 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
 |
|
Actually, that's one thing I'm working on. Just got all my
books for the commercial, and I think I'll for sure get my
commercial and then hopefully CFI. I figure that would be
nice anyway to just do BFR's for friends and things like that.
But it would also benefit just as you stated. However,
I will NOT be willing to force her to learn all the basics
from me....someone else should do that.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
doctornigel wrote:
| Quote: |
One other option, get your CFI and have your wife log time with you
while in your RV-10. A cheap way to build total time to reduce
insurance costs.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:05 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
tomhanaway wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm a very low time pilot so definitely fall in this category.
Is insurance somehow mandatory??
No.
|
| Quote: | I understand liability issues. I also understand that a hangar lease may require insurance.
I just reduced my insurance by going from 'in motion' to 'not in motion'
|
.... which meets the requirements for my hangar lease.
| Quote: | Other than that, and avoiding philosophical discussion, if I'm willing to take the risk as to physical damage to myself, the plane and potential liability exposure to others for my actions,, is insurance mandatory??
Again, no it isn't. None of my airplanes are insured for hull. My
|
history for my Pitts S-1 serves as my thoughts. When I built it, the
first flight was insured with hull equal to the value of the plane
because I didn't have any "Pitts" experience. The hull insurance was an
extra $1000. I dropped it after the first year, my reasoning being that
if I hadn't hurt it in a year (about 100 hours) then I wasn't liable
to. It took me 13 years to hurt it. So, in the big bank in the sky, I
had $12,000 to fix it .... which came to around $2500.
| Quote: | Equally, I'm fully aware of an obligation to advise any passenger of the fact that there's no direct insurance coverage.
That's something I should do too. I just never thought about it.
|
The bottom line is if you can stand the complete loss .... salvage
doesn't usually pay much .... or have the means to fix it, then you
should be comfortable not having insurance. Just make sure that your
assets are protected from a lawsuit.
We've all lost friends, and their friends, in airplane accidents .....
and you have to weigh the causes with an open mind .... and compare
those losses with all the successful flights we make every day. It's a
gamble, and the odds are you will live to be an old pilot if you survive
all your stupid mistakes. I've survived my share.
Best of luck to everyone ..... just be comfortable with your insurance
decision.
Linn
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Tim,
As a cfi I'd say you're correct: for many couples (not necessarily all) it's probably best for a new pilot to get instruction from someone other than his/her spouse. This summer I instructed a college student whose father was a cfi. They realized that the dynamic between them was not the best for a teacher-student relationship.
As to this:
"One other option, get your CFI and have your wife log time with you
while in your RV-10. A cheap way to build total time to reduce
insurance costs."
You may well find that you're caught in a Catch-22. Most insurance policies forbid the use of the aircraft for instruction, except instruction for the named insured. So to do this (and maintain insurance coverage), you'll have to name your wife on the policy. And that will cost more (as will telling them you're going to use the plane for instruction). I cannot imagine what an insurance company will charge to allow a student to fly solo in a -10, but it won't be cheap. Too much speed and power.
There is another quasi-legal option for building time if your wife gets her license at the local FBO. If your policy says that only you will act as "pilot in command", then there is nothing wrong with allowing your wife to manipulate the controls. And as a private pilot and the 'sole manipulator of the controls' she can log the time (of course, you are not supposed to log this time, in this case). At the same time you would be PIC (presumably, you'd take over if things went wrong, or at least make the decisions. And you'd be legally responsible for the safe and legal operation of the aircraft). Now of course a few years down the road, when you tell the insurance company that your wife now has 400 hours, they might ask where she got them, and not like the answer! Probably best to be up-front with them. I don't think they should have any real problem with her flying as long as you are PIC.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Bob, I know exactly what you're saying. It's a really tricky
argument. That's why I figure if she indeed gets her
certificate, I'll have them add her as a named pilot with the
exception that I'm a co-pilot. That may make it work for her.
The only problem is that I wouldn't be racking up any hours
for myself. But, I've got plenty enough that no additional
will save me any insurance dollars anymore. If she only
solos, and that's as far as she takes it, then I'd have to
be a CFI to even be able to call it "Dual" time. But, you're
right, it's weird in that it isn't really like you're using
the plane for commercial "flight instruction", and you may
not even be "instructing" at the time, but for all practical
purposes, they can still argue that you're doing instruction,
so it would be best to get the boundaries all figured out
in writing so that no insurance is jeopardized.
In the end, her having a certificate just really won't
affect our flying...and it won't help our rates, so it isn't
a big deal to me if she gets it. But, it would be nice if
SHE could feel the accomplishment at least.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bob Turner wrote:
| Quote: |
<bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
Tim,
As a cfi I'd say you're correct: for many couples (not necessarily
all) it's probably best for a new pilot to get instruction from
someone other than his/her spouse. This summer I instructed a college
student whose father was a cfi. They realized that the dynamic
between them was not the best for a teacher-student relationship.
