Advancing age and insurance

[Parker_Woodruff]

5 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'd point out that all of us pilots have to have a medical exam; so, not exactly apples and apples with auto insurance.  Again, I have no issue with higher rates if there is DATA to support higher accident rates with older pilots; clearly, there are plenty of data for the age adjustment with car drivers.

Same with the not covering planes close to the coast; I bet there is data showing a much higher loss rate.

I think your third paragraph nails my animus on this subject: the ASSUMPTION that just because you are old makes you unsafe and, therefore, we can justify a higher rate.  The response sounds like, well we can't prove it, so that 'logic' is an infallible reason to justify the higher rate!

And, for the record, I am NOT advocating for more government 'help'!!

 

Finally, that is a pretty weird cite (if I'm reading the brief correctly) as the whole issue was whether the FEHC had jurisdiction; they said "no we don't", the plaintiff got a writ to overrule that, then the FEHC, on appeal, got the writ overturned.

Well, the LSA guys don't have to have a medical and the BasicMed guys (myself included) only have to visit a physician every 4 years.  A lot can change from age 74 to 78.

We can't forget that in the middle of this,  the Feds mandate a retirement age for ATC to age 56 and ATP jobs to 65 even with 2 people sitting side-by-side.

The problem with the data that you ask for is there isn't the large sample size that's more available in the auto insurance world...

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Hmm, that actually sounds like proof of my claim that it is arbitrary: each company has picked a different age where they've arbitrarily 'decided' the pilot is unsafe!

Again, to be clear, I'm certainly NOT advocating for government involvement!

A difference in underwriting philosophy doesn't make something arbitrary. 

You have to set numbers somewhere.

Just wait as more capacity keeps entering the market and I'm sure the underwriting will loosen...in some areas more than others...

[A64Pilot]

The thing you guys seem to keep forgetting is unlike Auto insurance aviation insurance is not mandatory.

If or when the day comes that insurance isn’t available or more likely simply priced out of reality I’m not going to stop flying, I may just get something cheaper to insure or just go naked.

I already don’t fly pax anymore based on liability, just not worth it. Sometimes people ask and I tell them my insurance won’t allow it.

You guys always say but what if you taxi into a bizjet? If that concerns you don’t go where there are bizjets

Neighbor turned 75 and between that and being based on grass the insurance for his Bonanza went stupid, so he now flies a very nice low time C-182 because I guess he still feels the need for insurance.

I don’t know why but retracts on grass are apparently high risk? Grass is way more forgiving than asphalt in my opinion.

Age wise as we get older many of us use what amounts to greater experience and become more risk averse and that seems to make up for slower reaction time, poorer eyesight etc. but of course there is a point to no matter how experienced you are and risk adverse it’s not going to overcome degradation from age, and I bet the insurance companies pretty much have that age figured out.

The whole concept of mandating them to offer insurance at s rate you like is wrong, goes against the whole free enterprise concept.

As is we are way over regulated we certainly don’t need more.

 

 

[Justin Schmidt]

On 12/29/2023 at 1:17 AM, 1980Mooney said:

 

I think that you are kidding yourself if you are worrying about whether a big umbrella policy will potentially make you a “big target”….as if you are already not considered to be a big target.   By virtue of being an “airplane owner” you immediately draw attention and rise to the top of the list of targets for the PI lawyers to further consider and analyze.  When 99% of the population hear you are an “airplane owner” they think “$$$”. They don’t know the difference between a Mooney and a TBM or Pilatus or King Air or Cirrus.  For the PI lawyers we are immediately in the “cream” that has risen to the top which they want to filter.  They are hoping to find an “Elon” in that cream (I.e. the “monster money”) but they will likely be happy going after you instead (I.e the “easy money”)

 

Don't know about you but I am poor BECAUSE I own a plane...100% of nothing is still nothing lol

[Parker_Woodruff]

26 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

 

Neighbor turned 75 and between that and being based on grass the insurance for his Bonanza went stupid, so he now flies a very nice low time C-182 because I guess he still feels the need for insurance.

I don’t know why but retracts on grass are apparently high risk? Grass is way more forgiving than asphalt in my opinion.

 

 

 

RG tri-gear aircraft on most grass runways = bad.  Not every runway is Triple Tree.

