Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

"Tina" wrote in message
ps.com...
You may want to reconsider the type airplane you'd like -- there's a
huge difference in ease of flying between something like a 172 and a
Columbia, and that really matters for pilots who don't have a lot of
experience and are not likely to fly 100 plus hours a year.

What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like insurance,
get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300 hours a year its
availability will not be an important issue, either. 200 hours a year
is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days a week at most.

The insurance will be based on the least-experienced/fewest-annual-hours
member of the partnership, so he may have a hard time finding a group unless
he's willing to pick up the bulk of the insurance tab. That seems to be his
main issue.

You already pointed out there are several clubs in the area spreading
the use of one airplane over many members. If some of those are
frustrated with not having the bird when they want it there may be an
opportunity to get the pilots you need without a lot of effort.

If the demand was there...

Justin Gombos wrote:

I haven't decided yet whether or not to blow a large chunk of what I
have on it, or to be frugal. A Columbia will take a lot out me,
particularly if insurance is 5 figures/year. Renting is the better
value, but it's not viable where I am. And from what I've seen in
other cities, the rental industry isn't exactly teeming with options.

I think you need to do some more research into the cost of ownership of an
aircraft. I read some pretty good advise once that if the price of an
aircraft was even approaching being a problem for you that you shouldn't be
buying that aircraft.

On 2007-07-13, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Justin Gombos wrote:

I think you need to do some more research into the cost of ownership
of an aircraft. I read some pretty good advise once that if the
price of an aircraft was even approaching being a problem for you
that you shouldn't be buying that aircraft.

AFAIK, the only other figures I need to explore are maintenance costs
at this point.. which I've heard are significant. Roughly, what
should I figure to be an average or typical annual cost on maintaining
a Columbia (or the like) with 1k TT?

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

On 2007-07-13, Tina wrote:

You may want to reconsider the type airplane you'd like -- there's a
huge difference in ease of flying between something like a 172 and a
Columbia, and that really matters for pilots who don't have a lot of
experience and are not likely to fly 100 plus hours a year.

I'm not committed to anything yet, and I am also considering other
(entry level) planes. The Columbia is really enticing because of the
side stick and the speed. It's too bad I won't really know how
difficult it is to fly until I show up to buy one and take a test
flight.

Ideally I would have access to a school with a Columbia as a trainer -
which seems to be non-existent. Anyone know of any such schools in
North America? Or perhaps a club with a Columbia and a CFI that flies
it?

What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like
insurance, get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300
hours a year its availability will not be an important issue,
either. 200 hours a year is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days
a week at most.

I believe you're right.. but I'm a road warrior so I would have to
have full ownership. Though renting it out would probably be
practical, particularly in my current local area where 35 club members
share a single plane.

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

On 2007-07-13, Morgans wrote:

Messed that up. I'll try again.

Actually, please don't. It's irrelevent who you are directing your
personal attacks to anyway.

You missed it, as you have missed all of what has been told to you
about insurance. I believe Matt was also warning you that he was
about done being nice.

You truly are starting to act like MXS.

I would appreciate it if you would leave the thread. You're the only
one here to sling personal attacks in an otherwise constructive
discussion. Ad hominems are not only unwelcome noise; they're also
ineffective. If you anticipate making a pattern of this, please
consider adding me to your kill file as well. I urge you to do a
search on "netiquette" before accusing others of trolling in the
future.

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

On 2007-07-11, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

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.

If a weekend policy were offered, I would expect to get continuous
coverage on hanger/tie down incidents; similar to what some insurance
companies offer to bikers who winterize their bikes for part of the
policy year.

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.

Who is renting Columbia 400 as trainers?

No one that I know of.. but I would like to find someone doing that.
I did not mean to imply that the Columbia 400 is the only plane I'm
considering. The rental market has substantially fewer options than
the ownership market, so I would have to constrain myself to whatever
AC is available.

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.

Good idea. So far this seems like the most practical option.

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

On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow wrote:

"Tina" wrote in message
ps.com...