As to this:
"One other option, get your CFI and have your wife log time with you
while in your RV-10. A cheap way to build total time to reduce
insurance costs."
You may well find that you're caught in a Catch-22. Most insurance
policies forbid the use of the aircraft for instruction, except
instruction for the named insured. So to do this (and maintain
insurance coverage), you'll have to name your wife on the policy. And
that will cost more (as will telling them you're going to use the
plane for instruction). I cannot imagine what an insurance company
will charge to allow a student to fly solo in a -10, but it won't be
cheap. Too much speed and power.
There is another quasi-legal option for building time if your wife
gets her license at the local FBO. If your policy says that only you
will act as "pilot in command", then there is nothing wrong with
allowing your wife to manipulate the controls. And as a private pilot
and the 'sole manipulator of the controls' she can log the time (of
course, you are not supposed to log this time, in this case). At the
same time you would be PIC (presumably, you'd take over if things
went wrong, or at least make the decisions. And you'd be legally
responsible for the safe and legal operation of the aircraft). Now of
course a few years down the road, when you tell the insurance company
that your wife now has 400 hours, they might ask where she got them,
and not like the answer! Probably best to be up-front with them. I
don't think they should have any real problem with her flying as long
as you are PIC.
-------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 31104#231104
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
Maybe it'll be feasible when the 'community' is larger. I like the idea.
Linn
Bob Kaufmann wrote: [quote] <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea because the community of RV 10s wouldn’t support it for about $2500 a year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of KiloPapa
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
To: Matronics RV10 - List
Subject: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
do not archive
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 [b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
This will ruffle some feathers I'm sure, but, I really think
there are a few things that will work against it for a few years
yet.
#1. A small risk-pool. We need a lot more than the
small number of RV's that would likely sign up to get the
risk pool large enough. I know it's not RV-10's ONLY
that would be part of it, but, there are less than 200
RV-10's listed as flying, and the RV-10 is the only one
of the RV's that is looking like a real insurance hurdle.
Why the hurdle? Hull value, and 4 seats. So we're unique
in our rate problmes. Many other RV-ers will be plenty happy
to just pay their normal, many years experienced, big
corporation owned insurance policy, knowing it has a
track record. I myself even at $2,750 would be hard
to pull away from a known-good-reputation company.
The hull value is what makes the rate so high, for even
someone with > 400 hours in RV-10's now, and plenty of
total time and Instrument rating. When I compare the rates
I paid on a Sundowner, really if you adjust for the hull
value differences, I'm actually paying less. This doesn't
negate any benefits of what was proposed, but it's one of
those things that I'm not willing to switch for something
that isn't a super-firmly back and stringent plan, with
real big financial benefits. I just paid $140/yr more
for Global, just because of some little additional
benefits that I'll probably never use. I don't think I'd
be willing to give up any of the added frills for even
a $500/yr or more savings.
#2. This is the kicker for me, personally. The plan that
you guys were working on was very very open, open to all,
and it didn't screen out situations to the degree that I
would be comfortable being part of.
For instance, alternative engines, low-time pilots, and
unknown build quality. The goal of the plan was to provide
lower cost insurance, and get a large pool of RV's in it.
But, if there are going to be lots of "unknowns", and some
real, true "experimenters" in it, I'm not nearly as comfortable
with the risk. Our first RV-10 crash was an experimental
engine, and the plane was built and flown with so many
questionable issues that it was a perfect illustration. I'm
very sure that had he been around to join that insurance
plan, he would have gladly joined....and nobody would have
complained a bit about it. I'm NOT saying that
alternative engines are bad, but, if you watch the track
records of accidents, they do have more incidents in
many areas. They are for those who want to do some real
experimenting. One of the other 2 crashes involved some
pretty poor airmanship, which sounds like poor autopilot/EFIS
use, or unfamiliarity. This leads into the other half
of this issue. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN MANY cases of real
lack of standards in our own little community. I'm sorry
if one of you readers sees yourself in this comment, but
I have seen many many situations where people have had
poor wiring, unprotected wiring, have COMPLETELY ignored
calibrations of their equipment and programming of alarm
limits, completed ENTIRE FLYOFF Periods without ever
calibrating their EFIS magnetometer, Completed 70+ hours
of flying without properly configuring an engine monitor,
and then ADJUSTING THE OIL PRESSURE on the engine because
the reading was too high, rather than set the oil pressure
sensor to the proper setting. And there is just more and
more and more. Now NONE of those people were bad people,
and none WANTED to have an issue, but some of them
have LOTS of building/flying experience yet they STILL
do not follow through with things like calibrations,
and other things. It happens just way too often, almost
consistently. This is the problem in the risk pool
that we'd have to be signing up with. At least in a
certified plane, you can reasonably expect that
Cessna/Piper/Beech have calibrated and configured the
EFIS properly, and done their diligence. Heck, if you
buy a G900 system, the dealers are supposedly REQUIRED
to complete the calibrations and setup for you...they
aren't supposed to allow you to just D-I-Y. But,
we're allowed to D-I-Y on our planes for the most part,
and not everyone actually really follows through on all
of those good suggestions. Not everyone goes for real
transition training. Not everyone builds to the same
quality standard. Not everyone has a stock plane, and
any mod is allowed.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like a pretty harsh rant.
