Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

Ouch. Let's use Matt's number and think about insurance rates. There
are 800 hulls in the field, introduced 4 years ago. So say on average
400 hulls over 4 years.

Three crashed. So 4 years of premiums for 400 hulls has got to cover
everything, including the payout for the three crashes. I'm sure it
was more, but if you say each payout was a million dollars, 3 millions
would have to be spread over 1600 policy years That's almost $2000
each, right there.

I made lots of assumptions, of course. Make your own, and see what you
get.

Tina
On Jul 2, 10:08 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?

--
PM instructions: Caesar cipher the alpha characters in my address
using +3 as the key.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Ouch. Let's use Matt's number and think about insurance rates. There
are 800 hulls in the field, introduced 4 years ago. So say on average
400 hulls over 4 years.

Three crashed. So 4 years of premiums for 400 hulls has got to cover
everything, including the payout for the three crashes. I'm sure it
was more, but if you say each payout was a million dollars, 3 millions
would have to be spread over 1600 policy years That's almost $2000
each, right there.

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

In the Columbia line (seperae from the Lancair kits), from what I can see,
there's not been one accident from loss of control. That's rather
interesting given the Columbia high wing loading.

One thing is that the COL400 prices out at $550-600K so you're insurance
would be higher just from that. Compared to a new A36 or Mooney, their
accident history is much better. I'm not sure how the safety features would
figure in, but the Columbia's have numerous features compared to the A36 and
Mooneys.

I made lots of assumptions, of course. Make your own, and see what you
get.

Tina
On Jul 2, 10:08 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?

--
PM instructions: Caesar cipher the alpha characters in my address
using +3 as the key.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

It isn't.
It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
Through the end of 2006...
300's - 75
350's - 124
400's - 286
Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
Where did you get the "thousands" number?

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

It isn't.
It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
Through the end of 2006...
300's - 75
350's - 124
400's - 286
Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
Where did you get the "thousands" number?

I explained in another post after reading the data. Also, ICYMI, I was
including the Lancairs.

Do you really thing those numbers are THE big difference in why his
insurance quote was so high?

Hope your ego has been sated.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks, but I'm not really into 'Trivia Pursuit'.

It isn't.
It provides the number of aircraft/make/models built by the various
manufacturers. It tells how many 300's, 350's and 400's were made.
Through the end of 2006...
300's - 75
350's - 124
400's - 286
Total Columbia aircraft produced since 1995 -2006 is 485.
Where did you get the "thousands" number?

I explained in another post after reading the data. Also, ICYMI, I was
including the Lancairs.

Do you really thing those numbers are THE big difference in why his
insurance quote was so high?

Hope your ego has been sated.

No, as you so aptly commented, it is based on pilot experience.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks...interesting (and shows what happens when to make generalizations
:~( )

They don't include Lancairs, which has been maknig kit planes, using the
same basic design since at least the early 90's. MOF, the distinction
forced them to change the name to Columbia. That was rather the point I was
trying to make. Bad move on my part.

Also, that may or may not be a factor in how insurance is priced.
Overwhelmingly, the insurance is going to be a factor of the pilot, not the
aircraft. Unless the aircraft has particular characteristics, such as a
converted military aircraft, I doubt (could be wrong) the insurance cost is
going to be unusual.

In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the tendancy to
go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW hours each month in an
aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$, complaining about the cost of
insurance. He never did come back with the numbers for the "comparable"
aircraft price quotes. He also didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make
a HUGH difference), nor how much TT he had.

On 2007-07-04, Matt Barrow wrote:

In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the
tendancy to go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW
hours each month in an aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$,
complaining about the cost of insurance. He never did come back with
the numbers for the "comparable" aircraft price quotes. He also
didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make a HUGH difference),
nor how much TT he had.

I have 200 hours. Unless there is some underdog insurance provider
who is keen to the market of infrequent pilots, and willing to take
half the risk for 3/4ths of the premium, the daily cost of owning a
Columbia will probably be unreasonable.

I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for a
weekend. I know of a couple that will, but availability is not quite
acceptible. There's a local flight club, but there are ~35 members
sharing 1 AC, and the cost is ~$85/mo. + the hourly, and I suspect the
availability is unacceptible under those circumstances.

I have yet to compare renters insurance to owners insurance. If it's
correct that pilot experience and credentials are the primary factor,
then I'm expecting renters to be comparable to owners.

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

Justin Gombos wrote:
On 2007-07-04, Matt Barrow wrote:

In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the
tendancy to go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW
hours each month in an aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$,
complaining about the cost of insurance. He never did come back with
the numbers for the "comparable" aircraft price quotes. He also
didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make a HUGH difference),
nor how much TT he had.

I have 200 hours. Unless there is some underdog insurance provider
who is keen to the market of infrequent pilots, and willing to take
half the risk for 3/4ths of the premium, the daily cost of owning a
Columbia will probably be unreasonable.

There is a much easier way to reduce the insurance company's risk. Reduce
the dollar amount that they are insuraning. Of course if you have the
aircraft financed you must be insureed for the at least the finaced amount.
But if that is the case the finance company wouldn't go along with your idea
for weekend only coverage anyway. You do know that aircraft can be damaged
or destroyed while sitting in the hanger, don't you? If not I have some
photos at the house of a Citation that was broken in half when the roof of
the hanger collapsed.




I'm trying to find out what all my options are. Renting makes the
most sense, but schools are reluctant to let their trainers go for a
weekend. I know of a couple that will, but availability is not quite
acceptible. There's a local flight club, but there are ~35 members
sharing 1 AC, and the cost is ~$85/mo. + the hourly, and I suspect the
availability is unacceptible under those circumstances.

Who is renting Columbia 400 as trainers?

If availability is you number one concern then buying or better yet finding
a partner that needs the plane to fly for business (they'll use it mostly
during the week) is the way to go.


I have yet to compare renters insurance to owners insurance. If it's
correct that pilot experience and credentials are the primary factor,
then I'm expecting renters to be comparable to owners.