>
> What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
> others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like insurance,
> get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300 hours a year its
> availability will not be an important issue, either. 200 hours a year
> is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days a week at most.

The insurance will be based on the least-experienced/fewest-annual-hours
member of the partnership, so he may have a hard time finding a group unless
he's willing to pick up the bulk of the insurance tab. That seems to be his
main issue.

> You already pointed out there are several clubs in the area spreading
> the use of one airplane over many members. If some of those are
> frustrated with not having the bird when they want it there may be an
> opportunity to get the pilots you need without a lot of effort.

If the demand was there...

Gig 601XL Builder

July 13th 07, 09:05 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:

> I haven't decided yet whether or not to blow a large chunk of what I
> have on it, or to be frugal. A Columbia will take a lot out me,
> particularly if insurance is 5 figures/year. Renting is the better
> value, but it's not viable where I am. And from what I've seen in
> other cities, the rental industry isn't exactly teeming with options.

I think you need to do some more research into the cost of ownership of an
aircraft. I read some pretty good advise once that if the price of an
aircraft was even approaching being a problem for you that you shouldn't be
buying that aircraft.

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 04:07 PM

On 2007-07-13, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Justin Gombos wrote:
>
> I think you need to do some more research into the cost of ownership
> of an aircraft. I read some pretty good advise once that if the
> price of an aircraft was even approaching being a problem for you
> that you shouldn't be buying that aircraft.

AFAIK, the only other figures I need to explore are maintenance costs
at this point.. which I've heard are significant. Roughly, what
should I figure to be an average or typical annual cost on maintaining
a Columbia (or the like) with <1k TT?

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 04:52 PM

On 2007-07-13, Tina > wrote:
>
> You may want to reconsider the type airplane you'd like -- there's a
> huge difference in ease of flying between something like a 172 and a
> Columbia, and that really matters for pilots who don't have a lot of
> experience and are not likely to fly 100 plus hours a year.

I'm not committed to anything yet, and I am also considering other
(entry level) planes. The Columbia is really enticing because of the
side stick and the speed. It's too bad I won't really know how
difficult it is to fly until I show up to buy one and take a test
flight.

Ideally I would have access to a school with a Columbia as a trainer -
which seems to be non-existent. Anyone know of any such schools in
North America? Or perhaps a club with a Columbia and a CFI that flies
it?

> What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
> others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like
> insurance, get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300
> hours a year its availability will not be an important issue,
> either. 200 hours a year is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days
> a week at most.

I believe you're right.. but I'm a road warrior so I would have to
have full ownership. Though renting it out would probably be
practical, particularly in my current local area where 35 club members
share a single plane.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 05:43 PM

On 2007-07-13, Morgans > wrote:
>
> Messed that up. I'll try again.

Actually, please don't. It's irrelevent who you are directing your
personal attacks to anyway.

> You missed it, as you have missed all of what has been told to you
> about insurance. I believe Matt was also warning you that he was
> about done being nice.
>
> You truly are starting to act like MXS.

I would appreciate it if you would leave the thread. You're the only
one here to sling personal attacks in an otherwise constructive
discussion. Ad hominems are not only unwelcome noise; they're also
ineffective. If you anticipate making a pattern of this, please
consider adding me to your kill file as well. I urge you to do a
search on "netiquette" before accusing others of trolling in the
future.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 07:06 PM

On 2007-07-11, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> You do know that aircraft can be damaged or destroyed while sitting
> in the hanger, don't you? If not I have some photos at the house of
> a Citation that was broken in half when the roof of the hanger
> collapsed.

If a weekend policy were offered, I would expect to get continuous
coverage on hanger/tie down incidents; similar to what some insurance
companies offer to bikers who winterize their bikes for part of the
policy year.

>> I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
>> most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for
>> a weekend.
>
> Who is renting Columbia 400 as trainers?

No one that I know of.. but I would like to find someone doing that.
I did not mean to imply that the Columbia 400 is the only plane I'm
considering. The rental market has substantially fewer options than
the ownership market, so I would have to constrain myself to whatever
AC is available.

> If availability is you number one concern then buying or better yet
> finding a partner that needs the plane to fly for business (they'll
> use it mostly during the week) is the way to go.

Good idea. So far this seems like the most practical option.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 07:19 PM

On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
>> others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like
>> insurance, get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300
>> hours a year its availability will not be an important issue,
>> either. 200 hours a year is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days
>> a week at most.
>
> The insurance will be based on the
> least-experienced/fewest-annual-hours member of the partnership, so
> he may have a hard time finding a group unless he's willing to pick
> up the bulk of the insurance tab. That seems to be his main issue.

I like the suggestion. I'm figuring that since Columbia's are rarely
offered for rent, I could charge top dollar. As for the insurance,
would each pilot have to be named on the policy? If I require them to
have renters insurance, how would that effect my policy?

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Ben Jackson

July 14th 07, 07:31 PM

On 2007-07-14, Justin Gombos > wrote:
>
> I like the suggestion. I'm figuring that since Columbia's are rarely
> offered for rent, I could charge top dollar. As for the insurance,
> would each pilot have to be named on the policy? If I require them to
> have renters insurance, how would that effect my policy?

If you rent it, your insurance will skyrocket. If you add a few named
insured, the cost will only change by going up to whatever the least
experienced pilot's rate would be. However, there will probably be a
limit to how many you can add.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

Justin Gombos

July 14th 07, 07:56 PM

On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> Typically, on renewal (annually). If you were originally claiming 50
> hours a year, and somehow managed to put in 250 hours, you could
> call your broker and have him update/modify the policy.

So does the pilots estimate of the hours per year they expect to fly
affect the premium? Auto insurers often ask how many miles drivers
expect to put on in a year, but it never seems to affect the rate, and
the brokers often tell me it makes no difference whether my actual
milage turns out to be more. These estimates are apparently just used
for later aggregate analysis.

