Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

"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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.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?

"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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.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.

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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.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.

"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/2006GAMA...alDatabook.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.

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.

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.

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" 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