Orlando Executive airport after Charley hit

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
...
Well, then talk to roughly 90% of the owners out there and straighten them
out. I don't own an airplane - yet, but I do know that the vast majority
of
owners out there only pay for liability insurance and risk the hull damage
themselves

How do you "know" that? It certainly doesn't match my experience as an
owner, and as someone that knows many other owners. Even when the airplane
is owned free and clear.

Are you an insurance broker? Underwriter? Have you done a statistically
significant owner survey? What is the basis for your claim that 90% of all
owners carry no hull insurance? If so few people are carrying hull
insurance, why is it that the rising hull insurance costs are causing such a
huge problem in general aviation?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
...
Well, then talk to roughly 90% of the owners out there and straighten
them
out. I don't own an airplane - yet, but I do know that the vast
majority
of
owners out there only pay for liability insurance and risk the hull
damage
themselves

How do you "know" that? It certainly doesn't match my experience as an
owner, and as someone that knows many other owners. Even when the
airplane
is owned free and clear.

Are you an insurance broker? Underwriter? Have you done a statistically
significant owner survey? What is the basis for your claim that 90% of
all
owners carry no hull insurance? If so few people are carrying hull
insurance, why is it that the rising hull insurance costs are causing such
a
huge problem in general aviation?

Pete

I am not an insurance broker, but I do know a lot of pilots/owners. The 90%
is just a guess on my part, but I feel that it is close. The rising hull
insurance costs are precisely the reason that a lot of owners do not have
this insurance. You hit it right on the spot.

Perhaps an underwriter can chime in and throw out some "statistically
correct" figures.

Clyde

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .
[...] The 90% is just a guess on my part

Are you generally in the habit of claiming to know something even when
you're only guessing?

It's my equally uninformed opinion that your guess of 90% isn't even close.

In spite of rising insurance costs, hull insurance is still a very small
fraction of the total hull value. Heck, even for my seaplane, I'm "only"
paying 2.5% of the hull value annually and for lower-risk aircraft the
percentage is much lower.

Very few aircraft owners are so well off that they can afford to just write
off the loss of an aircraft, and there is no way that 90% of all aircraft
owners have decided to take that risk, especially when the savings is so
tiny compared to the risk of loss.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .
[...] The 90% is just a guess on my part

Are you generally in the habit of claiming to know something even when
you're only guessing?

It's my equally uninformed opinion that your guess of 90% isn't even
close.

In spite of rising insurance costs, hull insurance is still a very small
fraction of the total hull value. Heck, even for my seaplane, I'm "only"
paying 2.5% of the hull value annually and for lower-risk aircraft the
percentage is much lower.

Very few aircraft owners are so well off that they can afford to just
write
off the loss of an aircraft, and there is no way that 90% of all aircraft
owners have decided to take that risk, especially when the savings is so
tiny compared to the risk of loss.

Pete

Okay.

Are there any 'lessons learned' out of all of this aircraft destruction?
Did any tie down methods seem to work better than others? Did more aircraft
survive in hangars than on the ramp? And ultimately, it might be nice to
know if some insurance companies provided better service than others.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
...
Well, then talk to roughly 90% of the owners out there and straighten
them
out. I don't own an airplane - yet, but I do know that the vast
majority
of
owners out there only pay for liability insurance and risk the hull
damage
themselves

How do you "know" that? It certainly doesn't match my experience as an
owner, and as someone that knows many other owners. Even when the
airplane
is owned free and clear.

Are you an insurance broker? Underwriter? Have you done a
statistically
significant owner survey? What is the basis for your claim that 90% of
all
owners carry no hull insurance? If so few people are carrying hull
insurance, why is it that the rising hull insurance costs are causing
such
a
huge problem in general aviation?

Pete

I am not an insurance broker, but I do know a lot of pilots/owners. The
90%
is just a guess on my part, but I feel that it is close. The rising hull
insurance costs are precisely the reason that a lot of owners do not have
this insurance. You hit it right on the spot.

Perhaps an underwriter can chime in and throw out some "statistically
correct" figures.

Clyde

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message ...

I am not an insurance broker, but I do know a lot of pilots/owners. The 90%
is just a guess on my part, but I feel that it is close. The rising hull
insurance costs are precisely the reason that a lot of owners do not have
this insurance. You hit it right on the spot.

Where are you? I could see at some small field way out in the sticks
with mostly older planes long since paid for that a significant
(though I'll never believe 90%) number of guys cut corners on
insurance just as they do on gas, maintenance, tie-down ropes and
everything else. Maybe in the Southwest or Rocky Mountain states where
you haven't got hurricanes or tornadoes to worry so much about this
wouldn't be completely idiotic, just risky.

-cwk.