1SeventyZ wrote:

gbflyer wrote: We were paying $14K annually...Now have Avemco, $70K hull on an old 206, $3200 annually, private use.

$14K!! Ouch!

He is in Alaska...

mtv wrote:So far, I've found it hard to beat AVEMCO. No off airport exclusions. May not be the best prices for floats. No exclusions or additional fees for skis.

MTV

I started out with Avemco 4 years ago when I got the Bo. They were only $100 more per year but only required 10 hours dual thus ending up far cheaper than anybody else. I renew my insurance every August and just sent in a check to Travers, the agent I've had for the second year now. The hull value numbers I've left the same these four years and Travers is $1500, Avemco wanted $2350, both numbers for 4 seats in my six seat plane. Avemco was similarly not competitive last year. No off airport exclusions with either company. I really only sent in my quote request to Avemco because they were offering a free hat, I knew they weren't in the ball park.

gbflyer wrote:We had an off-airport claim with London back in '02, didn't have any problems collecting for it. Not sure what was excluded or included, but it was a part 91 lodge support policy in AK. We were paying $14K annually for it with $70K hull on a C180. They were good people to deal with.

Now have Avemco, $70K hull on an old 206, $3200 annually, private use.

gb

That must be the Alaska premium, down here a similar value 206 would cost around $1700 for six seats.

Bonanza Man wrote:..............
The hull value numbers I've left the same these four years and Travers is $1500, Avemco wanted $2350, both numbers for 4 seats in my six seat plane........

How do you get 4 seat coverage in a 6 seat airplane? I'm surpirsed that the insurance folks would do something like that. If you were to crash with 6 people on board, how do they determine who's covered & who's screwed-- draw straws?

Eric

How do you get 4 seat coverage in a 6 seat airplane? I'm surpirsed that the insurance folks would do something like that. If you were to crash with 6 people on board, how do they determine who's covered & who's screwed-- draw straws?

Eric[/quote]

When I owned a C-206 the insurance company was willing to insure it as a 4 place aircraft as long as I removed the 2 rear seats. It was a sweet deal as I wanted the extra cargo space, I never flew with those seats full anyway, and I got a pretty good discount. The insurance company was more than willing to accomodate the request when I made it. My carrier is Global Aerospace; Zanette Aircraft Insurance in San Carlos is the broker I use. As for how good the insurance is I can't say; 45 years and counting with no accidents, incidents or claims.. gawd, I'm no doubt doomed now that I've put that in writing

hotrod150 wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:..............
The hull value numbers I've left the same these four years and Travers is $1500, Avemco wanted $2350, both numbers for 4 seats in my six seat plane........

How do you get 4 seat coverage in a 6 seat airplane? I'm surpirsed that the insurance folks would do something like that. If you were to crash with 6 people on board, how do they determine who's covered & who's screwed-- draw straws?

Eric

No idea how that would work but it probably wouldn't be good. If I wanted seats 5 and 6 in the plane, which I never will, they would be $75 each per seat per year.

Bonanza Man wrote:

hotrod150 wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:..............
The hull value numbers I've left the same these four years and Travers is $1500, Avemco wanted $2350, both numbers for 4 seats in my six seat plane........

How do you get 4 seat coverage in a 6 seat airplane? I'm surpirsed that the insurance folks would do something like that. If you were to crash with 6 people on board, how do they determine who's covered & who's screwed-- draw straws?

Eric

No idea how that would work but it probably wouldn't be good. If I wanted seats 5 and 6 in the plane, which I never will, they would be $75 each per seat per year.

Depends on the company...some companies (London) will deny coverage all togather based on your operations other than what was agreed to in the policy ... 'This policy will not apply under any coverage (this includes your hull coverage) if the total number of passangers carried in the aircraft at the time of the accident or damage exceeds the declared maximum stated in ythe policy."

Other companies will only pay up to the number of seats that are insured....draw straws...flip a coin...ultimately it will probably wind up being up to a court to decide.

Just don't do it...its not saving you much to insure 2 less seats if you are still going to use them.

gbflyer wrote:Now have Avemco, $70K hull on an old 206, $3200 annually, private use.

gb

That's why I'm with AOPA agency. My wheel 206 at $245K, 1 million smooth, part 91, is $3100. No exclusions.

I'm also insured or four seats only.

