Pilot Age and Insurance

[MikeOH]

I have no idea how the aircraft insurance industry is regulated but higher rates/cancellation of older pilots based solely on age, without data to back up higher claims ratios, seems pretty discriminatory to me.

With automobile insurance women pay less than men because the DATA shows they have lower claims ratios; perfectly understandable premium model to follow the data.

Where's the data showing older pilots have higher claims ratios???

[PT20J]

age60_4.pdf

[Hank]

9 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Where's the data showing older pilots have higher claims ratios???

Well, there y'are. Too much text to read in detail on my phone, but the report Skip attached above is clear in the Executive Summary:

The analyses in this study also found that the accident rate for pilots age 60-63 was statistically greater than the accident rate for pilots age 55 or 56 to 59.

[MikeOH]

Well, that's an interesting study but take heed of this part of the report:

 

 

I would really be interested in insurance company actuarial data showing a statistically significant increase in claims ratios for older pilots.

[Jackk]

8 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, that's an interesting study but take heed of this part of the report:

 

 

I would really be interested in insurance company actuarial data showing a statistically significant increase in claims ratios for older pilots.

You think rates are based off such things?

 

 They simply charge what they think the market will bear 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Jackk said:

You think rates are based off such things?

 

 They simply charge what they think the market will bear 

No, I do not.

I'm interested in insurance actuarial data which I doubt we will ever see. Absent such data showing a higher claims rate my cynicism suspects insurance companies are merely taking advantage of older pilots.  IOW, I agree with you: whatever they can get away with

[Jackk]

11 hours ago, MikeOH said:

No, I do not.

I'm interested in insurance actuarial data which I doubt we will ever see. Absent such data showing a higher claims rate my cynicism suspects insurance companies are merely taking advantage of older pilots.  IOW, I agree with you: whatever they can get away with

 These closest we will get to that is the NTSB reports, unfortunately many of the GA ones the NTSB doesn’t even go to the scene so accuracy is somewhat iffy 

 

 Pretty useful dashboard NTSB made on accidents 

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/StatisticalReviews/Pages/CivilAviationDashboard.aspx

Edited December 20, 2025 by Jackk

[LANCECASPER]

I had heard a few years back that the rate of gear-ups for older pilots was a driving force in premium increases.

[GeeBee]

If that were true we would see rates for older pilots change little for 172, 182 and the like, but we know they do, dramatically.

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 12/19/2025 at 10:53 AM, MikeOH said:

I have no idea how the aircraft insurance industry is regulated but higher rates/cancellation of older pilots based solely on age, without data to back up higher claims ratios, seems pretty discriminatory to me.

With automobile insurance women pay less than men because the DATA shows they have lower claims ratios; perfectly understandable premium model to follow the data.

Where's the data showing older pilots have higher claims ratios???

You won't get the actuarial data that you can get in the automotive world because there just aren't the numbers of pilot/age/make & model data available.

Older drivers pay more.  There's no reason to think that the same skills that deteriorate in driving don't exhibit the same deterioration in an airplane.

[Parker_Woodruff]

16 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Absent such data showing a higher claims rate my cynicism suspects insurance companies are merely taking advantage of older pilots. 

It's not taking advantage of them when some purely go the non-renewal route.  They're saying they don't want to offer terms, even at an increased rate.

 

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

It's not taking advantage of them when some purely go the non-renewal route.  They're saying they don't want to offer terms, even at an increased rate.

 

But the end result is even more harsh.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

You won't get the actuarial data that you can get in the automotive world because there just aren't the numbers of pilot/age/make & model data available.

While there is certainly not the same quantity of data, I find it hard to believe there is not aggregate GA claims data vs. age.  I.e., I doubt automotive or aircraft claims ratios need to be broken down into make & model to establish a statistically causal link between age and accidents.

 

2 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Older drivers pay more.

Because claims data establishes a higher claims ratio! Therefore, higher premiums are logical and justified.

2 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

There's no reason to think that the same skills that deteriorate in driving don't exhibit the same deterioration in an airplane.

And, there's the rub: the "ASSUMPTION" that if older drivers have a higher claims ratio, then ergo, older pilots MUST AUTOMATICALLY be a higher risk, assigned higher premiums or canceled, WITHOUT supporting data!  I posit, admittedly without any hard data of my own, that the subset demographics of older pilots (health and mental acuity) are vastly superior to those same attributes of the general older driver population.  Thus, there are GOOD reasons to think the same skills do NOT deteriorate in the same fashion/rate as drivers.

If data exists to establish a higher claims ratio then higher rates are logical and justified, as with automobiles.  If not, it's simple age discrimination, IMHO.  It is hard to believe no data exists.  So, my cynicism suggests two paths for underwriters: 1) We've made a boatload in premiums for decades and we'll eliminate any and all risk by canceling older pilots whose livelihoods no longer even rely upon being a pilot. 2) We will soak rich older 'hobby' pilots because they'll continue to pay.

