A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 04, 12:12 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Insuring a C310 vs. Piper Seneca

I've got about 750 Total Time, 50 complex, 100 IFR. Private, IFR,
Commercially rated.

I have no multi time, but am about to go to a school to get it. They
estimate 10-12 hours in my log book when I finish my checkride. So,
in research mode I asked my agent to get me some rates on Senecas and
C310s in the $150-$175K range. She came back and said, even with an
instructor by my side, they won't insure me. Period. So, she asked
them at what hours would they insure me - here's what they gave her
(in the most vague of terms) -

Seneca - 100 hours multi with at least 50 in type
C310 - 50 hours multi, 10 in type

Huh?? Someone explain that one. I thought the 310 would be a higher
risk for them. No C/R props, flies faster and higher, etc. And, all
my time is in Pipers, including a lot in the Saratoga, so I'm familiar
with the cabin, panel, layout, etc. That probably means nothing,
though, except in my mind.

In looking in the $150-$175K range I'm finding I can get a reasonably
well equipped Seneca II(sometimes IIIs!) or a later model C310. I
like the 310 fuel capacity, speed, and sleek design.

I like the Seneca fuselage. I don't think either excel at hauling,
nor do I intend on filling it with 6 people often.

The C310 nonturbo models are still faster than the Senecas, which are
all turbo after the II model. That's more maintenance.

What are your thoughts on the insurance and comparing the apple to the
orange?
Ads
  #2  
Old October 19th 04, 02:22 PM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Geez, I need to call on this. My step up plans are in danger. I don't
think I could afford a wheels up in an uninsured twin.


"Dave" wrote in message
m...
I've got about 750 Total Time, 50 complex, 100 IFR. Private, IFR,
Commercially rated.

I have no multi time, but am about to go to a school to get it. They
estimate 10-12 hours in my log book when I finish my checkride. So,
in research mode I asked my agent to get me some rates on Senecas and
C310s in the $150-$175K range. She came back and said, even with an
instructor by my side, they won't insure me. Period. So, she asked
them at what hours would they insure me - here's what they gave her
(in the most vague of terms) -

Seneca - 100 hours multi with at least 50 in type
C310 - 50 hours multi, 10 in type

Huh?? Someone explain that one. I thought the 310 would be a higher
risk for them. No C/R props, flies faster and higher, etc. And, all
my time is in Pipers, including a lot in the Saratoga, so I'm familiar
with the cabin, panel, layout, etc. That probably means nothing,
though, except in my mind.

In looking in the $150-$175K range I'm finding I can get a reasonably
well equipped Seneca II(sometimes IIIs!) or a later model C310. I
like the 310 fuel capacity, speed, and sleek design.

I like the Seneca fuselage. I don't think either excel at hauling,
nor do I intend on filling it with 6 people often.

The C310 nonturbo models are still faster than the Senecas, which are
all turbo after the II model. That's more maintenance.

What are your thoughts on the insurance and comparing the apple to the
orange?



  #3  
Old October 19th 04, 03:08 PM
Jim Burns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's what we found this summer when insureing our Aztec. $90,000 hull,
$1mil / $100,000
3 pilots, equal ownership
1) Commercial, SEL, MEL, SES, IA, 1500TT, 1200tail, 40multi, 90complex &
high performance
2) Commercial, SEL, MEL, IA, CFII 500TT, 50tail, 15multi, 275complex & high
performance
3) Private, SEL, MEL, IA 250TT, 15multi, 50complex & high performance

AIG wouldn't rate us due to the Private pilot's low total time, they wanted
500hoursTT, without the private pilot they would cover #1 and #2 for $3600
per year
Avemco wanted $6500 per year
Global wouldn't quote us at all, they said they didn't do step up policies.
London wouldn't quote us, they said they didn't do step up policies.

We ended up going with a company (who's name excapes me) that required the
private pilot to get 25 hours Multi instruction, then 10 hours solo before
passengers. Rate is $4200 per year, BUT there is a $10,000 deductible for
any kind of gear up or gear failure accident. Additionally insured pilots
clause requires 500hours multi time with 50 in make/model.