Tailwheel FG aircraft on many or most grass runways = more forgiving.

 

[Justin Schmidt]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Update on Fatal Mooney accidents over a full 5 year period.  I missed the last sad accident in Plano which fell within a full 5 year period.  

From the NTSB database where we have solid data and pilot age (November 25, 2018 - November 25, 2023) you find that sadly, there were 29 fatal Mooney accidents in the US resulting in 42 fatalities during that period.

• During the past 5 years Mooney pilots over 60 have been responsible for 20 out of 29 fatal Mooney crashes in the US (69%).  And those 20 crashes caused 31 fatalities (74% of all fatalities) plus three (3) more serious injuries.  

The list does not include the unfortunate serious injuries suffered by a 72 year old pilot and a 80 year old CFII on July 26, 2023, when the door of N62GH, an M20R, popped open and, during a precautionary landing, the plane subsequently crashed, striking seven approach lights.

The profile of fatal accidents by pilot age were as follows:

• 20's - One (1) pilot - one (1) fatality total
• 30's - Two (2) pilots - two (2) fatalities total
• 40's - Two (2) pilots - three (3) fatalities total
• 50's - Four (4) pilots - five (5) fatalities total
• 60's - Nine (9) pilots - fourteen (14) fatalities + two (2) serious total
• 70's - Nine (9) pilots - fifteen (15) fatalities total
• 80's - Two (2) pilots - two (2) fatalities + one (1) serious total

 

I have anecdotal experience with this (not a crash but damn near it). When I first got my F, I was still a student with 20 hours.
Taking off, first flight with this CFI (80s with many thousands of hrs) the gear switch broke, didn't move the gear, still verified the mechanical lock. He freaked out took control from me, I initially, said no I have it, it isn't an emergency. I relented as he kept taking control.
He took us 300 FEET AGL MAX around the pattern with the stall warning BLARING. There was no reason for that.  I say age and experience cannot say how good or bad someone is in an area only their behavior/actions. Insurance companies do need to go off something though. I did find a great CFI to do my training
He lost it up there...hopefully, he turned in his wings

[toto]

16 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I already don’t fly pax anymore based on liability, just not worth it. Sometimes people ask and I tell them my insurance won’t allow it.

Fwiw, you can do one-off EAA "Eagle" or "Young Eagle" flights and they are eligible for the same $1M supplemental insurance as doing a flight at an organized EAA event.  So if a random person asks for a ride, you can mitigate your risk somewhat by scheduling it through EAA.  Obviously this won't work if you're taking a buddy for a 500-mile XC, but if someone asks to go for a "ride," doing an EAA flight is a way to do it - and the passenger gets access to flight training materials from EAA and Sportys as well.

[A64Pilot]

On 12/29/2023 at 1:17 AM, 1980Mooney said:

 

I think that you are kidding yourself if you are worrying about whether a big umbrella policy will potentially make you a “big target”….as if you are already not considered to be a big target.   By virtue of being an “airplane owner” you immediately draw attention and rise to the top of the list of targets for the PI lawyers to further consider and analyze.  When 99% of the population hear you are an “airplane owner” they think “$$$”. They don’t know the difference between a Mooney and a TBM or Pilatus or King Air or Cirrus.  For the PI lawyers we are immediately in the “cream” that has risen to the top which they want to filter.  They are hoping to find an “Elon” in that cream (I.e. the “monster money”) but they will likely be happy going after you instead (I.e the “easy money”)

 

I disagree, even a. idiot can look up and see how much a 43 yr old Mooney is worth.

Hint, it’s not anymore than a nice pickup costs and not nearly as much as many cars.

There is this discovery thing where they can find your net worth pretty easily, and my net worth I don’t think is anywhere near 2 mil, based on my assumption that the house is off limits to them as is my disability and SS when I start taking it, that leaves my Military retirement and that’s not much.

I assume they can get that but don’t have any idea really, maybe it’s like SS though?

‘I’m going to investigate if there are ways to protect my investment accounts, now I know nothing is perfectly safe but I know from watching others over the years that 99% of the time these injury lawyers don’t take hard cases, they take easy ones and almost never go to court it’s almost always file paperwork, settle and walk away with 40% of the take and inflated expenses. They make huge sums of money but it’s from a volume of easy cases not big wins on huge cases that may take years.

