IT REALLY CAN HAPPEN!!! PLASTIC GAS CANS!! AIRPLANE RUNS OUT OF GAS AND LAND ON INTERSTATE!! PLANE BACKFIRE ON START, CATCHES FIRE, TOTAL LOSS!! So, we know it does happen. It made me think.

1. Who is self insured?

2. Why?

3. Is it worth the risk?

4. Do you take extra precautions?

5. What do you think people who self insure?

6. Do you like your insurance company?

7. Your insurance details ?

I fly a Maule M7 $115K hull, IFR rated, 700TT, 600 TW Maule, $2600 premium. Excludes north of 54* I wouldn't fly with out insurance.

115000/2600= 44.23 years. I know less if you figure compounded interest.
My insurance company is ok I guess. Never had a claim.
The north of 54* is BS
I think people who self insure are don't say it Rob

+1

RobBurson wrote:.
My insurance company is ok I guess. Never had a claim.
The north of 54* is BS

Enough bs to do something about it?Are you thinking of ever taking a trip up here? Would you shop for new policies if you were?

I think that with planes with (relatively ) low hull value, flying naked on the in motion or even the full hull becomes more reasonable. Would never fly without liability, even in a state with laws that protect you from liability a little bit. Lawyers bills pile up fast.

I have a large deductible to minimize the damage from the insurance bill. And if I had a 20k plane instead of a 40k plane I might drop hull protection altogether.

RobBurson wrote:My insurance company is ok I guess. Never had a claim.
The north of 54* is BS
I think people who self insure are don't say it Rob

You must be with London Aviation Underwriters...they are the only company that I know of who specifically exclude " North of 54* "

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote: Would never fly without liability, even in a state with laws that protect you from liability a little bit. Lawyers bills pile up fast.

Nobody can afford a lawsuit...the more you are worth, the bigger the lawsuit. Even if your premium is $5,000 per year, that is a small price to pay for an attorney who specializes in aviation to defend you in court.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
I have a large deductible to minimize the damage from the insurance bill. And if I had a 20k plane instead of a 40k plane I might drop hull protection altogether.

How much are you saving per year to increase that deductible? If it saves you $100 per year to have a $1,000 deductible then you would have to go 10 years loss free to equal out the difference. The ratio is different depending on the savings and deductible, but often times it does not make since. This is why most deductibles are low or NIL to begin with...it does not make since to the underwriters in most cases because a loss that is reported to them is probably going to exceed a $100, $250, or even $1,000 deductible anyway...aviation losses are not cheap.

Deleted, bad mood from lack of airspace between backside and ground.

Rob,

Even the underwriters who prohibit flight north of 54 degrees or whatever, will generally provide coverage for that region for a short time for a fee. I've talked to some folks who've done that, and it wasn't a big deal for a few weeks.

AVEMCO, I believe has a similar restriction, but further north (60??) but all you have to do is call them and tell em you'll be north of there for two weeks and they'll add the coverage for no cost. That was the way they operated a few years ago at least.

MTV

mtv wrote:Rob,

Even the underwriters who prohibit flight north of 54 degrees or whatever, will generally provide coverage for that region for a short time for a fee. I've talked to some folks who've done that, and it wasn't a big deal for a few weeks.

AVEMCO, I believe has a similar restriction, but further north (60??) but all you have to do is call them and tell em you'll be north of there for two weeks and they'll add the coverage for no cost. That was the way they operated a few years ago at least.

MTV

They still do...not much has changed in that regard.

lowflybye wrote:

mtv wrote:Rob,

Even the underwriters who prohibit flight north of 54 degrees or whatever, will generally provide coverage for that region for a short time for a fee. I've talked to some folks who've done that, and it wasn't a big deal for a few weeks.

AVEMCO, I believe has a similar restriction, but further north (60??) but all you have to do is call them and tell em you'll be north of there for two weeks and they'll add the coverage for no cost. That was the way they operated a few years ago at least.

MTV

They still do...not much has changed in that regard.

Hi Chris and Mike, I am with North American Specialty Insurance. I just got off the phone with mt agent. He confirms what you say. Another $100-$200 for the trip.

Cheers...Rob

RobBurson wrote:
Hi Chris and Mike, I am with North American Specialty Insurance. I just got off the phone with mt agent. He confirms what you say. Another $100-$200 for the trip.

Cheers...Rob

North American Specialty Insurance (Swiss Re) is London Aviation...London writes their policies on NASI paper...

RobBurson wrote:
1. Who is self insured?
2. Why?
3. Is it worth the risk?
4. Do you take extra precautions?

I am self-insured. Which amounts to non-insured.

When I decided to learn to fly, I was quoted $3800/yr for $18K hull value for a PA-22 with a minimum liability plan. Taking hull off entirely changed the premium less than $500/yr. That amounted to more than our annual budget would allow us even just for flight. We decided we'd rather be extremely cautious and have the option of learning to fly than to never afford it, so we elected to buy an airplane and go forward without insurance.