>>>> I can see how an insurer would value air time logged in the
>>>> *past* (which I assume is already factored into the rate quote
>>>> for the following term). Do pilots update their insurers
>>>> mid-term to get mid-term rate reductions?
>>>
>>> Experience.
>>>
>>> You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a
>>> thumpin'.
>>
>> Whatever concept I'm missing, feel free to explain it to me like
>> I'm a two year old. I'm a noob. Give me whatever thumpin' I need
>> to understand you. AFAIK, my knee-jerk analysis of it tells me
>> only logged airtime in the past can work to reduce my insurance
>> bill.
>
> That's already been explained to you.

Not exactly. Past experience is favorable, yes, I got that; that's
intuitive. But the part where *future* air time to be logged after
the policy begins counts as favorable experience is apparently the
reality I'm still having trouble grasping (it has not been explained
well enough here). Suppose someone with 250 hours claims in advance
that they will fly 1000+ hours over the course of the upcoming policy
year. Would their net rate (not effective hourly rate) be less than a
pilot that claims they will fly 150 hours over the policy year?

> As for the two year-old noob, you apparently have a hard time
> grasping the reality of how these things work. Did you read the PDF
> from Columbia about insurance?

Yes, I found the information quite useful. In fact, that's what
prompted my earlier comment that there is very little competition here
(only nine insurers), and thus more incentive for providers
overestimate the cost of the risk that's being transferred. Nothing
in that PDF countered any of the points I've made, except perhaps the
statement that whether a pilot flys on a regular basis is a factor.
The PDF does not elaborate on where that line is drawn. I would
consider a pilot that flies every weekend to be flying on a regular
basis, since half a week is not enough time to forget things. Some
pilots go years without flying, and then decide to fly again. So the
question is: where do most insurance companies draw the line?

>> I see hours/days in the future as risk, and I'm surprised to hear
>> that an insurance company would not hold the same view.
>
> Why don't you call an insurance broker and he will offer you good
> advice.
>
> Since there's a good probability he'll make money, he'll be more
> than happy to spend hours explaining things to you than most people
> that have bought car insurance have already figured out at the
> fundamental level. As mentioned, these points have already been
> explained. Deal with it.

If I've exhausted you, I certainly don't expect you to continue with
this thread. Feel free to bail. My questions remain open for anyone
with an urge to answer.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Morgans[_2_]

July 14th 07, 11:04 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote

> I would appreciate it if you would leave the thread.

I really don't give a crap what you would appreciate. Until you start
listening to what people tell you, you can expect more attacks.

Grow up.
--
Jim in NC

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 06:01 PM

On 2007-07-13, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:09 pm, Justin Gombos >
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.
>
> Inverse. The more you fly the lower your insurance rates. A guy who
> only occassionally flys on the weekend is quite a large risk
> compared to the semi-pro filying day in and day out.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking risk per hour, but rather net risk
per annum. If air time were inversely proportional to risk (which is
what others have suggested), then you could expect 730 days of
insurance coverage to cost less than 365 days of coverage. That logic
can take us as far as yielding a lifetime of insurance for less than 1
year of premium. It's *net* risk and *net* cost that's relevent here.
If the insurance market were sufficiently saturated with competition,
insuring 150 days would cost a pilot more per unit time than 365 days,
but the net per annum would be *less*.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 06:06 PM

On 2007-07-14, Ben Jackson > wrote:
>
> If you rent it, your insurance will skyrocket. If you add a few
> named insured, the cost will only change by going up to whatever the
> least experienced pilot's rate would be. However, there will
> probably be a limit to how many you can add.

That's reasonable. What about the case of renting the plane only to
those who are listed on the policy (since they are not partial
owners)? I wouldn't need the insurance to cover walk-in pilots who
aren't listed, because it would probably only be a few people
involved.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Tina

July 15th 07, 06:15 PM

Your 'logic' as to why your premiums might be lower notwithstanding,
someone is going to write the policy, and it most likely won't be a
reader of this newsgroup. Why not ask the real experts, those who
actually write policies?

I am pretty sure no one here with the resources to do so would be
willing to accept the 'bet' you are proposing -- ie, that as a not
very frequent pilot your exposure is less and therefore so also should
be your premium.

This reminds a little of some of the threads involving MX: the likely
answers are offered to you, you're offering counterarguments. That's a
lot like arguing with a clerk in a store who does not have the power,
authority, or even interest to change policy, one needs to talk to a
manager to do that.

The 'managers' in this case are those who write policies. What have
they told you? If you find the offers made to you as unacceptable,
this is not a search for information but a rant. Rants are OK but
don't call it anything else.

If you haven't asked a broker, someone who has real information and
the authority to write policies, I'd have to wonder about your
motiviations.

TIna

..,

On Jul 15, 1:01 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
> On 2007-07-13, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 7:09 pm, Justin Gombos >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.
>
> > Inverse. The more you fly the lower your insurance rates. A guy who
> > only occassionally flys on the weekend is quite a large risk
> > compared to the semi-pro filying day in and day out.
>
> Just to clarify, I'm not talking risk per hour, but rather net risk
> per annum. If air time were inversely proportional to risk (which is
> what others have suggested), then you could expect 730 days of
> insurance coverage to cost less than 365 days of coverage. That logic
> can take us as far as yielding a lifetime of insurance for less than 1
> year of premium. It's *net* risk and *net* cost that's relevent here.
> If the insurance market were sufficiently saturated with competition,
> insuring 150 days would cost a pilot more per unit time than 365 days,
> but the net per annum would be *less*.
>
> --
> PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 07:51 PM

On 2007-07-15, Tina > wrote:
>
> If you haven't asked a broker, someone who has real information and
> the authority to write policies, I'd have to wonder about your
> motiviations.