My life insurance pays in an aviation accident, in fact I’m pretty sure as long as it’s a legal activity it pays, they asked if I had dove in the last couple of years and I believe asked if I expected to, but am nearly certain if I did and died they pay.

I’m over 90% sure it even pays for a suicide but not for the first two years.

This is the first time other than SGLI that I’ve ever had life insurance as I was always pretty much uninsurable so I’m no insurance expert, far from it.

However I’m wondering what liability it is from aviation that has you guys so concerned? I’ve been around aviation my whole life and can’t think of a single instance that anyone has ever been sued. I have read about it when someone gives rides and there is an accident, a Stearman ride comes to mind and I hear the concern about taxing into a bizjet, but honestly I’m missing something because I believe from the liability standpoint we have no where near the exposure we have when we drive, or someone is working in our yard or similar?

[A64Pilot]

6 minutes ago, toto said:

Fwiw, you can do one-off EAA "Eagle" or "Young Eagle" flights and they are eligible for the same $1M supplemental insurance as doing a flight at an organized EAA event.  So if a random person asks for a ride, you can mitigate your risk somewhat by scheduling it through EAA.  Obviously this won't work if you're taking a buddy for a 500-mile XC, but if someone asks to go for a "ride," doing an EAA flight is a way to do it - and the passenger gets access to flight training materials from EAA and Sportys as well.

I used to fly Young Eagles in my Maule but got turned off on the experience, then later they asked me to do it again and I told them I had no insurance and they said sorry you can’t participate.

Maule insurance isn’t cheap, because too many think buying one makes them a bush pilot and break the airplane, Husky is worse though or was anyway.

However in truth I have no desire to accept the liability from flying someone I barely know, lots to lose, nothing to gain.

The Young Eagles I flew weren’t at all what I expected, I expected kids that had a love of airplanes but didn’t have the ability, that’s not who I flew.

 

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Unless the insurance companies have an industry-wide database in which they share policyholder and claim history (age, hours, ratings, type, claims, etc.) they don't really have a good understanding of the age/experience distribution.  And they don't have a good way to model risk and adjust premiums to reflect the risk and magnitude of claims based upon age/experience.

It's just a business.  Do they need all these things to make money?

[toto]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

However in truth I have no desire to accept the liability from flying someone I barely know, lots to lose, nothing to gain.

I have really enjoyed volunteering at Young Eagles events - a lot of the kids are interested in aviation but have zero exposure to it, and it's rewarding (to me, anyway) to create a positive first impression with flight.  Many of the kids have never been in *any* airplane before, much less a single-engine piston, so you have an opportunity to dispel a lot of fears.  I often think that if one kid goes on to a career in aviation, it's been worth the effort.

[Schllc]

The other conversation regarding statistics dovetails nicely here…

So perhaps 70% of accidents and fatalities were over 65. 
is this a function of age, or is it a function of people old enough to have disposable income but  don’t stay proficient?  
I don’t know the answer, but I can tell you this, I know a lot  of 65 year olds I would feel more comfortable flying with than 25 year olds. 
If you are 65, fly 10 hours a year, have high blood pressure and are obese,  is it the same as a 65 year old who flies 300 hours a year, fit and in perfect health?

Guess what….the insurance thinks so….

 

[Ragsf15e]

18 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I disagree, even a. idiot can look up and see how much a 43 yr old Mooney is worth.

Hint, it’s not anymore than a nice pickup costs and not nearly as much as many cars.

There is this discovery thing where they can find your net worth pretty easily, and my net worth I don’t think is anywhere near 2 mil, based on my assumption that the house is off limits to them as is my disability and SS when I start taking it, that leaves my Military retirement and that’s not much.

I assume they can get that but don’t have any idea really, maybe it’s like SS though?

‘I’m going to investigate if there are ways to protect my investment accounts, now I know nothing is perfectly safe but I know from watching others over the years that 99% of the time these injury lawyers don’t take hard cases, they take easy ones and almost never go to court it’s almost always file paperwork, settle and walk away with 40% of the take and inflated expenses. They make huge sums of money but it’s from a volume of easy cases not big wins on huge cases that may take years.