Kenny wrote:That's why I'm with AOPA agency. My wheel 206 at $245K, 1 million smooth, part 91, is $3100. No exclusions.

Fellows...all the underwriters have exclusions there is no such thing as No Exclusions If you are with AOPA then chances are your insured with AIG and carry $100 deductibles. AIG has a full page of exclusions in their policy wording...most are standard on all policies, but it does still have exclusions.

You should all make a habit of reading your policies to become familiar with the coverages and exclusions therin. Would you buy a $3,100 television to watch the superbowl and never turn it on to make sure it works before the big game?

Used to be with AIG (Travers took over) for the 170. When I went with the '05 7GCBC Travers was higher than any of the others I tried. I went with Avemco because of the better rate and no off airport exclusion.
Hull 120K, $1623 for the year.
HC

Also, Kenny, note that that guy with the 206 under AVEMCO is in ALASKA.

Move your plane to ALASKA and get a quote on it. And, good luck. Have some toilet paper handy while you're making that phone call.

Alaska insurance is HUGELY expensive.

MTV

Yep, in AK the rates are nearly double. And, if you read the NTSB reports you'll see why. It isn't quite as bad now, but as few as 5 or 6 years ago there was at least one accident daily during the summer months.

I shudder to think what a $250K bird would cost up here to insure, privately or otherwise. To my knowledge there are two choices: AVEMCO and London Aviation Underwriters. AVEMCO doesn't do commercial or lodge support, hence the rates. It was sure enough to make us holler "uncle" and give up the guiding.

gb

Actually, the accident rates are a LITTLE higher in Alaska than in the Lower 48. The reason, however, that there are frequent accidents is because there are a LOT more airplanes, and those airplanes get used a LOT more frequently in AK.

So, while the accident rate does in fact increase insurance premiums, note that the liability premiums aren't that much higher. It's hull coverage that's really out of sight, in fact, in my experience, much more than twice as high as lower 48 rates, more like four times the lower 48 rate. A large part of that reason is the COST OF RECOVERY of damaged airplanes, due to the places people take airplanes.

Have an engine failure in the lower 48 and, in much of that part of the world, there's a road or field you can land on, with only minor damage to the plane. And, recovery is pretty straightforward and inexpensive.

In Alaska, odds are that if you park the plane somewhere, it will cost the insurance company a helicopter flight to retrieve it. And, most federal lands in AK require that damaged airplanes be removed, even if there's little or no salvage value.

That is really one of the big reasons that hull coverage is so expensive in Alaska.

MTV

mtv wrote:Actually, the accident rates are a LITTLE higher in Alaska than in the Lower 48. The reason, however, that there are frequent accidents is because there are a LOT more airplanes, and those airplanes get used a LOT more frequently in AK.

So, while the accident rate does in fact increase insurance premiums, note that the liability premiums aren't that much higher. It's hull coverage that's really out of sight, in fact, in my experience, much more than twice as high as lower 48 rates, more like four times the lower 48 rate. A large part of that reason is the COST OF RECOVERY of damaged airplanes, due to the places people take airplanes.

Have an engine failure in the lower 48 and, in much of that part of the world, there's a road or field you can land on, with only minor damage to the plane. And, recovery is pretty straightforward and inexpensive.

In Alaska, odds are that if you park the plane somewhere, it will cost the insurance company a helicopter flight to retrieve it. And, most federal lands in AK require that damaged airplanes be removed, even if there's little or no salvage value.

That is really one of the big reasons that hull coverage is so expensive in Alaska.

MTV

Makes since to me!

patrol guy wrote:"If the strip is listed on a map".......... You guys are leaving out the other 50% of the strips, not to mention, the rest of the earth that you might like to land at.

Now how was I to know? I took off for this strip that I seen on the chart in southern Ohio using my rusty pilotage skills and at what looked like the right heading and course I found what looked to be a couple of runways mowed on a hill top. How was I to know that I missed the charted strip by a half mile. Now you are telling me that I was in the wrong place.

BTracy wrote:

patrol guy wrote:"If the strip is listed on a map".......... You guys are leaving out the other 50% of the strips, not to mention, the rest of the earth that you might like to land at.

Now how was I to know? I took off for this strip that I seen on the chart in southern Ohio using my rusty pilotage skills and at what looked like the right heading and course I found what looked to be a couple of runways mowed on a hill top. How was I to know that I missed the charted strip by a half mile. Now you are telling me that I was in the wrong place.