Advancing age and insurance

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, Culver LFA said:

I was 38 when I bought my Mooney, I’m 48 now with ATP and 2 type ratings yet have only seen annual increases in rates every year.  I was once told by my agent that the rates would have gone up more without the experience and additional ratings so I guess I’m fortunate!

My rates reduced by 50% when I got 100 hours my first year (i bought the Mooney with 62 hours); next renewal was the same. Then Instrument Rating cut it by another third, followed by minor variations then it started back up and is near my VFR rates.

My ownership hit 16 years this summer . . . .

[Hank]

10 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Interesting observation - so insurance companies can't really rely upon age, hours flown, or years flying -( i.e. proxies of "experience" )- to determine risk profile and appropriate premium.  No CFII is really measuring if you are a "good pilot" and even if they did they would not communicate that to an insurance company.  Besides the rigor and quality of BFR's and IPC's vary - and the frequency is only every 2 years. - if you stay current you may never have another IPC.  So it is a complete crap shoot for the insurance companies.  We are lucky to get any insurance at all.

That's more than your insurance company knows about your driving abilities . . . .

[Hank]

32 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

And if "estimating" a drivers risk profile isn't enough, many offer Telematics tracking based insurance policies - a realtime "black box" connected by app to your smartphone.  Drivers are increasingly accepting this type of policy to save money.

They track:

● How often you drive and for how long.
● Hard braking
● Hard acceleration
● Speed
● Fast cornering (quick, sharp turns)
● Time of day, especially nighttime driving
● Phone usage while driving

I decline that crap. Nobody needs to know everywhere I go.

33 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

• Your based location, and if it's hard surface or grass
• Your marital status
• Your age
• Your employment status
• Your credit history
• Your airplane
• Your class of medical, when you took it and when the next is due
• Your license details--ASEL, AMEL, ASES, various types ratings, Private / Commercial / ATP, Instruments, Aerobatics, etc.
• Your total flight hours, IMC hours, etc.
• The hours you fly each year 
• The aircraft that you fly each year 
• Your flight hours in the last quarter
• The extra flying courses you took
• Where you keep your airplane
• Whether you are in a hangar or tied down

I modified the above list for your Mooney insurance. My brokers have asked for this every year when I renew my Mooney insurance. Doesn't yours? They know a lot about you and your flying.

[brad]

3 years ago at 72 my underwriter advised they may want me out of a retract at 75.  Contacted Avemco.  Their response -1. keep a third class  2. keep flying with CAP  3. Check ride and IPC every year. 

5600 hours.  1600 in my F.  And...wait for it...my rate went down this year!!

[wombat]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

I decline that crap. Nobody needs to know everywhere I go.

No, they don't.  But they've determined that the people who are willing to share that are willing because they know they are only going to places safely.   If you take 6 of the best dozen apples out of the box, the rest of the box is less good as a whole.  So the half dozen who self-selected to share that info get better rates, and everybody who didn't gets worse rates.  

 

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

  Nothing is in writing or in email. They don’t verify anything- I could tell them any hours I wanted - either poor recollection, poor record keeping, poor math or intentionally.

I could have dropped the cost of a hangar in exchange for a tie down - they didn’t ask.  

They didn’t ask if I was Current  in my Instrument Rating. They do not ask about the status or timing of my Medical. 

Sure, you can tell them whatever you want.  And if you were not being truthful and you make a claim and they have evidence that indicates you were not being truthful, that's very valid grounds for denying your claim and more.    Didn't actually get your medical?  Claim denied.  Not current?  Claim denied.   Only flew 25 hours a year but claimed 250?  Claim denied.      They only offered you the policy at the price they did because of your claimed facts.     So don't get it wrong or what you'll find is that you are not actually covered by insurance.   If you hurt or kill someone else with your aircraft you won't have your insurance company's lawyers protecting you.  You bend the plane, they won't pay out or fix it.   And they might even come after you for the time and money they spent figuring this out.  Insurance fraud is serious business.

[Pinecone]

Watching how many drivers drive, I wonder how many are paying HIGHER rates due to telemetrics.

 

[Mooneymite]

On 11/6/2023 at 11:56 AM, Hank said:

I decline that crap. Nobody needs to know everywhere I go.

 

I once became curious about how the DOT determines "average speeds" that are often posted on Georgia's interstates.  Holy Crap!  I figured maybe tag readers, or smart pass transponders...yes, those are used, but if you think you have any privacy whatsoever on a public street/road, you are sadly mistaken. 

The tracking technologies are amazing!

