Toying with the idea of a new T206H or a T182T and decided to get some insurance opinions. Being a new pilot, I suspect it will not be an easy process on a new pricey bird. One of the questions they had:

Of course you'll only land on paved public runways with this plane, correct?

Me: Uhhhhhh, no. I will be landing on remote grass strips too.

Well, you'll use good and prudent judgement when doing so, correct?

Me: If you insist.....

What else can you say? Geez... Has this ever been an issue for others?

Thanks,
Spindrift

Spindrift wrote:Toying with the idea of a new T206H or a T182T and decided to get some insurance opinions. Being a new pilot, I suspect it will not be an easy process on a new pricey bird. One of the questions they had:

Of course you'll only land on paved public runways with this plane, correct?

Me: Uhhhhhh, no. I will be landing on remote grass strips too.

Well, you'll use good and prudent judgement when doing so, correct?

Me: If you insist.....

What else can you say? Geez... Has this ever been an issue for others?

Thanks,
Spindrift

Nope not so far. FWIW, I go through AOPA. I figure if there's a windsock, or it's on a chart, or another airplane sitting there it must be an airport.

C ya, Bub

I specificly asked if off airport landings is OK on the 182B and he said no sweat. Land anywhere you want. PM me if you want and I will give you my agents name and #.

Tim

Most policies do not exclude off airport landings...that is more of an urban legend. Although it can be found on some policies it is not the norm.

As for grass strips, these exclusions are even more rare. As long as the aircraft is based on a paved strip the grass airports do not usually even become a question.

FYI - if it can be found on a sectional then it is considered an airstrip and is not "off airport"

lowflybye wrote:Most policies do not exclude off airport landings...that is more of an urban legend. Although it can be found on some policies it is not the norm.

As for grass strips, these exclusions are even more rare. As long as the aircraft is based on a paved strip the grass airports do not usually even become a question.

FYI - if it can be found on a sectional then it is considered an airstrip and is not "off airport"

Man, do I agree. It would be based at RDM, a tower controlled, paved dual 7K ft runways with an ILS, what more do they want?

I'll see what they come back and say.
Thanks!
Spindrift

An insurance policy I once head contained an "off-airport exclusion", I think it was thru the old AIG or thru AUA. I asked about it, basically I wasn't covered landing at other than an FAA-recognized airport except in the case of a *declared* emergency. That line was to keep people from piling up landing out int he weeds and then claiming "carb ice", "running funny", etc.
There are lots of FAA-recognized airports that are not shown on the sectionals for various reasons- usually the owners wanting to avoid liability or unwanted visitors. Check for airport information by name, location, etc. on airnav.com.

Eric

I just renewed my 182L with CS@A, and am very happy. My rate went down,(Well under a $1000 a year). So far so good.

P.S. My agent is a regular on this website.

Dan

zero one victor,

Nope--if a runway is "FAA recognized" it will be on a chart. Now, it may have a big R there, but it WILL be on a chart.

The only real advantage to getting the FAA to "recognize" a private strip is to provide some level of assistance if someone tries to install a 500 foot tower right off the end of your airport.

MTV

DSD wrote:I just renewed my 182L with CS@A, and am very happy. My rate went down,(Well under a $1000 a year). So far so good.

P.S. My agent is a regular on this website.

Dan

mtv wrote:...Nope--if a runway is "FAA recognized" it will be on a chart. Now, it may have a big R there, but it WILL be on a chart.
The only real advantage to getting the FAA to "recognize" a private strip is to provide some level of assistance if someone tries to install a 500 foot tower right off the end of your airport. MTV

Not so, Mike- I could cite you several examples of private airports near here that do not appear on any charts-- WA42, WN49, WN60, & 80WA, just to mention the first few that come to mind.
I agree about the real advantage you mentioned. A friend has a backyard grass strip that he is in the process of getting registered with the FAA in order to give it some sort of legitimacy if and when somebody wants to try to shut him down, or build too close. I believe that he has requested that it not be charted, to avoid that "I've never landed at that one" type of visit by strangers (which is often accompanied by a low and loud fly-by, always popular with the neighbors).

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:

mtv wrote:...Nope--if a runway is "FAA recognized" it will be on a chart. Now, it may have a big R there, but it WILL be on a chart.
The only real advantage to getting the FAA to "recognize" a private strip is to provide some level of assistance if someone tries to install a 500 foot tower right off the end of your airport. MTV

Not so, Mike- I could cite you several examples of private airports near here that do not appear on any charts-- WA42, WN49, WN60, & 80WA, just to mention the first few that come to mind.


Eric

Having an FAA designated identifier as you have given examples of would also qualify the strips as an airport and would not constitute an "off airport" landing. This would be the case even if they are not listed on a sectional. You can find all you want to know about them on AirNav.

A sectional is just one of the easier ways to to determine an "airport", but not the only way.

mtv

You are not correct. When I had my runway registered and recognized by the FAA, they told me that it may or may not be on the sectional. It would depend on whether they thought it was needed on the chart and how many others were near. There may have been other reasons not to chart it. They did put mine on the chart.

flyer

By the way LFB I took to heart what you said about going home from the dance with who brung ya... I bound the insurance yesterday with Global for the 2200 bucks as opposed to Aerospaces 1600....What the hell it's only money and I gotta go get a new van now too....

iceman wrote:By the way LFB I took to heart what you said about going home from the dance with who brung ya... I bound the insurance yesterday with Global for the 2200 bucks as opposed to Aerospaces 1600....What the hell it's only money and I gotta go get a new van now too....

