2-33

On Sep 17, 1:20*am, Morgan wrote:
I think Erik nailed it on where the money goes and why we are
challenged in the US in a variety of ways.

Insurance is our single largest fixed cost. *Nearly half of your
club's insurance costs and not covering nearly as nice of equipment.
A Duo in the US with commercial coverage would cost in the
neighborhood of $4000 to insure. *More or less depending on the
declared value, but you can see that just covering the insurance for
100hrs of flight time per year is $40/hr. *If it sits idle for part of
the year, that makes the hourly rate even worse.

Critical mass of clubs is obviously dependent on the fixed costs, but
I'd venture to guess that somewhere around 40 paying members is
required to cover basic fixed costs with dues in the $30/$40 a month
range. *If you want to buy or lease new aircraft, you're tacking on
$10-20/mnth for every acquisition. *But add 10 members and you don't
need to add any additional monthly rate.

If I can succeed in building our club by 10-20 members, that is enough
to afford the mortgage/lease on a pretty nice glider or several decent
gliders. *It costs almost nothing in additional overhead to add 10 or
20 members, but their dues go straight to improving the clubs
financial strength and more importantly you need a large base in order
to keep the club active. *People lead busy lives, so 10 or 20% of the
membership coming out on the weekend might be all that is reasonable
to expect.

I have looked at alternative fee structures. *We do not charge an
hourly rate for our aircraft, so we aren't that far off your club
rates. * If I had the same number of members as your club, I'd
probably be able to roll back dues to $30/mnth and that puts us in a
similar price range to your German rates of around $400/yr. *But no
winch to provide cheap launches, so you're definitely getting a good
deal. *I'd rather charge a couple more dollars per month and eliminate
the per flight fees. *It's just an accounting headache and in the end
doesn't raise a tremendous amount of money.

Good to hear how it works for others.

Morgan


Texas Soaring Association and Bay Area Soaring Associates self-insure
and perhaps others do also, including at least one commercial
operator.

Renter/non-owner insurance is left to the member/user.

Frank Whiteley

On Sep 17, 7:20*pm, Morgan wrote:
Insurance is our single largest fixed cost. *Nearly half of your
club's insurance costs and not covering nearly as nice of equipment.
A Duo in the US with commercial coverage would cost in the
neighborhood of $4000 to insure. *More or less depending on the
declared value,

That sounds reasonable. In NZ we paid around US$9500 to insure our
fleet in 2008 which consisted of two DG1000s, an ancient Janus, and
two PW5s.


but you can see that just covering the insurance for
100hrs of flight time per year is $40/hr. *If it sits idle for part of
the year, that makes the hourly rate even worse.

That sounds low.

Our 2 seater fleet has totaled the following hours:

2009: 426
2008: 535
2007: 524
2006: 512
2005: 471

Over that time the fleet varied from two Grob Twin Astirs plus a
little used ancient Janus (generally 70 - 80 hours a year due to few
pilots being rated and comfortable flying it) to just two DG1000's
today.

In 2008 the first of our DG1000s did 359 hours while the Janus did 69
and the 2nd DG1000 (which arrived after the soaring season had
finished) did 107.

We fly weekends year round (with a lot of no-flying days in winter),
and 7 days a week in December - March.

I think it's fair to say that if you've got a glass two seater and
it's not doing 200 - 250 hours a year in a club environment (or more
commercially) then you're doing something wrong.

At 15:54 17 September 2010, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Texas Soaring Association and Bay Area Soaring Associates self-insure
and perhaps others do also, including at least one commercial
operator.

I don't want this to sound snarky, but:

I know a commercial operator who self-insured for years, until a "freak"
wind storm (perhaps a small tornado) tore up his hangar and destroyed just
about every glider and towplane he had tied down outside, basically
putting him out of business until he found new partners with deep pockets.
Since this is a thread about replacing US$10K 2-33s and Blaniks with
nearly US$100K K-21s and moving clubs into the 21st century, are you
really suggesting self-insurance as a serious option?

Marc

I was just throwing a number and some easy math out there for
Andreas.

Generally, I would agree that 200hrs+ a year for a nice glass two-
place in a commercial or club environment is reasonable. 4+ hours
each day on the weekend doesn't seem unreasonable. Still 200/hrs is
only $20/hr just to insurance thanks to the lawyers.





