Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

On 2007-07-15, Tina wrote:

I am pretty sure no one here with the resources to do so would be
willing to accept the 'bet' you are proposing -- ie, that as a not
very frequent pilot your exposure is less and therefore so also
should be your premium.

Consider this: Two pilots with identical histories apply for
insurance. Pilot A plans to fly 50 hours this upcoming policy period,
and pilot B plans to fly 500 hours. The first 50 hours that pilot B
flies are just as risky(*) as all the hours from pilot A, but pilot B
still has 450 hours to go. Although the risk is lower on those 450
hours, none of them are risk-free (and in order for pilot B to have a
lower net risk than A, those 450 hours would have to be a negative
risk).

(*) There is one difference between A's 50 hours and B's initial 50
hours: A's hours are potentially more sparse. However sparsity is (or
certainly can be) accounted for. Apparently Mr. Barrow's insurer asks
him for a number of hours per unit time as a part of his quote. It
can also be estimated from the history. So the pilot already pays a
price for having sparsely distributed hours. Thus, charging those
pilots for a very significant amount of unused time results in a
secondary penalty - but it makes sense for insurers to do this when
there's not enough competitive pressure not to.

I also claim that there is a sweet spot for optimum sparsity. Pilots
can forget things when the hours are too sparse; and when the hours
are extremely dense, the pilot has not had an ideal amount of time to
process what they've experienced (which is comparable to students who
cram to get through an exam and forget the material shortly after). I
suspect a pilot who takes short flights daily is closer to the
sparsity sweet spot than a weekly pilot, but it's already been
accounted for in the base premium anyway, before any sort of
weekend-only discount would be applied.

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

Justin Gombos wrote in
news:CFvmi.3735$Gx5.684@trndny02:

On 2007-07-15, Tina wrote:

I am pretty sure no one here with the resources to do so would be
willing to accept the 'bet' you are proposing -- ie, that as a not
very frequent pilot your exposure is less and therefore so also
should be your premium.

Consider this: Two pilots with identical histories apply for
insurance. Pilot A plans to fly 50 hours this upcoming policy period,
and pilot B plans to fly 500 hours. The first 50 hours that pilot B
flies are just as risky(*) as all the hours from pilot A, but pilot B
still has 450 hours to go. Although the risk is lower on those 450
hours, none of them are risk-free (and in order for pilot B to have a
lower net risk than A, those 450 hours would have to be a negative
risk).

(*) There is one difference between A's 50 hours and B's initial 50
hours: A's hours are potentially more sparse. However sparsity is (or
certainly can be) accounted for. Apparently Mr. Barrow's insurer asks
him for a number of hours per unit time as a part of his quote. It
can also be estimated from the history. So the pilot already pays a
price for having sparsely distributed hours. Thus, charging those
pilots for a very significant amount of unused time results in a
secondary penalty - but it makes sense for insurers to do this when
there's not enough competitive pressure not to.

I also claim that there is a sweet spot for optimum sparsity. Pilots
can forget things when the hours are too sparse; and when the hours
are extremely dense, the pilot has not had an ideal amount of time to
process what they've experienced (which is comparable to students who
cram to get through an exam and forget the material shortly after). I
suspect a pilot who takes short flights daily is closer to the
sparsity sweet spot than a weekly pilot, but it's already been
accounted for in the base premium anyway, before any sort of
weekend-only discount would be applied.


How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they did issue
a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk caused by the well
known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis? A "weekend only" policy
could easily cause increased incidents of gethomeitis to flare up. If you
are running late Sunday evening and won't be home before midnight do you
plan to land and wait until the next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or
will you be tempted to fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home,
put your airplane away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather
becomes marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could easily
make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only" policy.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro wrote:

How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they
did issue a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk
caused by the well known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis?
A "weekend only" policy could easily cause increased incidents of
gethomeitis to flare up. If you are running late Sunday evening and
won't be home before midnight do you plan to land and wait until the
next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or will you be tempted to
fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home, put your airplane
away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather becomes
marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could
easily make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only"
policy.

