Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

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)

On Jul 14, 2:56 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:
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

I have been a plane onwer for the last 4 years. None of the forms
that I had filled out to obtain quotes from several insurance
companies/agencies asked me to estimate the hours that I expect to
fly. They all wanted to know the same things such as total number of
hours, total number of hours in type/model, total number of hours
flown the last 12 months, total number of hours flown the last 90 days
etc All policies are for the whole year. In 2005, our policy expired
in March and we were scheduled to take our accelerated IFR training in
May, we were told that having instrument ratings would reduce our
premium but we would have to wait until next year for the discount to
take effect since the policy could not be adjusted even after only two
months. In another year, my husband was only10 or so hours shy of
500hrs when we renewed the policy. I had over 500hrs at that time but
the cost was based on the co-insurers with the least experience.
Again we were told that there would be a cost reduction after 500hrs
but it would not take effect until the next year.
Unlike automobile insurance where there are many companies to
choose from, there are less than a handful of aviation insurance
companies. Their policies are very much similar. Whether you think
that the policies make sense or not, you have to accept whatever
availalbe. It's apples and oranges when it comes to comparing
automobile and aviation insurances.

Hai Longworth

Justin Gombos wrote:
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?

I don't have a clue but your response illustrates my point. You have
acknowledged that the cost of the aircraft is at the edge of your comfort
range and the cost of insurance might put it outside that range. In addition
to maintenance you will also have to park it somewhere and that usually
costs something as well. Seeing as the Columbia is a composite aircraft you
will probably want to park in a hanger. That can range from a sistuation
like mine where I pay $450/year for the ground lease and own my hanger which
cost $30K to thousands/month.

Gig, this thread has reverted to, or maybe from the start was, a
sophmoric academic discussion driven by someone who is prone to argue
with those who tried to help.

I was hoping Justin is not a troll in training, but the evidence seems
to be mounting that he may worship at the shrine of MX.

Tina

Tina wrote:
Gig, this thread has reverted to, or maybe from the start was, a
sophmoric academic discussion driven by someone who is prone to argue
with those who tried to help.

I was hoping Justin is not a troll in training, but the evidence seems
to be mounting that he may worship at the shrine of MX.

Tina

While I think you may be right I'm going to give him the benefit of the
doubt a little longer.

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)

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).