1963 M20C, For Sale, Asking $44,900 or Consider Trade.....SOLD!

[takair]

Price reduced..12/31/20.....1/8/2021

Posting for a friend.  He is the latest victim of age related inability to insure his Mooney due to his age. 

63 Mooney M20C TT 3560 SMOH 1060

N6694U

LYC-O-360-A-1-D 180 HP

Chrome spinner

Hartzell 2 Blade “Top Prop” New 18 hrs.

Manual Retract Gear “Johnson Bar” Works great.

Hyd Flaps. Cowl Encloser. Flap gap seals.  Brake rotation. Retract step.

Fuel bladders, 57 gal. Vert Card compass w/ light.

ARC 512 B auto pilot.

LASAR mod steering horn.

Digital outside temp.

Shoulder Harness, front only.

Paint 9 interior 7.  Fine wire plugs.

Recent plug wires.  SKY-TEC Light NL starter.

2 yr Concorde Batt. ALT Conversion.

Sun Visors. 4plc intercom SkyCom 200-4. USB charger.

Nacro 136 Audio Panel

GX55 Apollo Map/GPS

TKM MX11 Flip Flop Com

Narco 120 com 720 no flip

Narco NAV 122 Loc/w/GS

Narco NAV 11 Loc only

KR86 ADF works great

Stratus Appareo ESG ADSB in/out

VOLT/AMP Digital Elec international

Hat Rack

All good glass

Wing & tail strobes

Halon Fire ext.

JPI EGT/CHT Scanner.

Good tires & Brakes

Fresh annual and IFR cert good until spring.

No damage history, complete logs.

Same owner 29 years.  Age precludes insurance for retractable gear aircraft.  

Jack (860) 274-4647

Location: Oxford, CT

[carusoam]

It’s getting near time to call a congressman....

This getting older thing combined with insurance expense isn’t making any sense...

Having to put a nice M20C out to pasture... just cruel and unusual...

On the other hand...

Who around here would know enough brand P pilots to get the word out....

Who could possibly be knowledgable enough on both platforms to help promote the exchange....

I’d have to ask @M20Doc if he knows anyone...   

Best regards,

-a-

[jgarrison]

I just spoke to Jack on a referral from Parker. After talking to him and reviewing this advertisement, I advised him that he should drop his price from $49,900 to $44,900. At $44,900 I think it represents a good value with the low total time, the Bladders, the new Top Prop and some of the nice maintenance items he has incorporated and will give the new buyer a nice platform to build a good first Mooney on. We discussed me selling it for him but after commission and transportation to TX, I advised Jack that he would be better off to keep it up there, reduce the price and get it sold locally. Jack's number is above on the advertisement. Please give him a call if you a looking for a well kept early Model Mooney.

For the record, I am not receiving anything for this referral. Just want to see a good Mooney go from on good owner to the next.  Jimmy

[carusoam]

great insight JG!

Thanks for sharing it...

Best regards,

-a-

[Parker_Woodruff]

Jack is a good guy and came to me with his insurance problem.  Not much I can do as the non-holding broker.  It should be noted that he may be interested in a trade for a Piper Cherokee or similar fixed gear aircraft if anyone is looking

[steingar]

I traded my Cherokee for my Mooney, though it certainly wasn't an age-related thing.  What is driving this insurance nonsense?  Has there been an uptick in older pilots landing gear up?  Age discrimination if ever I saw it, and illegal if the insurance company takes so much as a dime from Uncle Sam.

[MooneyMitch]

8 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Insurance rates for older pilots are definitely negatively affecting the vintage Mooney market. I know two pilots at my home drome who wanted and would have purchased Mooneys but were effectively forced to buy fixed gear aircraft by their insurance rates.  

As pessimistic as my thoughts may appear, that our older Mooneys might become devalued or even possibly unmarketable due to drastic insurance premiums may seem, the above information gives some credence the this situation becoming a reality.

With this comes the thought that young folks that might be able to afford the initial cost of purchase, may also be deterred by the premium rates for new or low time pilots.

I’d prefer to be completely off base with my opinion. 

