Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

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

On 2007-07-18, Morgans wrote:

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

Despite the informal mathematical proof that I presented, there has
not been a single /attempt/ to present a fact that even remotely
suggests that airtime is inversely proportional to net risk. There
have only been statements of position, and restatements of position
(but feel free to quote if you think otherwise). I considered
formalizing the proof that airtime is directly proportional to net
risk, but I've determined that that would be useless because those who
don't accept the informal proof are the same ones who would not
understand a formal proof anyway. But if you think otherwise, I will
post the formal proof on request.

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.

Considering that MX's opponents (from what we've witnessed in this
thread) simply expect their statements of position to be accepted,
w/out supporting it, then I can see why MX might continue to dismiss
what is probably more likely to be ad hominems than facts from this
crowd. Reasonable, intuitive claims need not necessarily be
supported, but extraordinary claims like airtime is inversely
proportional to net risk need to be grounded with something meaningful
if challenged.

You are following his path, exactly.

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

Fine.

I'm not ready to write off the /whole/ group as useless just
yet.. perhaps only the few who address logical arguments with logical
fallacies. From what I've seen, only MX's opponents who surfaced in
this thread use personal attacks and/or repeated statements of
position, and then wonder why this strategy is not persuasive, and
from there conclude they're dealing with a "dense" opponent. The
optimum skull density in this case mitigates these sort of tactics
from being persuasive.

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