My life insurance pays in an aviation accident, in fact I’m pretty sure as long as it’s a legal activity it pays, they asked if I had dove in the last couple of years and I believe asked if I expected to, but am nearly certain if I did and died they pay.

I’m over 90% sure it even pays for a suicide but not for the first two years.

This is the first time other than SGLI that I’ve ever had life insurance as I was always pretty much uninsurable so I’m no insurance expert, far from it.

However I’m wondering what liability it is from aviation that has you guys so concerned? I’ve been around aviation my whole life and can’t think of a single instance that anyone has ever been sued. I have read about it when someone gives rides and there is an accident, a Stearman ride comes to mind and I hear the concern about taxing into a bizjet, but honestly I’m missing something because I believe from the liability standpoint we have no where near the exposure we have when we drive, or someone is working in our yard or similar?

It’s not just pax or taxiing into a bizjet.  If you land off field in someone’s soybeans, they’ll want their $$.  Soybeans are probably cheap though, right?  What if you land in the Walmart parking lot and bend some cars, street lighting and god forbid hurt someone?  The point is, there are many scenarios where you’re liable for damages and injuries that are hard to accept/anticipate.  Some of them might be really expensive.  Insurance is to cover things that would be a financial catastrophe for you.  If you want to forgo hull insurance, that might be fine because you know the limits of your loss.  Liability? Potential claims could be very much bigger than what you anticipate in your C-140 with no passengers…

[kortopates]

I have anecdotal experience with this (not a crash but damn near it). When I first got my F, I was still a student with 20 hours.
Taking off, first flight with this CFI (80s with many thousands of hrs) the gear switch broke, didn't move the gear, still verified the mechanical lock. He freaked out took control from me, I initially, said no I have it, it isn't an emergency. I relented as he kept taking control.
He took us 300 FEET AGL MAX around the pattern with the stall warning BLARING. There was no reason for that.  I say age and experience cannot say how good or bad someone is in an area only their behavior/actions. Insurance companies do need to go off something though. I did find a great CFI to do my training
He lost it up there...hopefully, he turned in his wings

You’re maiden flight in your Mooney? Wowza! I always wondered how often the gear switch broke? i assume from not pulling out a little before moving up.

Yeah much more excitement than needed.
Glad it ended well for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin Schmidt]

51 minutes ago, kortopates said:

You’re maiden flight in your Mooney? Wowza! I always wondered how often the gear switch broke? i assume from not pulling out a little before moving up.

Yeah much more excitement than needed.
Glad it ended well for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The shaft in the switch was corroded pretty badly. Just broke when pulling out

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

It’s not just pax or taxiing into a bizjet.  If you land off field in someone’s soybeans, they’ll want their $$.  Soybeans are probably cheap though, right?  What if you land in the Walmart parking lot and bend some cars, street lighting and god forbid hurt someone?  The point is, there are many scenarios where you’re liable for damages and injuries that are hard to accept/anticipate.  Some of them might be really expensive.  Insurance is to cover things that would be a financial catastrophe for you.  If you want to forgo hull insurance, that might be fine because you know the limits of your loss.  Liability? Potential claims could be very much bigger than what you anticipate in your C-140 with no passengers…

Valid points.  But, (there's always a but!) if you look at how low liability only premiums are with the pathetic $100K seat limit, but with $1 million coverage for those items/persons OUTSIDE the aircraft you come to the logical conclusion that the actual risk of claims/payouts for the risks you listed must be pretty damn low.  If the historical risk for an insurance company is that low, it's low enough that I accept it, too.

I am curious in those rare cases where someone on the ground is injured, or something valuable on the ground is damaged, what the typical settlement/judgement is?  Hopefully, under $1 million

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Valid points.  But, (there's always a but!) if you look at how low liability only premiums are with the pathetic $100K seat limit, but with $1 million coverage for those items/persons OUTSIDE the aircraft you come to the logical conclusion that the actual risk of claims/payouts for the risks you listed must be pretty damn low.  If the historical risk for an insurance company is that low, it's low enough that I accept it, too.

I am curious in those rare cases where someone on the ground is injured, or something valuable on the ground is damaged, what the typical settlement/judgement is?  Hopefully, under $1 million

Yep, likelihood of needing the liability is low, so as long as you’re not the person who does need it, then it’s just wasted premiums…