Karmutzen wrote:

So out of every thousand GA pilots that each fly 1000 hours in their lifetime, just six will ever have an IFSD (or engine failure for whatever reason). I'll take those odds.

Well, I had one last year, but was lucky enough to be on downwind for my lake and was able to put it down without incident. Even though there was no damage, it made me glad I was insured.

I think MTV can tell you about cranks breaking (I think that was the issue) when there is no place to put it down.

Karmutzen wrote:Why not consider flying without hull insurance? I fly an older Citabria and do my share of off airport flying. Recently taught my son to fly in the same airplane (I'm a CFI), and admit I thought about it before sending him out solo at 22 hours. Now he's got hundreds of hours in it and never had an issue. Read Kathryn's Report on all the GA crashes and their causes, I don't want to be subsidizing bad pilots that load up with hull instead of common sense.

1M liability on our three airplanes, costs $400/yr. total.

You don't always have to be flying to have a claim. Several yeas ago the 150 I owned at the time was hit at the field while tied down by a guy with a model airplane. It bent the prop and mangled the cowl. Both needed to be replaced. Of course he had no insurance. It was covered under my policy.

Pete

This was an interesting conversation,
I've never heard insurance prices compared as a percentage of hull value before.
I think prices for both hull insurance and to some extent liability coverage have a large number of factors.
Pilot's experience, pilot's record, statistics on the type of airplane, region, based airport, etc etc.
As pointed out, Alaska pilots tend to pay a big premium compared to those in the lower 48.
Also some airplanes (I've heard Maules, for example, and I imagine Supercubs these days also)
have a record of a lot of crashes due to where they tend to operate.
A lot of amphib drivers unfortunately try to land on water with the wheels down,
so those rates are way high.

So I would say it's a waste of time trying to second guess what your insurance is gonna cost.
Call an agent or two, let the underwriters punch the data into their computers, & see what comes out.

hotrod180 wrote:Also some airplanes (I've heard Maules, for example, and I imagine Supercubs these days also)
have a record of a lot of crashes due to where they tend to operate.

This comment made me laugh. Several years ago, when I did not have a lot of float time, I got talking to a Falcon agent at the Alaska Aviation Gathering (FedEx hangar) and was expressing my concern about insurability. He said he thought I'd be fine, "as long as I didn't do something like buy a Maule."

So, yes, a good agent can really help you formulate your aircraft choice before you have your heart set on a particular type.

pburns wrote:

Karmutzen wrote:Why not consider flying without hull insurance? I fly an older Citabria and do my share of off airport flying. Recently taught my son to fly in the same airplane (I'm a CFI), and admit I thought about it before sending him out solo at 22 hours. Now he's got hundreds of hours in it and never had an issue. Read Kathryn's Report on all the GA crashes and their causes, I don't want to be subsidizing bad pilots that load up with hull instead of common sense.

1M liability on our three airplanes, costs $400/yr. total.

You don't always have to be flying to have a claim. Several yeas ago the 150 I owned at the time was hit at the field while tied down by a guy with a model airplane. It bent the prop and mangled the cowl. Both needed to be replaced. Of course he had no insurance. It was covered under my policy.

Pete

Other considerations would be theft, fire (recently a possible issue here in Oregon), flooding, and unforeseen events like that mentioned above that make the hull insurance nice to have. I am not sure if you could apply a not in motion rider to have those conditions covered with a liability only policy. I would consider not having the Hull insurance if the value of the airplane weren't so high. My friend with a really clean C120 has liability only insurance but the hull value of his aircraft is about 25K tops. He is a low time pilot and it makes sense to carry liability only insurance until he builds time. I believe he pays 400/year. A 150K hull for my airplane would represent a significant loss for me if my airplane were totaled.



Josh

Insurance is the biggest waste of money in the world.....
until you need it.
Then it's a godsend.
I could take the hit of losing my 180 if I was uninsured & totalled it,
but I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

Aviation is managing risk to your comfort zone, and you choose how much money to get to that comfort. Insurance, BRS parachute, traffic avoidance, strobes, helmet, Nomex suit and gloves .....

Do a future value calculation of annually buying hull insurance vs investing the money elsewhere. How many years before you’ve already paid for another 180?

https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/artic ... ormula.php

I have had “not in motion” policy’s over the years, they make sense for some situations. For me the big worry was hangar fire or snow load collapse.

Kurt

Karmutzen wrote:..... Do a future value calculation of annually buying hull insurance vs investing the money elsewhere. How many years before you’ve already paid for another 180? ....

About 50 years....so if I wipe one out before then,
I'll have beaten the house!!

hotrod180 wrote:Insurance is the biggest waste of money in the world.....
until you need it.
Then it's a godsend.
I could take the hit of losing my 180 if I was uninsured & totalled it,
but I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

Its definitely something to think about. My feeling is that even if I could take the hit I know that there would be no new airplane - so insurance is worth it for me now. I have always self insured where I can. I remember my dad saying to me as young kid that when he totalled his Stinson he just sat in the grass thinking that there would never be another airplane. Saddest thing he ever said to me.

daedaluscan wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:Insurance is the biggest waste of money in the world.....
until you need it.
Then it's a godsend.
I could take the hit of losing my 180 if I was uninsured & totalled it,
but I sure wouldn't be happy about it.

Its definitely something to think about. My feeling is that even if I could take the hit I know that there would be no new airplane - so insurance is worth it for me now. I have always self insured where I can. I remember my dad saying to me as young kid that when he totalled his Stinson he just sat in the grass thinking that there would never be another airplane. Saddest thing he ever said to me.

My gramps bought his first airplane in 1949. He told me back then insurance rates were such that he could buy a replacement airplane every 6 years. He flew uninsured for 20yrs but never saved any money toward airplane replacement so when he wrecked the airplane there was no money to replace it. My dad bought his first airplane, thought the same thing my gramps did but this time the plane got wrecked 6mo after purchase. I choose not to fly uninsured because I know I won’t be putting those saved premiums in the bank.

Did you guys see that video from this summer of a guys gorgeous C180 get totaled by some dude that ran a car though the guy’s hangar and into the plane.

whee wrote:
Did you guys see that video from this summer of a guys gorgeous C180 get totaled by some dude that ran a car though the guy’s hangar and into the plane.

I think that was Bo's 180. A super clean plane that he was very attached to. sad day.

1.8% on a Super Cub, 350TT 320TW.