Insurance creep

[Jim Peace]

22 minutes ago, carusoam said:

 

Or you didn’t mean Parker specifically... 

 

Just a generalization, the only way to get a lower rate is to make multiple calls to a few brokers and pit one against the other.....you would think a company with a client for 6 years who only spoke during renewals would not get played with but that is life I guess....

They were probably betting on me being lazy and just doing what I always do....not this time....we should all change brokers every year or two....drive them nuts so they give their best price out of the gate....

[Schllc]

The one axiom of insurance, is that the premiums are expensive when you don’t need it and cheap as heck when you do. 
 

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

Just a generalization, the only way to get a lower rate is to make multiple calls to a few brokers and pit one against the other.....you would think a company with a client for 6 years who only spoke during renewals would not get played with but that is life I guess....

They were probably betting on me being lazy and just doing what I always do....not this time....we should all change brokers every year or two....drive them nuts so they give their best price out of the gate....

Brokers all get the same commission. They don’t affect the rate. 

 

-Robert 

[ryoder]

Reinsurance rates are increasing which means our insurance rates will rise.

https://www.capsicumre.com/aviation-reinsurance-begins-its-ascent

The lady from Avemco alluded to this.  Bottom line is they are trying to vet out potential risky policy holders to reduce losses. I felt like I was being interviewed for a job when she spoke with me regarding my 162 insurance. 

[Hank]

6 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Brokers all get the same commission. They don’t affect the rate. 

 

-Robert 

But we have this, too:

10 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

I changed brokers this year after 6 years...with an apples to apples comparison my old broker wanted 400 dollars more for same coverage with same underwriter...I called them and told them about the other quote I got and wouldn't you know all of a sudden they matched it dollar for dollar....so I dropped them and went with the company that gave me the lower quote to begin with.....

So how else can an immediate rate reduction by a broker be explained?

[RobertGary1]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

But we have this, too:

So how else can an immediate rate reduction by a broker be explained?

Im guessing the coverage changed. Same coverage by same underwriter should be the same unless it’s some custom home built that had to be negotiated with the underwriter.
I believe 10% is pretty standard but some underwriters may be slightly different.   
 

The broker types your numbers into the quoting system and out pops the number you get. 

if you go to your local tractor insurance guy and get a quote he may not know how to shop the aviation market so you may not get the best underwriter  

-Robert 

[Parker_Woodruff]

13 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Brokers all get the same commission. They don’t affect the rate. 

 

-Robert 

They don’t all get the same commission, but the price doesn’t increase for the ones that get a higher commission. 
Being a lower volume agency, I get a lower commission percentage than a lot of places. Every now and then I take an account from a powerhouse agency and enjoy one year of making a third more than normal. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

But we have this, too:

So how else can an immediate rate reduction by a broker be explained?

Perhaps he called his agent with another quote and his agent then called the holding carrier to see if they’d match to hold onto the business. It’s harder to find carriers doing that these days, but two years ago it was quite common. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

I believe 10% is pretty standard but some underwriters may be slightly different.   

Most carriers have a baseline for light aircraft policies around 15%. Some powerhouse agencies will negotiate a higher cut toward 17.5% or 20%. This does not affect the rate the Insured pays compared to other agencies.

I wish they’d do commissions based on loss ratio. That’d really start weeding out some junk risks that hurt everyone.

[Danb]

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Perhaps he called his agent with another quote and his agent then called the holding carrier to see if they’d match to hold onto the business. It’s harder to find carriers doing that these days, but two years ago it was quite common. 

[Danb]

Just now, Danb said:

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Perhaps he called his agent with another quote and his agent then called the holding carrier to see if they’d match to hold onto the business. It’s harder to find carriers doing that these days, but two years ago it was quite common. 

I’ve done the accounting and tax returns for a local aviation agency who also writes my insurance, years ago he could get my premium lowered with a few calls citing he’s flown with me, or I get x amount of training and go to MAPA three days of training yearly, but a lot of negotiations have diminished. Although knowing what he makes I’d assume he could lower the rate by him making less but that I’m not sure of.

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 minutes ago, Danb said:

I’ve done the accounting and tax returns for a local aviation agency who also writes my insurance, years ago he could get my premium lowered with a few calls citing he’s flown with me, or I get x amount of training and go to MAPA three days of training yearly, but a lot of negotiations have diminished. Although knowing what he makes I’d assume he could lower the rate by him making less but that I’m not sure of.

