P&P article on insurance denials for older pilots

[toto]

I’m intentionally not using the title of the article in the MS topic, since it seems kind of clickbaity, but Dick Karl wrote a sobering piece earlier this year that just appeared in my inbox today.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/omg-insurance/

Karl was given a prohibitively expensive quote on his Citation renewal and is strongly considering giving up his jet hobby.

Obviously the same story plays out in the retractable piston space, and we’ve discussed age-related denials many times here on MS, but thought the article was worth sharing.

 

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, toto said:

I’m intentionally not using the title of the article in the MS topic, since it seems kind of clickbaity, but Dick Karl wrote a sobering piece earlier this year that just appeared in my inbox today.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/omg-insurance/

Karl was given a prohibitively expensive quote on his Citation renewal and is strongly considering giving up his jet hobby.

Obviously the same story plays out in the retractable piston space, and we’ve discussed age-related denials many times here on MS, but thought the article was worth sharing.

 

If you get "Flying", he has completed the sale of his CJ1.  This was discussed in the May issue of Flying.  Sobering to say the least.

[GeeBee]

FL390 single pilot, Part 91. Hmmmm. As bad as I feel for him, I understand the insurance company's position as well. It's not his age, so much as it is his operation at his age.

One of the reasons I'm in the Mooney as opposed to a 58P Baron which I could have purchased is, "my operation at my age".

 

[ilovecornfields]

Sounds like he had some medical issues as well as the insurance problem.

[toto]

1 minute ago, ilovecornfields said:

Sounds like he had some medical issues as well as the insurance problem.

I think that’s a good point, and it’s unclear how significant the SI factor was versus the age factor. 

There’s something disconcerting about using age as a proxy for fitness to fly, especially given the 35 year olds we have all encountered who don’t take care of themselves, and the 75 year olds who do…

But if the insurance company has cold feet because of a medical issue, that’s a little bit easier to swallow. 

Karl has talked candidly about his medical in other articles, so details are available online for anyone curious.

[ilovecornfields]

30 minutes ago, toto said:

Karl has talked candidly about his medical in other articles, so details are available online for anyone curious.

I don’t know if I have the patience to search around for it. I googled him and came up with some article in the Tampa Bay Times about him rationalizing why he didn’t help out during COVID and that was enough for me. I always thought his articles were just a tad narcissistic. I’m sorry he can’t fly his private jet anymore but there are other people with real problems as well.

[GeeBee]

It does not matter how many hours you got, how current you are, how fit you are, FL390 single pilot, with no mask on in a jet with light wing loading is rallying up some serious bad factors.  
 

 

[Mooneymite]

5 hours ago, toto said:

I think that’s a good point, and it’s unclear how significant the SI factor was versus the age factor. 

There’s something disconcerting about using age as a proxy for fitness to fly, especially given the 35 year olds we have all encountered who don’t take care of themselves, and the 75 year olds who do…

But if the insurance company has cold feet because of a medical issue, that’s a little bit easier to swallow. 

Karl has talked candidly about his medical in other articles, so details are available online for anyone curious.

We can rant and rave about the unfairness of insurance rates for older pilots, or we can use insurance statistics to evaluate if it's time to hang up our headsets and take up golf.

When our engines are high-time, we pay attention to their symptoms.  When we are out of time, maybe we should pay attention to our insurance underwriters?

[Fly Boomer]

Insurance companies don't just make up these things willy-nilly -- they use statistics and those stats are sliced and diced by actuaries.  Actuaries frequently are mathematicians, but don't have to be.  Like most businesses, the insurance business is a numbers game.  They likely have had bad experiences (or possibly no experiences) insuring pilots with his particular combination of characteristics.  If you were in the insurance business, what would you do?

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

When our engines are high-time, we pay attention to their symptoms.  When we are out of time, maybe we should pay attention to our insurance underwriters?

