Orlando Executive airport after Charley hit

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
...
Well, then talk to roughly 90% of the owners out there and straighten
them
out. I don't own an airplane - yet, but I do know that the vast
majority
of
owners out there only pay for liability insurance and risk the hull
damage
themselves

How do you "know" that? It certainly doesn't match my experience as an
owner, and as someone that knows many other owners. Even when the
airplane
is owned free and clear.

Are you an insurance broker? Underwriter? Have you done a statistically
significant owner survey? What is the basis for your claim that 90% of
all
owners carry no hull insurance? If so few people are carrying hull
insurance, why is it that the rising hull insurance costs are causing such
a
huge problem in general aviation?

Pete

I am not an insurance broker, but I do know a lot of pilots/owners. The 90%
is just a guess on my part, but I feel that it is close. The rising hull
insurance costs are precisely the reason that a lot of owners do not have
this insurance. You hit it right on the spot.

Perhaps an underwriter can chime in and throw out some "statistically
correct" figures.

Clyde

"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .
[...] The 90% is just a guess on my part

Are you generally in the habit of claiming to know something even when
you're only guessing?

It's my equally uninformed opinion that your guess of 90% isn't even close.

In spite of rising insurance costs, hull insurance is still a very small
fraction of the total hull value. Heck, even for my seaplane, I'm "only"
paying 2.5% of the hull value annually and for lower-risk aircraft the
percentage is much lower.

Very few aircraft owners are so well off that they can afford to just write
off the loss of an aircraft, and there is no way that 90% of all aircraft
owners have decided to take that risk, especially when the savings is so
tiny compared to the risk of loss.

Pete

As a West Coast pilot, can anyone explain to me why people don't move their
aircraft out of the way of these storms? I'd call in sick and miss a day of
work before I risked by 30K+ investment.



"Gilan" wrote in message
link.net...
added 16 more photos today.

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

"Robert Bates" wrote in message
news:q29Wc.39218$Fg5.5147@attbi_s53...
As a West Coast pilot, can anyone explain to me why people don't move their
aircraft out of the way of these storms? I'd call in sick and miss a day of
work before I risked by 30K+ investment.

I also find this strange. As always, some were probably waiting on parts,
out of license, or otherwise could not be moved. That said, I don't think that
there is a certified aircraft made that lacks the range and speed to be flown
out of the path of a hurricane given a few hours warning. I paid a visit to F45
(outside West Palm Beach) the morning of the storm and found only two planes
still tied up outside. What is wrong with the Orlando guys? Perhaps they think
they are immune because they are 50 miles from the coast?





"Gilan" wrote in message
link.net...
added 16 more photos today.

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

just added another 40 pictures

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm

"Vaughn" wrote:

I don't think that there is a certified aircraft made that lacks the
range and speed to be flown out of the path of a hurricane given a
few hours warning.

When you only have a few hours warning - which is all we had here in
Orlando - I think it's natural to be more concerned with preparing your
home and family than your airplane.

Sadly, a lot of people moved their airplanes from the Tampa area, where the
storm was forecasted to make landfall, to the Orlando area to get them out
of the way. As it turned out, Tampa barely got rained on and we got
hammered. The only sure way not to get hit by a hurricane in Florida is to
not be in Florida.


B

Excellent pics, thanks for posting them. I'm very sorry to see all those
aircraft ruined though.

Gilan wrote:
just added another 40 pictures

"Robert Bates" wrote

As a West Coast pilot, can anyone explain to me why people don't move
their aircraft out of the way of these storms? I'd call in sick and
miss a day of work before I risked by 30K+ investment.

OK, I fly my 30K 1959 C-172 to safety, what happens to my 40K SUV
and the 35K boat? The auto is a lot easier to relocate, more of a
necessity after the storm and the insurance company is going to
replace any loss anyway.

Bob Moore

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .
[...] The 90% is just a guess on my part

Are you generally in the habit of claiming to know something even when
you're only guessing?

It's my equally uninformed opinion that your guess of 90% isn't even
close.

In spite of rising insurance costs, hull insurance is still a very small
fraction of the total hull value. Heck, even for my seaplane, I'm "only"
paying 2.5% of the hull value annually and for lower-risk aircraft the
percentage is much lower.

Very few aircraft owners are so well off that they can afford to just
write
off the loss of an aircraft, and there is no way that 90% of all aircraft
owners have decided to take that risk, especially when the savings is so
tiny compared to the risk of loss.

Pete

Okay.

Are there any 'lessons learned' out of all of this aircraft destruction?
Did any tie down methods seem to work better than others? Did more aircraft
survive in hangars than on the ramp? And ultimately, it might be nice to
know if some insurance companies provided better service than others.

--
Regards,
Mike

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/amountainaero/fspic1.html
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
.. .

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Torres" wrote in message
...
Well, then talk to roughly 90% of the owners out there and straighten
them
out. I don't own an airplane - yet, but I do know that the vast
majority
of
owners out there only pay for liability insurance and risk the hull
damage
themselves

How do you "know" that? It certainly doesn't match my experience as an
owner, and as someone that knows many other owners. Even when the
airplane
is owned free and clear.

Are you an insurance broker? Underwriter? Have you done a
statistically
significant owner survey? What is the basis for your claim that 90% of
all
owners carry no hull insurance? If so few people are carrying hull
insurance, why is it that the rising hull insurance costs are causing
such
a
huge problem in general aviation?

Pete

I am not an insurance broker, but I do know a lot of pilots/owners. The
90%
is just a guess on my part, but I feel that it is close. The rising hull
insurance costs are precisely the reason that a lot of owners do not have
this insurance. You hit it right on the spot.

Perhaps an underwriter can chime in and throw out some "statistically
correct" figures.

Clyde