What may work best for you is to form a partnership with one or two
others and jointly own the airplane. The fixed costs, like
insurance, get spread, and if the airplane gets used 200 or 300
hours a year its availability will not be an important issue,
either. 200 hours a year is about 4 hours a week -- one or two days
a week at most.

The insurance will be based on the
least-experienced/fewest-annual-hours member of the partnership, so
he may have a hard time finding a group unless he's willing to pick
up the bulk of the insurance tab. That seems to be his main issue.

I like the suggestion. I'm figuring that since Columbia's are rarely
offered for rent, I could charge top dollar. As for the insurance,
would each pilot have to be named on the policy? If I require them to
have renters insurance, how would that effect my policy?

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

On 2007-07-14, Justin Gombos wrote:

I like the suggestion. I'm figuring that since Columbia's are rarely
offered for rent, I could charge top dollar. As for the insurance,
would each pilot have to be named on the policy? If I require them to
have renters insurance, how would that effect my policy?

If you rent it, your insurance will skyrocket. If you add a few named
insured, the cost will only change by going up to whatever the least
experienced pilot's rate would be. However, there will probably be a
limit to how many you can add.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD

http://www.ben.com/

On 2007-07-13, Matt Barrow wrote:

Typically, on renewal (annually). If you were originally claiming 50
hours a year, and somehow managed to put in 250 hours, you could
call your broker and have him update/modify the policy.

So does the pilots estimate of the hours per year they expect to fly
affect the premium? Auto insurers often ask how many miles drivers
expect to put on in a year, but it never seems to affect the rate, and
the brokers often tell me it makes no difference whether my actual
milage turns out to be more. These estimates are apparently just used
for later aggregate analysis.

I can see how an insurer would value air time logged in the
*past* (which I assume is already factored into the rate quote
for the following term). Do pilots update their insurers
mid-term to get mid-term rate reductions?

Experience.

You're way out of your element here and setting yourself up for a
thumpin'.

Whatever concept I'm missing, feel free to explain it to me like
I'm a two year old. I'm a noob. Give me whatever thumpin' I need
to understand you. AFAIK, my knee-jerk analysis of it tells me
only logged airtime in the past can work to reduce my insurance
bill.

That's already been explained to you.

Not exactly. Past experience is favorable, yes, I got that; that's
intuitive. But the part where *future* air time to be logged after
the policy begins counts as favorable experience is apparently the
reality I'm still having trouble grasping (it has not been explained
well enough here). Suppose someone with 250 hours claims in advance
that they will fly 1000+ hours over the course of the upcoming policy
year. Would their net rate (not effective hourly rate) be less than a
pilot that claims they will fly 150 hours over the policy year?

As for the two year-old noob, you apparently have a hard time
grasping the reality of how these things work. Did you read the PDF
from Columbia about insurance?

Yes, I found the information quite useful. In fact, that's what
prompted my earlier comment that there is very little competition here
(only nine insurers), and thus more incentive for providers
overestimate the cost of the risk that's being transferred. Nothing
in that PDF countered any of the points I've made, except perhaps the
statement that whether a pilot flys on a regular basis is a factor.
The PDF does not elaborate on where that line is drawn. I would
consider a pilot that flies every weekend to be flying on a regular
basis, since half a week is not enough time to forget things. Some
pilots go years without flying, and then decide to fly again. So the
question is: where do most insurance companies draw the line?

I see hours/days in the future as risk, and I'm surprised to hear
that an insurance company would not hold the same view.

Why don't you call an insurance broker and he will offer you good
advice.

Since there's a good probability he'll make money, he'll be more
than happy to spend hours explaining things to you than most people
that have bought car insurance have already figured out at the
fundamental level. As mentioned, these points have already been
explained. Deal with it.

If I've exhausted you, I certainly don't expect you to continue with
this thread. Feel free to bail. My questions remain open for anyone
with an urge to answer.

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

"Justin Gombos" wrote

I would appreciate it if you would leave the thread.

I really don't give a crap what you would appreciate. Until you start
listening to what people tell you, you can expect more attacks.

Grow up.
--
Jim in NC