[takair]

It is really a shame.  I fly with Jack on occasion for his IPC or flight review and he is very capable and knows his aircraft well.  He also knows his limits.  I wish insurance companies would offer some options vs simply declining with no basis other than age.  Why not give the option of requiring some form of recurrent training.  The FAA has basically made that a possibility when they changed a BFR to a flight review to encourage more frequent...reviews.  In other words, why not offer the insurance with  an annual flight review?  

[Parker_Woodruff]

9 hours ago, steingar said:

I traded my Cherokee for my Mooney, though it certainly wasn't an age-related thing.  What is driving this insurance nonsense?  Has there been an uptick in older pilots landing gear up?  Age discrimination if ever I saw it, and illegal if the insurance company takes so much as a dime from Uncle Sam.

It's not illegal when the auto insurance company charges more.

It's the insurance company's job to discriminate against just about everything.  Loss history, age, certificates and ratings (or lack thereof), aircraft location.

It's not like they want to turn away money if there is no valid reason for it...There are the [good] outlier pilots over 80.  And there are the ones that are not.  And few underwriters, who many times work for publicly traded companies, want to see their initials on the morning loss run next to a "risky" account they wrote.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

9 minutes ago, takair said:

Why not give the option of requiring some form of recurrent training.

I like the idea, but you should see the signoffs we see sometimes.  Is that a salsa stain from the local Mexican restaurant on the sign off for PC-12 recurrent training? 

[Parker_Woodruff]

14 minutes ago, takair said:

In other words, why not offer the insurance with  an annual flight review?  

I insure a couple pilots 80+ whose carriers require just that.

I'll also make a note that a lot of pilots who were 78 years old a couple years ago who had some really bad broker strategy are now paying the price with non-renewals.

I have started having a strategy discussion with all pilots at ages 64/65, 68/69, 74/75, and 78/79.

[MooneyMitch]

5 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

It's not illegal when the auto insurance company charges more.

It's the insurance company's job to discriminate against just about everything.  Loss history, age, certificates and ratings (or lack thereof), aircraft location.

It's not like they want to turn away money if there is no valid reason for it...There are the [good] outlier pilots over 80.  And there are the ones that are not.  And few underwriters, who many times work for publicly traded companies, want to see their initials on the morning loss run next to a "risky" account they wrote.

 

I apologize for drifting this thread away from its intent of liquidation of this gentleman’s Mooney....... but, loss history, age, was discussed in a video recently where Marci from Avemco stated she’d seen no data showing us older pilots accidents/incidents had increased.  

The topic of the video was recent substantial premium increases for not only older pilots, but all owner/pilots of light aircraft.

Again, have we had it too good for too long?  

Just thinking about all this. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, MooneyMitch said:

I apologize for drifting this thread away from its intent of liquidation of this gentleman’s Mooney....... but, loss history, age, was discussed in a video recently where Marci from Avemco stated she’d seen no data showing us older pilots accidents/incidents had increased.  

 

She won't quote new business for anyone over 79 in a retractable gear aircraft at the moment...which is why I have that discussion at the age parameters above...

[MooneyMitch]

5 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I insure a couple pilots 80+ whose carriers require just that.

I'll also make a note that a lot of pilots who were 78 years old a couple years ago who had some really bad broker strategy are now paying the price with non-renewals.

I have started having a strategy discussion with all pilots at ages 64/65, 68/69, 74/75, and 78/79.

I’d be delighted to partake, hoping to learn wisdom on mitigation of future crazy rate increases, if possible.

 Thank you Parker. 

[Bolter]

6 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I'll also make a note that a lot of pilots who were 78 years old a couple years ago who had some really bad broker strategy are now paying the price with non-renewals.

I have started having a strategy discussion with all pilots at ages 64/65, 68/69, 74/75, and 78/79.

That piques my interest.  what is an example of a "bad broker strategy"?  Is it appropriate to discuss on a public forum?  As you are my broker, I am not directly worried :-)

[MooneyMitch]

Just now, Parker_Woodruff said:

She won't quote new business for anyone over 79 in a retractable gear aircraft at the moment...which is why I have that discussion at the age parameters above...

Understand and thank you for that.

She did say for their existing clients, no rate increases. I understand that to having knowledge of Avemco rates in the past and present. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, MooneyMitch said:

I’d be delighted to partake, hoping to learn wisdom on mitigation of future crazy rate increases, if possible.

