'56 C172 with Bolen tailwheel conversion, 35K on the hull and I think 1 or 2 million on the liability.

Lots of hours logged and not-logged, with 4,000+ hrs tailwheel.

$1,300 a year, and that's after shopping around. But, I look at it as $100 plus some chump change a month, and I can spend that much on beer without even trying hard. Just a matter of priorities.

Gump

Thats how I look at it too, ~100 a month. It's cheaper than the gas!

Full - $4500 for 66 Cessna 80H

I purchased my 58 C182A in March 2007. $1 Mil. liability, $60K hull value. hangered at KEUL. I had 0 time, just starting out as a student pilot and paid $1500.00 for the first year. Purchased insurance through AOPA.

48 C-170, hangared, $32K hull, 1M liability,1500+ hours t/w-- $923 a year for full coverage thru Travers & Assoc. Sounds like I'm getting a pretty good deal compared to some. I think Travers does have an "off-airport exclusion" though, I used to insure thru AUA who didn't have one but it was more $$ so went back to travers.

Eric

'53 170B, $1600 for $45K hull and 1 million liability. I'm a n00b so I guess that's a good deal for someone with relatively low tailwheel time and total hours.

I have a C 170 w/180, stated value is $70K (insurance didn't like that, but said okay after I explained this is replacement cost), 1 million/200 per. $1260.

That's AVEMCO. No additional cost for Alaska, just call em and they add Alaska coverage for a trip, including north of the Circle, which some insurers won't cover AT ALL. Off airport is covered, as are skis.

I met their pilot experience requirements.

For comparison, I used to pay $1500 a year for straight liability (Falcon) for the same airplane, floats and instructing in Alaska. I checked periodically for cost of full coverage instructing and in AK on floats, and the answer was always north of $5500.

I also carry non owned A/C insurance, which if any of you flight instructs or flys rentals a fair amount, you really should consider as well.

MTV

Avemco here too. '55 PA 18, $1,195 for a 50K hull. Dirt, water, snow, AK whatever...I've been pleased with Avemco so far, but may have to jump ship if I put the cub on the banner waiver. Mike brought a good point to my attention. I've had the cub at 50k for years, because I have less than that in it, but I doubt I could replace it for that...
Mike, what was Falcons take on off field?

Rob wrote: Mike, what was Falcons take on off field?

Many of you are confusing the underwriting company and the agent. The underwriter is the one who lays out the terms of the policy and sets the rates, not the agent. Falcon, Travers & Associates, CS&A, etc are all agents and we do not set the rates or write the terms in the policies. Avemco is the ONLY direct writer...meaning that they are their own agents and the insured talks to them directly.

Most policies DO NOT have an off airport exclusion unless you routinely operate in Alaska, Canada, or other location with remote areas in which case you MAY have an off airport exclusion. Also, don't confuse a grass or dirt strip as an off airport landing. If it has an FAA identifier then it is an airport and WOULD NOT be considered an off airport landing. I have yet to have a policy that contains and off airport exclusion. I do have one underwriter (Phoenix) who does put the off airport exclusion on a policy on an "as needed" basis, but not as a common endorsement. This would be for those tailwheels operating in remote areas on a routine basis.

Also...if you do have an off airport exclusion on your policy it does not include emergency landings. If you lose and engine or have another form of in flight emergency the policy will still be in force for that off airport landing.

A hot salmon spot near a great sandbar does not constitute an emergency.

Rob,

Falcon brokered my policy with AIG (happy, Low? ), and off airport and skis were covered. They did not list them on the policy, but they werent' excluded.

Avemco also permits off airport in Alaska, though the reason I worked with Falcon there was I was doing flight instruction, and floats. Avemco doesn't do floats in Alaska or any commercial operation.

As I noted, if you get an Alaska add on to your policy, make absolutely certain there isn't an Arctic Circle provision on it. If there is, don't go north of the Circle, or you're not insured.

MTV

I questioned the off-airport exclusion a few years ago, their explanation is that anywhere not a recognized (read FAA registered & identifier'd) airport is considered off-airport. Operations at such are not covered except in the event of a * declared emergency*. So none of this botching a gravel-bar landing and then claiming carb ice or similar problem-- if you can't document the emergency by having declared it at the time to ATC, they could deny paying your claim.
Kinda funny- there's a couple iffy back-forty airstrips near home that are FAA-recognized, and a couple others that are much better but are not registered. So I'm covered at the shaky ones, and not covered at the easy ones. Makes perfect sense, eh?

Eric

Back on the insurance subject,I have a good bud,who loaned out his deb bonanza to a guy and he landed short and caught a barb wire fence.
The plane flipped over and was a total loss.
The dude was not hurt but my friend had his plane insured for about 50grand and the replacment cost was about 70grand.
I think it was just an over sight on his part,but being under insured caught him off guard.
Maybe check your policy to make sure you guys are covered at the increased value of your planes.

P.S. I dont think they are friends anymore.
The rain quit and the wind died down,so I think I will turn some gas into noise.

