Low Time and Insurance - Cessna P206

Who thinks insurance requirements really make any sense these days??
When we wanted to take in a new partner on our 78 Piper Archer II,
the insurance co. said minimum of 150 hours and 25 in type. This was for
a PP with 85 hrs, mostly in Cessnas. A 206 may be a 'basic' airplane, but
it is sure a bit more of a plane than the Archer....
Mike Pvt/IFR PA28-181 N44979 at RYY


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Phil Verghese" wrote in message
.3.44...


(Shawn) wrote in
.com:
A P206 is quite a lot of airplane for a new pilot. Even if you
waited until after getting your private certificate, you probably
would have a hard time getting affordable insurance (some
underwriters may not even cover you).




Why? It is a relatively slow, fixed gear airplane. The main addition to a
a 172 is a CS prop and two more seats. I don't understand why a new PP
would be difficult to insure.

Mike
MU-2

Edward Todd wrote:

How large a family? A 6 seater does not mean you can always fill 6
seats.

It does with a 206.

Don't give up. The first 2 brokers I talked to would not touch me when I
upgraded to a twin. The third broker worked hard and got me insurance.

Best of luck,

jerry

"Shawn" wrote in message
om...
I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
broker's time.

I obviously am not interested in buying into a plane I won't be able
to fly. Does anyone have any thoughts or experience on this?

Thanks much.

(Shawn) wrote in message . com...
I am a student pilot getting ready to solo next week (26 hours now). I
am interested in a 1/3rd share of a '65 P206 due to my large family.
Apparently annual insurance is currently $1950. The seller has
contacted the partnership's insurance broker who has checked with
their current insurer who states they will not insure me when I get my
private. The selling partner has expressed concern about wasting the
broker's time.

@#!!!!

1000 violins play "my heart bleeds for the poor broker"

It's his JOB to spend his time finding insurance coverage
for people. Let him do it or move over and give the job
to someone who will.

Don't be discouraged if one broker won't work with you.
When we bought a plane we wanted 1 million smooth coverage
from USAIG. The local broker basically laughed at us and
said w/ low time and few hours in make and model we couldn't
get 1 million smooth from anyone and USAIG wouldn't insure
us.

So I called another broker (in another city) used by
a friend. He laughed--at the first broker. And got
us a favorable quote for 1 million smooth from USAIG,
zero deductable.

As he said "I don't get where the first broker you spoke
with was coming from. This is our profession, finding
workable insurance for pilots and owners is what keeps
the lights on for us"

Cheers,
Sydney

"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...
|
|
| And I never saw much difference between a 172 and a 182 except that the
182
| is considered "high performance" and the 172 isn't. We all know that
"high
| performance" as for the endorsement is a poor joke foisted on the aviation
| set by politicos with no judgement or sense. When a 180 HP RV-4 that
does
| over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance" and
my
| poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day at
| 100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to wonder.
| Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)
|

There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines that
are not considered high performance.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:27:38 -0500, "Highfllyer"
wrote:

When a 180 HP RV-4 that does
over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance" and my
poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day at
100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to wonder.
Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)

Is "Your Stinson has a lot more left turning tendency" a wrong answer?

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

In article , Highfllyer wrote:
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:jdXkb.827639$YN5.865583@sccrnsc01...
Underwriters look at accident history. A 206 is a travelling plane.
When people crash it they've loaded 6 people into it and flown it into
weather they/it can't handle because they need to Get There.

But it compares VERY closely to a 182, which is very cheap to insure and
often flown by new private pilots with no penalty.

Compares closely in what way? Almost all airplanes are subject to the
same kinds of accidents, but in different proportions.

I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
that kill everyone aboard.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

In article 4Lfmb.8797$275.16267@attbi_s53, (Ben Jackson)
wrote:
I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
that kill everyone aboard.

Plenty of VFR into IMC in 172s, 182s, Cherokees, and just about every
other light single.



JKG

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Highfllyer" wrote in message
...
|
|
| And I never saw much difference between a 172 and a 182 except that the
182
| is considered "high performance" and the 172 isn't. We all know that
"high
| performance" as for the endorsement is a poor joke foisted on the
aviation
| set by politicos with no judgement or sense. When a 180 HP RV-4 that
does
| over 200 mph and cruises nicely at over 180 is NOT "high performance"
and
my
| poor little 4000 pound Stinson Reliant that storms along on a good day
at
| 100 knots is considered to be "high performance" one does have to
wonder.
| Just what kind of "performance" are we talking about anyway? :-)
|

There are also plenty of fast twins with two 200 hp (or less) engines that
are not considered high performance.

Such as...?

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:4Lfmb.8797$275.16267@attbi_s53...
Underwriters look at accident history. A 206 is a travelling plane.
When people crash it they've loaded 6 people into it and flown it into
weather they/it can't handle because they need to Get There.

But it compares VERY closely to a 182, which is very cheap to insure and
often flown by new private pilots with no penalty.

Compares closely in what way? Almost all airplanes are subject to the
same kinds of accidents, but in different proportions.

I looked at accidents before I posted my comment. There were a number
of Fatal(6) results. People don't buy 206s to get 'big 172s', they buy
them to get 6 seats. You don't buy a 6 seat airplane for training, or
for boring holes in the sky, you buy it to go places. With most of the
seats full. The accidents reflect that. Plenty of VFR pilots into IMC
that kill everyone aboard.

In which aircraft? The 182, the 172, or the 206?