While shopping, we were told that Aztecs are one of the underwriters
favorite twins to insure. Plenty of power, but not TOO much, non
turbocharged, a big fat wing, and a huge useful load, and a sturdy airframe.
It could be that once you say "Seneca" that they lump all models together
and automatically think "turboed". Just a guess. I would think that the
310 would require higher times due to it's more complex gear and fuel
systems and it's higher speed and faster wing. Maybe that particular
company has a high claim ratio on Senecas and a low claim ratio on 310's?

We recieved several strange comments from the underwriters. One said the
high rate was due to the model PA-23, which is also an Apache, which they
hate due to the small engines and ability to overload it with 4 adults.
Some underwriters were willing to recognize the differance but still gave us
make/model time credit for our Apache time.

Doubt if this helps, but that is what we ran into.


Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004


  #4  
Old October 20th 04, 01:45 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My thoughts are that there is a "gotcha" in the 310 policy that has
drastically lowered the cost of the claim.

One flight school I used to rent from was considering a 310. The
prospective insurance MANDATED a 10k deductible for gear up claims and
did not allow an out if there was a mechanical glitch that caused it
(apparently there was a frequently occuring problem in the gear system
causing gear ups, besides the usual "software" error)

This is thirdhand info, so take it for what it is.. but that may offer a
view as to why the "higher performance" plane might cost less to insure.

Dave(a different one)

Dave wrote:
I've got about 750 Total Time, 50 complex, 100 IFR. Private, IFR,
Commercially rated.

I have no multi time, but am about to go to a school to get it. They
estimate 10-12 hours in my log book when I finish my checkride. So,
in research mode I asked my agent to get me some rates on Senecas and
C310s in the $150-$175K range. She came back and said, even with an
instructor by my side, they won't insure me. Period. So, she asked
them at what hours would they insure me - here's what they gave her
(in the most vague of terms) -

Seneca - 100 hours multi with at least 50 in type
C310 - 50 hours multi, 10 in type

Huh?? Someone explain that one. I thought the 310 would be a higher
risk for them. No C/R props, flies faster and higher, etc. And, all
my time is in Pipers, including a lot in the Saratoga, so I'm familiar
with the cabin, panel, layout, etc. That probably means nothing,
though, except in my mind.

In looking in the $150-$175K range I'm finding I can get a reasonably
well equipped Seneca II(sometimes IIIs!) or a later model C310. I
like the 310 fuel capacity, speed, and sleek design.

I like the Seneca fuselage. I don't think either excel at hauling,
nor do I intend on filling it with 6 people often.

The C310 nonturbo models are still faster than the Senecas, which are
all turbo after the II model. That's more maintenance.

What are your thoughts on the insurance and comparing the apple to the
orange?


  #5  
Old October 20th 04, 06:41 AM
Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
We ended up going with a company (who's name excapes me) that required the
private pilot to get 25 hours Multi instruction, then 10 hours solo before
passengers. Rate is $4200 per year, BUT there is a $10,000 deductible for
any kind of gear up or gear failure accident. Additionally insured pilots
clause requires 500hours multi time with 50 in make/model.


That would be Aerospace Insurance Managers.


  #6  
Old October 20th 04, 06:53 AM
Howard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've been an aviation insurance underwriter for seven year now and I still
don't understand how some of these people come up with their underwriting
guidelines.

The problem is many companies don't actually analyze their loss data, they
make knee-jerk reactions to statistically meaningless events. One company I
worked for suffered three losses with fatalities on Commander 114s in a
period of about 9 months. They decided the airplane was high risk and
nearly stopped writing them. Never mind the fact that in two of the three
accidents the cause was pilot error (one was CFIT the other was loss of
control at slow airspeed).

You'll probably find that every insurance company has it's quirks. Some
won't allow student pilots in Cessna 182s. Some won't write Twins over 25
years old but they'll happily write 60 year old single engine aircraft.
Some will insure helicopters used for flight training, but won't insure
fixed wing aircraft used for flight training. Go figure.