The motivation became academic. Initially I asked if a weekend policy
existed. The answer was (probably correctly) 'no', but it came with
seemingly faulty reason as to why it would not exist. It was either
faulty reasoning.. or there was some factor that I was not accounting
for. So digging deeper was a useful activity academically; figuring
that someone will eventually post a reasonable and more interesting
explanation. Among other things, I discovered from some of the info
that folks here provided that there are only nine insurance providers.
I still do not accept the line reasoning that more flying = lower net
risk. Which means if market conditions were to improve for the
consumer, then a weekend policy could become reality (at least as far
as we know based on points raised in this thread so far).

I will eventually talk to a broker, who will have a different but not
necessarily more complete slant of things - along with the biases of a
broker. IOW, if there were a weekend policy for which a broker wasn't
offering, then I wouldn't expect to hear about it from the broker who
wants to sell me only what they have to offer.. which is in part why
usenet was my first stop.

BTW, I appreciate all the feedback you've provided in this thread.
It's been quite helpful.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 07:58 PM

On 2007-07-15, Tina > wrote:
>
> This reminds a little of some of the threads involving MX: the
> likely answers are offered to you, you're offering
> counterarguments. That's a lot like arguing with a clerk in a store
> who does not have the power, authority, or even interest to change
> policy, one needs to talk to a manager to do that.

I haven't read his posts yet. But arguing isn't necessarily ranting.
Disclosure of the best information is often provoked by good
arguments. So it can be a form of data mining. Unfortunately, not
everyone argues constructively, which can cloud the more interesting
part of the discussion.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Morgans[_2_]

July 15th 07, 08:24 PM

"Tina" < wrote

> This reminds a little of some of the threads involving MX: the likely
> answers are offered to you, you're offering counterarguments.

See, Justin? I'm not the only one that thinks you are sounding like a
troll.

Another question; are you this dense about everything? (not you, Tina)
--
Jim in NC

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 09:43 PM

On 2007-07-15, Tina > wrote:
>
> I am pretty sure no one here with the resources to do so would be
> willing to accept the 'bet' you are proposing -- ie, that as a not
> very frequent pilot your exposure is less and therefore so also
> should be your premium.

Consider this: Two pilots with identical histories apply for
insurance. Pilot A plans to fly 50 hours this upcoming policy period,
and pilot B plans to fly 500 hours. The first 50 hours that pilot B
flies are just as risky(*) as all the hours from pilot A, but pilot B
still has 450 hours to go. Although the risk is lower on those 450
hours, none of them are risk-free (and in order for pilot B to have a
lower net risk than A, those 450 hours would have to be a negative
risk).

(*) There is one difference between A's 50 hours and B's initial 50
hours: A's hours are potentially more sparse. However sparsity is (or
certainly can be) accounted for. Apparently Mr. Barrow's insurer asks
him for a number of hours per unit time as a part of his quote. It
can also be estimated from the history. So the pilot already pays a
price for having sparsely distributed hours. Thus, charging those
pilots for a very significant amount of unused time results in a
secondary penalty - but it makes sense for insurers to do this when
there's not enough competitive pressure not to.

I also claim that there is a sweet spot for optimum sparsity. Pilots
can forget things when the hours are too sparse; and when the hours
are extremely dense, the pilot has not had an ideal amount of time to
process what they've experienced (which is comparable to students who
cram to get through an exam and forget the material shortly after). I
suspect a pilot who takes short flights daily is closer to the
sparsity sweet spot than a weekly pilot, but it's already been
accounted for in the base premium anyway, before any sort of
weekend-only discount would be applied.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Marty Shapiro

July 15th 07, 10:00 PM

Justin Gombos > wrote in
news:CFvmi.3735$Gx5.684@trndny02:

> On 2007-07-15, Tina > wrote:
>>
>> I am pretty sure no one here with the resources to do so would be
>> willing to accept the 'bet' you are proposing -- ie, that as a not
>> very frequent pilot your exposure is less and therefore so also
>> should be your premium.
>
> Consider this: Two pilots with identical histories apply for
> insurance. Pilot A plans to fly 50 hours this upcoming policy period,
> and pilot B plans to fly 500 hours. The first 50 hours that pilot B
> flies are just as risky(*) as all the hours from pilot A, but pilot B
> still has 450 hours to go. Although the risk is lower on those 450
> hours, none of them are risk-free (and in order for pilot B to have a
> lower net risk than A, those 450 hours would have to be a negative
> risk).
>
> (*) There is one difference between A's 50 hours and B's initial 50
> hours: A's hours are potentially more sparse. However sparsity is (or
> certainly can be) accounted for. Apparently Mr. Barrow's insurer asks
> him for a number of hours per unit time as a part of his quote. It
> can also be estimated from the history. So the pilot already pays a
> price for having sparsely distributed hours. Thus, charging those
> pilots for a very significant amount of unused time results in a
> secondary penalty - but it makes sense for insurers to do this when
> there's not enough competitive pressure not to.
>
> I also claim that there is a sweet spot for optimum sparsity. Pilots
> can forget things when the hours are too sparse; and when the hours
> are extremely dense, the pilot has not had an ideal amount of time to
> process what they've experienced (which is comparable to students who
> cram to get through an exam and forget the material shortly after). I
> suspect a pilot who takes short flights daily is closer to the
> sparsity sweet spot than a weekly pilot, but it's already been
> accounted for in the base premium anyway, before any sort of
> weekend-only discount would be applied.
>

How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they did issue
a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk caused by the well
known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis? A "weekend only" policy
could easily cause increased incidents of gethomeitis to flare up. If you
are running late Sunday evening and won't be home before midnight do you
plan to land and wait until the next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or
will you be tempted to fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home,
put your airplane away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather
becomes marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could easily
make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only" policy.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Justin Gombos

July 15th 07, 11:12 PM

On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>
> How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they
> did issue a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk
> caused by the well known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis?
> A "weekend only" policy could easily cause increased incidents of
> gethomeitis to flare up. If you are running late Sunday evening and
> won't be home before midnight do you plan to land and wait until the
> next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or will you be tempted to
> fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home, put your airplane
> away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather becomes
> marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
> than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could
> easily make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only"
> policy.

