On 2004-09-14, Michael wrote:
"Bill Denton" wrote
I couple of months ago I read a story (in Flying, I think), indicating that
most aviation insurance companies would not insure pilot-owned light twins,
especially if the pilot doesn't have very many multi hours.

That's absolutely true. Key point is 'most' rather than 'all.' In
fact, while just about everyone will insure an ATP in a C-172, when
you get into special risks (unusual planes, low experience, or both)
most companies are not interested.

I can't remember if the ban covered only new policies, or all policies, but
it's something you might want to look into before you go too far.

Just make sure you talk to the right person. A friend of mine wanted
to buy into my Twin Comanche (about the worst light twin to insure -
low power so on one engine you have to do EVERYTHING right, but
cruises 175 ktas so you have lots of opportunity to go far and get
into trouble) and he had about 600 hours, a brand new instrument
rating, no multi time at all, and almost no retract time.

Our local broker just tried to talk him out of it and quoted
ridiculous numbers (pulled straight out of his ass). I called Travers
(the Comanche specialists) and was told $3800 the first year (on an
$80K hull), 20 hours dual and multi/IFR to solo it, 10 hours solo
before carrying passengers. He could train in the insured plane if he
wished.

Remember the discussion (a couple of years ago) we had about operating
costs and insurance costs of light twins versus equivalent-performance
singles, and how you were arguing (convincingly, I might add) that
the operating costs of a light twin were about the same as those of a
high-performance single? And that insurance rates were about the same
between the two, as were experience requirements?

In light of the above, is that something that has changed over time?
Sounds like it....



--
Kevin Brown