Piloting a Cessna & owning

C J Campbell ) wrote:

The risk of flying a small aircraft is directly proportional
to the time spent in the air.

Huh. I figured the risk would be inversely proportional to the time spent
in the air.

The less time in the air, the less proficient a pilot is and therefore the
greater the risk.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. wrote
C J Campbell ) wrote:
The risk of flying a small aircraft is directly proportional
to the time spent in the air.

Huh. I figured the risk would be inversely proportional to the time spent
in the air.

The less time in the air, the less proficient a pilot is and therefore the
greater the risk.

Insurance companies seem to agree with you on this. There isn't a
single aviation insurer out there that will give you a premium break
for flying fewer hours, but most will give you a break for flying more
hours.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Insurance companies seem to agree with you on this. There isn't a
single aviation insurer out there that will give you a premium break
for flying fewer hours, but most will give you a break for flying more
hours.

For what type of insurance?

I've a private cert (with instrument rating). I plan to upgrade to
commercial in the future. My life insurance agent, though, thought that
this would adversely impact my life insurance.

More, he seemed to have difficulty getting me the insurance increase
(appropriate now that I'm a parent) I wanted because I was a pilot. He'd
no similar difficulty for my wife.

I'm wondering if this is typical, or if I should be shopping elsewhere.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote
For what type of insurance?

Aircraft liability and hull, of course.

Obviously when I speak about increased proficiency offsetting
increased exposure, there are limits on both ends.

For example, if one is going to fly less than 5 hours a year or so, I
would argue that less is better - there is no proficiency to speak of,
so minimizing exposure is best. By the same token, if one is going to
fly more than 250 hours a year or so, there is no extra proficiency to
be gained. The extra time merely increases exposure.

In general, an aircraft owner is going to fly more than 5 but fewer
than 250 hours a year. There are exceptions, but they are few and far
between.

My insurance company won't even cover you in a PA-30 if you haven't
logged 80+ hours in make and model in the past year. Others will -
but at much higher prices. Many people I know get lower rates for
flying more than 100 hours a year. However, I have yet to see a break
past that point. Nobody I know will give you an additional discount
for 200, or 500. Clearly there is a crossowver point where increased
exposure to risks largely beyond the pilot's control offsets the risk
reduction through increased proficiency.

There is no increased premium for those flying over 500 hours a year,
but I strongly suspect this is only because there are not enough
people with that kind of utilization on a personal airplane.

Commercially employed pilots typically fly 500+ hours a year. At that
point, the increased proficiency seems to be offset by increased
exposure. Being a commercial pilot is one of the most hazardous
occupations out there.

I've a private cert (with instrument rating). I plan to upgrade to
commercial in the future. My life insurance agent, though, thought that
this would adversely impact my life insurance.

I suspect that once he understands that you are only going to have the
rating, and are not actually going to fly commercially, this may not
be a problem.

More, he seemed to have difficulty getting me the insurance increase
(appropriate now that I'm a parent) I wanted because I was a pilot. He'd
no similar difficulty for my wife.

Certainly. Being a pilot is going to mean SOME increased risk
regardless of how proficienct you are.

I'm wondering if this is typical, or if I should be shopping elsewhere.

It's typical enough, but there are a few companies that claim to offer
their best rates to pilots. No experience with them - I have no life
insurance at all.

Michael

Michael wrote:

I've a private cert (with instrument rating). I plan to upgrade to
commercial in the future. My life insurance agent, though, thought that
this would adversely impact my life insurance.

I suspect that once he understands that you are only going to have the
rating, and are not actually going to fly commercially, this may not
be a problem.

He understood, but seemed to feel that the message would not make it into
the insurance company's "process".

[...]
I'm wondering if this is typical, or if I should be shopping elsewhere.

It's typical enough, but there are a few companies that claim to offer
their best rates to pilots. No experience with them - I have no life
insurance at all.

Ah, so you're worth more alive than dead. I get a little nervous with the
reverse situation laugh.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote
I suspect that once he understands that you are only going to have the
rating, and are not actually going to fly commercially, this may not
be a problem.

He understood, but seemed to feel that the message would not make it into
the insurance company's "process".

Now that is a reason to consider another insurer - one that is
smaller, or at least 'act' smaller by putting more discretion in the
hands of the guy on the scene.

Ah, so you're worth more alive than dead. I get a little nervous with the
reverse situation laugh.

Well, I have special circumstances. No dependents, no debts, and
plenty of net worth to cover my funeral and throw one hell of a party.

Michael