Edited November 7, 2023 by Mooneymite

[wombat]

@1980Mooney Whew....

Nope, I don't know of any aviation claims that have been denied due to a fraudulent application regardless of it the fraud was intentional or not.  My sample of aviation claims is quite small however and I don't think of them as being worth considering.  I only know of two.

My comments about the risk pool splitting based on the willingness to share extensive data was about @Hank's reply to your message about automobile drivers, not pilots and I stand by my comments on that topic.

Overall, I think I disagree with you a little.   I think the aviation insurance companies are trying to determine the risk of any given pilot before they offer an insurance policy for them by asking such things as the pilot's age, last BFR, hours flown in the last 12 months, accident/incident/claim history, ratings, and so on.  And they are rewarding the 'safer' pilots with lower rates and punishing the more risky pilots with higher rates or even declining coverage.  Is this 'big data' analysis?  Nope.   But is it an attempt to determine risk and price accordingly?  Yup.  Is this 'voluntarily sharing information' with them?  Yup.   Try *not* doing that and see what they say.   

[wombat]

@1980Mooney If it was covered, they probably did it the same way they do every other policy....  Ask about a bunch of pilot information for the named pilots, and the basic information about the plane (N number, model, serial, etc) and then price and write the policy.

Your comment "That can't be a sustainable return for the insurance company." puzzles me.....  Why would you say that?    The whole point of insurance is that it is collecting the risk into a large pool.   Of course some claims will happen to be larger than the payouts made so far to the insurance company.   That's how it works.   Other payers will pay and never make a claim.... Would you also say "That can't be a good decision for the insured pilot!" ?

 

If the ferry pilot is liable for this loss depends on if there is a policy that covers them performing this flight.   Either as a named insured on N1167J's policy, or covered under some other policy like a non-owners policy or if a policy they are already named insured on includes flying other aircraft (One of my policies does cover me flying other aircraft).   If none of those are true, then the ferry pilot is likely personally liable for the damages.   If the ferry pilot did not meet the open pilot minimums on the aircraft's policy, the underwriter may choose not to pay.  If the ferry pilot did, the underwriter might attempt to recoup their losses by getting reimbursed by the ferry pilot.   And if the ferry pilot's coverage (if any) is lower than the owner's coverage, the ferry pilot might be liable for the difference.

 

 

24 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

how do they estimate the risk (liability and medical) for the insurance of the Ferry Pilot?

The same way they do every other policy....  Ask about a bunch of pilot information and then price and write a policy.   Seriously, non-owned coverage is really common.

 

25 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Seriously - does it vary by type of plane?

Usually not by type, but non-owned coverage changes significantly between single engine, multi-engine, seaplane, rotorcraft, etc.   And price varies a lot based on the amount of coverage you want.

 

27 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Does it vary by ferry flight plan?

It seems like you think there may be some sort of single-flight insurance policy in place.  I've never heard of such a thing being done for cheap little GA planes like ours.  Where have you heard of policies like this?  

[wombat]

I was assuming that they made the aircraft airworthy before trying to fly it and therefore needed no ferry permit.   I don't know if my insurance would cover me on a flight where I had a ferry permit instead of normal airworthiness; I'd assume the answer is 'no'.  But I'm relatively conservative in this regard and I'd call and ask first.

The times I have purchased aircraft, either currently airworthy or not, I got a normal insurance policy for them and followed the applicable regulations and the stipulations from my insurance company.  It is my assumption that the owner of this aircraft did the same thing.

What indication do you have that this flight was on a ferry permit?   Also, it sounds like you disagree with the FAA's stance on ferry permits, which is that the aircraft is safe enough considering the conditions of the aircraft and the flight(s) to be performed.   That's fine, but it's also the FAA that says it is OK.

Is just the fact that hiring a pilot to do something makes it a 'commercial activity' that is somehow excluded from part 91 rules?  Pretty much every jet owner and the majority o turboprop owners that can't fly their own airplanes would be pretty disappointed with that.

Really not sure what you are going for with all of this.   You are maybe looking for other people to blame for the cost of insurance because you are unhappy with having to pay but not having any claims?   You want to be in a pool with only those that make as good of decisions as you?  Remember though that at that point you'll be the bottom of the barrel of who is in your pool. Just self-insure!  Start your own insurance company and exclude repositioning flights from what you cover.  Only cover aircraft that have > 100 hours in the last 12 months.  If they drop below that level, they are not covered and have to buy another policy until they reach 100 hours in the last 12 months before they are covered by your company again.