Most carriers won’t offer to lower commission for a light aircraft risks because some of the automated quoting systems for personal aircraft are just too clunky to change for one risk. 

[FlyWalt]

On 9/29/2020 at 5:23 PM, larrynimmo said:

Since gear up failures are driving the highest part of insurance cost, I for one am ok with the exclusion...hopefully carriers will disseminate the risk levels...like the say for Liberty Insurance...buy which coverage you need!  (I could do without the Emu)

Keep the emu. Get rid of Doug and bring in the Swedish Bikini Girl.

[FlyWalt]

As far as gear ups go, it would not be that hard for the Insurance Co's to require enhanced training and recurrent check rides for those of us operating high performance and complex aircraft in order to reduce the risk and thus the premiums. Plus, we would have enhanced safety all around.

In the Professional Pilot World, we have required recurrent training, as often as every quarter in some cases. Every 9 months, I take a full check ride at work every 9 months. Why not do this in the GA world? 

[Missile=Awesome]

3 hours ago, FlyWalt said:

As far as gear ups go, it would not be that hard for the Insurance Co's to require enhanced training and recurrent check rides for those of us operating high performance and complex aircraft in order to reduce the risk and thus the premiums. Plus, we would have enhanced safety all around.

In the Professional Pilot World, we have required recurrent training, as often as every quarter in some cases. Every 9 months, I take a full check ride at work every 9 months. Why not do this in the GA world? 

That you see no significant difference between transporting passengers for hire in the hundreds vs. part 91 is weird to me.  How about those that install an automated audio gear annunciation in the headset get a discount and those that don’t pay more.  It is difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to ignore a voice in your ear saying Check Gear!  Check Gear! Vs. a buzzer that is similar to stall warning being muffled (lessened) by noise canceling ANR headsets. I think you are WRONG...WRONG...WRONG with your mandate Walt.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Missile=Awesome

[MikeOH]

12 hours ago, FlyWalt said:

As far as gear ups go, it would not be that hard for the Insurance Co's to require enhanced training and recurrent check rides for those of us operating high performance and complex aircraft in order to reduce the risk and thus the premiums. Plus, we would have enhanced safety all around.

In the Professional Pilot World, we have required recurrent training, as often as every quarter in some cases. Every 9 months, I take a full check ride at work every 9 months. Why not do this in the GA world? 

Gee, why not mandate we all have ATP ratings and fly with a co-pilot?

[carusoam]

Well....  it is fun to tar and feather Walt for his expensive onerous suggestion... 

 

Or we could point out how the human side of PPs fail to put the gear down regularly... even during training events...
 

I like it when the insurance companies that want something done, they add a discount for those that get whatever it is, installed...

If it is additional training, they offer a discount for that too...

 

For adding a voice warning... that seems to help. Where beeping and buzzing has been clearly ignored by otherwise intelligent people...
 

We could ask @Parker_Woodruff...  is there anyway to get data that indicates a voice warning system, in place of the standard piezo horns, works any better...?

If the data doesn’t exist, how could we start getting it..?
 

We know the human limitations...

How do we support the humans...

• to get the job done properly...
• Whilst not breaking the bank...

Is it really that hard?   Do hundreds of GU landings have to exist?

Is it a technology that is on the shelf already?

Is it a product Airspeed insurance could sell..?  (A deep discount, leader for a sales tool... buy in bulk for volume price, sell at cost to clients)

PP thoughts only, OK go ahead get back to the pillorying... 

Best regards,

-a-

[MikeOH]

13 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Is it really that hard?   Do hundreds of GU landings have to exist?

Is it a technology that is on the shelf already?

....

PP thoughts only, OK go ahead get back to the pillorying... 

Best regards,

-a-

OK, back to pillorying...

Yes, I think it is hard.

Do gear ups have to exist?  Well, do CFIT accidents have to exist? How about base-final, or departure, stall-spins? How about VFR into IMC?  Loss of control on landing?

It comes down to if we want the freedom to accept risks higher than those of Part 121, or even what today's technology is capable of providing.

I was only being half sarcastic in my previous post: IF you DEMAND these accidents go away then you MANDATE higher training (ATP) and more of it (6 month Flight Reviews).  That WILL work.  Is that the GA you envision and desire?

