Wow, I had no idea that aircraft insurance was so inexpensive. I just assumed that it was much higher. I have about 42 hrs, and am getting ready for my check ride in a few weeks. I have been toying with the idea of buying a C152 to play around in. I thought, with my low hours, I would have an out of sight premium.

qmdv wrote:
Love folks that take shots at big business. They are the easiest to go after cus we have no idea as how they work. Pick on big oil, big drug companies, big insurance and big what ever. Our problems cannot be of our own doing so blame sombody else.

My favorite now are the folks that bought a 300 K house with the income of a McDonalds burger flipper and are now blaming big banking. You knew you could never make a payment but signed up anyway.

tim

Yeah. Those people who put themselves in those situations are just denying their culpability for getting themselves into debt. However, the recent failures of large insurance companies, brokerages and banks was due to too much high risk investing fueled by greed and corruption and a self serving lack of regulation. The US government bailed them out if I'm not mistaken. You may not understand "big business" and assume that others don't either but I do and Lowflyby's answer lacked an element of the truth and I felt compelled to make some clarifications. I hit my bullshit limit. I apologize too Lowflyby I need to be more tolerant of bullshit. I am going to get counciling.

obxbushpilot wrote: You may not understand "big business" and assume that others don't either but I do and Lowflyby's answer lacked an element of the truth and I felt compelled to make some clarifications. I hit my bullshit limit. I apologize too Lowflyby I need to be more tolerant of bullshit. I am going to get counciling.

Man your life must suck to have so must distrust and cinicism. What did I ever do to you anyway? I believe that I sufficiently proved my honesty in response to your challenging accusations that I was lieing about the low rates and recent quotes....sorry if I let you down by not falling into your personal vendetta against the crooked lier stereotype in your mind.

What do I have to gain by wasting my time bullshitting you? I can tell you the truth and get the same reaction from you while helping others out in the process who have legitimate questions and are looking for answers.

lowflybye wrote:

denalipilot wrote:
I'm curious if valuation of amateur-built and experimental is cut-and-dry, when compared with, say, the nationwide fleet of C-172s. I suspect that the decision to total or not requires more of an expert appraisal in each and every case, and that a fair settlement may require more advocacy on the part of the owner-builder, and their broker?

-DP

The insurance company can total an aircraft for any amount of damage, but they must pay you the agreed value as stated on the policy to do so...minus the deductible of course. They will usually work with the owner as much as possible, but it is ultimately their decision.

I'm not sure that was what he was asking.

It strikes me there is a big difference between typical aviation insurance and many other consumer insurance products. In aviation the insured value is agreed upon in advance and correct me if I'm wrong but rarely is there quibbling over the totaled amount. Or loss of value/repair $ for that matter. Maybe for the very expensive birds. But for most of us if we insure it for X and underwriting signs the policy then we will get X if it is totaled. Some people are certainly unhappy when the company totals something when they think it can be repaired, sure, but that is usually IMO when someone has either tried to game the system by underinsuring it or hasn't updated the hull value based on the market in a while.

Contrast that with homeowners or auto insurance. Doesn't matter how much you insure it FOR, what you will get is what THEY say it is worth. If you don't agree don't forget the part of the contract where you agreed to private arbitration instead of legal action.

So if the insurance industry is crooked then aviation underwriting is certainly less so.

I've always regarded any type of insurance as a betting game.
The insurance companies are betting that nothing, or not much, will happen to your plane. (Most of the time, for most of us they are right.)
We're betting that something will, or just might, happen to our plane... (Or why else would we buy insurance??)
The House always wins, in the big picture, eh? But that's not crooked; just smart betting.

I still buy insurance...

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
It strikes me there is a big difference between typical aviation insurance and many other consumer insurance products. In aviation the insured value is agreed upon in advance and correct me if I'm wrong but rarely is there quibbling over the totaled amount. Or loss of value/repair $ for that matter. Maybe for the very expensive birds. But for most of us if we insure it for X and underwriting signs the policy then we will get X if it is totaled. Some people are certainly unhappy when the company totals something when they think it can be repaired, sure, but that is usually IMO when someone has either tried to game the system by underinsuring it or hasn't updated the hull value based on the market in a while.

Contrast that with homeowners or auto insurance. Doesn't matter how much you insure it FOR, what you will get is what THEY say it is worth. If you don't agree don't forget the part of the contract where you agreed to private arbitration instead of legal action.

You are correct. By the way, most policies have an automatic value increase. endorsement for up to X% of the insured value in case you made some upgrades and failed to update the policy before a loss.

lowflybye wrote:

obxbushpilot wrote: You may not understand "big business" and assume that others don't either but I do and Lowflyby's answer lacked an element of the truth and I felt compelled to make some clarifications. I hit my bullshit limit. I apologize too Lowflyby I need to be more tolerant of bullshit. I am going to get counciling.

Man your life must suck to have so must distrust and cinicism. What did I ever do to you anyway? I believe that I sufficiently proved my honesty in response to your challenging accusations that I was lieing about the low rates and recent quotes....sorry if I let you down by not falling into your personal vendetta against the crooked lier stereotype in your mind.