If your airplane is worth say 80 grand and it is insured for say 50 grand and you make a claim against your insurance, say a small one like you got a wingtip in a ground loop. The insurance Co. can write you a check for 50 grand and the airplane is now theirs. They can sell it for more than 50 grand and they do not owe you the difference.
Be careful with your insured value.

mtv wrote:I have a C 170 w/180, stated value is $70K (insurance didn't like that, but said okay after I explained this is replacement cost), 1 million/200 per. $1260. .............. MTV

I see that your airplane is on floats in your avatar. Is that insurance price for being on floats, or on wheels?

Commercial use in a 7GCAA $6500. $80,000 hull. The draw back of providing tailwheel/acro training. I get it back in the rental but basically break even on the airplane at the end of the year.

Insurance Companies drive this business. They are the prime responsibility of the current commercial aviation pilot shortage.

bluesideup wrote:Insurance Companies drive this business. They are the prime responsibility of the current commercial aviation pilot shortage.

That is a matter of opinion of course and not based on fact...aircraft insurance rates have been dropping on average for the last 2 - 3 years. If you want to blame it on a cost issue then you should look to the rising fuel prices, not the decreasing insurance premiums. Fuel is the biggest expense per operating hour of an aircraft. If you want to state your opinion as fact I think you should do a bit of research on the factual causes of the "shortage". I doubt you will find insurance to be a factor since the majority of the CML pilots who do it for a living do not pay the insurance for the aircraft that they operate. There is a reason why the commuter airlines have lowered their minimum requirements for pilots and it has nothing to do with the insurance cost. It has to do with not being able to keep the pilots that they have for any real length of time since they are moving on to greener pastures.

Here are some facts on the "shortage". In 2006 the estimated number of active ATP rated pilots was 144,681 of which 41,382 were age 55 or older. Since mandatory retirement "was" age 60 that means that 29% of the ATP rated pilots were either retired or within 5 years of doing so. What is interesting to note here is that even with 29% of the ATP rated pilot at retirement age, the total number of active ATP certificates has actually increased over the last 5 years. So where did the pilots come from to overcome the retiring pilot numbers and actually increase the active numbers? From the commercial pilot sector. In 2006 there were a total of 130,234 active CML rated pilots and 18,290 new certificate issuances...the new ATP issuances for 2006 was 20,690. More pilots moving up to ATP than up to CML rating means a decline in CML rated pilots...hence an apparent shortage. By the way the total number of CML ratings issued in 2006 was up from the previous year which is contradictory to a the ideas of a shortage of new CML pilots.

By the way...have you ever priced car insurance for an $80,000 vehicle with a liability limit of $1 Million? I would bet that answer is no. Most people do not have more than $500,000 on their car liability insurance. In many cases, it is cheaper to insure a $100,000 aircraft (non-commercial) with $1,000,000 in liability for an entire year than it is to insure a $30,000 vehicle with a $300,000 liability limit.

Just some food for thought.

mtv wrote:I also carry non owned A/C insurance, which if any of you flight instructs or flys rentals a fair amount, you really should consider as well.

MTV

Mike-

Check your policy...most policies for an "owned" aircraft provide coverage for non-owned aircraft as well equal to the limits provided for the "owned" aircraft. It would be found under the section "Your Coverage for Other Aircraft". I do not know if Avemco offers this coverage, but it would be worth a look. Usually all of the other carriers have this coverage included in the policy. In this case you do not have a need to purchase a non-owned policy if you are renting or borrowing another aircraft as you already have the coverage. However, it most likely does not cover you for instructing in a non-owned aircraft in which case you should purchase the instructors liability coverage that you mentioned above.

I agree that auto insurance is out of sight. However, one must consider the exposure to risk. Your auto gets driven every day (in most cases) around a billion other hacks talking or texting on their cell phones after a few beers at lunch or after work. Most automobile accidents involve another vehicle which will almost certainly evolve litigation.

Most GA aircraft are actually flown very little and most accidents do not involve more than one aircraft. So if you look at it as $/hour of risk exposure, aircraft insurance is in most cases quite high relative to auto insurance.

Just my take on it.

Speaking of exposure to risk. Lowflybye, is there a certain number of hours per year flown where my insurance provider will start to increase my premium?

Matt-

The short answer is no.

The more you fly, the more proficient you are considered. If you only fly 10 hours per year you are actually considered a higher risk than one who flies 1000 hours per year. The thought process is that although there is less exposure "time" with the 10 hour pilot, he is a higher risk risk during that short time due to his not being proficient. More of a chance for him to make a simple mistake becouse it is not second nature...forgetting to switch fuel tanks or put the rollers down before landing is common.

Are there any facts to back this thought process? Not that I am aware of, but I am personally more comfortable flying with someone who does it more that 10 hours per year, aren't you?

Typically the underwriters would prefer that you fly more than 50 hours per year. If you drop down to the 25 or less range they may require an annual Flight Review to help maintain proficiency.

-Low