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim? If not, then the risk is actually less. Or
suppose a safe pilot decides to wait until Monday and fly without
insurance (is that legal?), the insurance company is 100% off the hook
for the risk associated with the return trip, which would again be
less net risk. For the gray area, where the weather is legally safe
but on the edge, and the pilot accepts it in light of an expectation
of better weather later, is that risk great enough to more than offset
the reduced risk cases? Perhaps.. and then the next question is
whether it's great enough to completely offset the reduced risk flying
significantly fewer hours. I doubt it because the FAR weather
minimums are adequite a majority of the time, and would have been
stricter if marginal conditions posed a significant danger. OTOH, you
may be right on the money. Good point.

We can also figure that a daily pilot is going to get trapped by the
weather more frequently.. so we would really need some stats to make
that comparison. Since this is a hypothetical policy anyway, we could
always include Monday in the weekend policy and increase the premium
so weekenders have an extra day to further mitigate this type of
issue.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Morgans[_2_]

July 15th 07, 11:24 PM

"Justin Gombos" <> wrote

> Consider this: Two pilots with identical histories apply for
> insurance. Pilot A plans to fly 50 hours this upcoming policy period,
> and pilot B plans to fly 500 hours. The first 50 hours that pilot B
> flies are just as risky(*) as all the hours from pilot A, but pilot B
> still has 450 hours to go. Although the risk is lower on those 450
> hours, none of them are risk-free (and in order for pilot B to have a
> lower net risk than A, those 450 hours would have to be a negative
> risk).

Jeeze, you really are that dense.
--
Jim in NC

Marty Shapiro

July 16th 07, 12:50 AM

Justin Gombos > wrote in
news:tZwmi.854$s25.809@trndny04:

> On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>>
>> How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they
>> did issue a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk
>> caused by the well known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis?
>> A "weekend only" policy could easily cause increased incidents of
>> gethomeitis to flare up. If you are running late Sunday evening and
>> won't be home before midnight do you plan to land and wait until the
>> next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or will you be tempted to
>> fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home, put your airplane
>> away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather becomes
>> marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
>> than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could
>> easily make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only"
>> policy.
>
> In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
> question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
> the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
> liable for the claim? If not, then the risk is actually less. Or
> suppose a safe pilot decides to wait until Monday and fly without
> insurance (is that legal?), the insurance company is 100% off the hook
> for the risk associated with the return trip, which would again be
> less net risk. For the gray area, where the weather is legally safe
> but on the edge, and the pilot accepts it in light of an expectation
> of better weather later, is that risk great enough to more than offset
> the reduced risk cases? Perhaps.. and then the next question is
> whether it's great enough to completely offset the reduced risk flying
> significantly fewer hours. I doubt it because the FAR weather
> minimums are adequite a majority of the time, and would have been
> stricter if marginal conditions posed a significant danger. OTOH, you
> may be right on the money. Good point.
>
> We can also figure that a daily pilot is going to get trapped by the
> weather more frequently.. so we would really need some stats to make
> that comparison. Since this is a hypothetical policy anyway, we could
> always include Monday in the weekend policy and increase the premium
> so weekenders have an extra day to further mitigate this type of
> issue.
>

At what time did the airplane crash? Suppose someone crashes at 11:00
PM Sunday while flying in a sparsely populated where there is no radar
coverage. Wreckage is found Monday morning at 6 AM. Does the weekend
policy cover this crash? Before you answer, remember that there are no
witnesses to the crash nor any radar tapes to confirm when the airccraft
disappeared.

The important thing is that such a policy puts pressure on the pilot
to complete the flight by midnight Sunday or fly without insurance
coverage the next day. That has been shown to be the cause of gethomeitis
(or, when outbound, getthereitis). The weather might be VFR, but is it at
the pilot's personal comfort level? Would the pilot feel the pressure to
fly if it is below his comfort level even though legal? Does the weekend
IFR rated pilot really feel comfortable shooting the approach to minimums
when it has been maybe years since he had to do so, even though he is
legally current? If not, that pilot is more prone to make mistakes than
the pilot who flies much more frequently or even daily.

BTW, the legality of the flight has absolutely nothing to due with
insurance coverage. Unlike the state DMV, the FAA does not require
insurance to register an aircraft or exercise pilot privileges.

The daily pilot doesn't worry about being trapped by the weather. He
just waits until the next day. He doesn't have the pressure of having to
wait until the next weekend. The weekend policy tells the pilot that if he
doesn't get home by midnight Sunday, he is going to either miss an entire
week's work or fly without insurance coverage. The daily pilot will miss
maybe half a days work if Monday morning is clear and he is only two or
three hours away from his destination. The daily pilot has both more
experience and less pressure to complete the flight on Sunday than the
weekend pilot.

If you start making the policy good through Monday, then you just
moved the problem from Sunday night to Monday night. Care to go for
Tuesday? Might as well go for all seven days and be done with it. If the
weekend pilot is willing to fly Monday with no insurance coverage, why does
he even bother with insurance at all, especially if he is not flying every
weekend. Just get "hull not in motion" coverage to protect against ground
damage caused by someone else while the aircraft is parked in its tie down.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Longworth[_1_]

July 16th 07, 03:33 AM

On Jul 14, 2:56 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
> So does the pilots estimate of the hours per year they expect to fly
> affect the premium? Auto insurers often ask how many miles drivers
>
I have been a plane onwer for the last 4 years. None of the forms
that I had filled out to obtain quotes from several insurance
companies/agencies asked me to estimate the hours that I expect to
fly. They all wanted to know the same things such as total number of
hours, total number of hours in type/model, total number of hours
flown the last 12 months, total number of hours flown the last 90 days
etc All policies are for the whole year. In 2005, our policy expired
in March and we were scheduled to take our accelerated IFR training in
May, we were told that having instrument ratings would reduce our
premium but we would have to wait until next year for the discount to
take effect since the policy could not be adjusted even after only two
months. In another year, my husband was only10 or so hours shy of
500hrs when we renewed the policy. I had over 500hrs at that time but
the cost was based on the co-insurers with the least experience.
Again we were told that there would be a cost reduction after 500hrs
but it would not take effect until the next year.
Unlike automobile insurance where there are many companies to
choose from, there are less than a handful of aviation insurance
companies. Their policies are very much similar. Whether you think
that the policies make sense or not, you have to accept whatever
availalbe. It's apples and oranges when it comes to comparing
automobile and aviation insurances.

