On 2007-07-13, Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:09 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:

I'm figuring air time to be directly proportional to risk.

Inverse. The more you fly the lower your insurance rates. A guy who
only occassionally flys on the weekend is quite a large risk
compared to the semi-pro filying day in and day out.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking risk per hour, but rather net risk
per annum. If air time were inversely proportional to risk (which is
what others have suggested), then you could expect 730 days of
insurance coverage to cost less than 365 days of coverage. That logic
can take us as far as yielding a lifetime of insurance for less than 1
year of premium. It's *net* risk and *net* cost that's relevent here.
If the insurance market were sufficiently saturated with competition,
insuring 150 days would cost a pilot more per unit time than 365 days,
but the net per annum would be *less*.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).