Yes, it is worth the risk to me, but I don't have much to lose in terms of wealth or assets, and I don't court additional risk when flying.

As to whether that amounts to extra precautions, I couldn't say because I don't know what other folks do. I am not landing off-airport and I'm not flying a taildragger, but just living in AK makes it pretty expensive. When you look through the NTSB database, it's easy to see why, so this is not a slam against the insurance companies. Pilots have earned the rates they are offering us up here.

I elected to register to respond to this post because I think it is easy to build up a case against people that you don't know and whose situation is not your own. I was totally opposed to the idea of flying without insurance before I started trying to actually look for coverage in order to learn to fly. It was the difference between never flying and flying. It was actually my wife that convinced me that she would rather we could see parts of the state that she would never see otherwise. If that makes me irresponsible and a public menace, I apologize to those I am offending. It is legal to fly without insurance, and I'd rather do so carefully than have insurance and fly in a more risky manner. I sometimes wonder whether the incidents and accidents I read about might have been avoided if people had to consider their own financial risk before choosing to take off in high winds or fly into marginal visibility. I'm sure after I get some hours, the rates will be more affordable, but I don't know how much more. We'll see.

Insurance is nothing more than a way to transfer your risk to a third party in exchange for a fee. If the aircraft is paid for and you can afford to lose it then by all means, don't insure the hull if you so choose...that loss would only effect you. With regards to liability...this is an area that i never recommend self insuring. Some of us are more at risk than others simply because of our location. If you live in the back country or in a sparsely populated area and never take passengers then chances are you will never need that liability coverage. HOWEVER...keep in mind that even in remote Alaska, if you go down and need rescue, you will receive a bill for it not to mention that the government will require that the crash scene be removed and chemical spills cleaned up. This is not cheap and without liability insurance you will be left holding the bill. Just because you have very little assets does not leave you immune to lawsuits and bills...better to have a little than to have nothing at all.

It's all a roll of the dice...sometimes you beat the odds and sometimes you lose...often times beyond your control. Insurance is just a way to cover your butt when the debt is called in by paying someone else to take that risk for you.

It may be legal to go without it, but it's irresponsible to not carry liability coverage in my opinion. How would you feel if someone crashed their car / airplane into your home, car, or airplane and then said " sorry, but I do not have any money to pay for your loss and I am uninsured...hope you understand... have a nice day" Now you would be left to pay the consequences that someone else caused simply because they chose to go uninsured and did not have the wherewithal to cover the results of their actions.

There is no such thing as a free lunch...someone ALWAYS has to pay for the consequences of our actions.

Troy Hamon wrote:

RobBurson wrote:
1. Who is self insured?
2. Why?
3. Is it worth the risk?
4. Do you take extra precautions?

I am self-insured. Which amounts to non-insured.

When I decided to learn to fly, I was quoted $3800/yr for $18K hull value for a PA-22 with a minimum liability plan. Taking hull off entirely changed the premium less than $500/yr. That amounted to more than our annual budget would allow us even just for flight. We decided we'd rather be extremely cautious and have the option of learning to fly than to never afford it, so we elected to buy an airplane and go forward without insurance.

Yes, it is worth the risk to me, but I don't have much to lose in terms of wealth or assets, and I don't court additional risk when flying.

As to whether that amounts to extra precautions, I couldn't say because I don't know what other folks do. I am not landing off-airport and I'm not flying a taildragger, but just living in AK makes it pretty expensive. When you look through the NTSB database, it's easy to see why, so this is not a slam against the insurance companies. Pilots have earned the rates they are offering us up here.

I elected to register to respond to this post because I think it is easy to build up a case against people that you don't know and whose situation is not your own. I was totally opposed to the idea of flying without insurance before I started trying to actually look for coverage in order to learn to fly. It was the difference between never flying and flying. It was actually my wife that convinced me that she would rather we could see parts of the state that she would never see otherwise. If that makes me irresponsible and a public menace, I apologize to those I am offending. It is legal to fly without insurance, and I'd rather do so carefully than have insurance and fly in a more risky manner. I sometimes wonder whether the incidents and accidents I read about might have been avoided if people had to consider their own financial risk before choosing to take off in high winds or fly into marginal visibility. I'm sure after I get some hours, the rates will be more affordable, but I don't know how much more. We'll see.

Thanks for posting Troy and welcome. I was just talking to a buddy this morning who told me he was going to buy a nice Cessna 180 and take it up to his Alaska cabin. He has plenty of assets and money. He said he will not insure this or any of his other planes... " We self-insure"

I was puzzled by this but I suppose it would make more sense to me to self-insure out in the wilds of Alaska. Insurance must be steep up there. If one is on-the-hook for anything/everything in the worlds largest backcountry, it would likely increase your awareness, risk-mitigating and self reliance. I'm okay with that.