@Parker_Woodruff

You've been in the biz for a while, now.  What have you observed in your book of business?  Pick an arbitrary age, say 60.  Do you see a higher claims rate in the group over 60 vs. those pilots younger than 60?  Obviously, need to look at the number of insureds in each group so as to not skew the results, but even that limited data set might prove interesting.

[LANCECASPER]

If an insurance company thinks they can make money I would think they would offer a rate. If they don't offer a rate, based on their calculations, they feel it's too high of a risk. That's just business. Selling something for less than your cost is not good business. Don't overthink this.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

If an insurance company thinks they can make money I would think they would offer a rate. If they don't offer a rate, based on their calculations, they feel it's too high of a risk. That's just business. Selling something for less than your cost is not good business. Don't overthink this.

Look, at the end of the day companies are generally free to price however they want.  OTOH, if we were seeing higher rates based on race, creed, sex, without actuarial data supporting those rate discrepancies I would hope everyone would be outraged.  Yet, it appears that basing rates on age without data is perfectly acceptable and brushed off with "don't overthink it" or "It's capitalism", don't like it, don't buy it attitude.  Basing pricing on "feeling" doesn't seem like a good business plan to me. But, it looks like most here are perfectly ok with the status quo for aging pilots, so I'll drop it. (For now, anyway)

[Jerry 5TJ]

I had the privilege of flying with a pilot in his Mooney starting when he was about 70 and continuing for over a decade.  He was a charismatic, lively man and a good pilot who had been flying since WW2. We flew together several times each year for proficiency and breakfast runs. 
His skills did not appear to decline steadily. Instead they seemed to occur all at once, in a step-like manner.  The steps happened several times over a decade.  
Outside the cockpit he was the same warm, intelligent and articulate man as always. From the right seat, though, the steps were glaringly apparent.  
His stick and rudder skills seemed unaffected; so long as he was in VMC he always flew well. The deficits were cognitive.  In one “step” he seemed to lose flows and checklists; the checklist was still in the side pocket but he no longer remembered them, and he no longer realized that he should use them.  Another step was a large reduction in situational awareness.  Flying in the area where he had lived his entire life, except for his war years in the Pacific, he had no idea where the airport was.  Not only had he lost SA, he appeared to have lost the very concept of SA.  
In none of those “steps” was he aware that he had lost anything. 
I know that one example doesn’t make a proof. I also know that my own body is neither as strong nor as flexible as it was ten or twenty years ago. I would prefer to think that my mind is not similarly weaker, but there’s little reason to think so.  
I suspect that the actuarial data for driving a car are relevant to the more complex tasks of flying. The more limited data from aviation suggests that is true; older drivers and pilots have more incidents and accidents.

[Schllc]

Insurance is broken in every sector of every market. I don’t really ascribe any blame to agents, I think regulation is the biggest obstacle.  Everywhere it tries to “help” consumers it creates loopholes, that end up screwing them. 
I am at a stage in life that I generally buy no insurance whatsoever that is not compelled by law, and even then I only do the bare minimum. 
The one exception has been aviation, and there have been times, even there I have skipped all but liability. 
I know quite a few guys in their 80’s that fly with only liability.  Either they can’t get full coverage or it’s cost prohibitive. 
If the insurance companies don’t have the “data”, it’s simply because they do not want to spend the money to compile said data, because it is all there. 
Its easier and cheaper to just round up and double it. 
Insurance is an absolute racket, they break it off in you continually.  Especially in south Florida. 

[PT20J]

I seem to have missed something. How is we assume that the insurance companies have no data? There are about 1200 GA accidents in the US annually. That’s a lot over a decade or two. Insurance companies certainly know their own claims history and may well share with each other. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

I seem to have missed something. How is we assume that the insurance companies have no data? There are about 1200 GA accidents in the US annually. That’s a lot over a decade or two. Insurance companies certainly know their own claims history and may well share with each other. 

Yes, aviation underwriters have been collecting data for the last five decades. Underwriting is not completely data driven though, if it was, insurance companies wouldn’t need underwriters.
There’s definitely a general correlation between age and mishaps.  My anecdotal experience with gear up claims suggests that they can happen to pilots of any age. However, when a pilot has two gear ups inside of five years, they are usually in the 75 + age range.  

[Jackk]

A application I did a little while ago 

 

 had a box to tick and showed it was a X discount rate.

 

 The discount for being a member of AOPA was the same as being Instrument rated.

 

 This makes no safety sense, but I’m sure $$ wise maybe they is a kickback from AOPA or something.

 

 Long and short it’s just a math equation for what makes insurance more money, I don’t really use them as a litmus test on anything “safety” wise.

