MikeOH

Hardly. I've outlined one plausible scenario, but you're hard over that this is just 'business as usual.' I disagree. We all have to live with the increases, regardless.

To state the obvious, the aviation insurance biz has been around a while. The number of underwriters has waxed and waned over the years. When has the GA market EVER seen 40% hikes in a SINGLE year. If it makes you feel better just keep telling yourself it's 'textbook' business as usual. We do agree there's not a damn thing we can do about.

Interesting info, thanks. So, due to lack of data they ignore their own losses and base premiums off of automobile actuarial data. I would expect that data has been rather stable for a LONG time in regards to accident rates of older drivers. In other words, it still does NOT explain the 40% increases we are seeing. I don't believe in coincidence. What must amount to HUGE payouts (already and for some time to come) related to the 737 MAX have to be coming from reinsurers that are common to both commercial and small GA underwriters. I'm positing that those reinsurers have jacked their rates to ALL of the GA underwriters. Some have chosen to exit the biz, the others are massively increasing our rates. I suspect this large of increase in a single year is UNPRECEDENTED. The idea this is just a 'natural' occurrence just isn't tenable.

I"m just going by the parts manual in reference to the F model:

A endless continuation of 'more of the same" doesn't explain 40% increases. Back to my original question: Is there any, verifiable, evidence that older pilots are causing the significant portion of gear-ups? Or, any other accident category?

And, that may well be going on: I get my renewal with a 50% hike, and switch to one with 'only' a 40% hike. We are still being screwed because of losses in what amounts to a different market that incurred an aberrant loss. We are paying for losses we have NO control over.

There may be higher level insurers that provide some kind of 'stop loss' protection to the carriers we pay premiums to. There may not be many of them and they are raising rates to multiple underlying carriers to make up for their 'stop loss' payouts. That would be another reason why multiple carriers we deal with all are raising rates. Again, my argument is that the EXTEME hikes we are seeing are NOT indicative of normal loss ratios and market competition. Something else is at play.

Not following why any collusion is required??? If the carrier/underwriter that insures small GA also is insuring Boeing and they raise our rates astronomically to pay for loss payouts to Boeing I'm not seeing any collusion.

That's certainly the normal way competition works; and the rates fluctuate accordingly. Seeing 40%, and higher, rate hikes in a single year is NOT normal fluctuation. I remain convinced we are subsidizing losses that are NOT in our market. Sorry, not buying the rates are due to a sudden plethora of old guys performing gear-ups.

If there is so much money to be made elsewhere (investor ROI), why haven't ALL of them left for greener pastures? My cynicism in all of this is that we aren't being told the real reasons for the giant hikes in our premiums. At this point my belief is that the small GA aircraft market has pretty well established, and stable, loss ratios. The idea that accidents in this market have taken such a sudden increase as to justify the new premiums doesn't pass the sniff test. I think we are subsidizing a couple of LARGE losses in the air carrier market: namely the Boeing MAX debacle.

That doesn't prove that the aviation insurance business is "not very profitable." Some may have left because they are no longer making as much as they would like. I'm just not believing they will starve unless they raise our premiums 40+% in a single whack!

Hmm, do we have any actual proof of that, or is that just what we are being told?

True enough. Thing is, even with my present policy I won't carry passengers except my family. My policy limits are only $100K per seat. A $1 million smooth policy would double my premium It's just not worth it as much as I'd like share aviation with others. At some point the insurance companies WILL lose me as a customer as I will just go naked. If you look at the cost of a liability ONLY policy for $1 million it is dirt cheap; like $300 per year. That tells me the actual risk of damaging people and property on the ground is really low. In the twilight of my flying life if I total the plane I can walk away from the hull loss. (Assuming I'm not a total loss, too)

I keep going back and forth between a kit from Jaeger or Airtex, and just doing the carpet myself and having an auto upholstery shop do the seats. I'm thinking that may be the lower cost route.

This line from "Liar, LIar" comes to mind, "I'm just going to bend over and take it up the tailpipe."

Note that they will only fit Fs from S/N: 22-1257 and on.

Take $5K in cash; offer him $4K...go up to the $5K if you have to I think he's probably getting to just wanting it gone...the guy in his face that can put cash in his hand could be you!

Oh, joy. I have Global, as well...November renewal is coming up fast, I'm afraid.

@Parker_Woodruff Thank you for the tips! While I'm not there yet, that age horizon is not nearly as distant as it once was Do you have access to the carriers' actuarial data that would back up their new rules? Or, do all of us just have to 'take their word' that older pilots are causing a disproportionate number of accidents; specifically gear-ups? Same question with Basic Med: has there been any evidence that Basic Med pilots are crashing more (for ANY reason, let alone medical related)? More specifically, are older Basic Med pilots crashing more than older Third Class Med pilots? My cynicism smells a GIANT rat! As much as I don't like their new 'rules' if the data is there to justify them, then I can, at least, understand that they are reasonable reactions. That data better be statistically significant...not, "well two pilots over 65 crashed this year; and only one last year. So, since the accident rate doubled no more insuring over 65 pilots!"

One question, one opinion: Which do you enjoy more, flying, and rebuilding is the means to get there, or taking on restoration projects? Don't pay over $5K for this one.

I'd pull the access cover near the pitot. Take off the wire(s) (not sure if the return path is through the aircraft frame). Then, use an ohmmeter to make sure the pitot has some resistance (>1 ohm, <5 ohm, rough numbers!). Next, use a voltmeter to measure across the feed wires (or, hot wire to ground) with the pitot heat switch on. Should see battery voltage. If not, check for voltage on both sides of the pitot switch. If no voltage on the pitot side, the switch is bad. If no voltage on the source side, check the CB on both sides. (you may just have a CB/switch). That should narrow it down to a wiring versus failed component problem.

My '70 F oil temp runs hotter than I'd like, but better since I redid the baffles (I had high CHTs, as well. Ran into the low 400s before I fixed the baffles). CHTs run 320-350 now, even on hot days. I do run LOP. OIl temp is still around 215-220 in cruise, and can get to 230 in climb on a hot day. I've had the oil cooler overhauled by Pacific OIl Coolers (not just flushed), replaced the oil lines to/from the cooler, checked the vernatherm and its seat... I've just learned to live with it. The factory gauge never gets past the green, but it teeters on the edge sometimes!

Ya, right! Looks photoshopped to me

Well, wouldn't THAT be nice

Thanks, guys! Too myopic to figure out it was the fuel pump! Makes perfect sense. Should it be loose? It kind of rattles around when I grab it and move it.