I fly out of busy, class B (Salt Lake City) with freeways going every which way beneath the airspace. If I ever come up short here, I will need some luck and some coverage.

My .02

Full coverage for a newbie is prohibitively expensive. When I started out, I discovered that if you joined EAA or AOPA and got your insurance through them, it was substantially cheaper. I finally went with EAA.

Originally, I was going to go for the no insurance option, but decided I wanted liability coverage. Then I discovered that they also offered hull coverage for "ground not-in-motion", and it added very little to the cost. That seemed like a good idea to me for covering things like high winds, hail, snowplows, refueling, some shmuck taxiing into you, etc. Liability and $25K hull coverage for ground not-in-motion was several hundred bucks, and full coverage would have been about two and a half times that much.

Over the years the premium has drifted down slowly and it's around $500/yr right now.

If I end up buying a Citation X, I'll probably get full coverage. Besides, how can you commit insurance fraud if you don't have insurance?

Seriously fellows...I have to sit back and laugh at times....

Prohibitively expensive? Let's get some perspective here...was it prohibitively expensive to insure your car when you learned to drive? Most people paid more for 6 months worth of auto coverage that is less than half the liability coverage offered in aircraft insurance...not to mention I would bet the car value was substantially less than your aircraft. What would you guess your auto insurance would run you if it was valued the same as your aircraft? Can you even get $1 million worth of liability on your auto policy?

Nothing about flying is cheap...it is a luxury and not a right... I love to fly as much as the next guy and more so than some, but if you cannot afford "several hundred bucks" for insurance then you shouldn't be flying.

Troy,

Have you checked around some on straight liability insurance??? The number you cited there sounds extremely high for liability only, even in AK. I never found AK liability insurance to be that high, actually. And, I flight instructed in my airplane.....talk about exposure.

Even in AK (and for a short while I went totally uninsured in AK) there are substantial risks, as lowflyby noted. Consider you're arriving in AKN and your plane is blown into an Alaska jet, or Pen Air, or some idiot at a village rides his/her snowmachine onto a runway as you're landing/taking off.

We all have assets, folks, and remember--they can garnish wages as well, in other words, they can get assets you don't even HAVE yet. And, bankruptcy may or may not protect you either.

I am a believer in Liability at the very least, though as I noted, I have gone without for a time in past. I won't do so again.

MTV

lowflybye wrote:if you cannot afford "several hundred bucks" for insurance then you shouldn't be flying.

Several hundred? More like thousand.
That is exactly why the general public views aviation as a rich man's sport.
One of the main reasons I chose to go the Experimental Amateur built route is the fact that I would rather put $3,400 in the fuel tank (used to want a Maule) and if I bend it I can fix it. I do agree that liability ins. should be carried.

lowflybye wrote:Seriously fellows...I have to sit back and laugh at times....

Prohibitively expensive? Let's get some perspective here...was it prohibitively expensive to insure your car when you learned to drive? Most people paid more for 6 months worth of auto coverage that is less than half the liability coverage offered in aircraft insurance...not to mention I would bet the car value was substantially less than your aircraft. What would you guess your auto insurance would run you if it was valued the same as your aircraft? Can you even get $1 million worth of liability on your auto policy?

Nothing about flying is cheap...it is a luxury and not a right... I love to fly as much as the next guy and more so than some, but if you cannot afford "several hundred bucks" for insurance then you shouldn't be flying.

I know a few young people who make amazing sacrifices to scrape just enough together to eventually go get another lesson. They can't afford a plane or an insurance policy, and two of them ride bicycles and buses because they can't even afford a car! The plane is rented and insurance is part of the rental, but they certainly don't have "several hundred bucks". You say they shouldn't be flying. I'm sorry to hear that even trying to follow your dream is a luxury and not a right.

Thanks for the elitist snob's perspective.

lowflybye, I assume when you say "several hundred bucks" you are talking about liabilty. I was with AVEMCO a couple years back and they were $5,800 for liability and hull insurance (60K). A might steep even with a partner! The company I have been with the last few years is less than half that.

I just did a quick calculation to find out how many times my new car's value would go into the value of my Maule. Then I took that multiplier and applied it against my insurance for my car (liability and value) and it comes out to 42% of my current aircraft premium. Not saying it is a direct comparision but closer enough probably.

My conclusion is that aircraft insurance is more expensive than car insurance. But I understand that. I have never ground looped my car due to a severe crosswind!

I did a quickie quote through AOPA's deal for a PA-22/20 the other day for $1mil Liability and $20k hull. $1400/yr. I have 130hrs total, 30hrs tailwheel, 0hrs in type. I've been told that a few other places might be cheaper, but I'll wait to call them once I'm ready to pounce on a plane.