I would say that was the best decision...$600 difference is a small price compared to what Global paid out for your claim I am sure. If they handled it quickly and satisfactorily then they deserve at least one more year of your patronage. I still question why Aerospace knowingly quoted a risk with an open claim on it...that is not normal.

lowflybye wrote:.....Having an FAA designated identifier as you have given examples of would also qualify the strips as an airport and would not constitute an "off airport" landing. This would be the case even if they are not listed on a sectional. You can find all you want to know about them on AirNav. .....

That was exactly my point. What's funny is that the "best" (aka easiest) private airstrip around here is not FAA recognized ( yet--it's the one I referred to earlier), but there are several others that are recognized and even charted that are quite marginal & not suitable for the average pilot.
BTW, while I'm not an insurance professional, I believe that the dreaded "off-airport exclusion" may not be as rare as you say. Just looked through my current Old Republic Insurance Company policy, bought through Travers & Assoc: "Off airport landing exclusion: it is agreed that coverage provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed,designated and operated as an airport. Unless such operations are the result of a declared emergency." Ugh!

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote:

lowflybye wrote:Most policies do not exclude off airport landings...that is more of an urban legend. Although it can be found on some policies it is not the norm.

BTW, while I'm not an insurance professional, I believe that the dreaded "off-airport exclusion" may not be as rare as you say. Just looked through my current Old Republic Insurance Company policy, bought through Travers & Assoc: "Off airport landing exclusion: it is agreed that coverage provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed,designated and operated as an airport. Unless such operations are the result of a declared emergency." Ugh!
Eric

The off airport exclusion is not common in the lower 48 with most carriers, however there are some that selectively add the exclusion to tailwheels that they deem "bush planes" and are located in an area known for back country strips. Old Republic is better known as Phoenix Aviation Underwriters.

I thought I had posted this on the BCP forum, but alas it was on the Maule forum...

lowflybye wrote:USAIG, Global, and AIG are pretty much apples to apples comparisons with the exception of the deductibles...USAIG is Nil / Nil all the time whereas AIG will be $100 / $100 and Global will be $50 / $250. If you are an EAA member GLobal will waive the deductibles and increase the medical to $10,000. Phoenix is a good company as well as Aerospace, but Aerospace is not an A+ rated company as the others are so take that into account.

Watch out for Phoenix as they "selectively" add an off airport exclusion to tailwheel policies and Global specifically excludes skis.

(Basing your aircraft on)Turf strips are not a problem with any of them. Private strips should not pose a problem either provided it is 2,000 ft or greater. Global will not touch it for less than 3,000 feet...even for a J-3??? I have questioned them on it numerous times.

The entire thread can be found here: http://maulepilots.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=504

As a general rule the exclusion is not on most policies...if it shows up in your policy then it was probably added "a la carte" by the underwriter.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:53 pm

An insurance policy I once head contained an "off-airport exclusion", I think it was thru the old AIG or thru AUA. I asked about it, basically I wasn't covered landing at other than an FAA-recognized airport except in the case of a *declared* emergency. That line was to keep people from piling up landing out int he weeds and then claiming "carb ice", "running funny", etc.
There are lots of FAA-recognized airports that are not shown on the sectionals for various reasons- usually the owners wanting to avoid liability or unwanted visitors. Check for airport information by name, location, etc. on airnav.com.

Eric

I agree with Eric about AIG and the "off-airport exclusion" because of some of the "cow pastures" airstrips. When I changed insurance carriers I questioned about this....no problem especially if it was on a sectional. It is good to check..might save problems later on.

zero.one.victor wrote:

lowflybye wrote:"Off airport landing exclusion: it is agreed that coverage provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed,designated and operated as an airport. Unless such operations are the result of a declared emergency." Ugh!

Eric

Well that's a BS exclusion if I ever saw one. How about you're flying along a 1000' and the engine quits (heading into Pearson (KVUO) under Charlie airspace one flies at 1000'). Not a lot of time to be declaring an emergency and on a CTAF channel to boot. Does that count? Flip frequency? What? I'm landing here! How about an engine fire that fries the electronics? How about just being freaked out enough one forgets to make the call? Oh right, that's on the emergency checklist. Make emergency call so insurance will cover.

Sounds like a good reason to pass on that insurance policy regardless of where one plans to spend their time.

GroundLooper wrote:

zero.one.victor wrote:

lowflybye wrote:"Off airport landing exclusion: it is agreed that coverage provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed,designated and operated as an airport. Unless such operations are the result of a declared emergency." Ugh!

Eric

I have not ever seen an exclusion that stipulates it must be a "declared emergency", but that does not mean that one does not or did not exist at one time.

Anytime there is an emergency landing off airport it would be covered whether or not it was "declared". The off airport exclusion is only there to prevent planned landings off of a designated airport. It is simply a way for the underwriter to limit some of his risk...lets not get too crazy with the conspiracy theories on this one.

By the way...Phoenix (Old Republic) just completed a complete re-write / wording update of their entire pleasure & business policy about 3 or 4 months ago. If you have one of their policies you may notice some wording changes and clarifications from policies written prior to that date. There were some wording issues such as you mentioned above that were "fixed" in the new wording.

I don't think that clause is there to beat anyone out of coverage for a genuine emergency. I do think it is there to try and prevent people from landing somewhere that they may not be up to, and then crying "emergency!" when they bend their airplane.
I notice that AUA touts "no off-airport exclusion"for their EAA/VAA insurance program in their ads in Vintage Airplane magazine. I just got a quote from AOPA that did not come with an off-airport exclusion.

Eric