Hai Longworth

Gig 601XL Builder

July 16th 07, 02:34 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-13, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Justin Gombos wrote:
>>
>> I think you need to do some more research into the cost of ownership
>> of an aircraft. I read some pretty good advise once that if the
>> price of an aircraft was even approaching being a problem for you
>> that you shouldn't be buying that aircraft.
>
> AFAIK, the only other figures I need to explore are maintenance costs
> at this point.. which I've heard are significant. Roughly, what
> should I figure to be an average or typical annual cost on maintaining
> a Columbia (or the like) with <1k TT?

I don't have a clue but your response illustrates my point. You have
acknowledged that the cost of the aircraft is at the edge of your comfort
range and the cost of insurance might put it outside that range. In addition
to maintenance you will also have to park it somewhere and that usually
costs something as well. Seeing as the Columbia is a composite aircraft you
will probably want to park in a hanger. That can range from a sistuation
like mine where I pay $450/year for the ground lease and own my hanger which
cost $30K to thousands/month.

Tina

July 16th 07, 02:47 PM

Gig, this thread has reverted to, or maybe from the start was, a
sophmoric academic discussion driven by someone who is prone to argue
with those who tried to help.

I was hoping Justin is not a troll in training, but the evidence seems
to be mounting that he may worship at the shrine of MX.

Tina

Gig 601XL Builder

July 16th 07, 04:09 PM

Tina wrote:
> Gig, this thread has reverted to, or maybe from the start was, a
> sophmoric academic discussion driven by someone who is prone to argue
> with those who tried to help.
>
> I was hoping Justin is not a troll in training, but the evidence seems
> to be mounting that he may worship at the shrine of MX.
>
> Tina

While I think you may be right I'm going to give him the benefit of the
doubt a little longer.

John Galban

July 16th 07, 06:09 PM

On Jul 15, 3:12 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
>
> In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
> question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
> the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
> liable for the claim?

Of course they are. That's why we buy policies in the first place.
To cover us financially when we do something stupid. A policy that
only covers you when you do everything exactly by the FARs, should be
fairly inexpensive. It would be nearly worthless to the policyholder.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Justin Gombos

July 17th 07, 05:50 AM

Very good points overall Shapiro.. I appreciate your use of sound
logic here.

On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>
> At what time did the airplane crash? Suppose someone crashes
> at 11:00 PM Sunday while flying in a sparsely populated where there
> is no radar coverage. Wreckage is found Monday morning at 6 AM.
> Does the weekend policy cover this crash? Before you answer,
> remember that there are no witnesses to the crash nor any radar
> tapes to confirm when the airccraft disappeared.

It would be handled the same way it would be handled on the last day
of an annual policy not set to renew. I don't know what the case law
indicates in those instances. The court is going to use the best
evidence available, which may include the date of the accident printed
on the FAA accident report. If the insurance company has better
information than the FAA had in their date estimation, the court will
accept it. Even in the worst case, there is likely to be
meterological data, approximate route, refueling records, ETA from
whoever was expecting him / ETD from whoever he last spoke to.

Often whether these gray areas become problematic depend on the
quality of the insurance provider. I don't always buy insurance from
the lowest bidder, because there are some insurers who have a high
consumer rating, and a reputation for being easy going on claims.
Insureds who take the lowest bid are likely to need to hire a lawyer
to get the money their entitled to in these borderline claims.

It's a good point though. Since a weekend policy would have 51-52
more end-of-coverage seams than an annual policy, it would be
important to get a good insurer. The probability of litigation would
increase with the lower quality insurers. It would certainly make
sense to have set the termination time to 4am or some less likely time
to be in the air.

> The important thing is that such a policy puts pressure on the
> pilot to complete the flight by midnight Sunday or fly without
> insurance coverage the next day. That has been shown to be the
> cause of gethomeitis (or, when outbound, getthereitis).

The policies don't currently exist without continuity, so it cannot
have been shown at this point to cause getmehomeitis.. unless you mean
to say other pressuring factors have had this effect, like making it
to work. And certainly those other factors are significant, and
indeed just as present regardless of whether insurance coverage has
continuity.

If a pilot doesn't have a reason not to fly on weekdays, and we
distill the hypothetical incident down to the insurance being the only
pressuring factor, then I would agree - this pilot would not be a good
candidate for a weekend only policy. If there were to be a
significant number of pilots who are available to fly daily signing up
for the weekend policy, then the solution to getmehomeitis could be a
simple matter of offering additional days a la carte, at a high enough
rate to make it interesting for the insurer, and sold online so the
extra coverage can be bought at 3am if needed.

> The weather might be VFR, but is it at the pilot's personal comfort
> level?

If the weather were sufficiently uncomfortable for the pilot, it would
exceed the pilots discomfort of flying uninsured the next day.. which
amounts to less risk (but more risk on the other side of the line).
Finding that line is like splitting hairs, so moving on...

> Would the pilot feel the pressure to fly if it is below his comfort
> level even though legal?

The risk that an entry level pilot would accept weather that does not
satisfy their personal minimum is already assumed in the initial
figure. The corner cases where discontinuity of coverage is the only
pressuring factor could be accounted for with an increased premium.

