I've been with AVEMCO for more than five years now, which includes my time with a local flying club. Short story:

One of our club's members hops in one of our planes (small taildragger - type undisclosed to protect the guilty). He has no TW endorsement. He does however, have a buddy who is a CFI in the backseat. They take off for some pattern work out of the local airport which has parallel runways, one 4000' paved, the other 2000' gravel. On one approach, he touches down, and for whatever reason departs the runway surface at a 45 degree angle, tears through the infield towards the perimeter road (behind which there is a berm and a perimeter fence. To shorten up the story, he hits the berm alongside the road, pops into the air, and pancakes the plane on the berm next to the fence. Fortunately, no one is scratched, but the plan did suffer a prop strike, struck a wingtip, collapsed one of the landing gear struts, and was generally not a happy plane.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the CFI in the back seat was a) not current, b) had no current BFI, and c) had no current medical.

We were insured by AVEMCO, and they had every right to deny coverage for the accident. Despite all of this, they paid for the repair of the airplane. And when the original shop that we had placed the plane in screwed up some of the work - they paid for the re-work at another shop!

Fast forward to today - yeah, I'm insured by AVEMCO. And the rates I was quoted for $1M smooth full hull coverage ($60K) when I (low time AK TW pilot, no HHP endorsement) got my plane are as follows:

'53 180 - $5,600
'57 182 - $3,300

One year later my premiums are down around $2,700, and as I continue to build time and continue to take ASI courses (10% discount), with additional discounts for time in type, time in ac, instrument ratings, etc. And I have to love their service. I do say that I'd be orgasmic (yeah, I'm easy) with rates like these:

182B: 1000$/yr
1958 C180: 1700$/yr
M4: 2650$yr
M5: 2650$yr

My $.02

Kinda surprised that some of the rates you guys are paying, I figured they would be a little lower. The rates were just ballpark figures to help me figure out what planes I should shop for. I forgot to ask for a quote on a Bearhawk. I had hoped the rate on the maule would drop a bunch once I had some time but from what I'm seeing here it doesn't look that way.

Like I said I think the Maule fits my mission best but the 182/180 would also work. The 182 fits 90% but I think I'll always be wishing for that last 10%. The bearhawk would be just as good as the maule but dang they are pricey...and I imagine the insurance rate is right up there with a maule.

Good info guys, thanks.

whee wrote:The 182 fits 90% but I think I'll always be wishing for that last 10%.

I do that all the time too. But there are those times every year that I'm happy I'm in a 182 rather than a 180 as well.

whee wrote:Like I said I think the Maule fits my mission best but the 182/180 would also work. The 182 fits 90% but I think I'll always be wishing for that last 10%. The bearhawk would be just as good as the maule but dang they are pricey...and I imagine the insurance rate is right up there with a maule.

I agree - there is no need to compromise. You should get what suits you best.

Re: pricey, I reckon you get what you pay for.

whee wrote:Like I said I think the Maule fits my mission best but the 182/180 would also work. The 182 fits 90% but I think I'll always be wishing for that last 10%. The bearhawk would be just as good as the maule but dang they are pricey...and I imagine the insurance rate is right up there with a maule.

Good info guys, thanks.

Frankly, I think you're fooling yourself if you think ANY of these airplanes are going to meet 100 % of what you'll want to do. Comparing the Maule with those Cessnas is not an apples to apples comparison, and no, I am not bad mouthing either.

The 235 Maules have great takeoff and landing performance, better than the Cessnas, no doubt. But, with the Maule, you'll be trading cabin load for gas in some cases. Remember, you need to get INTO the back country, but you also need to get back OUT of the back country, and have enough cabin load to carry all your stuff AND enough gas to get in and out, sometimes with a pretty serious cushion due to weather and poking around some to get home. The Cessnas offer great fuel range WITH a pretty big cabin load as well.

That's not the only difference, either. Unless you're a real tailwheel hero, you're going to find that 10 % (or more) where you won't go because you're in a tail dragger, just as you might not go into that 10% that you'd rather not take a nosewheel airplane. It's called WIND.

For many years, I flew Cessna 185s at work. You couldn't convince me that there was any other machine for the boonies. Then I (involuntarily) got switched to a 206 (a well equipped one, actually), and pretty soon I was wondering why I'd ever thought the 185 was a "back country" airplane......

If you find one airplane type that will HONESTLY do 90 % of what you'd like to do in an airplane, buy it.