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim? If not, then the risk is actually less. Or
suppose a safe pilot decides to wait until Monday and fly without
insurance (is that legal?), the insurance company is 100% off the hook
for the risk associated with the return trip, which would again be
less net risk. For the gray area, where the weather is legally safe
but on the edge, and the pilot accepts it in light of an expectation
of better weather later, is that risk great enough to more than offset
the reduced risk cases? Perhaps.. and then the next question is
whether it's great enough to completely offset the reduced risk flying
significantly fewer hours. I doubt it because the FAR weather
minimums are adequite a majority of the time, and would have been
stricter if marginal conditions posed a significant danger. OTOH, you
may be right on the money. Good point.

We can also figure that a daily pilot is going to get trapped by the
weather more frequently.. so we would really need some stats to make
that comparison. Since this is a hypothetical policy anyway, we could
always include Monday in the weekend policy and increase the premium
so weekenders have an extra day to further mitigate this type of
issue.

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

Justin Gombos wrote in
news:tZwmi.854$s25.809@trndny04:

On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro wrote:

How do you propose for the insurance company, assuming they
did issue a "weekend only" policy, account for the higher risk
caused by the well known, and sometimes fatal, ailment, gethomeitis?
A "weekend only" policy could easily cause increased incidents of
gethomeitis to flare up. If you are running late Sunday evening and
won't be home before midnight do you plan to land and wait until the
next Saturday to retrieve your aircraft or will you be tempted to
fly just slightly into Monday so you can get home, put your airplane
away, and get to work Monday morning? If the weather becomes
marginal, will you be tempted to push it to arrive Sunday rather
than wait for the severe clear predicted for Monday? This could
easily make for a signficantly higher premium for a "weekend only"
policy.

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim? If not, then the risk is actually less. Or
suppose a safe pilot decides to wait until Monday and fly without
insurance (is that legal?), the insurance company is 100% off the hook
for the risk associated with the return trip, which would again be
less net risk. For the gray area, where the weather is legally safe
but on the edge, and the pilot accepts it in light of an expectation
of better weather later, is that risk great enough to more than offset
the reduced risk cases? Perhaps.. and then the next question is
whether it's great enough to completely offset the reduced risk flying
significantly fewer hours. I doubt it because the FAR weather
minimums are adequite a majority of the time, and would have been
stricter if marginal conditions posed a significant danger. OTOH, you
may be right on the money. Good point.

We can also figure that a daily pilot is going to get trapped by the
weather more frequently.. so we would really need some stats to make
that comparison. Since this is a hypothetical policy anyway, we could
always include Monday in the weekend policy and increase the premium
so weekenders have an extra day to further mitigate this type of
issue.


At what time did the airplane crash? Suppose someone crashes at 11:00
PM Sunday while flying in a sparsely populated where there is no radar
coverage. Wreckage is found Monday morning at 6 AM. Does the weekend
policy cover this crash? Before you answer, remember that there are no
witnesses to the crash nor any radar tapes to confirm when the airccraft
disappeared.

The important thing is that such a policy puts pressure on the pilot
to complete the flight by midnight Sunday or fly without insurance
coverage the next day. That has been shown to be the cause of gethomeitis
(or, when outbound, getthereitis). The weather might be VFR, but is it at
the pilot's personal comfort level? Would the pilot feel the pressure to
fly if it is below his comfort level even though legal? Does the weekend
IFR rated pilot really feel comfortable shooting the approach to minimums
when it has been maybe years since he had to do so, even though he is
legally current? If not, that pilot is more prone to make mistakes than
the pilot who flies much more frequently or even daily.

BTW, the legality of the flight has absolutely nothing to due with
insurance coverage. Unlike the state DMV, the FAA does not require
insurance to register an aircraft or exercise pilot privileges.

The daily pilot doesn't worry about being trapped by the weather. He
just waits until the next day. He doesn't have the pressure of having to
wait until the next weekend. The weekend policy tells the pilot that if he
doesn't get home by midnight Sunday, he is going to either miss an entire
week's work or fly without insurance coverage. The daily pilot will miss
maybe half a days work if Monday morning is clear and he is only two or
three hours away from his destination. The daily pilot has both more
experience and less pressure to complete the flight on Sunday than the
weekend pilot.

