P&P article on insurance denials for older pilots

[Jerry 5TJ]

10 hours ago, hubcap said:

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.

91.211 does allow pilots to fly sans mask up to FL410:

”except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.”

 

[Steve0715]

On 5/18/2023 at 6:55 PM, 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!

Doesn’t take a genius level financial planner to protect your assets.

You shouldn’t have homes, cars or airplanes owned personally.  All of my assets are owned by trusts or limited partnerships.

[hubcap]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

91.211 does allow pilots to fly sans mask up to FL410:

”except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.”

 

I know 2 guys that fly single-pilot up to FL410 in Piaggio Avanti’s. I don’t know the specific regulations, but they are doing it without masks, and they are doing it legally.

[Steve0715]

27 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Corporate ownership will not protect you if you are the one at the controls.   

If you don’t own assets, there’s nothing to protect.  

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 hour ago, hubcap said:

I know 2 guys that fly single-pilot up to FL410 in Piaggio Avanti’s. I don’t know the specific regulations, but they are doing it without masks, and they are doing it legally.

Or so they claim….

[hubcap]

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Or so they claim….

Looks like the FAA modified the regulations back in 2020 to allow single pilot up to FL410  without a mask. I

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, Steve0715 said:

Doesn’t take a genius level financial planner to protect your assets.

You shouldn’t have homes, cars or airplanes owned personally.  All of my assets are owned by trusts or limited partnerships.

Two comments to your snarky post:

1) If you think having all your assets in a trust protects them from attachment due to judgement against you, then you have been badly misled. Trusts are primarily an estate tax planning tool. Similarly, an LLC isn't going to protect you if YOU are the one flying and cause the damages.  They protect YOUR assets when a partner is the one flying and causes the damages.

2) An attempt to shirk one's responsibility for harming others via legal maneuvering is pretty reprehensible, IMHO.

[hubcap]

26 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

eCFR :: 14 CFR 91.211 -- Supplemental oxygen. (FAR 91.211)

I am not sure how you read "single pilot up to FL410  without a mask".  There is no "single pilot" without a mask option.  Only if there are two (2) pilots with quick doning masks, can they go without a mask to 410.  If one pilot leaves the controls then the remaining "single pilot" must don the mask.

It says

"At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen"

"except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds"

"if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember's station"

I am not arguing for or against. I simply responded and attempted to clarify. I don’t have a dog in the fight. Myrtle only goes up to the lower flight levels and I have full insurance. I should have just stayed out of the discussion.

[GeeBee]

If you honestly believe the majority of the pilots don a mask when the other leaves or single pilot above 350, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It is probably the most violated regulation there is in effect. You can always tell the ones who not regulars as they struggle with donning and in particular re-stowing the mask. 100 bucks says he was not wearing a mask at 390.

 

[ArtVandelay]

If you honestly believe the majority of the pilots don a mask when the other leaves or single pilot above 350, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It is probably the most violated regulation there is in effect. You can always tell the ones who not regulars as they struggle with donning and in particular re-stowing the mask. 100 bucks says he was not wearing a mask at 390.
 

Did they ever figure out if the pilots in the Payne Stewart accident had oxygen masks on?

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

Did they ever figure out if the pilots in the Payne Stewart accident had oxygen masks on?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
 

That’s quite a crash! Hadn’t heard about it before. I wonder how long before planes will just automatically land themselves if there’s no pilot input for a certain amount of time. Maybe they can start to annoy you like the Teslas and if you don’t do anything they just land 

[Mooneymite]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

If you honestly believe the majority of the pilots don a mask when the other leaves or single pilot above 350, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It is probably the most violated regulation there is in effect. You can alwreays tell the ones who not regulars as they struggle with donning and in particular re-stowing the mask. 100 bucks says he was not wearing a mask at 390.

It gets murkier if one looks at the differences in part 91, part 135 and part 121 O2 mask requirements.....apparently, the human body reacts differently to oxygen deprivation depending on which FAR he is operating under.

The sherpas that march briskly up mount Everest without oxygen apparently operate under a special set of rules.

[ilovecornfields]

1 minute ago, Mooneymite said:

The sherpas that march briskly up mount Everest without oxygen apparently operate under a special set of rules.

I think it might take them more than 20 minutes to get to altitude, though.

[toto]

10 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I wonder how long before planes will just automatically land themselves if there’s no pilot input for a certain amount of time. Maybe they can start to annoy you like the Teslas and if you don’t do anything they just land 

If I remember correctly, the Garmin autoland system does exactly this.

If the pilot doesn’t make control inputs within a certain period of time, the system gets increasingly annoying - and then at some point it squawks 7700, makes a radio call, and lands the plane. 

