Pilot Age and Insurance

[Aaviationist]

12 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 I’ll make this easy, 

 
 So easy a self proclaimed intellectual can even figure it out 

 

1 yes a IQ of 80 will get their PPL

 

2 no a IQ of 80 will NOT get their PPL

I have answered your question 3 times. At least. I’m not going to dumb it down to a number because YOUR IQ is so low you can comprehend the squiggles on your screen. 
 

do you find (and this is good for you to understand for the holidays) that during parties, when you enter the room, other people leave?

Edited December 22, 2025 by Aaviationist

[Jackk]

9 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I have answered your question 3 times. At least. I’m not going to dumb it down to a number because YOUR IQ is so low you can comprehend the squiggles on your screen. 
 

do you find (and this is good for you to understand for the holidays) that during parties, when you enter the room, other people leave?

So answer is real simple like, a 80 IQ can get their PPL?

 

press 1 for yes, press 2 for no 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

Just because you don’t know about it or are in non compliance doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

And, once again, your ignorance is demonstrated.  That wall of text you cited deals with financial responsibility which is NOT an insurance mandate.  Quote the text in your cite that states that insurance is required.  I'll bet you cannot; prove me wrong. Telling people they are wrong seems to be your entire raison d'etre, after all.

Where California law references financial responsibility, it does not mandate insurance as the exclusive means of compliance. California law does not require all aircraft owners or operators to maintain liability insurance. Instead, California employs limited, activity-based financial responsibility statutes, including provisions applicable when aircraft are rented or leased for compensation, operators engage in commercial or for-hire activities, or operators fall under specific state regulatory jurisdiction. California has not adopted an aircraft insurance regime analogous to the compulsory automobile insurance scheme found in the California Vehicle Code, reflecting a deliberate legislative distinction between motor vehicles and aircraft. Private Part 91 operations fall outside the scope of California’s insurance-triggering statutes.

Aircraft are not classified as motor vehicles and are not used for routine public transportation. Courts and legislatures recognize material distinctions, including the discretionary and infrequent nature of aircraft operations, heightened pilot licensing standards, and extensive federal certification and inspection regimes. Because of these distinctions, compulsory insurance models developed for automobiles have not been extended to private aviation.

2 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

I’m not a legal resource. 

That is quite apparent.

[N201MKTurbo]

If someone with an IQ of 80 can pass the private pilot written and pass a checkride, they certainly can get a private pilots license. My wife used to be a teacher. She said a highly motivated dumb student could outperform a lazy smart student.

[Schllc]

Insurance has no incentive to analyze the individual subject of its insurance if they are a better risk than others  

if it did so, some would have to be disqualified, and some would have obscenely low rates. 
it’s much more advantageous to lump people/property into groups, then charge the worst case scenario to all. 
While reaction times and mental acuity absolutely began to deteriorate around 60. 
this does not mean at the same level for all, but statistics are what is used. 
 

That being said, statistically I am a pretty good risk for any insurance. 
I would estimate my total premiums for all insurance over my lifetime has paid out far less than 1% of what I have paid in.
I have never had any significant loss to an insurer over my 40 years of purchasing, and for the last 25 years my total insurance bill was over 250k annually (all insurance). 
But tomorrow when I renew any of them I am just a 56 year old male, lumped in with the rest of them.  No one looks at my history of losses, or lack thereof. Now if you are a chronic risk they will certainly employ that knowledge. But low risk, not so much..
it is not a simple problem to solve. 

[Shadrach]

39 minutes ago, Schllc said:

No one looks at my history of losses, or lack thereof. 

Really? So you don’t get asked these questions at renewal?
 

[N201MKTurbo]

44 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Really? So you don’t get asked these questions at renewal?
 

My insurance guy just sends me an email and asks how many hours I flew in the last year and sends me a quote. Some times he asks if I want to bump the hull value. I haven’t filled one of those out in like 20 years.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

My insurance guy just sends me an email and asks how many hours I flew in the last year and sends me a quote. Some times he asks if I want to bump the hull value. I haven’t filled one of those out in like 20 years.

