GA bias in "general" insurance?

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Why?

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
--



Haven't you ever been in a cemetary?

No, what is a cemetary?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


No, what is a cemetary?

Matt

That must be where they bury the survivors.

Jay Honeck writes:

Why?

Wealthy people are more likely to buy their own aircraft, or to fly in
general aviation (as passengers or crew).

GA is a rich man's hobby, and some wealthy people depend on GA for
personal transportation.

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?

More than there should be, at least in general aviation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?

More than there should be, at least in general aviation.

And this is based on...what?

Flying light airplanes carries about the same risk as riding a
motorcycle, statistically. I don't see any insurance companies that
exclude motorcycle riding, although I suppose they may exist.

As with riding, when flying you can make things MUCH safer by taking a
few relatively easy steps.

Or are you saying that rich people who use GA for transportation are,
to a large degree, doofuses, along the lines of the legendary
overworked Bonanza-pilot-doctors (thus the nick-name,
"Fork-Tailed-Doctor-Killer") who used to kill themselves with alarming
regularity?

(In case you didn't know, Bonanzas were the original Cirrus, meaning
that wealthy, busy, high-powered professionals often bought them, flew
them too little, but often under tight schedules. This occasionally
got them in deep doo-doo when they flew into conditions that exceeded
their limited skills under the reasoning that they "had" to make that
meeting.)

Personally, I don't think GA flying is prohibitively dangerous, or I
certainly wouldn't have put my family in the plane over 600 times.
You've just got to be vigilant and careful at all times.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

And this is based on...what?

The relatively high risk of GA, compared to commercial airlines.

Flying light airplanes carries about the same risk as riding a
motorcycle, statistically.

Riding a motorcycle is pretty risky.

As with riding, when flying you can make things MUCH safer by taking a
few relatively easy steps.

Yes, but the insurance company cannot be sure that you will take those
steps. And many people obviously don't, whence the high accident
rates.

Or are you saying that rich people who use GA for transportation are,
to a large degree, doofuses, along the lines of the legendary
overworked Bonanza-pilot-doctors (thus the nick-name,
"Fork-Tailed-Doctor-Killer") who used to kill themselves with alarming
regularity?

No. Rich people aren't any less intelligent than poor people.
However, having money provides access to general aviation,
irrespective of intelligence, so stupid rich people are more able to
fly than stupid poor people. Thus, one may encounter lots of stupid,
rich pilots.

In case you didn't know, Bonanzas were the original Cirrus, meaning
that wealthy, busy, high-powered professionals often bought them, flew
them too little, but often under tight schedules. This occasionally
got them in deep doo-doo when they flew into conditions that exceeded
their limited skills under the reasoning that they "had" to make that
meeting.

And in so doing they skewed the safety statistics for general
aviation. People like Cory Lidle, John Denver, and John F. Kennedy,
Jr., are still doing that today.

Personally, I don't think GA flying is prohibitively dangerous, or I
certainly wouldn't have put my family in the plane over 600 times.
You've just got to be vigilant and careful at all times.

I agree. Take good care of your plane and good care of yourself, and
be careful and cautious even when it's inconvenient, and the risk of
flying will be very low indeed. Under such conditions I certainly
wouldn't hesitate to put my family in a plane. But careless pilots
flying ill-maintained aircraft are just asking for trouble.

I think one big part of it is that, in general aviation, you cannot
simply jump into the plane and fly whenever you wish ... not if you
want to be safe, at least. If the weather is unsuitable, or if
there's any problem with the aircraft, you have to wait. But some
people don't like to wait.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:53:42 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

GA is a rich man's hobby, and some wealthy people depend on GA for
personal transportation.

I beg to differ. Yes, you can spend a LOT of money at the upper end
(and yes, even the middle) of the GA spectrum, but you can also buy a
good used plane for less than the price of the average new car... and
a lot less than "average" guys spend on boats. Airplanes hold their
value far better, too.

Is this perceived high cost of aviation what keeps you in your
basement playing sims?

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resist militant "normality" -- A mind is a terrible thing to erase.

Dana M. Hague d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net writes:

I beg to differ. Yes, you can spend a LOT of money at the upper end
(and yes, even the middle) of the GA spectrum, but you can also buy a
good used plane for less than the price of the average new car... and
a lot less than "average" guys spend on boats. Airplanes hold their
value far better, too.

What kind of airplane can you get for $10,000?

Is this perceived high cost of aviation what keeps you in your
basement playing sims?

It is one of several reasons, yes. The simulator only costs about
$40.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Greg Farris wrote:
Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
disability. The insurance covered accidents at home or at work, and there
were very few outright exclusions. Of the eight or so exclusions they
listed, two were different ways of saying "self-inflicted" or deliberate
injuries or suicide attempts. Two were wartime or insurrection
exclusions, and one was specific to use of nuclear weapons. All of the
other exclusions were related to general aviation or air sports "of any
form". They include all activity related to aviation other than "flying
as a paying passenger on a scheduled airline".

Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
"acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out. I
visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

GF


I suspect the main reason is all the famous figures who have died in GA
crashes. Even though they may represent a small fraction of the GA
population, they probably have huge claims which distorts the average
claim made by pilots. On the other hand, I doubt many famous figures
spend much time on the road or have any involvement with city gangs and
drug wars.

Motorcycles, I think they would be the exclusion. Has to be more dangerous
than GA.

I'm pretty sure they're about the same risk.

mike

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
news
Motorcycles, I think they would be the exclusion. Has to be more dangerous
than GA.