Insuring a Columbia 400 & weekend only insurance

On 2007-07-18, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

I'm in South Arkansas we don't need heated hangers we need air
conditioned hangers. Mine is conditioned by 2 42" fans.

It never occurred to me that a hanger would need to be cooled. Does
it actually get hot enough to damage aircraft components, or is it for
the pilots/staff?

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

On 2007-07-16, John Galban wrote:
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.

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to agree with your rationale for the
most part. OTOH, I personally would be willing to sign up for a
policy that would selectively exclude coverage for some of the blatant
and patently dangerous violations, like being compelled by
getmehomeitis to take off VFR w/ a reported and actual visibility that
is clearly below the minimum, if such an exclusion were to reduce the
premium.

An exclusion that would not allow for fuel errors would be
interesting. Considering fuel starvation is the leading cause of
crashes, a policy that voids when the pilot is negligent on takeoff
fuel capacity could be considerably cheaper. I would sign up for such
a policy.

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

Note to those reading this thread. Gombos' claim that that fuel
mismanagement is the leading cause of GA accidents is not supported by
the data. See for example

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

The analysis within this document may help your safety related
decision making. Safe flying takes more than assuring yourselves that
you're not attempting a 4 hour flight on 3 hours 55 minutes of fuel.

Justin Gombos wrote:
On 2007-07-18, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

I'm in South Arkansas we don't need heated hangers we need air
conditioned hangers. Mine is conditioned by 2 42" fans.

It never occurred to me that a hanger would need to be cooled. Does
it actually get hot enough to damage aircraft components, or is it for
the pilots/staff?

Think about it Justin. A big metal building sitting in the sun all summer
long. Does it get hot enough to damage the aircraft? Probably not. Does it
get hot enough to damage me. Without the fans running, running and the white
roof, yes it would.

"Justin Gombos" wrote

Can anyone recommend an insurance provider who would be willing to
discount infrequent flying, like someone who would only need to carry
insurance Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?


Even if less airtime in theory might translate to less absolute risk, as you
suggest, the problem for the insurance company is that it's not a certainty.

Less airtime means less exposure to hazards, but also less currency in the
skills department. That, in turn, for a prudent pilot should result in
higher weather minimums etc. in order to keep his risk low despite his
skills deficit, compared to the pilot who flies every day. But, the
insurance company has no obvious way of controlling if the weekend pilot
actually flies more carefully, as far as I can understand.

My guess is that the insurance companies have calculated that offering a
weekend policy would either
a) need to be priced at an unsellable level or
b) priced decently, would increase the insurance company's financial risk
too much or
c) incur too much administrative costs.

To me it's very obvious that regular flying in a particular airplane hones
the skills and reduces the risk level. It's no coincidence that our local
clubs require a refresher flight with a CFI, anytime more than 90 days have
elapsed since last flight in-command of a particular type.

There exist some insurance examples of the suggested type. Air travel
insurance, for example. You can buy insurance for a single flight (to a very
high price) or then be covered by a general travel insurance policy, maybe
even packaged with other policies. Check the cost difference.

I had the possibility to keep my airplane uninsured for part of the year,
for example the winter. The problem was, the rates were chosen so that the
savings felt too small compared to the potential frustration of not being
able to fly on those splendid winter days when the weather was nice.
Insurance companies are not stupid ;-) .

Another comparison is a newspaper subscription. I can subscribe to my daily
newspaper either for every day or Sundays only, getting 1/7 of the issues
for 1/2 of the price. Not a very good deal I'd say for the Sunday issue. And
this is, notably, a business where there is no risk element like in
insurance.

Another aspect of your weekend-only flying strategy is that the maintenance
cost per hour is likely to be higher. This is due to the fact that when the
airplane flies less, some maintenance items may reach their age limit before
their flight hours limit. This may be worthwhile to include in your
calculations.

The best way to find the insurance you want is to speak with the companies.
Who knows, maybe someone will actually offer something reasonable?

On 2007-07-20, Tina wrote:

Note to those reading this thread. Gombos' claim that that fuel
mismanagement is the leading cause of GA accidents is not supported
by the data. See for example

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

Thanks for the correction. I had heard fuel starvation being a
leading cause from a ground instructor at one school, and a CFI at
another school. They were apparently working with old data; AOPA has
an article claiming that as of 2001, fuel starvation incidents have
declined to 1/3rd of what they were in the 80's, and Wiegmann's study
covers the 90's.

Though I would still call 8.7% significant, and probably the easiest
to prevent among the decision error categories.

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