What do I have to gain by wasting my time bullshitting you? I can tell you the truth and get the same reaction from you while helping others out in the process who have legitimate questions and are looking for answers.

By the way, since you think I was lacking in truth you may want to research the federal mandates for lending companies concerning "high risk", "Alt-A", and "sub prime" loans as well as their resultant effects on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. You may also want to research PMI insurance for loans, specifically when and why its added as well as who pays the claims. HINT...it's not the federal government.

Hot dog, maybe this forum should be relocated again to the Hot Air forum... Knock em down Chris...

lowflybye wrote:

wardamneagle wrote:Went back today. They cleaned it up really quickly and everything went really smoothly today. Blue Angels did their first flight, F22 did its demo + a flyby in formation with a P51, and the night show was fun as always.

Talked to the guy at the Aviat tent. He said that they lost a total of 6 aircraft Thursday.

***THREAD HIJACK***

Didn't you live in Murfreesboro just a short time ago? Are you the fellow that brought the yellow Supercub to our warbird event or am I getting you confused with someone else?

***HIJACK OVER*** we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Follow me, viewtopic.php?f=46&t=7241

Aviat lost 6 aircraft, approx $22K per annual total premiums, approx loss, $2M+... I bet I'm real close, and I'm not in the ins biz...

Big business is not exactly wearing a halo either.

(lengthy rant with examples of big business scum-baggery deleted on second thought... to avoid dragging this into Hot Air)

I'm quite surprised that not a single one of you recognize that, I bet, a large percentage of the experimental planes were not insured. The financial and emotional loss to the builder/owner must be devastating. You can't simply go onto trade-a-plane, barnstormers, etc and pick out another homebuilt that replaces your own love, even if you could afford it, after suffering this loss.
Also, insurance premiums for experimental aircraft, especially taildraggers, are considerably more expensive than the quotes in the comments posted here--so, don't get fooled thinking insurance is affordable--my premiums run over $2400/yr and I have tricycle gear and insure for only 50% of the planes value. Like many experimental owners I know, I didn't insure my plane for the first 3 years---and only decided to get coverage because I was flying to Osh Kosh. To make it somewhat affordable, I convert the policy to " not in motion" ( or whatever the correct terminology is) for 6 months of the year--course I still fly it during that period but am not covered unless something happens in the hangar.

EZFlap wrote:Big business is not exactly wearing a halo either.

Agreed...

Rooster Cogburn wrote:Hot dog, maybe this forum should be relocated again to the Hot Air forum...

Let's hope not...

As one who "Smashed" an uninsured Flyer..insurance is cheap!! I'm insured up to the hull value of my own plane for anything I fly. Quit the bullshit...if you can't afford to replace it, don't fly it if you have no insurance..and that's not even considering the liability!!!
HC

TundraJoe wrote:I'm quite surprised that not a single one of you recognize that, I bet, a large percentage of the experimental planes were not insured. The financial and emotional loss to the builder/owner must be devastating. You can't simply go onto trade-a-plane, barnstormers, etc and pick out another homebuilt that replaces your own love, even if you could afford it, after suffering this loss.

Unfortunately you are correct and I do realize that...talk to them every day. It is for that reason the the SNF storm is a heartbreaker...not becouse of the cost to insurance comanpanies. Consequently though, the less aircraft insured the less premiums that were collected to cover the losses that did occur to insured aircraft...its a two edge sword and you want a bigger premium pool to draw from and spread the loss as much as possible.

TundraJoe wrote:
Also, insurance premiums for experimental aircraft, especially taildraggers, are considerably more expensive than the quotes in the comments posted here--so, don't get fooled thinking insurance is affordable-

I'm not trying to fool anyone...thats why I gave an average premium. $2,000 average is pretty accurate...gotta have some $4,000 premiums in there to balance out the $500 premiums to make the average. I will help you with insurance when I can, but I will also tell you that I can't do any better if I can't.

TundraJoe wrote: my premiums run over $2400/yr and I have tricycle gear and insure for only 50% of the planes value. To make it somewhat affordable, I convert the policy to " not in motion" ( or whatever the correct terminology is) for 6 months of the year--course I still fly it during that period but am not covered unless something happens in the hangar.

Premiums vary greatly depending on the aircraft / pilot combination. Some aircraft are very hard to get insured at all along with some pilots in any aircraft. For example, our $80k Maule costs us about $2,300 annually, the $175k C-210 runs $2,400, the $90k Stearman runs $2,100...equally qualified pilots in each. Now put those same pilots in an equally valued Titan T-51 Mustang, F-1 Rocket, or MX2 and the rates may be nearly double...exactly opposite for a C-172, PA28-140, or Beech 23.