> Does the weekend IFR rated pilot really feel comfortable shooting
> the approach to minimums when it has been maybe years since he had
> to do so, even though he is legally current? If not, that pilot is
> more prone to make mistakes than the pilot who flies much more
> frequently or even daily.

I'm already factoring sparsity of experience in the premium, even in
the annual policy - otherwise experienced pilots would be pulling the
weight of entry-level pilots, which I doubt is the case.

> BTW, the legality of the flight has absolutely nothing to due
> with insurance coverage. Unlike the state DMV, the FAA does not
> require insurance to register an aircraft or exercise pilot
> privileges.

Thanks for confirming that.. I looked through part 91 earlier and
didn't see it.

> The daily pilot doesn't worry about being trapped by the
> weather. He just waits until the next day. He doesn't have the
> pressure of having to wait until the next weekend.

Is this pilot retired? I've been trapped by weather myself, suffering
through getmehomeitis, and I wasn't constrained by a discontinous
insurance policy. Insurance was a non-issue. And if my insurance
were a weekend only policy, it would have been the least of the
conflicting interests.

So the daily pilot is not as inconvenienced as a weekend pilot,
regardless of whether the weekend pilot has daily coverage, or weekend
coverage.

> The weekend policy tells the pilot that if he doesn't get home by
> midnight Sunday, he is going to either miss an entire week's work or
> fly without insurance coverage. The daily pilot will miss maybe
> half a days work if Monday morning is clear and he is only two or
> three hours away from his destination. The daily pilot has both
> more experience and less pressure to complete the flight on Sunday
> than the weekend pilot.

Weekend pilots naturally must have a contingency plan if they're doing
a weekend cross country. It could even involve buying commercial
airfare round trip, or taking a bus, or a rental car. These
inconveniences are not eliminated by a daily insurance policy, as the
insurance policy does not relieve them of whatever week day
obligations they have.

> If you start making the policy good through Monday, then you
> just moved the problem from Sunday night to Monday night. Care to
> go for Tuesday? Might as well go for all seven days and be done
> with it.

I agree. If a pilot is available to fly on all those days, a weekend
policy would be a poor choice for that pilot.

> If the weekend pilot is willing to fly Monday with no insurance
> coverage, why does he even bother with insurance at all, especially
> if he is not flying every weekend.

He may be willing to accept small, infrequent measured risks in
extenuating cases, but not a full year of risk. Motorcyclists who
wear a helmet might occasionally get in a pinch and not have a helmet
with them (or give their only to an unexpected passenger), and be
willing to go a couple miles w/out a helmet. But asking them to do
this all year long is quite a different matter.

> Just get "hull not in motion" coverage to protect against ground
> damage caused by someone else while the aircraft is parked in its
> tie down.

Ah, even simpler!

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Gig 601XL Builder

July 17th 07, 02:18 PM

Justin, you are MXing. Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to
find a weekend only policy.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-34,GGLJ:en&q=Aircraft+Insurance

Use that search and if you find one let us know.

El Maximo

July 17th 07, 04:14 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Justin, you are MXing. Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to
> find a weekend only policy.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-34,GGLJ:en&q=Aircraft+Insurance
>
> Use that search and if you find one let us know.
>

Looking for a weekend-only policy would be similar to asking for 1/3 off
because you don't fly it while you sleep, or asking for 97% off because you
only fly it 3% of the hours available in a year.

The insurance companies are in it for the money. They figure out your
likelihood of a claim based on your past. I doubt they will pay an
underwriter and actuary to calculate the chances of you having an accident
only on a weekend, just because you want to save a few bucks.

Justin Gombos

July 18th 07, 12:08 AM

On 2007-07-17, El Maximo > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
> Looking for a weekend-only policy would be similar to asking for 1/3
> off because you don't fly it while you sleep,

Even the most extreme pilots who are in the air the most are not PIC
during their sleep, which means the annual policy /assumes/ this in
their figures. For an insurer to quote an hourly rate on the same
group, the risk per unit time would increase, saving the insured
nothing. So no, it wouldn't even be close to the same thing in the
case of weekend pilots getting a policy that accurately reflects their
risk.

Some motorcycle policies in cold climate areas cover the full year,
but the risk assessment expects riders to only ride in
spring/summer/fall. Asking for the pro rata share of winter to be
knocked off the premium would actually make the net risk much higher
than the cost of it. What's interesting is that bikers will sometimes
attach a sidecar just for the winter (usually biker cops), and
leverage the insurance during the period it wasn't intended. If that
activity were to become popular enough, it would have the long term
effect of costing those who winterize their bikes.

> or asking for 97% off because you only fly it 3% of the hours
> available in a year.

If some pilots were managing to use 100% of the available hours while
others were using 3%, and the risk assessment did not accurately
account for that difference, then you would have a usable analogy in
this case.

> The insurance companies are in it for the money. They figure out
> your likelihood of a claim based on your past. I doubt they will pay
> an underwriter and actuary to calculate the chances of you having an
> accident only on a weekend, just because you want to save a few
> bucks.

Bingo. Exactly. Good point. They have an obligation to the
stockholders / owners to maximize profit (rightly so). So it's not in
their interest reduce profit margin to needlessly undercut what little
competition there is.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 18th 07, 12:22 AM

On 2007-07-16, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Justin Gombos wrote:
>
> In addition to maintenance you will also have to park it somewhere
> and that usually costs something as well. Seeing as the Columbia is
> a composite aircraft you will probably want to park in a
> hanger. That can range from a sistuation like mine where I pay
> $450/year for the ground lease and own my hanger which cost $30K to
> thousands/month.

How large is your hanger? Unheated hangers with free electricity go
for ~$210, which I thought was a good price. BYO heating element. It
will only fit small planes, and seems comparable to mini storage
prices. Maybe this area just has an unusually good price. It's
government owned and the FBO is disjoint, which explains the low
price. I haven't checked anywhere else. Heated hangers are full, but
I believe they are normally ~$260/mo.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 18th 07, 12:56 AM

On 2007-07-17, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> Justin, you are MXing.

