Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

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, El Maximo wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Looking for a weekend-only policy would be similar to asking for 1/3
off because you don't fly it while you sleep,

Even the most extreme pilots who are in the air the most are not PIC
during their sleep, which means the annual policy /assumes/ this in
their figures. For an insurer to quote an hourly rate on the same
group, the risk per unit time would increase, saving the insured
nothing. So no, it wouldn't even be close to the same thing in the
case of weekend pilots getting a policy that accurately reflects their
risk.

Some motorcycle policies in cold climate areas cover the full year,
but the risk assessment expects riders to only ride in
spring/summer/fall. Asking for the pro rata share of winter to be
knocked off the premium would actually make the net risk much higher
than the cost of it. What's interesting is that bikers will sometimes
attach a sidecar just for the winter (usually biker cops), and
leverage the insurance during the period it wasn't intended. If that
activity were to become popular enough, it would have the long term
effect of costing those who winterize their bikes.

or asking for 97% off because you only fly it 3% of the hours
available in a year.

If some pilots were managing to use 100% of the available hours while
others were using 3%, and the risk assessment did not accurately
account for that difference, then you would have a usable analogy in
this case.

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.

Bingo. Exactly. Good point. They have an obligation to the
stockholders / owners to maximize profit (rightly so). So it's not in
their interest reduce profit margin to needlessly undercut what little
competition there is.

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

"Justin Gombos" wrote in message
news:UZbni.6071$225.1718@trndny03...

So no, it wouldn't even be close to the same thing in the
case of weekend pilots getting a policy that accurately reflects their
risk.

If you say so.

On Jul 17, 11:14 am, "El Maximo" wrote:
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

Unlike automobile insurance where both your past and future
driving experience are used to determine your premium, all the forms
which I had filled for aviation insurance only asked about my past
experience.

The difference may come from the fact that driving risk
increases with amount of driving time. The more mileage you plan to
put in a year, the higher your chance of involving in automobile
accidents. Whereas in aviavtion, the more flying experience you have,
the less chance that you will have an accident. I don't have the time
to look for the statistics but I'd bet there are more occurences of
automobile accidents caused by other drivers than aviation accidents
caused by other pilots.

I think that Justin likes to argue for argument sake. I
recalled having to endure a life insurance pitch from an insurance man
years ago. It's fun to imagine that this unbearable man is now
selling aviation policies and has someone like Justin for a client ;-)

Hai Longworth

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).

"Justin Gombos" wrote

I hope to see MX's opponents eventually discover a more
effective way to articulate their thoughts, which inherently would not
involve flames.

That is the point, though.

Like MX, you seem unwilling to accept fact, and continue argument, when fact
has been delivered.

Debating with MX is useless, because of this. Many have tried to be civil,
but after doing that, he argues, just to continue to argue. He dismisses
facts given, because the presenter does not know what he is talking about,
or... You choose the given reason of the moment.

You are following his path, exactly.

Don't like our group, because it is not responding to you as you would like?

Fine.

Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good Lord split 'ya.

I'm done with you and your threads, and you get the honor of joining MX in
the ignore filter/loony bin. I really did not think that would ever happen
to anyone else.

Some achievement. Be proud.

Then, examine yourself, and see if this is the route you want your life to
take.

Examine carefully. This is a big step; a big crossroad in your life.
Decide carefully.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...


I really did not think that would ever happen to anyone else.

I don't think it did. I think you've simply got the same person listed under
two names.

"El Maximo" wrote

I don't think it did. I think you've simply got the same person listed
under two names.

The thought did cross my mind; there is always that possibility...
--
Jim in NC