J. Howard

"Dave" wrote in message
m...
I've got about 750 Total Time, 50 complex, 100 IFR. Private, IFR,
Commercially rated.

I have no multi time, but am about to go to a school to get it. They
estimate 10-12 hours in my log book when I finish my checkride. So,
in research mode I asked my agent to get me some rates on Senecas and
C310s in the $150-$175K range. She came back and said, even with an
instructor by my side, they won't insure me. Period. So, she asked
them at what hours would they insure me - here's what they gave her
(in the most vague of terms) -

Seneca - 100 hours multi with at least 50 in type
C310 - 50 hours multi, 10 in type

Huh?? Someone explain that one. I thought the 310 would be a higher
risk for them. No C/R props, flies faster and higher, etc. And, all
my time is in Pipers, including a lot in the Saratoga, so I'm familiar
with the cabin, panel, layout, etc. That probably means nothing,
though, except in my mind.



  #7  
Old October 20th 04, 02:02 PM
Jim Burns
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard wrote:
Some won't write Twins over 25
years old but they'll happily write 60 year old single engine aircraft.


Yep, we ran into one like that also. Great comments Howard.

Another thing that strikes me is that the underwriters don't assume the risk
for the rules that they make up. Each of my policies shows the actual
companies assuming the risk and the list reads from far and wide and from a
very small percentage to a large percentage. It's like a mutual fund. The
underwriter pawns off a percentage of the coverage to different insurance
companies, mostly with names you've never heard of. So why the bizarre
rules? Maybe the final insurance company only wants to have x % of it's
risk put into general aviation?

Recently we've had a similar situation arise in the agriculture industry.
Insurance companies are once again allowed to purchase farm land for
investments. They also have "managed investment" divisions that are out
buying land on behalf of retirement funds. The retirement fund manager goes
to the insurance company and says "We have $xxxxx, we want this percent
invested in row crop farms, this percent invested in cash crop operations,
this percent in contract acreage, this much must be irrigated, this much
must be dry land. Here's the money, go do it." It's almost bizarre, just
bizarre enough that I can see insurance companys saying "Where can we get a
great rate of return on a little money?" and someone starts telling them
how high aviation rates are.

Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004


  #9  
Old October 21st 04, 12:30 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Burns wrote:
(SNIP)
Global wouldn't quote us at all, they said they didn't do step up policies.
London wouldn't quote us, they said they didn't do step up policies.

(SNIP)

Jim


Not to sound ignorant, but I am unfamiliar with the term "Step up
policies" in this context? Anyone care to expand?


Dave

  #10  
Old October 21st 04, 01:07 AM
Dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't know for sure, but I think they mean policies for pilots looking to
step up to the next level of airplane.

For example, a Mooney pilot with 500 hours, 200 complex, wants to buy a
twin. A step up policy would have a requirement for training before solo
pilot, or PIC with passengers would be covered.

There seems to be a trend where no one wants to cover a twin owner without
lots of twin hours. At the same time, many schools are no longer renting
their twins without instructors on board because they get a break that way.

If this keeps up, twin prices will plummet even further.

"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...


Jim Burns wrote:
(SNIP)
Global wouldn't quote us at all, they said they didn't do step up
policies.
London wouldn't quote us, they said they didn't do step up policies.

(SNIP)

Jim


Not to sound ignorant, but I am unfamiliar with the term "Step up
policies" in this context? Anyone care to expand?


Dave



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Piper 6.00x6 Nose wheel and fork? mikem Owning 2 March 6th 04 07:23 PM
Piper 6.00x6 Nose Wheel and Fork? mikem General Aviation 5 March 5th 04 11:34 PM
Piper Cub: "A Reflection in Time"... fine art print highdesertexplorer Aviation Marketplace 0 January 13th 04 03:47 AM
The Piper Cubs That Weren't Veeduber Home Built 5 August 28th 03 04:38 AM
I am going to do it again! A Piper Seneca? Michelle P Owning 5 August 20th 03 01:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.