Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

On Jul 2, 7:08 pm, Justin Gombos wrote:
Question for insurance experts -

Insurance for the Columbia 400 is absurdly high compared to other
similar aircraft, presumably because the premiums are loaded due to
lack of significant statistics. Any idea how long potential Columbia
buyers can expect to wait for the premium to stabilize?

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?

You'll need to fly a lot more than that to get an insurance break.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:08 pm, Justin Gombos wrote:
Question for insurance experts -

Insurance for the Columbia 400 is absurdly high compared to other
similar aircraft, presumably because the premiums are loaded due to
lack of significant statistics. Any idea how long potential Columbia
buyers can expect to wait for the premium to stabilize?

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?

You'll need to fly a lot more than that to get an insurance break.

-Robert

I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing to start
a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.

On 2007-07-03, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

I also doubt you are going to find a carrier that would be willing
to start a policy every Friday and end it on Sunday.

That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more interested
in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying incidents
Monday-Thursday.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

"Justin Gombos" wrote

That's not what I was looking for anyway. I would be more interested
in an annual policy that is effectively excludes flying incidents
Monday-Thursday.

You must not understand insurance.

Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you less likely
to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If not, why lower
a year's premium?

If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in possible mid-air's
with increased weekend fliers. That is the bottom line; to insure you for
cheaper, they would need to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower
risk, so cost stays the same.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-07-11, Morgans wrote:

You must not understand insurance.

My understanding of insurance only scratches the surface; but my
understanding of math has me questioning your figures.

Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

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

Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If
not, why lower a year's premium?

More available flight hours generally means more hours in the air,
thus more hours at risk. If that were not the case, then one year of
insurance would transfer the same risk as two or more years of
coverage. But we know that's not true because insurers charge double
for two years of coverage.

If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in
possible mid-air's with increased weekend fliers.

Those insured for 365.25 days/year would share that same weekend risk.
But weekend pilots are not at risk during the week. So naturally
that's relatively less risk.

I'm not saying the risk transfered on a Saturday equals that of a
Wednesday, nor does that have to be true to justify a lower rate.
Weekend pilots are probably higher risk per hour than a 40+ hours/week
pilot, so the premium most likely would not be reduced to 3/7ths of
the normal rate.. but even if the premium is reduced to 5/7ths of the
rate the policy would sell.

That is the bottom line; to insure you for cheaper, they would need
to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower risk, so cost
stays the same.

I don't see how ~156 days of insurance is not less risk than 365 days.
Even if you figure that more of the available time is consumed on a
weekend policy, you can still expect the annual risk to be lower.

--
PM instructions: do a caesar cipher on the alpha characters in my address using +3 as the key.

"Justin Gombos" wrote in message
news:d3gli.7803$475.3234@trndny04...
On 2007-07-11, Morgans wrote:

You must not understand insurance.

My understanding of insurance only scratches the surface; but my
understanding of math has me questioning your figures.

Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

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

Would you be flying more hours if you had a full week policy? If
not, why lower a year's premium?

More available flight hours generally means more hours in the air,
thus more hours at risk. If that were not the case, then one year of
insurance would transfer the same risk as two or more years of
coverage. But we know that's not true because insurers charge double
for two years of coverage.

If anything, flying Fri-Sun would expose you to more risk, in
possible mid-air's with increased weekend fliers.

Those insured for 365.25 days/year would share that same weekend risk.
But weekend pilots are not at risk during the week. So naturally
that's relatively less risk.

I'm not saying the risk transfered on a Saturday equals that of a
Wednesday, nor does that have to be true to justify a lower rate.
Weekend pilots are probably higher risk per hour than a 40+ hours/week
pilot, so the premium most likely would not be reduced to 3/7ths of
the normal rate.. but even if the premium is reduced to 5/7ths of the
rate the policy would sell.

That is the bottom line; to insure you for cheaper, they would need
to see lower risk. You would not be giving them lower risk, so cost
stays the same.

I don't see how ~156 days of insurance is not less risk than 365 days.
Even if you figure that more of the available time is consumed on a
weekend policy, you can still expect the annual risk to be lower.

You really need to get a prasp on how insurance risk is calculate for
aviation. Most every assumption you listed is actually the inverse.

Call one of the brokers and let them explain it to you. This group is NOT
the place to do your secondary research, but we can point you in the right
direction to get started.

Good luck with whatever you do.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Reading Justin's posts, he sounds just like the kind of buyer Cirrus is
looking for.

On 2007-07-12, john smith wrote:

Reading Justin's posts, he sounds just like the kind of buyer Cirrus
is looking for.

Please explain why. I've been planning to study Cirrus models,
because I know they have the side stick, and IMO, the side stick is an
uncommon but superior design. I have yet to fly one, but conceptually
it makes more sense than a center stick or a yoke.

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

On Jul 11, 7:09 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:
On 2007-07-11, Morgans wrote:

Think of it this way. How would you not flying Mon-Thurs make you
less likely to crash or break something, resulting in a claim?

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.
f
-Robert

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).