This is all the same issue as the A La Carte vs. Plate Entree at restaurants, and airline tickets that include luggage and overhead bin space Vs. RyanAir and Spirit's pricing...   And of course health insurance.  I'm very healthy and there is a part of me that is irritated that I pay WAY more in health insurance than I'll ever use.  But that's how insurance works.  It sounds like you want just part of what's offered as part of a whole insurance package and are upset that other people are covered (and sometimes have claims for) activities that you don't do.    

*shrug*   Don't know what to tell you other than that is not the kind of attitude I think makes friends.

[MikeOH]

@wombat

Great post!

[wombat]

@1980Mooney Thanks for the clarification of why you were calling this a ferry flight!   That all sounds consistent and I can't find any information that would contradict this set of assumptions.

 

So getting back to the underlying topic..... What is your goal here?   Do you want insurance companies to remove coverage for flights using special airworthiness certificates and thereby lower your insurance premiums?   

 

Have you considered doing a full analysis of the percentage of flights with and without accidents/incidents that are using special airworthiness certificates Vs. those that don't to quantify the actual difference in risk?  If so, an estimate of the insurance payout for the incident based on aircraft damage and number of persons injured or killed would be interesting...The special airworthiness certificates I've gotten (and have heard about in details) all required that the flight be conducted with only the required crewmembers and were in aircraft capable of single pilot operations, so just the one person.  The insurance risk of flying with more people is higher, so it could be that the per-flight insurance risk is lower on special airworthiness certificates because the chance of multiple people being hurt is lower.   It doesn't seem likely to me that it's actually lower because of this, but that factor would lower the overall expected risk of special airworthiness certificate flights.

An analysis or report like Ron Wanttaja did here would be great:  https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-reassurance/ or his other reports here: https://www.avweb.com/author/ron-wanttaja/

Amusingly, I applied for a special airworthiness certificate earlier this year and was denied.   The tach cable had broken and I wanted to fly the airplane to a nearby airport that has maintenance services.     The application was denied because the FSDO said "A Special Flight Permit is not an authorization to deviate from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91."...   What I didn't reply with was "What, you mean like 91.409?" which is the part 91 requirement for an annual inspection, which is the single most common reason for application for a special airworthiness certificate and is very often approved.    I'm a little bitter about it because it delayed my student's first solo by 4 months but I didn't want to start a fight with the FSDO.

Edited November 9, 2023 by wombat

[Shadrach]

The aircraft was airworthy if it was flying under a ferry permit. A ferry permit deems the aircraft capable of conducting safe flight under very specific conditions outlined in the permit. If the flight was conducted IAW an approved ferry permit, there is zero ground for denying the claim. The FSDO and a certified mechanic deemed the aircraft safe for the flight specified in the permit. The underwriter does not get to make up their own definition of airworthy. 

Mostly a moot point in this case as the incident appears to be a result of pilot error and not related to aircraft condition. If the incident was caused by fuel starvation, there may be more to the story. Fuel exhaustion is pretty clearly a “pilot ran it out of gas” situation.

I think excluding ferry flights from a policy would do more harm than good. Do insurance companies deny claims if an incident occurs when the aircraft is out of annual? What about if the pilot is missed a flight review date by a few months?
 

The ferry permit process incentivizes transparent behavior from all involved, it mitigates risk by involving a credentialed mechanic to assess the aircraft’s condition and ability to conduct the specific flight and is then reviewed and approved by the FSDO. If the insurance industry refused to ensure ferry flights, it would surely encourage less transparency and more risky behavior across the board. 

[Shadrach]

28 minutes ago, wombat said:

@1980Mooney Thanks for the clarification of why you were calling this a ferry flight!   That all sounds consistent and I can't find any information that would contradict this set of assumptions.

 

So getting back to the underlying topic..... What is your goal here?   Do you want insurance companies to remove coverage for flights using special airworthiness certificates and thereby lower your insurance premiums?   

 

Have you considered doing a full analysis of the percentage of flights with and without accidents/incidents that are using special airworthiness certificates Vs. those that don't to quantify the actual difference in risk?  If so, an estimate of the insurance payout for the incident based on aircraft damage and number of persons injured or killed would be interesting...The special airworthiness certificates I've gotten (and have heard about in details) all required that the flight be conducted with only the required crewmembers and were in aircraft capable of single pilot operations, so just the one person.  The insurance risk of flying with more people is higher, so it could be that the per-flight insurance risk is lower on special airworthiness certificates because the chance of multiple people being hurt is lower.   It doesn't seem likely to me that it's actually lower because of this, but that factor would lower the overall expected risk of special airworthiness certificate flights.