On Sep 17, 11:36*am, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:20*pm, Morgan wrote:

Insurance is our single largest fixed cost. *Nearly half of your
club's insurance costs and not covering nearly as nice of equipment.
A Duo in the US with commercial coverage would cost in the
neighborhood of $4000 to insure. *More or less depending on the
declared value,

That sounds reasonable. In NZ we paid around US$9500 to insure our
fleet in 2008 which consisted of two DG1000s, an ancient Janus, and
two PW5s.

but you can see that just covering the insurance for
100hrs of flight time per year is $40/hr. *If it sits idle for part of
the year, that makes the hourly rate even worse.

That sounds low.

Our 2 seater fleet has totaled the following hours:

2009: 426
2008: 535
2007: 524
2006: 512
2005: 471

Over that time the fleet varied from two Grob Twin Astirs plus a
little used ancient Janus (generally 70 - 80 hours a year due to few
pilots being rated and comfortable flying it) to just two DG1000's
today.

In 2008 the first of our DG1000s did 359 hours while the Janus did 69
and the 2nd DG1000 (which arrived after the soaring season had
finished) did 107.

We fly weekends year round (with a lot of no-flying days in winter),
and 7 days a week in December - March.

I think it's fair to say that if you've got a glass two seater and
it's not doing 200 - 250 hours a year in a club environment (or more
commercially) then you're doing something wrong.

On Sep 17, 2:21*pm, Marc Ramsey
wrote:
At 15:54 17 September 2010, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Texas Soaring Association and Bay Area Soaring Associates self-insure
and perhaps others do also, including at least one commercial
operator.

I don't want this to sound snarky, but:

I know a commercial operator who self-insured for years, until a "freak"
wind storm (perhaps a small tornado) tore up his hangar and destroyed just
about every glider and towplane he had tied down outside, basically
putting him out of business until he found new partners with deep pockets..
*Since this is a thread about replacing US$10K 2-33s and Blaniks with
nearly US$100K K-21s and moving clubs into the 21st century, are you
really suggesting self-insurance as a serious option?

Marc

I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out what some clubs are
doing (or have done).

BASA's fleet

DG-1000S (N451CH)
DG-505 (N505KM)
Grob 103 (N3836L)
Pegasus 101A (N101LV)
Pegasus 101A (N599JH)
SZD-51-1 “Junior” (N106DS)

Most recent NL indicates $50K+ in their 'insurance fund' set aside.
No idea what member's personal liability for damage might be or if
there's a ceiling.

TSA's fleet
glider, hour, minimum.

Schleicher ASK 21 $24.00 $9.60
Schweizer 1-26 $9.00 $3.60
PZL Swidnik PW-5 $19.00 $7.60
Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 $25.00 $10.00
Schempp-Hirth Duo Discus $30.00 $12.00

TSA's re-designed web site doesn't specify if there's a member
liability. It was the first $3,000 of damage. I don't see that in
any of the currently linked docs. At the current member rates, it may
be that they now carry hull insurance.

Frank Whiteley

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
...
At 15:54 17 September 2010, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Texas Soaring Association and Bay Area Soaring Associates self-insure
and perhaps others do also, including at least one commercial
operator.

I don't want this to sound snarky, but:

I know a commercial operator who self-insured for years, until a "freak"
wind storm (perhaps a small tornado) tore up his hangar and destroyed just
about every glider and towplane he had tied down outside, basically
putting him out of business until he found new partners with deep pockets.
Since this is a thread about replacing US$10K 2-33s and Blaniks with
nearly US$100K K-21s and moving clubs into the 21st century, are you
really suggesting self-insurance as a serious option?

Did he really self-insure as in put aside the money each year into an
interest-bearing account, or did he ignore the issue?

My club self-insured for a while (UK-based) but then premiums became more
reasonable and we went back to insuring with an insurer.

At 06:54 18 September 2010, Frank Whiteley wrote:
BASA's fleet

DG-1000S (N451CH)
DG-505 (N505KM)
Grob 103 (N3836L)
Pegasus 101A (N101LV)
Pegasus 101A (N599JH)
SZD-51-1 =93Junior=94 (N106DS)

Most recent NL indicates $50K+ in their 'insurance fund' set aside.
No idea what member's personal liability for damage might be or if
there's a ceiling.