 Thank you Parker. 

Your current carrier or Avemco for the rest of your flying career...but we'll hash it out and make sure to analyze any trends in the market as time goes on to make sure you're still on a good track.

[MooneyMitch]

1 minute ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Your current carrier or Avemco for the rest of your flying career...but we'll hash it out and make sure to analyze any trends in the market as time goes on to make sure you're still on a good track.

Thank you. I do hope to keep my flying fun for as long as possible (safety of course). 

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 minutes ago, Bolter said:

That piques my interest.  what is an example of a "bad broker strategy"?  Is it appropriate to discuss on a public forum?  As you are my broker, I am not directly worried :-)

Take someone who had been with the same insurance company for 18 years and for no other reason than price was switched because a "better deal" was had...and that person was switched to a carrier that non-renews people at a certain age...the previous carrier would have kept renewing as long as the Insured stayed a customer...

[steingar]

14 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

It's not illegal when the auto insurance company charges more.

It's the insurance company's job to discriminate against just about everything.  Loss history, age, certificates and ratings (or lack thereof), aircraft location.

It's not like they want to turn away money if there is no valid reason for it...There are the [good] outlier pilots over 80.  And there are the ones that are not.  And few underwriters, who many times work for publicly traded companies, want to see their initials on the morning loss run next to a "risky" account they wrote.

 

Parker, thank you for your reply and your sage counsel.  I am still left with my question, though.  Were there a raft of older pilots who left the gear up, or is this just a "perceived" risk not based in fact?  Insurance companies are run by humans who can act just as foolishly as anyone else.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Parker, thank you for your reply and your sage counsel.  I am still left with my question, though.  Were there a raft of older pilots who left the gear up, or is this just a "perceived" risk not based in fact?  Insurance companies are run by humans who can act just as foolishly as anyone else.

 

First, it's not just about the gear.  It's about RG aircraft typically being faster and less forgiving in the event of pilot error.  If reflexes aren't as good in autos at higher ages, then that would certainly trend with aircraft, even if pilots are the cream of the crop.

I don't think there is enough data compiled to make an actual aviation specific case.  Aviation doesn't have the numbers to really get actuarial like auto insurers can.  It sure seems like there a disproportionate number of losses in the older pilot segment, but proving it would be difficult.

When I worked for a major carrier, losses were coded based on the type of loss: Tow bar left attached before startup, gear up, mechanical failure, etc.  But the software used in claims, to my understanding, did not include reporting on the age of the pilot involved in the claim due to software limitations (2010s underwriting software connected to 1980s claims management software).

I'll throw my point of concern about moving pilots out of their Mooneys at older age:

If the insurance carrier wants to force that issue (and it's a valid concern, IMO), they should also force the issue of training even in the Piper Warrior, C172/182, etc.  If an older pilot has been flying his M20C for 30 years, he's all of a sudden going to have a new sight picture, among other things to learn.  While the speeds and complexity has been reduced, we have added a new sight picture and feel which carries risk in itself..  Just as we'd want 10 hours dual for a pilot transitioning to an M20C from a C172, I think training in a less complex aircraft is just as important because you've taken someone out of the environment where they're comfortable, they know where the switches are, they know the sight picture, etc.

 

[steingar]

Sorry, but I still don't really understand how turning 80 makes you forget a switch.  I could understand physical limitations keeping one form operating a Johnson bar, but that's just a subset of Mooney owners.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Sorry, but I still don't really understand how turning 80 makes you forget a switch.  I could understand physical limitations keeping one form operating a Johnson bar, but that's just a subset of Mooney owners.

I guess you just have to set a number somewhere.  For some carriers, it's 70, others 75, others 80.

[KLRDMD]

Look at drug package inserts. Some define "elderly" at age 60 and some choose age 65. At age 60 our kidney and liver function is pretty close to 50% of what it was at age 18. It sucks to get old, but it sure is better than the alternative.

[aviatoreb]

8 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Look at drug package inserts. Some define "elderly" at age 60 and some choose age 65. At age 60 our kidney and liver function is pretty close to 50% of what it was at age 18. It sucks to get old, but it sure is better than the alternative.

My dad had a joke - getting old isn't for the feint of heart.