Sometimes I get the impression people are willing to consider all manner of human factors as contributors...EXCEPT AGE, DAMMIT!   If a pilot can be too young, or too tired, or too medicated, or too inexperienced, or too unprepared, or too whatever, I think the aggregating affects of age are definitely a legitimate consideration.    I'm only 63 and I'm cognizant of all kinds of declining capabilities, stuff that I used to be able to do but it just ain't gonna happen now, or at least not as reliably or for as long as a younger person could.    This includes physical and mental and sensory issues.    I'm encourage by the fact that essentially all of my immediate ancestors knew when to quit driving or doing other similar activities and didn't have to be told or have it taken away from them, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I'll be as sensible as well.    I already quit racing, and that was due to more factors than just age, but it was a consideration.

I think it's often not appropriate to excuse age as a consideration when there's an accident.   "Well, he was 85...",  "THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING", "Well, just maybe..." 

 

[A64Pilot]

You know you don’t have to quit flying just because you can’t get insurence.

FAA doesn’t require it

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

You know you don’t have to quit flying just because you can’t get insurence.

FAA doesn’t require it

Well, sure; if you don't have any assets to be taken!

If you are betting on not crashing, or not being the cause, then why carry insurance at all?  No need to wait until you can't get it!

[toto]

9 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I don’t know if I have the patience to search around for it.

https://www.flyingmag.com/gear-up-sudden-surprise-trouble/

[toto]

There have been several comments here about insurance statistics.

I really don’t know much about insurance or where these stats are published, but I’m interested to know more. Is there a standard online source for insurance statistics that shows aviation risk by age?

In the article, Karl asserts that he reviewed accident stats and did not see any increased risk by age, but he didn’t provide any detail about which stats he reviewed - or whether they were standard insurance stats. 

I looked around in the ASI Nall report summary, and didn’t see any breakdown by pilot age. 

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/nall-report-figure-view?category=all&year=2022&condition=all&report=true

But I also don’t know if the Nall report is a standard insurance industry source or whether there is a more standard publication for insurance stats. 

Anyway, I’m genuinely curious about this and would be happy to read up on it. 

[MikeOH]

I'm going to render my opinion that there really aren't any reliable statistics on older GA pilots simply because it's a small population.  It follows that insurance companies then view this as a very high risk group because just a single accident claim would wipe out any profit generated from that same small group; the risk isn't spread over a large enough peer population.  Therefore, they raise the rates accordingly...which only serves to shrink the population further!  I suspect, even without data, they realize that, at some point, older individuals are eventually going to falter and there just aren't enough customers to turn much of a profit anyway.  Why take the chance?

[DCarlton]

What age do we feel like age becomes an issue with M20s and rates start creeping up?  This seems like a good argument for finding an insurance company you like and stick with them over the long haul.  It's reassuring to hear them say you're an A rated pilot with no claim history after a couple of decades.  The partnership seems sound.  

[toto]

3 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

What age do we feel like age becomes an issue with M20s and rates start creeping up?  This seems like a good argument for finding an insurance company you like and stick with them over the long haul.  It's reassuring to hear them say you're an A rated pilot with no claim history after a couple of decades.  The partnership seems sound.  

 

Anecdotally here on MS it's 70 or 75.  Parker had a post a couple years back that offered some specific advice about approaching 70.

 

 

[Ron McBride]

Near Fayetteville AR yesterday a 76 year old pilot was killed in a King Air. He was being handled for an instrument approach.  
 

ntsb and faa investing.  Was age a factor?   Unknown…

[ilovecornfields]

4 hours ago, toto said:

https://www.flyingmag.com/gear-up-sudden-surprise-trouble/

“Dear Mr. (sic) Karl” Yep, that’s his writing style alright. How dare someone address him as “Mr.”

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, sure; if you don't have any assets to be taken!

If you are betting on not crashing, or not being the cause, then why carry insurance at all?  No need to wait until you can't get it!

If I was wealthy enough to self insure, I would consider it if insurance rates became onerous. There are probably plenty of owners that are in that category, I am just not one of them.   Of course there could be a lot said as to the wisdom of such a decision given our litigious culture, but everyone has different risk tolerances.  @A64Pilot was merely pointing out the fact that insurance is not mandatory from a regulatory standpoint. He did not advocate one way or the other.