Are you at the same company or do you have a broker trying to find you the lowest bidder?

[Jackk]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If someone with an IQ of 80 can pass the private pilot written and pass a checkride, they certainly can get a private pilots license. My wife used to be a teacher. She said a highly motivated dumb student could outperform a lazy smart student.

 No.
It’s just hardware 

Someone genetically hard wired with an 80 IQ isn’t climbing into a cockpit as a private pilot. Harsh truth: modern society’s got no real spot for them in a lot of places. Sad, but that’s how it is.

 if (genetic_IQ == 80) { then private_pilot_license_test = false; outcome = “fail”; }

[N201MKTurbo]

Same broker. I have switched companies a few times.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, Jackk said:

 No.
It’s just hardware 

Someone genetically hard wired with an 80 IQ isn’t climbing into a cockpit as a private pilot. Harsh truth: modern society’s got no real spot for them in a lot of places. Sad, but that’s how it is.

 if (genetic_IQ == 80) { then private_pilot_license_test = false; outcome = “fail”; }

I’m not sure why I’m even responding. I have probably taken 10 IQ tests in my life. The results have a range of 30 points. It doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in the results.

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 12/20/2025 at 7:58 PM, 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.

Let's give you the assumption that the pilot subset has a mentally sharper starting point.  They will *still* decline from that higher starting point.

Is a 70 year old more or less likely to have a heart attack or stroke anywhere in the world (including while seated, operating an airplane), than say a 31 year old?  Yes.  Could a heart attack or stroke result in a claim?  Yes.  We know these 2 things are true.  Therefore, it's data.

Insurance underwriting takes discernment.  I've seen an aircraft owner with the same insurance company for 20-30 years keep getting renewed, but at lower liability limits over time.  He may have started at $2MM Smooth, but over time be reduced to $1MM Smooth, then $1MM/$100K.

What's going to happen when a bunch of adverse risk starts getting pooled together?  Everyone pays more.

On 12/20/2025 at 7:58 PM, MikeOH said:

1) We've made a boatload in premiums for decades

Personal aircraft underwriting has been a loss leader for many insurance companies for decades.

On 12/20/2025 at 10:52 PM, MikeOH said:

Basing pricing on "feeling" doesn't seem like a good business plan to me.

It's not.  And sometimes the pricing is too low based on feeling.

 

On 12/20/2025 at 7:58 PM, MikeOH said:

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.

I have anecdotes but have not compiled anything formal.

[Parker_Woodruff]

19 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Yet you blame "regulation".  

 

 

Missouri

The state of Missouri is the perfect example of a place where insurance options for pilots became quite limited because of heavy-handed regulation.  The compliance costs were not worth it with such small numbers in aviation.  Many companies left Missouri, leading to increased premiums when competitive carriers no longer serviced their clients.  This made it up the ladder and now, it appears this has been fixed in the legislature there are/will be more options for insurance buyers again.  Missouri asks about my nonresident income on the license renewal.

California

Other states, like California, have historically not had some of the usual transition insurance markets (example: SEL pilot upgrading to MEL) available to customers because those companies just haven't wanted to deal with CA.

For my agency: California had eleventy steps to get set up, but at least they made it transparent and somewhat logical because they needed the money so badly every step of the way.

Kentucky

There's nothing like Local Government Premium Tax compliance in Kentucky.  Up to 12% City, 12% County, and mandatory 1.8% State.  Yes, you theoretically could have a 25.8% insurance tax rate in KY, or as little as 1.8%.  Further, for an aircraft owner, it's based on where the airplane sits, not the client's address.  Do you know how much time I've spent for my client's benefit (to make sure they aren't being overcharged on tax) on Google Maps auditing if an airport is in city limits or outside city limits, then going over the Tax chart?  And then each line of business has its own tax rate?  And for some reason, aircraft are classified as "Inland Marine" on the tax chart.

Massachusetts

I pay a lead-based paint fee anytime I renew my Massachusetts agent or agency license.  Along with a $520 annual report to the state every year to say that I exist.

