Bad news for our flying club

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:IKArc.7472$JC5.708567@attbi_s54...

Why don't you just tell Avemco to get screwed?

We did -- and saved ourselves money in the bargain.




I always wanted to tell Avemco to get screwed but I never have the chance.
They are always 50% higher than everybody else. Always have been. They
wanted $1500 for my 182 this year. Ended up with Global again for $1000.

Paul Tomblin wrote:
The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that they
won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying clubs
any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.

I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?

A true shame.

Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard
wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before
they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of
their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a
"reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum
they charged.

However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the
experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before
9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping
lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now
it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few
pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring
Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots.

While insurance companies make a business out of covering acceptable
risk, and spreading out the costs such that slightly higher risks get
affordable coverage, Avemco seems to be in the business of covering only
extremely low risk parties and charging double the market rate for that
coverage. That's opposed to the way I was told it's supposed to work
from an underwriting perspective. Lowest risk should (more or less)
equal lowest cost.

Do yourself and the industry a favor and tell Avemco to screw the pooch.
There are plenty of good insurance brokers and underwriters to deal
with. Our local broker just renewed us at about 7% lower than last year
with the same underwriter. We now pay $950 / yr for the 172 insured to
$60K hull (slightly below market value -- our choice, not theirs) and
$1M smooth. Of course, we SHOULD pay less, what with two 1000 hr+
commercial pilots and a CFI on the policy. When we left Avemco many
years ago, they were charging $1200/yr - same pilots, far less coverage.

I hope market forces teach Avemco a lesson and force them out of
business - assuming they don't decline to renew coverage on their
remaining customers and do it themselves.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
A Cherokee 6 is NOT a complex airplane.

Nor is a jet aircraft. It doesn't have a controllable pitch propellor
g

That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes.
However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
instead.

"Doug Vetter" wrote in message
et...
Paul Tomblin wrote:
The other flying club on our field has just been told by Avemco that
they
won't insure Piper Lances and other large complex planes for flying
clubs
any more. Since we've got a Lance as well, we're trying to get a
confirmation from Avemco. If true, this is a big blow.

I wonder if they'd insure a Cherokee 6?

A true shame.

Avemco was once the most respected name in aviation insurance. I heard
wonderful stories about how claims were processed practically before
they were filed, and in "borderline" scenarios, they still took care of
their customers. They also insured higher risks at what I'll call a
"reasonable" rate. That kind of service was once worth the premimum
they charged.

However, I lost faith in Avemco when they dropped out of the
experimental market several years ago (and yes, this was WELL before
9/11 so don't believe the hype). Then I heard they started dropping
lots of safely operated light twins. And then most tailwheels. Now
it's Lance's or whatever else their actuaries feel will cost them a few
pennies more to insure. If this keeps up, they'll only be insuring
Cessna 150's with 5000 hour ATP-rated pilots.

Not only that but their terms are not near what other companies offer. So
even if they do insure someone at higher than industry standard rates the
coverage sucks.

Peter Duniho wrote:

That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61 goes.
However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
instead.

I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted from an
APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one would require
a type rating?

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
That's absolutely true as far as that specific definition in Part 61
goes.
However, it is a turbine-powered aircraft, which requires a type rating
instead.

I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine adapted
from an
APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I assume this one
would require
a type rating?

Depends on how it's used. The regs actually only require the type rating
for "turbojet" aircraft. If the thrust comes from a prop attached to the
turbine, and the aircraft is less than 12,500 pounds, and the FAA has not
specifically called out the aircraft as requiring a type rating, then no
type rating would be required.

My "turbine-powered" comment was vague out of context...the message to which
I replied specifically mentioned a jet, and I unintentionally implied that
ANY turbine-powered aircraft would require a type rating, which isn't the
case.

It does raise the question of whether every pilot who's ever flown the
jet-powered BD-5 had a type rating, or whether the experimental certificate
for the plane is even the same as a type certificate (hard to get a type
rating for an airplane without a type certificate, I would think ). I
assume there's some sort of regulatory process that covers this, but I'm not
an expert in the experimental side of things and don't know the specifics.

Pete

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine
adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I
assume this one would require a type rating?

Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html



--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

Paul Tomblin wrote:

Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri
are made for the Radio Controlled model market.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:34:26 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" said:
I was talking with a fellow today who told me about a 60hp turbine
adapted from an APU which is being used in a few homebuilt aircraft. I
assume this one would require a type rating?

Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html


H O L Y S ......

I think that's probably the coolest thing I've seen since I fell in
love with some of the classics!!

Thanks for the link!

z

In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers said:
Paul Tomblin wrote:
Ever seen the turbine powered Cri-Cri?
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

Correct me if I am wrong but the turbines used on the Cri-Cri
are made for the Radio Controlled model market.

Yup. If you look at the other links in the gallery on the amtjets.com
site, it's all models.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or food.
They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up again. And call
the helldesk about their password expiring. -- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki