What is happening in Kerrville?

[KSMooniac]

Parker, can a case be made in advance of age 65, 70, or 75 to continue coverage if a pilot were to do all of the recommended items, such that at least the current insurer, or perhaps any, would look at an application and say, yes, this is a diligent pilot doing all of the right things to be a safe pilot?  Things like 75-100 hrs/yr, annual flight review and/or IPC, a good mix of XC, night, IFR (if applicable), etc. instead of just a breakfast run repeated over and over...   It seems like the insurance industry could issue an "advisory circular" of sorts as a means to improve the odds of keeping insurance into this phase of life.  Perhaps you can suggest something like that to the carriers?

[DCarlton]

2 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

 

A rule of thumb:

The more common the LSA, the greater likelihood insurance rates will be good.

That would mean RV-12 or ?  Sling 2 perhaps?  Any other contenders ?  Yeah I know were way off topic.  

[Ned Gravel]

7 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

@Parker_Woodruff, thank you. That was very thoughtfully written and informative.

I’ve unfortunately been in the position to “take someone’s license away” after an event occurs for which I am a mandatory reporter. The person is usually very upset with me but at least one family member usually thanks me. It seems pilots could do a better job of owning their responsibilities - to themselves, their passengers and the public. When we don’t police ourselves, we compel the government, private businesses and courts to do it for us.

The I'M SAFE mnemonic used to be almost a perfunctory exercise in flight planning for me.  When was I ever not ready to fly?  Hmm...?

Now it is not so perfunctory.  Since last summer (I am now 70), I have scrubbed two sorties because I knew I was just too tired to really stay ahead of the airplane.  It may cut back my flying hours on those days when I have set aside the time because the weather is cooperating, but better that than the alternative. 

I really do not want to be "that guy."  In the pattern, talking to no one and oblivious to a lot of the situation around me.  I have seen it in others and read more than one resulting accident report.  Even a fixed gear aircraft will not solve that problem.

I think we have to be willing to tell ourselves when it is not a good day to fly because of how we feel.  Pisses me off that age is creeping up and may be doing this to me.  I was a warrior and we are indestructible!!!!!  Then, but maybe not so much today.  Still instrument current and still Class 1 medical.

But I am ready to determine when my A game is no longer good enough.  Then it will be time to hang up the spurs.  But not today and not while I have the tools and QC checks to help me make good decisions.  BTW:  tomorrow is four practice approaches to local airports.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

That would mean RV-12 or ?  Sling 2 perhaps?  Any other contenders ?  Yeah I know were way off topic.  

RV-12 all day!!! 

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

Parker, can a case be made in advance of age 65, 70, or 75 to continue coverage if a pilot were to do all of the recommended items, such that at least the current insurer, or perhaps any, would look at an application and say, yes, this is a diligent pilot doing all of the right things to be a safe pilot?  Things like 75-100 hrs/yr, annual flight review and/or IPC, a good mix of XC, night, IFR (if applicable), etc. instead of just a breakfast run repeated over and over...   It seems like the insurance industry could issue an "advisory circular" of sorts as a means to improve the odds of keeping insurance into this phase of life.  Perhaps you can suggest something like that to the carriers?

Yes and no. 

There are basically four types of insurance carriers when it comes to this subject:

1. The carriers that have been accommodating to age over the past few decades.  But are they competitive on price?  Not for every model.  Can the insured and broker have the discipline to stick with one of those carriers even when there's a more attractive price option at age 69?  Because the aformentioned carriers won't be looking to pick a client up as new business at age 77 when the more attractively priced carrier goes dual crew only at age 75 or 77.  Avemco might save your insurability at this age, but anecdotally the max value they'll insure decreases with age (if you don't have a long track record with them), and as you close in on 80 they may not pick you up unless you've been flying ____ hours per year.
2. There are the carriers that you can expect will almost certainly drop you to dual only at or around age 75-80.
3. There are the carriers that will just non-renew.
4. There are the carriers that will pick up new business at ages 75-80 but with major underwriting restrictions.

Within category number 2 above, these carrier(s) may evaluate the amount of hours the pilot is flying.  10 hours per year at age 75?  Dual only next year.  85 hours per year at age 75?  They'll let it ride a few more years before requiring dual only.

I can all but guarantee a path for insurability (with some failsafes built in) through at least age 80 for clients with aircraft values at or below $250,000.  One note - your first pilot error claim past age 70 might be your last claim, depending on the carrier.