An analysis or report like Ron Wanttaja did here would be great:  https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-reassurance/ or his other reports here: https://www.avweb.com/author/ron-wanttaja/

Amusingly, I applied for a special airworthiness certificate earlier this year and was denied.   The tach cable had broken and I wanted to fly the airplane to a nearby airport that has maintenance services.     The application was denied because the FSDO said "A Special Flight Permit is not an authorization to deviate from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91."...   What I didn't reply with was "What, you mean like 91.409?" which is the part 91 requirement for an annual inspection, which is the single most common reason for application for a special airworthiness certificate and is very often approved.    I'm a little bitter about it because it delayed my student's first solo by 4 months but I didn't want to start a fight with the FSDO.

Denying your request for a tach cable repair is absolutely moronic. There is not much else to say other than that everyone involved in that decision is an imbecile

[wombat]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Denying your request for a tach cable repair is absolutely moronic. There is not much else to say other than that everyone involved in that decision is an imbecile

Talked to my local A&P about this, and said "Who was it at the FSDO that did that?  Was it X?  That guy's a <derogatory term>."   And yes, it was the person he thought it was.   But due to the timing that rejection was not worth fighting.   We got it fixed a week or so later but my student was already gone for the summer.   

[wombat]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

The aircraft was airworthy if it was flying under a ferry permit. A ferry permit deems the aircraft capable of conducting safe flight under very specific conditions outlined in the permit. If the flight was conducted IAW an approved ferry permit, there is zero ground for denying the claim. The FSDO and a certified mechanic deemed the aircraft safe for the flight specified in the permit. The underwriter does not get to make up their own definition of airworthy. 

Mostly a moot point in this case as the incident appears to be a result of pilot error and not related to aircraft condition. If the incident was caused by fuel starvation, there may be more to the story. Fuel exhaustion is pretty clearly a “pilot ran it out of gas” situation.

I think excluding ferry flights from a policy would do more harm than good. Do insurance companies deny claims if an incident occurs when the aircraft is out of annual? What about if the pilot is missed a flight review date by a few months?
 

The ferry permit process incentivizes transparent behavior from all involved, it mitigates risk by involving a credentialed mechanic to assess the aircraft’s condition and ability to conduct the specific flight and is then reviewed and approved by the FSDO. If the insurance industry refused to ensure ferry flights, it would surely encourage less transparency and more risky behavior across the board. 

I agree with pretty much all of what you've said here.   It could be that the fuel exhaustion was caused by a fuel leak which would have been discovered if they'd performed an annual inspection on the aircraft... but you could say that about *ANY* flight where there was not an annual inspection immediately before.   An annual inspection does not (as far as I know) include filling the tanks and checking for leaks.   If the top 1/2 of the fuel leaked out at 5 GPH once the aircraft moved after being fueled, due to old sealant, that could easily have caused what was otherwise a successfully planned flight to end up like this one did, through no fault of the pilot's other than cutting it close enough on fuel that a fuel leak small enough to be non-obvious right after filling was enough to cause the plane to run out.  But you could say that about any flight that takes you into the last 1/8 of a tank of fuel.... Or last 1/4.  Or last 1/2.   

 

I'm pretty sure that my insurance policies require that I follow all regulations so if I was flying and the plane was out of annual or I was not current, they could deny a claim.   

The underwriters could put whatever conditions they wanted into the policy, such as 'no flights on a ferry permit' or 'must have a BFR within the last 12 months' or 'no commercial activities'.     For them it's probably a balance between having enough exclusions to stop really risky behaviors but not take up too much time and effort to manage, and how many potential policy holders they would scare away by having that growing list of restrictions.

[Shadrach]

On 11/9/2023 at 3:02 PM, wombat said:

I agree with pretty much all of what you've said here.   It could be that the fuel exhaustion was caused by a fuel leak which would have been discovered if they'd performed an annual inspection on the aircraft... but you could say that about *ANY* flight where there was not an annual inspection immediately before.   An annual inspection does not (as far as I know) include filling the tanks and checking for leaks.   If the top 1/2 of the fuel leaked out at 5 GPH once the aircraft moved after being fueled, due to old sealant, that could easily have caused what was otherwise a successfully planned flight to end up like this one did, through no fault of the pilot's other than cutting it close enough on fuel that a fuel leak small enough to be non-obvious right after filling was enough to cause the plane to run out.  But you could say that about any flight that takes you into the last 1/8 of a tank of fuel.... Or last 1/4.  Or last 1/2.   

 

I'm pretty sure that my insurance policies require that I follow all regulations so if I was flying and the plane was out of annual or I was not current, they could deny a claim.   

The underwriters could put whatever conditions they wanted into the policy, such as 'no flights on a ferry permit' or 'must have a BFR within the last 12 months' or 'no commercial activities'.     For them it's probably a balance between having enough exclusions to stop really risky behaviors but not take up too much time and effort to manage, and how many potential policy holders they would scare away by having that growing list of restrictions.

I’m pretty sure an insurance company can drop you or adjust your rates based on violations but I don’t think they can deny claims because the claim occurred while a violation was taking place (regardless of whether it was causal). If that were the case insurance would be fairly useless. Certainly that is how insurance works in other areas. It’s why collision insurance is so expensive for new drivers, especially young males. They don’t deny claims based on stupid and illegal behavior, but they will price the coverage based off the increased risk of loss from the higher rate of stupid and illegal behavior in that demo. If you have a prop strike and it turns out the plane is 3 months out of annual and and you have an expired medical, I’m 99% sure that claim gets paid. I am also 99% sure your rate increases substantially or you get dropped shortly thereafter.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

... I don’t think they can deny claims because the claim occurred while a violation was taking place (regardless of whether it was causal). If that were the case insurance would be fairly useless. 

EXACTLY!

If I ever have an 'incident' I'm nearly certain it will be because of something that one way or another can be tied to breaking some kind of regulation.  I would not bother with insurance if they routinely denied claims because the pilot violated a rule.

[wombat]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I’m pretty sure an insurance company can drop you or adjust your rates based on violations but I don’t think they can deny claims because the claim occurred while a violation was taking place (regardless of whether it was causal). If that were the case insurance would be fairly useless. Certainly that is how insurance works in other areas. It’s why collision insurance is so expensive for new drivers, especially young males. They don’t deny claims based on stupid and illegal behavior, but they will price the coverage based of the increased risk of loss from the higher rate of stupid and illegal behavior in that demo. If you have a prop strike and it turns out the plane is 3 months out of annual and and you have an expired medical, I’m 99% sure that claim gets paid. I also 99% sure your rate increases substantially or you get dropped shortly thereafter.

Good point...     I could see a daytime soap opera version of an insurance adjuster say "Well, your husband was not IFR rated, and the accident was caused by inadvertent IMC, so at the time of the crash, they had failed to comply with the cloud clearance requirements of part 91, therefore the claim is denied, because he was in violation of the regulations."

[Stan]

From my post of November 1st.:

Here I go again.  I just received the Aviation Insurance Application from my broker.  The renewal comes up in Jan, I will turn 75 in April, I flew about 100 hours last year, with an IPC and Biannual (or whatever they call it now) on the log.  The wait (like for compression numbers) begins!

 

Well, my quote came in and jumped by $691.00 to $2997.00.  Here are the numbers for the past five years.

2019 $1263.00

2020 $1661.00

2021 $2284.00

2022 $2306.00

2023 $2997.00

I will be 75 in April, Commercial, Instrument with IPC, Current Biannual, 2064.3 total hours, 83.2 hrs last 12 months, around 90 hrs per yr, 398.4 time in type, 851.8 complex.

One accident:  04/25/09: total loss of N201JT Mooney valued at $79k, USAIG pd engine failure on takeoff.  I attached the write-up from MAPA Log Jan 2010.

1989 M20J (201), N1013U, 1436.5 TSMOH, 3030.1 ACTT, Insured for $125,000, standard policy.

So, there is my first-world issue (bitch)!  I am lucky enough to afford it, but it may be time to walk away if it keeps increasing like this.

20090420 201JT.pdf

[ArtVandelay]

@Stanwho’s the underwriter?

[Stan]

Art,

Aviation Insurance Resources is the broker

The insurer is Global Aerospace

[Mac80]

“2023 $2997.00”

My cost was about $3,000 this August for $165,000. Actual VREF rate  was substantially more. 

Fellow friend pilot is forgoing insurance.

Twin insurance was uninsurable according to my broker. Avemco stated due to lack of twin experience and/or age not insurable above $200,000 airframe.

[ArtVandelay]

“2023 $2997.00”
My cost was about $3,000 this August for $165,000. Actual VREF rate  was substantially more. 
Fellow friend pilot is forgoing insurance.
Twin insurance was uninsurable according to my broker. Avemco stated due to lack of twin experience and/or age not insurable above $200,000 airframe.

Did your friend consider just liability insurance? I think it would be just a few hundred?

[Stan]

I also asked for a quote for a $150, 000 hull, it came in at $3,435.00