Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

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" 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

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

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).

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

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 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.

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).

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

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).