Any flying clubs out there with 6 seater retracts?

Yeah, our insurance is due with Avemco on the 31st, and we only found out
about AOPAIA today. I'm hoping we can switch, because right now Avemco
will allow fewer named pilots on our Lance than we have people who want to
fly the Lance.


Wanting to fly the Lance.. and qualified to fly the Lance.. are two
different things and sometimes at two opposite extremes... Student pilots
want to fly the Lance.. are the ready for it? (ready for flamers, I'll
agree, anyone ((almost anyone)) can be taught to fly anything, even the AF
used jets are it's primary trainer)... And some companies use Bonanza's for
a primary trainer (Lufthansa)

Here, the FAA may think they are in charge, but insurance companies rule.
And insurance companies have a major play when seats available go above 4
and engine power goes above 235HP (that seems to be a dividing line, I've
also seen 250HP as a line).

Our local Lance on the rental line, required an Instrument ticket, 500hrs
total time for the rental policy with the FBO. The Bonanza was the same.

BT

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

And have you gotten the bad news about insurance yet? We've had to
restrict the number of pilots on our Lance and institute an annual
training program for them.

My club was told a few months back by our current carrier (Avemco,
IIRC), that they would not renew the insurance on our Debonair and
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

We ended up switching to AIG. They required that we stiffen up our
requirements for flying the Debonair & Bonanza. We now need an
instrument rating and 350 hours total time. We also now need all our
retract checkouts to include 15 takeoffs and landings.

In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
My club was told a few months back by our current carrier (Avemco,
IIRC), that they would not renew the insurance on our Debonair and
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

Funny, we were told that it was only complex 6 seaters they didn't like.
The other club on the field has two Arrows and a Lance, and it's only the
Lance that they're having problems with. And we didn't have any problems
with our Dakota, which is high performance but not complex and not a six
seater.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Flying is not dangerous; crashing is dangerous.

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:58:10 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
My club was told a few months back by our current carrier (Avemco,
IIRC), that they would not renew the insurance on our Debonair and
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

Funny, we were told that it was only complex 6 seaters they didn't like.
The other club on the field has two Arrows and a Lance, and it's only the
Lance that they're having problems with. And we didn't have any problems
with our Dakota, which is high performance but not complex and not a six
seater.

Someone else posted that 235hp is some sort of limit as well. If you
include this in where you're seeing problems, it may help explain some
of it.

z

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:
requirements for flying the Debonair & Bonanza. We now need an
instrument rating and 350 hours total time. We also now need all our
retract checkouts to include 15 takeoffs and landings.

That's one of the ways I justified buying a plane. Most of the insurance
minimums for renting high-performance retractable airplanes are so high
that they'd be impractical to try to attain through dual instruction in
suitable rentals... Now I could sell my plane and have a chance of
satisfying the minimums to rent a similar plane.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

zatatime wrote:

Funny, we were told that it was only complex 6 seaters they didn't like.
The other club on the field has two Arrows and a Lance, and it's only the
Lance that they're having problems with. And we didn't have any problems
with our Dakota, which is high performance but not complex and not a six
seater.

Someone else posted that 235hp is some sort of limit as well. If you
include this in where you're seeing problems, it may help explain some
of it.

Our club insurance cost dropped this year, with some careful shopping. They
required that we slightly increase the currency requirement for the 182RG
to be 3 hours in the last six months or a checkout in the last 45 days.

But we've nothing with more than four seats or over - if I'm recalling
correctly - 235HP.

- Andrew

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:cqmu3i$9hu$1
@allhats.xcski.com:

In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
My club was told a few months back by our current carrier (Avemco,
IIRC), that they would not renew the insurance on our Debonair and
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

Funny, we were told that it was only complex 6 seaters they didn't like.
The other club on the field has two Arrows and a Lance, and it's only the
Lance that they're having problems with. And we didn't have any problems
with our Dakota, which is high performance but not complex and not a six
seater.



Is your Arrow High performance? Our's isn't...

In a previous article, Judah said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:cqmu3i$9hu$1
:
In a previous article, Roy Smith said:
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

Funny, we were told that it was only complex 6 seaters they didn't like.
The other club on the field has two Arrows and a Lance, and it's only the
Lance that they're having problems with. And we didn't have any problems
with our Dakota, which is high performance but not complex and not a six
seater.

Is your Arrow High performance? Our's isn't...

I didn't say it was, did I? I also didn't say that I have an Arrow. I
said the Dakota was High Performance, which it is, and that unlike Roy's
assertion, we've had no problems insuring it. An Arrow is Complex, which,
based on insurance policies that I've seen, is harder to insure in a club
than High Performance, but again, the club that has them isn't having any
problems insuring them.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It should be understood by those skilled in the art that a Web browser, such
as Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer, ... is separate from the operating
system." - Microsoft patent lawyers shoot their anti-trust lawyers in the ass.

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
I said the Dakota was High Performance, which it is, and that unlike
Roy's assertion, we've had no problems insuring it.

All I really know is that I was told the problem with the Debonair &
Bonanza are that they were high performance. Between the underwriter
talking to the broker, the broker talking to our treasurer, and our
treasurer relating the story to the membership, there's plenty of room
for story mutation. Based on my own personal experience, I'd vote for
the broker being the most likely mutation locus.

My club was told a few months back by our current carrier (Avemco,
IIRC), that they would not renew the insurance on our Debonair and
Bonanza. The word was they were getting out of insuring high
performance planes for clubs. They still do clubs, they still do
high-performance, they just won't do both at the same time.

They don't really mean high performance in the FAA sense (over 200 hp)
but in a realistic sense. Mooneys are high performance,
182's/Arrows/Cherokee 235's aren't. What they really mean is demanding
handling combined with complexity and/or speed. Basically, it's about
opportunity to get into trouble.

I think the reason Avemco won't write such planes for clubs anymore
(while still being willing to write very low time pilots in complex
airplanes with more than 4 seats AND more than 250 hp) is that they
don't feel like they can effectively control who is instructing in the
club environment. They have one of the more interesting approaches to
this that I've seen. They will cover the student while flying with any
CFI who has 3 takeoffs and landings in make and model in the past 90
days. But make and model means down to the letter and dash number - to
the point that time in an A36 Bonanza would not count for the
nearly-identical B36 Bonanza, for example. What that means,
practically speaking, is that nobody who does not already own and/or
regularly instruct in that exact make and model (which, given how few
are made in any letter designation, pretty much means nobody) will meet
the open CFI warranty. And that means they name (and thus evaluate)
every instructor individually, and then make him get whatever training
experience they feel appropriate. If the experience level is high
enough, the CFI just checks himself out and makes three takeoffs and
landings, and is good to go - but it could be a lot more.

I suspect they don't feel they could make anything like this work in a
club environment, so they don't want to mess with it.

Michael