[Hank]

31 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The sherpas that march briskly up mount Everest without oxygen apparently operate under a special set of rules.

They're not operating under the controlling eyes of the FAA . . . . .

[Mooneymite]

13 minutes ago, Hank said:

They're not operating under the controlling eyes of the FAA . . . . .

Well, above 18,000'....aren't they kind of in class A airspace?

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Well, above 18,000'....aren't they kind of in class A airspace?

Maybe Class A Ground-space.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Did they ever figure out if the pilots in the Payne Stewart accident had oxygen masks on?

I don't think anybody knows exactly what happened in the cockpit, but Learjet later changed the relevant checklist so that putting the masks on moved up from item five or six to number one.  

 

[A64Pilot]

On 5/19/2023 at 11:19 AM, ilovecornfields said:

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

Insurance company that wanted a bunch to insure him in his Bonanza didn’t blink at a 182.

Both four passenger airplanes, only real difference that I can see is the retract gear, sure the Bo is a little faster but not enough to make any real difference decision making wise.

Driving an automobile in busy traffic is a lot more overwhelming than operating something like a Cub out of a grass strip.

I live within a couple of miles from the Villages in Fl. there are a whole lot of cognitively imparted drivers around here, but they manage. I assume they stop driving at night and self limit themselves from other situations that give them trouble.

This guy, the one in the front seat was well into his 90’s in this picture, he flew Reece in a P-38 in the South Pacific, he flew fine we had him in a Cub, Stearman and glider.

He’s gone now, he went downhill pretty quick after he injured his back doing snap rolls in the Stearman. Now he flew with other pilots, but he drove himself here to do so.

Others don’t even make it to their 70’s without dementia etc. I think genetics have a lot to do with it. Jack must have had good genetics, but does just picking some number really make sense?

 

[PeteMc]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:30 PM, Fly Boomer said:

Insurance companies don't just make up these things willy-nilly -- they use statistics and those stats are sliced and diced by actuaries.

Actually, that may not be the case.  In an AOPA event last year there were questions on Insurance for older pilots.  AOPA's answer, as I remember it, is that they had already made numerous calls to various insurance companies to substantiate their increasing prices as ALL of AOPA's data did not see an actuarial need.  Insurance Co have had a LOT of losses over the last few years and they're apparently looking for various Profit Centers to make up the losses.   

I also believe AOPA is looking into how to change this and get fair pricing actually based ON THE NUMBERS.  So if anyone is at an event will Mark Baker or other senior people, be sure to ask if there's any action on this and report back.

 

[A64Pilot]

Insurance is a business, they exist to make money, and they should that’s how the system works.

If they can make more money by jacking rates on older pilots, then they will. Only thing that will change that is convincing them that they will make more money by not

The neighbor with the Bo, they didn’t refuse to insure, just the rate went way up and I believe he was told that they would increase I think it was 20% per year, not sure it may have been less.

The guy who co-owned the Bo is also over 70, he flies Biz-jets for the Villages, I think single pilot, but not sure.

I don’t see the logic?

AOPA or anyone else isn’t going to get them to change their policies if it’s making them money.

It’s like complaining that aircraft cost so much, it’s not fair.

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Insurance Co have had a LOT of losses over the last few years and they're apparently looking for various Profit Centers to make up the losses.

If it's a profit center, then most insurance companies wouldn't automatically decline new business past a certain age.

[PeteMc]

49 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

If it's a profit center, then most insurance companies wouldn't automatically decline new business past a certain age.

Very true on that point.  I guess I had two thoughts going on in my head and wasn't clear.  There are a lot of cancellations, where in many cases there is no reason.  But there are also some giant price hikes going on for older pilots, again for no documented reason.   

In both cases there does not appear to be any kind of actuarial science involved.  And no clue how they can, but it will be interesting if AOPA can force or come up with any kind of solution. 

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

15 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Very true on that point.  I guess I had two thoughts going on in my head and wasn't clear.  There are a lot of cancellations, where in many cases there is no reason.  But there are also some giant price hikes going on for older pilots, again for no documented reason.   

In both cases there does not appear to be any kind of actuarial science involved.  And no clue how they can, but it will be interesting if AOPA can force or come up with any kind of solution. 

 

Auto insurance companies charge more for older drivers, even those with no claim and accident history.  Certainly pilots aren't immune from being a greater statistical risk.

 

[Hank]

51 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Auto insurance companies charge more for older drivers, even those with no claim and accident history.  Certainly pilots aren't immune from being a greater statistical risk.

 

The auto companies have data and statistics to back it up. Seems like this is lacking in aviation insurance for older pilots.