All good airplanes, but look more carefully at the limitations/strengths of the airplanes as compared to one another. Seems to me you've not really done that yet.

MTV

A recent quote: simple liability, $1,000,000.00 property damage, $5,000.00 personal injury, for $431.00 per year. 5% off that if AOPA member. I told them up front I do a lot of off airport flying, and my home strip is 400' long.

Does this mean I'd be covered if landing on a mountain side and starting a fire (for instance.....) and got a bill for the repression? Or would they claim foul as it was "not a real airport"? How about landing on a gravel bar, and running into a parked drift boat and running over a bunch of graphite rods (just saying) covered or not? How about.... you get the idea, are they ready to pay up if I made a claim that was other then scraping the wing tip of another plane at a real airport? Something way out of the ordinary in other words. If so, that seems like a pretty good deal. But I would hate to pay it and then find I was not covered when I made a claim. All my other insurance I now carry at least I know where I stand claim wise.

courierguy wrote:A recent quote: simple liability, $1,000,000.00 property damage, $5,000.00 personal injury, for $431.00 per year. 5% off that if AOPA member. I told them up front I do a lot of off airport flying, and my home strip is 400' long.

Does this mean I'd be covered if landing on a mountain side and starting a fire (for instance.....) and got a bill for the repression? Or would they claim foul as it was "not a real airport"? How about landing on a gravel bar, and running into a parked drift boat and running over a bunch of graphite rods (just saying) covered or not? How about.... you get the idea, are they ready to pay up if I made a claim that was other then scraping the wing tip of another plane at a real airport? Something way out of the ordinary in other words. If so, that seems like a pretty good deal. But I would hate to pay it and then find I was not covered when I made a claim. All my other insurance I now carry at least I know where I stand claim wise.

Look at your policy look for "exclusions" see if there are any specific exclusions or "specified perils". If you have any questions then ask your agent, take/make notes if you're worried about it. Next question after you've heard all the good stuff you want to hear like "yes you are covered for off airport landings" is "and you carry errors and omissions insurance" I've had insurance companies start with the well I don't think you're covered for that, a simple call to your agent with the hey you remember that discussion? And a reminder that you said and hows your E&O coverage has brought back the "I remember and you're covered".

What ever happened to that guy, I cant remember his handle but he did a bunch of those aviation insurance info vids? Found it LOWFLYBY
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9405&p=125781&hilit=insurance+videos#p125781

Glidergeek wrote:
What ever happened to that guy, I cant remember his handle but he did a bunch of those aviation insurance info vids? Found it LOWFLYBY

I hear tale that he is still around and terrorizing the friendly skies as often as possible.

I did about 25 of those videos to answer the frequently asked questions on aviation insurance policies. The Youtube playlist for the Hangar Flying with Chris videos can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFDF1AFBB2DFC7E3D

I got out of the aviation insurance business after 12 years in order to chase my dream of business ownership so I have not had time to be on the forum as much as I once was. I will still help answer questions as much as I have time to do, but my participation will be a bit more limited than it was before...at least for a little while.

I sure want to say thank you for the time you spent putting those videos up and responding to the what if questions we have thrown at you over the years. I wish you the best of luck on your new business venture. Don't forget the value of tapping into our own millennium's worth of wide business expertise to help you along in yours.

dirt

Couple of thoughts:

I just checked my Avemco coverage, since it has gone down each year. Currently costs $965/year, $75,000 hull, $300 deductible; $100,000 bodily injury, $1 mil property damage; $1000 med for each occupant.

I agree that finding any airplane that is 100% what you want for 100% of the time is pretty unlikely. If you can just find one that is what you want most of the time, that's great. Or as is often said, mission first. My airplane suits me, and I have no plans or desires for a different one; but it wouldn't suit a lot of other folks:

I usually fly alone or with my dog, occasionally with a friend and my dog, occasional Angel Flights with 2 or 3 passengers (one of the 3 usually being a tiny kid).
My flights, except to OSH each year, are rarely longer than 2 hour legs.
I go IFR at times.
I fly into the mountains sometimes, typically with just my dog, sometimes with a friend and my dog, and then there's the annual Marble fly-in with me, dog, and camping gear.
I don't need a lot of speed, although the longer Angel Flights and the OSH trip would be nice to have more than I have. Otherwise, 115 knots works out OK for most of my flights.

Sometimes I'd like more power, sometimes more speed, sometimes more load carrying capacity, sometimes more room. But those aren't handicaps so much as simply restrictions.

But as they say, your experience will vary.

Cary