Remember - insurance companies are profitable on personal piston aircraft probably for the first time in a very long time now that rates are up.  They don't have to squint anymore to try to make things work to add revenue.

Fly often!  It's good for you!

[KSMooniac]

Fly often!  It's good for you!

Truth! For many reasons beyond insurance terms too.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

[toto]

4 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

LSA insurance can be expensive (sometimes even higher than 6 seat retractable gear aircraft rates).

Wow, this is surprising. I would assume that both the hull (simple, cheap) and liability (two seats vs six) would make this a clear win for almost any LSA over almost any six-seat retractable.

[ilovecornfields]

13 minutes ago, toto said:

Wow, this is surprising. I would assume that both the hull (simple, cheap) and liability (two seats vs six) would make this a clear win for almost any LSA over almost any six-seat retractable.

AOPA claims the LSA accident rate is much higher, especially for GA pilots.

“available data suggests that so far, LSAs suffer more than three times as many events that require reporting under Part 830 in a given number of hours flown”

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/flight-schools/flight-school-business/newsletter/2011/april/08/traditional-versus-lsa-which-wins-the-accident-rate-battle

[toto]

Just now, ilovecornfields said:

AOPA claims the LSA accident rate is much higher, especially for GA pilots.

“available data suggests that so far, LSAs suffer more than three times as many events that require reporting under Part 830 in a given number of hours flown”

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/flight-schools/flight-school-business/newsletter/2011/april/08/traditional-versus-lsa-which-wins-the-accident-rate-battle

Interesting. That would do it

 

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

LSA insurance can be expensive (sometimes even higher than 6 seat retractable gear aircraft rates).  Be cautious about which plane you choose.

A rule of thumb:

The more common the LSA, the greater likelihood insurance rates will be good.

Yeah, local FBO has a Sky Catcher.  Some parts are CRAZY.

[Parker_Woodruff]

10 hours ago, toto said:

Wow, this is surprising. I would assume that both the hull (simple, cheap) and liability (two seats vs six) would make this a clear win for almost any LSA over almost any six-seat retractable.

Under-built planes trying to fit into 1320 pounds.  Pilots used to direct-drive engines all of a sudden have a different set of sounds with geared engines when they're on a approach to land.  Not nearly the amount of inertia on these light airplanes, so cut the power and the plane behaves differently than a typical Skyhawk.

[Parker_Woodruff]

All of the above said, I've considered an RV-12 while I save for a nice Mooney, Cessna 206, or PA32R...second baby on the way...and never know if a third might show up.

[Little Dipper]

On 6/18/2023 at 11:55 AM, Pinecone said:

Many companies will not write insurance on above a certain age and retract.

Where did you come up with that?   I'm seventy-one, own a Ovation and have no insurance issues.

[Danb]

LittleDipper , I said that same thing two years ago. The crap hit the fan about a year ago when my agent notified me of what to expect and OLD Republic notified me I’d most likely have to fly with another pilot or get a fixed gear plane, we looked around didn’t like any other planes being pissed off I sold a beautiful Bravo only to later be notified Brown would insure myMooney if I got an annual IPC, I then bought an Acclaim. I’m 75this year, Terry didn’t misspeak. That’s where he came up with that. I used Mike for my IPC and transition to the Acclaim. 

[aviatoreb]

6 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

All of the above said, I've considered an RV-12 while I save for a nice Mooney, Cessna 206, or PA32R...second baby on the way...and never know if a third might show up.

...that's how we got our third - Adam!

[Fly Boomer]

On 6/21/2023 at 4:23 PM, Danb said:

As Mike above well knows I’m in the twilight of my flying career, for the lack of another term, I changed my insurance this year due to age. My prior company warned I would have to go to fixed gear or fly with an instructor. My new company requires an annual IPC, which I do anyway. I attempt to fly at least 100 hours per year, raised my minimums and go over my POH and other guides more. It seems as though the years keep getting shorter

Gotta ask:  At what age does the insurance company start demanding that you fly with an instructor?

[Danb]

Mine was 75..

[jlunseth]

On 6/21/2023 at 6:14 PM, KSMooniac said:

Parker, can a case be made in advance of age 65, 70, or 75 to continue coverage if a pilot were to do all of the recommended items, such that at least the current insurer, or perhaps any, would look at an application and say, yes, this is a diligent pilot doing all of the right things to be a safe pilot?  Things like 75-100 hrs/yr, annual flight review and/or IPC, a good mix of XC, night, IFR (if applicable), etc. instead of just a breakfast run repeated over and over...   It seems like the insurance industry could issue an "advisory circular" of sorts as a means to improve the odds of keeping insurance into this phase of life.  Perhaps you can suggest something like that to the carriers?