As to technology, think that through as well.  It has been popular to ridicule the Clorox plane parachutes; now they literally have the 'blue button' auto-land.  Why not let the plane land every time? That would cut down on stall-spins and LOC on landings.  We have on-board weather. How about AI that would PREVENT you from continuing towards weather that HAL9000 thinks is beyond your capabilities?  Again, is that the GA you envision and desire?

There is NO question that any and all of the above would reduce accidents, injuries and deaths.

Be very careful what you ask for.

[carusoam]

50 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

OK, back to pillorying...

Yes, I think it is hard.

Do gear ups have to exist?  Well, do CFIT accidents have to exist? How about base-final, or departure, stall-spins? How about VFR into IMC?  Loss of control on landing?

It comes down to if we want the freedom to accept risks higher than those of Part 121, or even what today's technology is capable of providing.

I was only being half sarcastic in my previous post: IF you DEMAND these accidents go away then you MANDATE higher training (ATP) and more of it (6 month Flight Reviews).  That WILL work.  Is that the GA you envision and desire?

As to technology, think that through as well.  It has been popular to ridicule the Clorox plane parachutes; now they literally have the 'blue button' auto-land.  Why not let the plane land every time? That would cut down on stall-spins and LOC on landings.  We have on-board weather. How about AI that would PREVENT you from continuing towards weather that HAL9000 thinks is beyond your capabilities?  Again, is that the GA you envision and desire?

There is NO question that any and all of the above would reduce accidents, injuries and deaths.

Be very careful what you ask for.

Mike,

I was very careful with my wording...

I am looking for two things...

1) Something that works...

2) Doesn’t break the bank...

Unfortunately, my writing skills may not be clear enough... (I’ve been working on this too, diligently...)

I also asked if the voice box does any measurable good...

Some people already have this thing...

Geeesh... I think I’m on the same side as you... 

I have been studying memory issues and distraction for about 10 years now...  I am always on the hunt for things that work for people with memory challenges...

If it costs more than an iPad... it will be too far out of reach for a lot of people...

It is not about CFIT, or other tragic plane falling out of the sky issues... that happen too often, but infrequently... there is plenty of expensive training to avoid those things...

It is specifically about the GU landing... that occur weekly, that many think can be ended...

I don’t think you read what I wrote very closely... 

Best regards,

-a-

[RobertGary1]

It’s been awhile since the airlines have had a gear up. I’d put most of that on the fact that the plane is screaming at them to put the gear down.  Same with single pilot jets. 

I added a voice annunciator to my plane almost 20 years ago  

-Robert 

[Mooneymite]

5 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

It’s been awhile since the airlines have had a gear up. I’d put most of that on the fact that the plane is screaming at them to put the gear down.  Same with single pilot jets. 

I added a voice annunciator to my plane almost 20 years ago  

-Robert 

Technology is the answer.

[Hank]

5 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

It’s been awhile since the airlines have had a gear up. I’d put most of that on the fact that the plane is screaming at them to put the gear down.  Same with single pilot jets. 

I would think a lot of it has to do with that second pilot up front tasked with reading out the checklist items . . . . You know, the one who doesn't exist in our Mooneys?

[Mooneymite]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

I would think a lot of it has to do with that second pilot up front tasked with reading out the checklist items . . . . You know, the one who doesn't exist in our Mooneys?

The same things that make the pilot flying forget the gear will usually make the pilot monitoring forget the checklist.

After years and years of gear up landings, we have conclusively proven that GUMPS is not a foolproof deterrent...and neither are checklists.

Technology is the answer.

[Davidv]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

The same things that make the pilot flying forget the gear will usually make the pilot monitoring forget the checklist.

After years and years of gear up landings, we have conclusively proven that GUMPS is not a foolproof deterrent...and neither are checklists.

Technology is the answer.

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but as a final fail-safe it would seem like a pretty rudimentary circuit that could automatically lower the gear if certain conditions were met.  For example, 50' AGL, flaps down, going less than 100 knots (100 only because you'll be going faster with gear up). Of course you would need a radar altimeter.  

[tmo]

Yeah, the Arrow used to come with such a circuit. I don't think it was worthwhile, since it a) got ditched by Piper and b) usually was removed or - gasp - disabled by owners anyway.