If you start making the policy good through Monday, then you just
moved the problem from Sunday night to Monday night. Care to go for
Tuesday? Might as well go for all seven days and be done with it. If the
weekend pilot is willing to fly Monday with no insurance coverage, why does
he even bother with insurance at all, especially if he is not flying every
weekend. Just get "hull not in motion" coverage to protect against ground
damage caused by someone else while the aircraft is parked in its tie down.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Very good points overall Shapiro.. I appreciate your use of sound
logic here.

On 2007-07-15, Marty Shapiro wrote:

At what time did the airplane crash? Suppose someone crashes
at 11:00 PM Sunday while flying in a sparsely populated where there
is no radar coverage. Wreckage is found Monday morning at 6 AM.
Does the weekend policy cover this crash? Before you answer,
remember that there are no witnesses to the crash nor any radar
tapes to confirm when the airccraft disappeared.

It would be handled the same way it would be handled on the last day
of an annual policy not set to renew. I don't know what the case law
indicates in those instances. The court is going to use the best
evidence available, which may include the date of the accident printed
on the FAA accident report. If the insurance company has better
information than the FAA had in their date estimation, the court will
accept it. Even in the worst case, there is likely to be
meterological data, approximate route, refueling records, ETA from
whoever was expecting him / ETD from whoever he last spoke to.

Often whether these gray areas become problematic depend on the
quality of the insurance provider. I don't always buy insurance from
the lowest bidder, because there are some insurers who have a high
consumer rating, and a reputation for being easy going on claims.
Insureds who take the lowest bid are likely to need to hire a lawyer
to get the money their entitled to in these borderline claims.

It's a good point though. Since a weekend policy would have 51-52
more end-of-coverage seams than an annual policy, it would be
important to get a good insurer. The probability of litigation would
increase with the lower quality insurers. It would certainly make
sense to have set the termination time to 4am or some less likely time
to be in the air.

The important thing is that such a policy puts pressure on the
pilot to complete the flight by midnight Sunday or fly without
insurance coverage the next day. That has been shown to be the
cause of gethomeitis (or, when outbound, getthereitis).

The policies don't currently exist without continuity, so it cannot
have been shown at this point to cause getmehomeitis.. unless you mean
to say other pressuring factors have had this effect, like making it
to work. And certainly those other factors are significant, and
indeed just as present regardless of whether insurance coverage has
continuity.

If a pilot doesn't have a reason not to fly on weekdays, and we
distill the hypothetical incident down to the insurance being the only
pressuring factor, then I would agree - this pilot would not be a good
candidate for a weekend only policy. If there were to be a
significant number of pilots who are available to fly daily signing up
for the weekend policy, then the solution to getmehomeitis could be a
simple matter of offering additional days a la carte, at a high enough
rate to make it interesting for the insurer, and sold online so the
extra coverage can be bought at 3am if needed.

The weather might be VFR, but is it at the pilot's personal comfort
level?

If the weather were sufficiently uncomfortable for the pilot, it would
exceed the pilots discomfort of flying uninsured the next day.. which
amounts to less risk (but more risk on the other side of the line).
Finding that line is like splitting hairs, so moving on...

Would the pilot feel the pressure to fly if it is below his comfort
level even though legal?

The risk that an entry level pilot would accept weather that does not
satisfy their personal minimum is already assumed in the initial
figure. The corner cases where discontinuity of coverage is the only
pressuring factor could be accounted for with an increased premium.

Does the weekend IFR rated pilot really feel comfortable shooting
the approach to minimums when it has been maybe years since he had
to do so, even though he is legally current? If not, that pilot is
more prone to make mistakes than the pilot who flies much more
frequently or even daily.

I'm already factoring sparsity of experience in the premium, even in
the annual policy - otherwise experienced pilots would be pulling the
weight of entry-level pilots, which I doubt is the case.

BTW, the legality of the flight has absolutely nothing to due
with insurance coverage. Unlike the state DMV, the FAA does not
require insurance to register an aircraft or exercise pilot
privileges.

Thanks for confirming that.. I looked through part 91 earlier and
didn't see it.

The daily pilot doesn't worry about being trapped by the
weather. He just waits until the next day. He doesn't have the
pressure of having to wait until the next weekend.

Is this pilot retired? I've been trapped by weather myself, suffering
through getmehomeitis, and I wasn't constrained by a discontinous
insurance policy. Insurance was a non-issue. And if my insurance
were a weekend only policy, it would have been the least of the
conflicting interests.

