A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

insurance: vote with your $



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 12th 03, 03:29 AM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Well, sort of. I think what you're saying is correct if you're
dealing with one given company. On the other hand, added
ratings/experience/recurrent training may qualify you with another
company that has substantially lower rates.


Yes, I agree with that.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com


  #22  
Old July 12th 03, 06:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 11-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

To return the cost if an instrument rating in 3 years the insurance
company
would have to pay me about $1,000 a year. Not going to happen.



Well, I do know that when my partners got their IR (both in the same year)
the tab for insurance the following year went down by about $800. And this
was a few years ago, before the current craziness in the insurance biz.

The cost of getting the rating IN ONE'S OWN AIRPLANE may be a bit more than
$2400, but not that much more. I figure on around 45 hours of training, of
which 35 involves the use of a paid instructor. (The other 10 being
practice with a licensed safety pilot who is not being paid).

45 hours @ $40/hr marginal cost for airplane* = $1800
35 hours @ $40/hr for instructor = 1400

TOTAL = $3200

*Marginal cost is the cost for "additional" hours of use, and thus does not
include any fixed expenses. Basically, it's the hourly cost of fuel and
oil, plus reserve for overhaul. $40 is what I figure is about right for a
C-172 or similar airplane.

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

It also suggests that if you are not instrument rated you might ask your
broker how much you could save if you were. (Note that significant savings
will often require changing insurance carriers.) That just might provide
the impetus for you to finally get to work on your instrument ticket.
  #24  
Old July 12th 03, 10:17 PM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




"Newps" wrote in message
et...

What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an


You may be very lucky to own one of the few airplane types where there are
sufficient numbers in the fleet to generate competition in the industry.
For that matter, a C182 has an excellent safety record as well.

For those of us who own rarer airplanes -- regardless of whether they are
smaller or lager than a C182 -- obtaining reasonably priced insurance has
reached a critical situation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com


  #25  
Old July 13th 03, 05:15 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...

On 11-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

To return the cost if an instrument rating in 3 years the insurance
company
would have to pay me about $1,000 a year. Not going to happen.



Well, I do know that when my partners got their IR (both in the same year)
the tab for insurance the following year went down by about $800. And

this
was a few years ago, before the current craziness in the insurance biz.

The cost of getting the rating IN ONE'S OWN AIRPLANE may be a bit more

than
$2400, but not that much more. I figure on around 45 hours of training,

of
which 35 involves the use of a paid instructor. (The other 10 being
practice with a licensed safety pilot who is not being paid).

45 hours @ $40/hr marginal cost for airplane* = $1800
35 hours @ $40/hr for instructor = 1400

TOTAL = $3200

*Marginal cost is the cost for "additional" hours of use, and thus does

not
include any fixed expenses. Basically, it's the hourly cost of fuel and
oil, plus reserve for overhaul. $40 is what I figure is about right for a
C-172 or similar airplane.

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance

premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.

It also suggests that if you are not instrument rated you might ask your
broker how much you could save if you were. (Note that significant

savings
will often require changing insurance carriers.) That just might provide
the impetus for you to finally get to work on your instrument ticket.


You make a few wrong assumptions. First, not all planes are capable of
being instrument trainers. I myself would not want an IFR capable airplane.
Second, you mention some craziness and insurance situation alluding to
increasing premiums. My premiums have not gone up in years. For my
airplane and the flying I do an instrument rating would be less than
useless. I don't believe an instrument rating is guaranteed to lower
premiums no matter how many times you change carriers.




  #26  
Old July 13th 03, 07:07 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 12-Jul-2003, "Dave Stadt" wrote:

You make a few wrong assumptions. First, not all planes are capable of
being instrument trainers. I myself would not want an IFR capable
airplane.
Second, you mention some craziness and insurance situation alluding to
increasing premiums. My premiums have not gone up in years. For my
airplane and the flying I do an instrument rating would be less than
useless. I don't believe an instrument rating is guaranteed to lower
premiums no matter how many times you change carriers.



Obviously, my analysis assumes that you start with an IFR-capable airplane
that you use at least occasionally for travel. If your flying is just for
fun in a VFR-only airplane, the discussion doesn't apply.

-Elliott Drucker
  #27  
Old July 15th 03, 02:35 AM
Ron Rapp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:55:59 GMT, Newps wrote:

This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.


What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an
instrument and non instrument rated pilot with my 900 hours in my plane.
No difference. Not only did the premium go down $170 this year, I
changed from USAIG to Global, they rasied the hull value from $65K to
$70K without me asking them to do it. My insurance has gone down in
each of the six years I have insured it for. If this insurance
situation gets much worse I may have to buy another plane.


I think Richard was right, the 182 is a rare circumstance. We're
lucky.

The guys who own the next step up, the 210 series, or a twin or
retractable, are going to have faced substantial increases over the
past few years. And even asking what the rates are for commercial
usage are likely to induce high expenses (medical ones, that is!).

OTOH, there are exceptions. I looked at an RV-6 and the insurance
rate was slightly less than for my 182. However, that quote wasn't as
good as it first seems when you consider the lower hull value on the
experimental, and the fact that it included sublimits (something my
current policy does not have).

--Ron
  #28  
Old July 15th 03, 04:28 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ron Rapp wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:55:59 GMT, Newps wrote:


This suggests that a few years ago the payback in reduced insurance premiums
was around 4 years. In the current insurance situation, it is therefore
quite believable that payback could be quicker.


What current situation? The insurance on my 182 keeps getting cheaper.
I called my broker and asked him what the difference was between an
instrument and non instrument rated pilot with my 900 hours in my plane.
No difference. Not only did the premium go down $170 this year, I
changed from USAIG to Global, they rasied the hull value from $65K to
$70K without me asking them to do it. My insurance has gone down in
each of the six years I have insured it for. If this insurance
situation gets much worse I may have to buy another plane.



I think Richard was right, the 182 is a rare circumstance. We're
lucky.


I wouldn't call it rare. Every 152, 172, 180, 182, 185, all FG
cherokees, all the Beech FG types like Musketeers would also be the
same. Several guys here with Bonanzas, no problem there either. Twins
I can understand, that will always be a problem.

  #29  
Old July 15th 03, 05:23 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Stadt" wrote
I don't believe the 182 is a rare circumstance. I have heard of far more
policies that have RTS or gone down than have gone up.


Mine went up - by one dollar a year. This is in a retract twin. On
the other hand, I'm seeing people paying THREE TIMES what I pay, for
the same coverage in the same airplane. I think the insurers are just
getting better at figuring out who the bad risks are.

Michael
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
non-owner insurance Matt Whiting General Aviation 1 February 12th 05 12:02 AM
Suppressing the Vote (in Florida) WalterM140 Military Aviation 2 August 16th 04 11:16 PM
Democracy Expires Grantland Military Aviation 14 March 8th 04 05:54 AM
Something Fishy with Kerry's being a "Hero" Pechs1 Naval Aviation 16 February 29th 04 03:16 PM
Aviation Insurance History, data, records? cloudclimbr General Aviation 0 February 17th 04 04:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.