[A64Pilot]

11 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, sure; if you don't have any assets to be taken!

If you are betting on not crashing, or not being the cause, then why carry insurance at all?  No need to wait until you can't get it!

I live in Fl, in a fly-in community, another way of saying there are a bunch of older pilots here.

I believe the age we are stumbling over is 70, neighbor got rid of his Bonanza and got a 182 because insurance just became extraordinarily expensive for a retract when he turned 70. He also has a Legend Cub, I’d expect one day before long that the 182 may go, but I think he will still fly the Cub.

Used to be older pilots got rid of their complex aircraft and bought an LSA when medical’s were a concern.

Now it’s insurance that drives them into smaller, lighter aircraft.

If you honestly think your a hazard, you probably are, but it’s my opinion that those risks can be managed by getting a smaller, lighter aircraft and simply avoiding heavy trafficked and built up areas. One of those LSA Amphibs looks like they could be fun for example, and if you crash into a lake nobody much cares, or in an open field etc.

If your concerned about taxiing into a Biz Jet, don’t go where they are.

On the don’t carry insurance at all, I don’t on my C-140, I do on the Mooney, simply because I don’t trust the gear.

But using Auto insurance as an example, the requirement to have it only makes the insurance companies money, the required limits are so small, at least in Fl that it’s essentially worthless. ($10,000) so I’m against required insurance.

All this is just to say when the day comes when the insurance company says no more, or jacks the rates stupid high, I’m not going to stop flying, it’s been just too big a part of my life to just quit. It may change what and where I fly, but I’m not going to stop flying.

I will I think have enough sense to not fly instruments and into and out of busy airspace, in truth at 64 I haven’t flown hard IFR in so long that I avoid it now but stay proficient enough to hand fly an ILS just in case.

Nothing wrong with only flying on days of perfect weather tooling around in a slow tail dragger with your arm out of the window in uncontrolled airspace over sparsely populated areas. It’s actually quite relaxing and enjoyable. Just the thing for an old person that’s not looking for excitement as much anymore, and admits to themselves that they don’t have the skills, quick thinking and reaction times etc that they used to.

See what happens as pilots get older is that their experience and skills cover for their slower reaction times etc., but eventually that’s a downhill slide of course. If your honest with yourself you should know when to downgrade and eventually hang it up.

The guy who gave up the Jet, sure he’s likely not sharp enough for it, but I bet he could handle a Cub on a grass strip in uncontrolled airspace.

 

[ilovecornfields]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

If your concerned about taxiing into a Biz Jet, don’t go where they are.

If you’re concerned about taxiing into another airplane, maybe you shouldn’t be flying. Is there data to support the assertion that cognitively impaired pilots in lower performance aircraft have fewer accidents? 
 

The people who know the answer to this (the insurance companies) have pretty much universally decided that at a certain point it’s too expensive for them to insure certain pilots. Just like with airplanes, some older models are in much better shape than newer ones but you have to draw the line somewhere.

One of the challenges with cognitive impairment is that one of the things being impaired is your ability to determine how impaired you are.

Pilots hate to give up flying but I’ve always approached it with the attitude that it’s a temporary thing. I’ll always consider myself a pilot but I know I won’t be flying forever.

Edit: Here’s an article I just saw showing cognitive decline associated with aging and how you can take matters into your own hands to slow the effects.

https://apple.news/ACVHm3wzYSeal7RcFUQz_Rw

[Jerry 5TJ]

20 hours ago, GeeBee said:

It does not matter how many hours you got, how current you are, how fit you are, FL390 single pilot, with no mask on in a jet with light wing loading is rallying up some serious bad factors.

And it is also a clear violation of 91.211.

[hubcap]

11 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

And it is also a clear violation of 91.211.

I am not sure how it works, but it is legal for some operators to fly single pilot up to I believe FL 410 without a mask.

[skykrawler]

I think it naïve to believe that if you have assets the insurance we are buying for our M20's will protect them if you end up crashing into a building and killing people.

The families will own you, your A&P, your IA and probably some of the manufacturers of accessories on you airplane.