[N201MKTurbo]

25 minutes ago, Jackk said:

A application I did a little while ago 

 

 had a box to tick and showed it was a X discount rate.

 

 The discount for being a member of AOPA was the same as being Instrument rated.

 

 This makes no safety sense, but I’m sure $$ wise maybe they is a kickback from AOPA or something.

 

 Long and short it’s just a math equation for what makes insurance more money, I don’t really use them as a litmus test on anything “safety” wise.

Maybe their data analysis shows that AOPA members are safer pilots. Or they have a marketing agreement with AOPA.

[1980Mooney]

6 hours ago, Schllc said:

Insurance is broken in every sector of every market. I don’t really ascribe any blame to agents, I think regulation is the biggest obstacle.  Everywhere it tries to “help” consumers it creates loopholes, that end up screwing them. ...
Insurance is an absolute racket, they break it off in you continually.  Especially in south Florida. 

Insurance companies are "broken in every sector" because they are earning an adequate return on investment to offset the risk they are taking?  Insurance is a money-making business - not a charity or form of socialism. Yet you blame "regulation".  I don't follow - do you want no regulation? - a completely free "wild, wild west" market with monopolies? or more regulation limiting rate increases?

 

[MikeOH]

While NOT true of aviation insurance, yet, here in Kalifornia it is a law that you MUST purchase automobile insurance.  Yeah, I'd blame 'regulation'!!  Pretty naive to think insurance lobbyists weren't involved in getting that law passed!  Or to think being FORCED to buy a product doesn't affect rates! NOT what'd I'd call free-market capitalism at work.

[1980Mooney]

18 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, there's the rub: the "ASSUMPTION" that if older drivers have a higher claims ratio, then ergo, older pilots MUST AUTOMATICALLY be a higher risk, assigned higher premiums or canceled, WITHOUT supporting data!  I posit, admittedly without any hard data of my own, that the subset demographics of older pilots (health and mental acuity) are vastly superior to those same attributes of the general older driver population.  Thus, there are GOOD reasons to think the same skills do NOT deteriorate in the same fashion/rate as drivers.

 

Interesting hypothesis - That pilots are superior to other humans - mentally, health wise, physical response/stamina/limitations, they don't age as fast. they don't deteriorate, etc.  And not just "superior" but vastly superior....Forget the fact that the biggest impediment stopping the average automobile driver from also possessing a pilot license/owning a plane is a BIG FAT BANK ACCOUNT/CHECKBOOK.

And now MOSAIC allows "older pilots", that can't pass a traditional flight physical, or even the easier to pass BASICMED, to fly with just the same ridiculously easy to obtain (qualified or not) driver's license that those lowly automobile drivers use to qualify them to drive.

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Insurance companies are "broken in every sector" because they are earning an adequate return on investment to offset the risk they are taking?  Insurance is a money-making business - not a charity or form of socialism. Yet you blame "regulation".  I don't follow - do you want no regulation? - a completely free "wild, wild west" market with monopolies? or more regulation limiting rate increases?

 

Not sure why you feel the need to twist what I said, but here is an example. 
I paid 750k for my house. I owe far less than that, in fact, the dirt is worth almost double that amount, but since I have a mortgage I am required to insure the house for whatever arbitrary amount the insurance company says it costs to replace. (Even though you would have to litigate to get them to pay that amount…).  So the insurance company says that by statute I must insure for 2 million. On top of this the law requires me to carry contents insurance for not less than 25% of the total value of the house. 
I do not have a 500k worth of contents inside my house, but wait, it gets better. 
anything of value over 1,000 I have to declare and pay additional premium or it is not covered!  
this is NOT because the insurance underwriters have to keep the lights on. This is 100% regulation induced. 
Why can’t I buy fire only?  The dirt is worth 3x what I owe, and there is no scenario where the real estate is destroyed. Because it isn’t legal. 
so my renewal went from 4800 a year to 9800 in one year, then two months after the premium was paid, the insurance company sent a letter saying they made a mistake and it is now actually 12k a year. Pay it or cancel the insurance with no refund. 
If the premium doesn’t go down next year, I will likely pay off the mortgage and tell them to pound sand. Only reason I haven’t so far is because I have a 2.2% interest mortgage. 
The issue was even worse on my commercial property. 
my insurance went from 19k with a 50k flat deductible, to 119k with a 250k deductible, and an additional 20% in the event of a named storm. 
Again, I owe less than 20% of the value of the dirt alone, statute compels this ridiculous formula.  I had no choice but to satisfy the mortgage and self insure. 
there is no free market in insurance. It’s a racket. If you feel otherwise we can agree to disagree. 
No regulation is not the answer, nor what I suggested. 
What I said is the regulations are not performing as intended, and have become the problem, not the solution.