![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:IKArc.7472$JC5.708567@attbi_s54... Why don't you just tell Avemco to get screwed? We did -- and saved ourselves money in the bargain. I always wanted to tell Avemco to get screwed but I never have the chance. They are always 50% higher than everybody else. Always have been. They wanted $1500 for my 182 this year. Ended up with Global again for $1000. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Tomblin wrote:
The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow. I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6? A true shame. Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a "reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum they charged. However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before 9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots. While insurance companies make a business out of covering acceptable risk, and spreading out the costs such that slightly higher risks get affordable coverage, Avemco seems to be in the business of covering only extremely low risk parties and charging double the market rate for that coverage. That's opposed to the way I was told it's supposed to work from an underwriting perspective. Lowest risk should (more or less) equal lowest cost. Do yourself and the industry a favor and tell Avemco to screw the pooch. There are plenty of good insurance brokers and underwriters to deal with. Our local broker just renewed us at about 7% lower than last year with the same underwriter. We now pay $950 / yr for the 172 insured to $60K hull (slightly below market value -- our choice, not theirs) and $1M smooth. Of course, we SHOULD pay less, what with two 1000 hr+ commercial pilots and a CFI on the policy. When we left Avemco many years ago, they were charging $1200/yr - same pilots, far less coverage. I hope market forces teach Avemco a lesson and force them out of business - assuming they don't decline to renew coverage on their remaining customers and do it themselves. -Doug -- -------------------- Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA http://www.dvcfi.com -------------------- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
... A Cherokee 6 is NOT a complex airplane. Nor is a jet aircraft. It doesn't have a controllable pitch propellor g That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes. However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating instead. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug Vetter" wrote in message et... Paul Tomblin wrote: The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow. I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6? A true shame. Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a "reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum they charged. However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before 9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots. Not only that but their terms are not near what other companies offer. So even if they do insure someone at higher than industry standard rates the coverage sucks. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Peter Duniho wrote: That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes. However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating instead. I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require a type rating? George Patterson I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
... That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes. However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating instead. I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require a type rating? Depends on how it's used. The regs actually only require the type rating for "turbojet" aircraft. If the thrust comes from a prop attached to the turbine, and the aircraft is less than 12,500 pounds, and the FAA has not specifically called out the aircraft as requiring a type rating, then no type rating would be required. My "turbine-powered" comment was vague out of context...the message to which I replied specifically mentioned a jet, and I unintentionally implied that ANY turbine-powered aircraft would require a type rating, which isn't the case. It does raise the question of whether every pilot who's ever flown the jet-powered BD-5 had a type rating, or whether the experimental certificate for the plane is even the same as a type certificate (hard to get a type rating for an airplane without a type certificate, I would think ![]() assume there's some sort of regulatory process that covers this, but I'm not an expert in the experimental side of things and don't know the specifics. Pete |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require a type rating? Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri? http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri? http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri are made for the Radio Controlled model market. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:34:26 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote: In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said: I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require a type rating? Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri? http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html H O L Y S ...... I think that's probably the coolest thing I've seen since I fell in love with some of the classics!! Thanks for the link! z |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers said:
Paul Tomblin wrote: Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri? http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri are made for the Radio Controlled model market. Yup. If you look at the other links in the gallery on the amtjets.com site, it's all models. -- Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/ There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or food. They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up again. And call the helldesk about their password expiring. -- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
15 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 15th 03 10:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
27 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | November 27th 03 11:44 PM |