BASA is a bit of an anomaly, they are effectively a large syndicate with a
set number of non-owner members. They do no training, have no towplane,
their facilities consist of rented tie downs and parking spaces at various
airports. Self-insurance may well make sense for them.

The whole point behind (hull) insurance is pooled risk. I doubt there are
any clubs or commercial operators that can self-insure against loss of
their entire fleet, yet in just the past decade here in northern
California it has happened once (high winds), and very nearly happened a
second time (uncontained wildfire).

For what it's worth, and based only on the clubs I've belonged to, the
only reason why there have been periods of "self-insurance" is that
there have been enough recent accident claims that they can no longer get
hull insurance for an affordable premium...

Marc

On Sep 15, 7:22*pm, Peter Smith wrote:
The Harris Hill Soaring Corp. is fortunate to have 3 2-33s, 4 ASK 21s,
a 1-26, a 1-34, a single place Discus & a Duo. Our juniors are trained
in the 2-33, & they then progress to the higher performance ships.
I've not seen any resistance on their part to learning to fly in the
2-33.

[snip]

They also don't seem to be at a disadvantage with respect to contest
soaring because they started out in a 2-33. We train top notch cross
country & contest pilots.

I learned to fly in 2-33s at Texas Soaring Association in the late
1980s. Eventually the club sold off the old birds and went to Puchacz
and then to ASK-21s, but I know lots of pilots who learned the basics
and much more in old Tubby The Trainer.

It was and is a great confidence builder and it's dirt cheap--two
virtues in a club trainer. Also, like the J-3 Cub, "It's so safe it'll
just barely kill you."

Parachutes with club and training gliders.

Another significant cost is whether or not to require the use of
parachutes for instructors and students.
What are the insurance requirements/savings, if any? The TSA rate for
the club fleet includes a
parachute for use only in the club sailplanes. Seems like parachute
prices have almost doubled in
the last several years.

The member liability is still $3,000. but for some damage, members
will pitch in and help with repairs which
can reduce the cost by a considerable amount.

On Sep 18, 12:33*pm, Marc Ramsey
wrote:
At 06:54 18 September 2010, Frank Whiteley wrote:

BASA's fleet

* *DG-1000S (N451CH)
* *DG-505 (N505KM)
* *Grob 103 (N3836L)
* *Pegasus 101A (N101LV)
* *Pegasus 101A (N599JH)
* *SZD-51-1 =93Junior=94 (N106DS)

Most recent NL indicates $50K+ in their 'insurance fund' set aside.
No idea what member's personal liability for damage might be or if
there's a ceiling.

BASA is a bit of an anomaly, they are effectively a large syndicate with a
set number of non-owner members. *They do no training, have no towplane,
their facilities consist of rented tie downs and parking spaces at various
airports. *Self-insurance may well make sense for them. *

The whole point behind (hull) insurance is pooled risk. *I doubt there are
any clubs or commercial operators that can self-insure against loss of
their entire fleet, yet in just the past decade here in northern
California it has happened once (high winds), and very nearly happened a
second time (uncontained wildfire). *

For what it's worth, and based only on the clubs I've belonged to, the
only reason why there have been periods of "self-insurance" is that
there have been enough recent accident claims that they can no longer get
hull insurance for an affordable premium...

Marc

I agree, and that is why BASA is almost the perfect example of a
501c(7) social/recreational club. Chapters that train and bring
people to soaring would be better served to seek a more public benefit
model. Of course, the BASA model only works because there are
sufficient commercial services in the region, so no need to feed a tow
plane. Checkouts and tows are left to the commercial operators. At
least one SSA region has no commercial services, there the chapters
carry the full burden of training and rides.

Apparently some commercial operators transfer much of the insurance
burden to the pilot by requiring renter/non-owner insurance and risk
the other events. Private owners may have this up to the limits of
their hull coverage depending on the underwriter and whether the
glider is on flight coverage. Funny thing about insurance, it's
against negligence. So in the case of wind damage, there must be some
assumption of negligence. The club that lost its fleet earlier this
year in a wind storm had moved and neglected to install adequate tie-
downs apparently or otherwise stow the gliders.

And yes, some chapters have been unable to insure at times due to a
high number of claims. Many repairs up $2500 or so are not claimed
for this reason.

Frank