I have yet to read his posts, but if I'm MXing, props to MX for
keeping to the subject matter and not flaming or trolling the way his
opponents do. I was (perhaps wrongly) expecting a more educated crowd
in this newsgroup, but so far I've seen a mix of that grade schooler
character with the perpetual need flame, and it's quite disappointing.
At least it came along with some useful information (more noticeably
from contributors who did not bash MX in this thread, like Shapiro for
example). I hope to see MX's opponents eventually discover a more
effective way to articulate their thoughts, which inherently would not
involve flames.

> Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to find a weekend
> only policy.

Yet that was never a point of contention. I accepted that immediately
- despite the needless restatements of position that followed. It's
the rationale that was often questionable.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Morgans[_2_]

July 18th 07, 01:59 AM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote

> I hope to see MX's opponents eventually discover a more
> effective way to articulate their thoughts, which inherently would not
> involve flames.

That is the point, though.

Like MX, you seem unwilling to accept fact, and continue argument, when fact
has been delivered.

Debating with MX is useless, because of this. Many have tried to be civil,
but after doing that, he argues, just to continue to argue. He dismisses
facts given, because the presenter does not know what he is talking about,
or... You choose the given reason of the moment.

You are following his path, exactly.

Don't like our group, because it is not responding to you as you would like?

Fine.

Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good Lord split 'ya.

I'm done with you and your threads, and you get the honor of joining MX in
the ignore filter/loony bin. I really did not think that would ever happen
to anyone else.

Some achievement. Be proud.

Then, examine yourself, and see if this is the route you want your life to
take.

Examine carefully. This is a big step; a big crossroad in your life.
Decide carefully.
--
Jim in NC

El Maximo

July 18th 07, 12:55 PM

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:UZbni.6071$225.1718@trndny03...

> So no, it wouldn't even be close to the same thing in the
> case of weekend pilots getting a policy that accurately reflects their
> risk.

If you say so.

El Maximo

July 18th 07, 01:01 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> I really did not think that would ever happen to anyone else.

I don't think it did. I think you've simply got the same person listed under
two names.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 18th 07, 02:28 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-16, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Justin Gombos wrote:
>>
>> In addition to maintenance you will also have to park it somewhere
>> and that usually costs something as well. Seeing as the Columbia is
>> a composite aircraft you will probably want to park in a
>> hanger. That can range from a sistuation like mine where I pay
>> $450/year for the ground lease and own my hanger which cost $30K to
>> thousands/month.
>
> How large is your hanger? Unheated hangers with free electricity go
> for ~$210, which I thought was a good price. BYO heating element. It
> will only fit small planes, and seems comparable to mini storage
> prices. Maybe this area just has an unusually good price. It's
> government owned and the FBO is disjoint, which explains the low
> price. I haven't checked anywhere else. Heated hangers are full, but
> I believe they are normally ~$260/mo.

40'x50' and yes $210 is a pretty good rate for a hanger. But that range I
gave you was to cover the range of possible costs. I have know idea where
you are or what hangers cost there and since you hadn't mentioned it I
thought you might not have either.

I'm in South Arkansas we don't need heated hangers we need air conditioned
hangers. Mine is conditioned by 2 42" fans.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 18th 07, 02:36 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-17, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Justin, you are MXing.
>
> I have yet to read his posts, but if I'm MXing, props to MX for
> keeping to the subject matter and not flaming or trolling the way his
> opponents do. I was (perhaps wrongly) expecting a more educated crowd
> in this newsgroup, but so far I've seen a mix of that grade schooler
> character with the perpetual need flame, and it's quite disappointing.
> At least it came along with some useful information (more noticeably
> from contributors who did not bash MX in this thread, like Shapiro for
> example). I hope to see MX's opponents eventually discover a more
> effective way to articulate their thoughts, which inherently would not
> involve flames.
>
>> Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to find a weekend
>> only policy.
>
> Yet that was never a point of contention. I accepted that immediately
> - despite the needless restatements of position that followed. It's
> the rationale that was often questionable.

Jim beat me to the response and wrote it at least as well as I would have so
I won't rehash it.

Good luck on your quest for the wild goose. I hope he flys on the weekend so
you can catch him.

Longworth[_1_]

July 18th 07, 09:06 PM

On Jul 17, 11:14 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> The insurance companies are in it for the money. They figure out your
> likelihood of a claim based on your past. I doubt they will pay an

Unlike automobile insurance where both your past and future
driving experience are used to determine your premium, all the forms
which I had filled for aviation insurance only asked about my past
experience.

The difference may come from the fact that driving risk
increases with amount of driving time. The more mileage you plan to
put in a year, the higher your chance of involving in automobile
accidents. Whereas in aviavtion, the more flying experience you have,
the less chance that you will have an accident. I don't have the time
to look for the statistics but I'd bet there are more occurences of
automobile accidents caused by other drivers than aviation accidents
caused by other pilots.

I think that Justin likes to argue for argument sake. I
recalled having to endure a life insurance pitch from an insurance man
years ago. It's fun to imagine that this unbearable man is now
selling aviation policies and has someone like Justin for a client ;-)

Hai Longworth

Morgans[_2_]

July 18th 07, 11:40 PM

"El Maximo" > wrote

> I don't think it did. I think you've simply got the same person listed
> under two names.

The thought did cross my mind; there is always that possibility...
--
Jim in NC

Justin Gombos

July 20th 07, 12:10 AM

On 2007-07-18, Morgans > wrote:
>
> Like MX, you seem unwilling to accept fact, and continue argument,
> when fact has been delivered.