Please heed my caution on insuring for only 50% of value for the reasons I posted above concerning a total loss...a simple propstrike could cost you your aircraft for only %50 of its value.

hicountry wrote:As one who "Smashed" an uninsured Flyer..insurance is cheap!! I'm insured up to the hull value of my own plane for anything I fly. Quit the bullshit...if you can't afford to replace it, don't fly it if you have no insurance..and that's not even considering the liability!!!
HC

I have some clients that can absorb a total loss of their aircraft and it not put them in any financial burden. For some this is a reality...not for me. If you fit in this catagory, then it is purely your choice to do so and who am I to argue...it's your finances to do with as you please and I might do the same if I am in that position someday. However, if you cannot afford it then insure it...if you cannot afford to absorb it nor insure it then you might want to reconsider your aircraft ownership at this time.

Having said that, nobody can afford a lawsuit..the more you're worth the greater the lawsuit in an accident...lets not even get into a fatality event. Going without hull coverage is a personal decision based on a quantifiable loss that is a fraction of what a lawsuit or injury can cost. Going without liability coverage can be financial suicide. Lawsuits have been made against aircraft owners on occasion when there was no accident or incident...without liability you are on your own to defend yourself against what are often times frivilous lawsuits.

If you choose to go without hull coverage please do not make the same decision for liablity...liability protects more than just you...it provides financial recovery to third parties should they be injured or suffer damage to their property.

What are the consequences when a uninsured aircraft is blown on top of another insured aircraft in a storm like SNF.

What are liability only costs for 200 hour pilot in a tail dragger?

I'm in joying the discussion.

I think no matter how you look at it it's going to be, as I heard it called recently, a bread based feces containment operation, i.e. shit sandwich, for all parties involved.
I would like to thank lowflybye for his insight into the aviation insurance world. Despite occasional conflict and even periodic personal attacks I have always found his comments to be very informative and realistic.
As an aircraft operator I have a unique situation in that I have been friends with my insurance agent since I was 19. His mother and now himself have insured every aircraft I have owned and on a personal level he has always told me how it was going to be with whatever I was trying to get accomplished with insurance. Most of what I have always seen lowflybye post parallels much of what my friend/agent says.
It is not always what I want to hear but it is what is really happening.
Personally I appreciate that there are insurers willing to take on the small airplane world to begin with. If you were to look at it from a whole picture perspective we are a very small fish in the sea of potential premium gross. If you also factor in that most of the GA world is also less current and not formally recurrent trained other than a biannual and most likely doing things that we shouldn't more times than the professional world, we are potentially higher risk.
I insure four aircraft now and if you want to talk premiums, I can talk premiums. All four are tailwheels, three of them are ag aircraft, one of them a turbine with a $600,000 value, and one has a set of floats for it. I have had no accidents flying in 22 years now (other than the non-claimed wire strikes, last one over 8 years ago), my pilots are also clean (so far), and as an application company we have also had no drift claims. After all of that I will probably be in the $50 - $60,000 dollar range in premiums this year. For that I believe I get the right amount of insurance coverage. I do not under insure, I carry much higher than minimum chemical drift liability insurance due to my performing many critical herbicide jobs through the year, and I carry a million liability on everything including my hangars.
I don't want to hear it any more than the rest but we have been in a soft insurance market for the last few years and for more reasons than one, like everything else in life, we are about to cycle. A major single event loss like SNF or Dulles or the Tsunami in Japan will just compound the hardening of the market.
Unless you can cover your own loss, insurance is part of the cost of ownership. You must be able to budget for it, and it's possible increases, just like hangar space or fuel or maintenance. If you can cover your own potential losses then you are far more astute than I.
It's a suck deal no matter how you look at it but I don't feel that attacking a person who insures us for a living is warranted. I am happy that my insurance agent is actually my friend and I appreciate the fact that he actually looks out for and guides me through all the insurance bullshit. More than that he has actually helped my career in the past when I was getting started.
Instead of looking at them as the enemy you might try to find one you can actually have a real friendship with. My relaxed talks with my friend/agent I believe has taught me more about the big picture of insuring and placed me where I want to be coverage wise for what I want to spend within that picture. Yes, it will still cost you money but it's how they make a living.
I am friends with many of my growers and try to help guide them on certain issues at times but I also charge money when I come to spray for them. I hope they don't dislike me in the end.......

MtCoyote wrote:What are the consequences when a uninsured aircraft is blown on top of another insured aircraft in a storm like SNF.

What are liability only costs for 200 hour pilot in a tail dragger?

I'm in joying the discussion.

Lets use the Eclipse - Zenith situation for example. The company for the Eclipse will make them whole again and then subrogate (lawsuit) the owner of the Zenith to recover their loss. If the Zenith is uninsured then it will be out of the owners pocket to defend themselves or settle. HOWEVER, since this was an act of God, if there was no negligence then it should be every man for himself and there should be no subrogation. Negligence (i.e. the aircraft was not tied down, done so improperly, or with insufficient ropes, etc) is defined as "doing or not doing what a reasonable and preduent persone would or would not do in the same scenario".

With regards to the liability only...it depends on the aircraft, number of seats, and pilot qualifications. For instance a Pitts S-2B with a qualified pilot would be in the neighborhood of $500 as well as a C-172 (4 seats), but a C-152 would be about half of that.