Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

On 2007-07-11, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Justin Gombos wrote:
On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.

That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more
interested in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying
incidents Monday-Thursday.


But that is pretty much what they'd be doing anyway. What makes you
think that your risk flying 50 hours per year only on weekend would
be any less than the guy in the next hanger who flys 50 hours a year
but on any day of the week?

If insurers were counting hours, this discussion would be moot. They
may be estimating hours in their formula, but the accuracy of that
estimate is terrible if the same number is being used for a weekend
pilot as a daily pilot.

In fact since there will be more recreational pilots flying on
weekend the chance that you would run into one of them
increases.

Sure, but that risk is the same for a pilot insured daily flying on
the weekend (neglecting the experience factor, which is a variable
that's already accounted for in the premium).

There would also be the added concern that on one of your weekend
jaunts you would be more likely to fly in worst weather because
waiting until Monday isn't an option.

I disagree. A pilot willing to fly in unsafe weather will have more
opportunities to do so if they can fly every day. The pilot confined
to weekend travel only flies weekends for a reason. If their schedule
prevents them from flights on workdays, then being insured on weekdays
doesn't make the better weather flight time any more viable.

But it all boils down to the fact that the insurance company's risk
would not be reduced enough for you to even notice the difference.

That's a reasonable speculation, but I'm more inclined to think the
very small market and lack of competition is preventing insurers from
taking advantage of this. If no provider breaks the 365 day insurance
trend, all providers can collect artificially high premiums from
weekend pilots.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

Ouch. Let's use Matt's number and think about insurance rates. There
are 800 hulls in the field, introduced 4 years ago. So say on average
400 hulls over 4 years.

Three crashed. So 4 years of premiums for 400 hulls has got to cover
everything, including the payout for the three crashes. I'm sure it
was more, but if you say each payout was a million dollars, 3 millions
would have to be spread over 1600 policy years That's almost $2000
each, right there.

I made lots of assumptions, of course. Make your own, and see what you
get.

Tina
On Jul 2, 10:08 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:
Question for insurance experts -

Insurance for the Columbia 400 is absurdly high compared to other
similar aircraft, presumably because the premiums are loaded due to
lack of significant statistics. Any idea how long potential Columbia
buyers can expect to wait for the premium to stabilize?

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?

--
PM instructions: Caesar cipher the alpha characters in my address
using +3 as the key.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ouch. Let's use Matt's number and think about insurance rates. There
are 800 hulls in the field, introduced 4 years ago. So say on average
400 hulls over 4 years.

Three crashed. So 4 years of premiums for 400 hulls has got to cover
everything, including the payout for the three crashes. I'm sure it
was more, but if you say each payout was a million dollars, 3 millions
would have to be spread over 1600 policy years That's almost $2000
each, right there.

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.

In the Columbia line (seperae from the Lancair kits), from what I can see,
there's not been one accident from loss of control. That's rather
interesting given the Columbia high wing loading.

One thing is that the COL400 prices out at $550-600K so you're insurance
would be higher just from that. Compared to a new A36 or Mooney, their
accident history is much better. I'm not sure how the safety features would
figure in, but the Columbia's have numerous features compared to the A36 and
Mooneys.

I made lots of assumptions, of course. Make your own, and see what you
get.

Tina
On Jul 2, 10:08 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:
Question for insurance experts -

Insurance for the Columbia 400 is absurdly high compared to other
similar aircraft, presumably because the premiums are loaded due to
lack of significant statistics. Any idea how long potential Columbia
buyers can expect to wait for the premium to stabilize?

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?

--
PM instructions: Caesar cipher the alpha characters in my address
using +3 as the key.

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:

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

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?


Even if less airtime in theory might translate to less absolute risk, as you
suggest, the problem for the insurance company is that it's not a certainty.

Less airtime means less exposure to hazards, but also less currency in the
skills department. That, in turn, for a prudent pilot should result in
higher weather minimums etc. in order to keep his risk low despite his
skills deficit, compared to the pilot who flies every day. But, the
insurance company has no obvious way of controlling if the weekend pilot
actually flies more carefully, as far as I can understand.

My guess is that the insurance companies have calculated that offering a
weekend policy would either
a) need to be priced at an unsellable level or
b) priced decently, would increase the insurance company's financial risk
too much or
c) incur too much administrative costs.

To me it's very obvious that regular flying in a particular airplane hones
the skills and reduces the risk level. It's no coincidence that our local
clubs require a refresher flight with a CFI, anytime more than 90 days have
elapsed since last flight in-command of a particular type.

There exist some insurance examples of the suggested type. Air travel
insurance, for example. You can buy insurance for a single flight (to a very
high price) or then be covered by a general travel insurance policy, maybe
even packaged with other policies. Check the cost difference.

I had the possibility to keep my airplane uninsured for part of the year,
for example the winter. The problem was, the rates were chosen so that the
savings felt too small compared to the potential frustration of not being
able to fly on those splendid winter days when the weather was nice.
Insurance companies are not stupid ;-) .

Another comparison is a newspaper subscription. I can subscribe to my daily
newspaper either for every day or Sundays only, getting 1/7 of the issues
for 1/2 of the price. Not a very good deal I'd say for the Sunday issue. And
this is, notably, a business where there is no risk element like in
insurance.

Another aspect of your weekend-only flying strategy is that the maintenance
cost per hour is likely to be higher. This is due to the fact that when the
airplane flies less, some maintenance items may reach their age limit before
their flight hours limit. This may be worthwhile to include in your
calculations.

The best way to find the insurance you want is to speak with the companies.
Who knows, maybe someone will actually offer something reasonable?