So the daily pilot is not as inconvenienced as a weekend pilot,
regardless of whether the weekend pilot has daily coverage, or weekend
coverage.

The weekend policy tells the pilot that if he doesn't get home by
midnight Sunday, he is going to either miss an entire week's work or
fly without insurance coverage. The daily pilot will miss maybe
half a days work if Monday morning is clear and he is only two or
three hours away from his destination. The daily pilot has both
more experience and less pressure to complete the flight on Sunday
than the weekend pilot.

Weekend pilots naturally must have a contingency plan if they're doing
a weekend cross country. It could even involve buying commercial
airfare round trip, or taking a bus, or a rental car. These
inconveniences are not eliminated by a daily insurance policy, as the
insurance policy does not relieve them of whatever week day
obligations they have.

If you start making the policy good through Monday, then you
just moved the problem from Sunday night to Monday night. Care to
go for Tuesday? Might as well go for all seven days and be done
with it.

I agree. If a pilot is available to fly on all those days, a weekend
policy would be a poor choice for that pilot.

If the weekend pilot is willing to fly Monday with no insurance
coverage, why does he even bother with insurance at all, especially
if he is not flying every weekend.

He may be willing to accept small, infrequent measured risks in
extenuating cases, but not a full year of risk. Motorcyclists who
wear a helmet might occasionally get in a pinch and not have a helmet
with them (or give their only to an unexpected passenger), and be
willing to go a couple miles w/out a helmet. But asking them to do
this all year long is quite a different matter.

Just get "hull not in motion" coverage to protect against ground
damage caused by someone else while the aircraft is parked in its
tie down.

Ah, even simpler!

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

Justin, you are MXing. Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to
find a weekend only policy.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...raft+Insurance

Use that search and if you find one let us know.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Justin, you are MXing. Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to
find a weekend only policy.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...raft+Insurance

Use that search and if you find one let us know.


Looking for a weekend-only policy would be similar to asking for 1/3 off
because you don't fly it while you sleep, or asking for 97% off because you
only fly it 3% of the hours available in a year.

The insurance companies are in it for the money. They figure out your
likelihood of a claim based on your past. I doubt they will pay an
underwriter and actuary to calculate the chances of you having an accident
only on a weekend, just because you want to save a few bucks.

On 2007-07-17, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Justin, you are MXing.

I have yet to read his posts, but if I'm MXing, props to MX for
keeping to the subject matter and not flaming or trolling the way his
opponents do. I was (perhaps wrongly) expecting a more educated crowd
in this newsgroup, but so far I've seen a mix of that grade schooler
character with the perpetual need flame, and it's quite disappointing.
At least it came along with some useful information (more noticeably
from contributors who did not bash MX in this thread, like Shapiro for
example). I hope to see MX's opponents eventually discover a more
effective way to articulate their thoughts, which inherently would not
involve flames.

Everyone here has told you that you aren't going to find a weekend
only policy.

Yet that was never a point of contention. I accepted that immediately
- despite the needless restatements of position that followed. It's
the rationale that was often questionable.

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

On Jul 15, 3:12 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim?

Of course they are. That's why we buy policies in the first place.
To cover us financially when we do something stupid. A policy that
only covers you when you do everything exactly by the FARs, should be
fairly inexpensive. It would be nearly worthless to the policyholder.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 2007-07-16, John Galban wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:12 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim?

Of course they are. That's why we buy policies in the first place.
To cover us financially when we do something stupid. A policy that
only covers you when you do everything exactly by the FARs, should be
fairly inexpensive. It would be nearly worthless to the policyholder.

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to agree with your rationale for the
most part. OTOH, I personally would be willing to sign up for a
policy that would selectively exclude coverage for some of the blatant
and patently dangerous violations, like being compelled by
getmehomeitis to take off VFR w/ a reported and actual visibility that
is clearly below the minimum, if such an exclusion were to reduce the
premium.

An exclusion that would not allow for fuel errors would be
interesting. Considering fuel starvation is the leading cause of
crashes, a policy that voids when the pilot is negligent on takeoff
fuel capacity could be considerably cheaper. I would sign up for such
a policy.

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