Despite the informal mathematical proof that I presented, there has
not been a single /attempt/ to present a fact that even remotely
suggests that airtime is inversely proportional to net risk. There
have only been statements of position, and restatements of position
(but feel free to quote if you think otherwise). I considered
formalizing the proof that airtime is directly proportional to net
risk, but I've determined that that would be useless because those who
don't accept the informal proof are the same ones who would not
understand a formal proof anyway. But if you think otherwise, I will
post the formal proof on request.

> Debating with MX is useless, because of this. Many have tried to be
> civil, but after doing that, he argues, just to continue to argue.
> He dismisses facts given, because the presenter does not know what
> he is talking about, or... You choose the given reason of the
> moment.

Considering that MX's opponents (from what we've witnessed in this
thread) simply expect their statements of position to be accepted,
w/out supporting it, then I can see why MX might continue to dismiss
what is probably more likely to be ad hominems than facts from this
crowd. Reasonable, intuitive claims need not necessarily be
supported, but extraordinary claims like airtime is inversely
proportional to net risk need to be grounded with something meaningful
if challenged.

> You are following his path, exactly.
>
> Don't like our group, because it is not responding to you as you
> would like?
>
> Fine.

I'm not ready to write off the /whole/ group as useless just
yet.. perhaps only the few who address logical arguments with logical
fallacies. From what I've seen, only MX's opponents who surfaced in
this thread use personal attacks and/or repeated statements of
position, and then wonder why this strategy is not persuasive, and
from there conclude they're dealing with a "dense" opponent. The
optimum skull density in this case mitigates these sort of tactics
from being persuasive.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 20th 07, 12:29 AM

On 2007-07-18, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> I'm in South Arkansas we don't need heated hangers we need air
> conditioned hangers. Mine is conditioned by 2 42" fans.

It never occurred to me that a hanger would need to be cooled. Does
it actually get hot enough to damage aircraft components, or is it for
the pilots/staff?

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Justin Gombos

July 20th 07, 12:59 AM

On 2007-07-16, John Galban > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 3:12 pm, Justin Gombos >
> wrote:
>>
>> In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
>> question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
>> the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
>> liable for the claim?
>
> Of course they are. That's why we buy policies in the first place.
> To cover us financially when we do something stupid. A policy that
> only covers you when you do everything exactly by the FARs, should be
> fairly inexpensive. It would be nearly worthless to the policyholder.

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to agree with your rationale for the
most part. OTOH, I personally would be willing to sign up for a
policy that would selectively exclude coverage for some of the blatant
and patently dangerous violations, like being compelled by
getmehomeitis to take off VFR w/ a reported and actual visibility that
is clearly below the minimum, if such an exclusion were to reduce the
premium.

An exclusion that would not allow for fuel errors would be
interesting. Considering fuel starvation is the leading cause of
crashes, a policy that voids when the pilot is negligent on takeoff
fuel capacity could be considerably cheaper. I would sign up for such
a policy.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).

Tina

July 20th 07, 10:37 AM

Note to those reading this thread. Gombos' claim that that fuel
mismanagement is the leading cause of GA accidents is not supported by
the data. See for example

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:IWbLZObaw6UJ:www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/gaFY04HFACSrpt.pdf+general+aviation+accidents+reas ons&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

The analysis within this document may help your safety related
decision making. Safe flying takes more than assuring yourselves that
you're not attempting a 4 hour flight on 3 hours 55 minutes of fuel.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 20th 07, 02:25 PM

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2007-07-18, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm in South Arkansas we don't need heated hangers we need air
>> conditioned hangers. Mine is conditioned by 2 42" fans.
>
> It never occurred to me that a hanger would need to be cooled. Does
> it actually get hot enough to damage aircraft components, or is it for
> the pilots/staff?

Think about it Justin. A big metal building sitting in the sun all summer
long. Does it get hot enough to damage the aircraft? Probably not. Does it
get hot enough to damage me. Without the fans running, running and the white
roof, yes it would.

Snowbird

July 20th 07, 05:12 PM

"Justin Gombos" wrote
>
> Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
> discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
> insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?
>

Even if less airtime in theory might translate to less absolute risk, as you
suggest, the problem for the insurance company is that it's not a certainty.

Less airtime means less exposure to hazards, but also less currency in the
skills department. That, in turn, for a prudent pilot should result in
higher weather minimums etc. in order to keep his risk low despite his
skills deficit, compared to the pilot who flies every day. But, the
insurance company has no obvious way of controlling if the weekend pilot
actually flies more carefully, as far as I can understand.

My guess is that the insurance companies have calculated that offering a
weekend policy would either
a) need to be priced at an unsellable level or
b) priced decently, would increase the insurance company's financial risk
too much or
c) incur too much administrative costs.

To me it's very obvious that regular flying in a particular airplane hones
the skills and reduces the risk level. It's no coincidence that our local
clubs require a refresher flight with a CFI, anytime more than 90 days have
elapsed since last flight in-command of a particular type.

There exist some insurance examples of the suggested type. Air travel
insurance, for example. You can buy insurance for a single flight (to a very
high price) or then be covered by a general travel insurance policy, maybe
even packaged with other policies. Check the cost difference.

I had the possibility to keep my airplane uninsured for part of the year,
for example the winter. The problem was, the rates were chosen so that the
savings felt too small compared to the potential frustration of not being
able to fly on those splendid winter days when the weather was nice.
Insurance companies are not stupid ;-) .

Another comparison is a newspaper subscription. I can subscribe to my daily
newspaper either for every day or Sundays only, getting 1/7 of the issues
for 1/2 of the price. Not a very good deal I'd say for the Sunday issue. And
this is, notably, a business where there is no risk element like in
insurance.

Another aspect of your weekend-only flying strategy is that the maintenance
cost per hour is likely to be higher. This is due to the fact that when the
airplane flies less, some maintenance items may reach their age limit before
their flight hours limit. This may be worthwhile to include in your
calculations.

The best way to find the insurance you want is to speak with the companies.
Who knows, maybe someone will actually offer something reasonable?