It's not meant to discourage the people from looking
for better insurance opportunities, and it's certainly
not intended to offend anyone. I've made some
mistakes too, and forgotten things. It can happen
to anyone. But some things like not calibrating
your EFIS for 40+ hours are just plain ridiculous
in my mind, and show a real lack of common sense.
Those aren't "oops I forgots"...they're "I just really
want to get this baby flown off" things, that are the
same exact attitudes that kill people from flying
through thunderstorms. And don't even get me started
on people who don't read the manuals, watch videos,
or get to know their new EFIS systems that we all
put in our homebuilts... It's all part of being a
diligent builder and flier. Unfortunately, with
some of the flexibility we are given in building,
equipping, and and maintaining, I think there are
some valid reasons why companies are reluctant to cover
us at any real low cost. And while we aren't in the
same accident statistic category as the Lancair builders
seem to be, we still have 3 total losses with 4 fatalities
in the first 150 or so flying RV-10s, and it would be
nice if we don't see any more.
So if we had a maybe more cohesive group, that would
do some things like cross-inpections of eachother's planes,
and had some variable rates for variable risk levels
and pilot experience, then I think after we get maybe
500 flying RV-10's we may have a good opportunity.
The catch is, as in #1 above, the benefits have to be so
absolutely guaranteed that it would make even the most
happy-to-pay AIG/Global RV-10 builder jump ship and
get on board.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Bob Kaufmann wrote:
| Quote: | That could be but until we get shown support it ain’t going to happen.
Bob K
*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *gary
*Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 6:00 AM
*To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* RE: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
As they say, timing is everything. I was aware that you guys were doing
something, but I was still building and had my mind on other things.
Now I am flying and focused on insurance issues. I suspect others are
more interested. Now we have many more folks flying and near flying, it
might be worth while to tap the pulse of the 10 community again and see
if now the time is right. I know it is a lot of work, but it might be
well worth it.
Gary Specketer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Kaufmann
*Sent:* Friday, February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
*To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* RE: Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on
the policy
A few years back Rick and I had set up a self insurance group to solve
these challenges, Thousands of dollars later we scrapped the idea
because the community of RV 10s wouldn’t support it for about $2500 a
year as a cost with an estimated 10% a year rebate. Oh well, we tried.
Bob K
*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *KiloPapa
*Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:50 PM
*To:* Matronics RV10 - List
*Subject:* Re: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the
policy
Excellent discussion regarding insurance, flying spouses, etc.
Thanks.
Kevin
40494
tail/empennage
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swrpilot(at)bellsouth.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:22 am Post subject: Insuring an RV-10 with low-time pilots on the policy |
|
|
My two cents worth on the insurance issue:
It is very hard to make generalized comparisons. Insurance companies, in
addition to looking at the specific aircraft type, hull value, and aviation
experience, also look at age, location, credit ratings, and particularly
past insurance claims (including cars, boats, motorcycles, homeowners and
professional liability).
Policy limits are a big factor. It is hard to find more than $1M. Many
companies will have a maximum sub-limit per passenger of $100K for low-time
pilots and new clients. Higher sub-limits cost more, and $1M 'smooth', to
use their jargon, costs the most and is often not available to new clients
or those with limited experience.
Then you have the variability of the underwriters. They all have their own,
albeit similar, algorithms. Publicly held, privately held, non-profit and
mutual (owned by the policy holders) companies all have different profit
expectations, cost structure, discount multipliers (multi-year,
multi-aircraft, etc.), regulatory and reserve requirements, and claim
histories.
Since every pilot situation is different and every company is different, you
have to shop. I am a 350 hour instrument pilot with HP and complex
endorsements. Quotes on my Mooney ran from 1.3% to 3.5% of hull value the
first year, and a $100K sub-limit was the max they would offer. The second
year they offered a $250K sub-limit at higher cost, while the same coverage
was slightly less. Hope this helps.
Steve Roberts
N2700W 1966 M20E 'Ms. Obsession' KMOR Morristown, TN
(still lurking while waiting for suitable place to build my RV-10)
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
