insurance: vote with your $

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Well, sort of. I think what you're saying is correct if you're
dealing with one given company. On the other hand, added
ratings/experience/recurrent training may qualify you with another
company that has substantially lower rates.

Yes, I agree with that.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On 11-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

To return the cost if an instrument rating in 3 years the insurance
company
would have to pay me about $1,000 a year. Not going to happen.


Well, I do know that when my partners got their IR (both in the same year)
the tab for insurance the following year went down by about $800. And this
was a few years ago, before the current craziness in the insurance biz.

The cost of getting the rating IN ONE'S OWN AIRPLANE may be a bit more than
$2400, but not that much more. I figure on around 45 hours of training, of
which 35 involves the use of a paid instructor. (The other 10 being
practice with a licensed safety pilot who is not being paid).

45 hours @ $40/hr marginal cost for airplane* = $1800
35 hours @ $40/hr for instructor = 1400

TOTAL = $3200

*Marginal cost is the cost for "additional" hours of use, and thus does not
include any fixed expenses. Basically, it's the hourly cost of fuel and
oil, plus reserve for overhaul. $40 is what I figure is about right for a
C-172 or similar airplane.

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

It also suggests that if you are not instrument rated you might ask your
broker how much you could save if you were. (Note that significant savings
will often require changing insurance carriers.) That just might provide
the impetus for you to finally get to work on your instrument ticket.

wrote:

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an
instrument and non instrument rated pilot with my 900 hours in my plane.
No difference. Not only did the premium go down $170 this year, I
changed from USAIG to Global, they rasied the hull value from $65K to
$70K without me asking them to do it. My insurance has gone down in
each of the six years I have insured it for. If this insurance
situation gets much worse I may have to buy another plane.

"Newps" wrote in message
et...

What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an

You may be very lucky to own one of the few airplane types where there are
sufficient numbers in the fleet to generate competition in the industry.
For that matter, a C182 has an excellent safety record as well.

For those of us who own rarer airplanes -- regardless of whether they are
smaller or lager than a C182 -- obtaining reasonably priced insurance has
reached a critical situation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

wrote in message
...

On 11-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

To return the cost if an instrument rating in 3 years the insurance
company
would have to pay me about $1,000 a year. Not going to happen.


Well, I do know that when my partners got their IR (both in the same year)
the tab for insurance the following year went down by about $800. And
this
was a few years ago, before the current craziness in the insurance biz.

The cost of getting the rating IN ONE'S OWN AIRPLANE may be a bit more
than
$2400, but not that much more. I figure on around 45 hours of training,
of
which 35 involves the use of a paid instructor. (The other 10 being
practice with a licensed safety pilot who is not being paid).

45 hours @ $40/hr marginal cost for airplane* = $1800
35 hours @ $40/hr for instructor = 1400

TOTAL = $3200

*Marginal cost is the cost for "additional" hours of use, and thus does
not
include any fixed expenses. Basically, it's the hourly cost of fuel and
oil, plus reserve for overhaul. $40 is what I figure is about right for a
C-172 or similar airplane.

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance
premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

It also suggests that if you are not instrument rated you might ask your
broker how much you could save if you were. (Note that significant
savings
will often require changing insurance carriers.) That just might provide
the impetus for you to finally get to work on your instrument ticket.

You make a few wrong assumptions. First, not all planes are capable of
being instrument trainers. I myself would not want an IFR capable airplane.
Second, you mention some craziness and insurance situation alluding to
increasing premiums. My premiums have not gone up in years. For my
airplane and the flying I do an instrument rating would be less than
useless. I don't believe an instrument rating is guaranteed to lower
premiums no matter how many times you change carriers.

On 12-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

You make a few wrong assumptions. First, not all planes are capable of
being instrument trainers. I myself would not want an IFR capable
airplane.
Second, you mention some craziness and insurance situation alluding to
increasing premiums. My premiums have not gone up in years. For my
airplane and the flying I do an instrument rating would be less than
useless. I don't believe an instrument rating is guaranteed to lower
premiums no matter how many times you change carriers.


Obviously, my analysis assumes that you start with an IFR-capable airplane
that you use at least occasionally for travel. If your flying is just for
fun in a VFR-only airplane, the discussion doesn't apply.

-Elliott Drucker

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:55:59 GMT, Newps wrote:

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an
instrument and non instrument rated pilot with my 900 hours in my plane.
No difference. Not only did the premium go down $170 this year, I
changed from USAIG to Global, they rasied the hull value from $65K to
$70K without me asking them to do it. My insurance has gone down in
each of the six years I have insured it for. If this insurance
situation gets much worse I may have to buy another plane.

I think Richard was right, the 182 is a rare circumstance. We're
lucky.

The guys who own the next step up, the 210 series, or a twin or
retractable, are going to have faced substantial increases over the
past few years. And even asking what the rates are for commercial
usage are likely to induce high expenses (medical ones, that is!).

OTOH, there are exceptions. I looked at an RV-6 and the insurance
rate was slightly less than for my 182. However, that quote wasn't as
good as it first seems when you consider the lower hull value on the
experimental, and the fact that it included sublimits (something my
current policy does not have).

--Ron

Ron Rapp wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:55:59 GMT, Newps wrote:


This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an
instrument and non instrument rated pilot with my 900 hours in my plane.
No difference. Not only did the premium go down $170 this year, I
changed from USAIG to Global, they rasied the hull value from $65K to
$70K without me asking them to do it. My insurance has gone down in
each of the six years I have insured it for. If this insurance
situation gets much worse I may have to buy another plane.


I think Richard was right, the 182 is a rare circumstance. We're
lucky.

I wouldn't call it rare. Every 152, 172, 180, 182, 185, all FG
cherokees, all the Beech FG types like Musketeers would also be the
same. Several guys here with Bonanzas, no problem there either. Twins
I can understand, that will always be a problem.

"Dave Stadt" wrote
I don't believe the 182 is a rare circumstance. I have heard of far more
policies that have RTS or gone down than have gone up.

Mine went up - by one dollar a year. This is in a retract twin. On
the other hand, I'm seeing people paying THREE TIMES what I pay, for
the same coverage in the same airplane. I think the insurers are just
getting better at figuring out who the bad risks are.

Michael