Ditto. 

 

[1980Mooney]

15 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Gotta ask:  At what age does the insurance company start demanding that you fly with an instructor?

 

4 hours ago, Danb said:

Mine was 75..

What do you mean by "fly with an instructor"?  Do you mean a certain number of hours with a CFI before flying solo?  Is it once a year or recuring? How many and how often?  

Thanks

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

What do you mean by "fly with an instructor"?  Do you mean a certain number of hours with a CFI before flying solo?  Is it once a year or recuring? How many and how often?  

Thanks

I think he's referencing an insurance company requirement that past a certain age, pilots must fly with a CFI or other qualified pilot

[Danb]

No I meant literally what they said, meaning he would have to sit next to me in flight, solo would be excluded. Obviously insurance companies differ from no insurance at 75 to no rectract to having another pilot or instructor onboard during operations to my current and new company which requires an annual IPC. I sold a great plane based on insurance bias then luckily found a company to insure me. Hopefully at renewal I will get another year. The clock is ticking.. tick tock 

[Hank]

It's getting more and more difficult to become a UFO, but that's one of my life goals. It would be even nicer if I could stay PIC continuously, without a break to come back at 80.

Wonder what I can get insurance for after age 80? At that point, a Mooney will be overkill--a biplane would be nice, my wife insists on 2-place and I like enclosed canopies but cannot afford a Staggerwing [although they are gorgeous!]. 

[1980Mooney]

20 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's getting more and more difficult to become a UFO, but that's one of my life goals. It would be even nicer if I could stay PIC continuously, without a break to come back at 80.

Wonder what I can get insurance for after age 80? At that point, a Mooney will be overkill--a biplane would be nice, my wife insists on 2-place and I like enclosed canopies but cannot afford a Staggerwing [although they are gorgeous!]. 

True - it has gotten harder to become a "UFO".....especially with ADSB, radar, security cams, doorbell cams, social media, iPhones, etc....  

I can't say that it is one of my goals.  The contract Tower at my home drome gets really really pissed if I show up unannounced and unidentified even in the era of ADSB/GPS.

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

True - it has gotten harder to become a "UFO".....especially with ADSB, radar, security cams, doorbell cams, social media, iPhones, etc....  

I can't say that it is one of my goals.  The contract Tower at my home drome gets really really pissed if I show up unannounced and unidentified even in the era of ADSB/GPS.

I see we have a misunderstanding here. In the world of aviation, "UFO" is the acronym for an organized group, the United Flying Octogenarians. Qualification for membership is based upon flying an aircraft as PIC on or after your 80th birthday. They may have a website / facebook page, but I'm not on facebook so I'm not sure.

By the way, I'm still a couple of decades away from joining, but I have no ADS-B on my plane, although I do show up on radar and get flight following when I travel,  [if I don't file IFR]. And no, I don't like the fruity phones, they are too intrusive, and I have no time for much "social media" beyond this place. Most years I make one flight within the 30-nm Bravo circle where ADS-B is required, I just visit the FAA website and get permission in an email. Not spending at least a couple thousand dollars for one flight per year [many of my trips from Lower Alabama would go straight through the Atlanta Bravo, but in the last thirteen years I have yet to be allowed within their airspace, but do sometimes go underneath to a suburban airport; if I can't get in, I ain't paying the money because it'll buy lots of avgas to travel with.

[A64Pilot]

On 6/22/2023 at 9:52 AM, Parker_Woodruff said:

All of the above said, I've considered an RV-12 while I save for a nice Mooney, Cessna 206, or PA32R...second baby on the way...and never know if a third might show up.

Honestly stay away from an RV-12, and for that matter ANY nose gear RV, but I don’t know about the newer ones, just the 6,7, and 8.

You hit the nail on the head with underbuilt with the -12.

Honestly there are a WHOLE lot of Certified older aircraft out there like a 140 Cessna that are very good flying and I believe have relatively low accident rates that perform as good or better than a -12, for a whole lot less money.

I don’t know what they go for used but new can get you a nice J model Mooney for the same price.

Just looked, yeah you can get a nice REAL airplane for the cost of a -12

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=VANS&model=RV-12&s-type=aircraft