New York

Complete black hole of regulation.  And, if you call the state, you get put on hold.  I had to file a classified ads in 2 New York newspapers in Albany County giving an address for service of process.  Then had to send the proofs to the state along with a $50 check.

Nationwide:

I owe income tax to numerous states just for having revenue attributable to the state.  Kentucky?  Minimum $175 even if I never set foot in the state. I paid $1 to Indiana one year.  Plus $60 or whatever to file.

Some good news:

There's discussion about trying again on a Federal bill that would eliminate nonresident income tax for companies that have a physical presence in a state for less than 15 days.

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 12/21/2025 at 7:34 AM, Schllc said:

Everywhere it tries to “help” consumers it creates loopholes, that end up screwing them.

see my post above this one.

[201Mooniac]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

My insurance guy just sends me an email and asks how many hours I flew in the last year and sends me a quote. Some times he asks if I want to bump the hull value. I haven’t filled one of those out in like 20 years.

Same experience for the last 30 years for me, same broker, almost always the same insurance company (especially for the last 8 years or more now as they are always the lowest or close and I was to keep with the same company as I'm getting older and want to see if I can encourage longer coverage with loyalty.

[PT20J]

13 minutes ago, 201Mooniac said:

see if I can encourage longer coverage with loyalty.

I’d check with your broker on that. I’ve been told by two different brokers that some companies don’t care about loyalty once you reach a certain age. 

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I’d check with your broker on that. I’ve been told by two different brokers that some companies don’t care about loyalty once you reach a certain age. 

That seems to be true based on what I have seen. There is an insurer that only sells direct with a reputation for continued renewals for established accounts, regardless of age.  However, if you’re over 80 and you have an in motion claim, I think your chances of renewal after are greatly diminished, regardless of loyalty.

[Jackk]

Found it!

 Yeah, that’s nonsense all day long lol

 

 It’s about $$$ not so much safety, I’d wager they get as much money for pimping AOPA membership as they lose from some poor VFR only pilot going IIMC

Edited December 22, 2025 by Jackk

[201Mooniac]

3 hours ago, PT20J said:

I’d check with your broker on that. I’ve been told by two different brokers that some companies don’t care about loyalty once you reach a certain age. 

My broker thought it likely based on experience but you never know, it is business and can change at any moment.

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Let's give you the assumption that the pilot subset has a mentally sharper starting point.  They will *still* decline from that higher starting point.

100% agree.

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Is a 70 year old more or less likely to have a heart attack or stroke anywhere in the world (including while seated, operating an airplane), than say a 31 year old?  Yes.  Could a heart attack or stroke result in a claim?  Yes.  We know these 2 things are true.  Therefore, it's data.

But it is not causative data. By that I mean it is NOT data that shows aircraft accidents are a result of pilots having heart attacks behind the yoke.

My angst is based on premiums being set because it might happen vs actuarial data showing old pilots have had heart attacks while flying which resulted in a claim. Put another way, if there have been no such accidents/claims for pilots over 60 (or, more fairly, at a rate no higher than those under 60) then raising premiums merely based on a general likelihood of the overall population just rubs me the wrong way.

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Personal aircraft underwriting has been a loss leader for many insurance companies for decades.

I keep ‘hearing’ that claim. But insurance is a business and I just can’t see any reason for any company to continue with a ‘loss leader’ product. It’s not a supermarket where you ‘lure’ customers in and make your money with other products they buy! You either stop offering the product, sell it off, or raise the price. You don’t accept losing money ‘for decades’!

 

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

It's not.  And sometimes the pricing is too low based on feeling.

I suspect you’re right. Not a good business model either way!

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I have anecdotes but have not compiled anything formal.

That’s a shame. While it would be a small dataset, you are a ‘front line’ source.

Don’t misunderstand me, if I truly represent a higher risk as I age I most certainly expect to pay a higher premium. It is that premiums for older pilots are raised simply because they are older, and not because they actually have a demonstrable higher claims rate is that which annoys me.

[Jackk]

^that 

 

Pilot incapacitation resulting in a crash, despite being sexy for the big screen “is anyone a pilot?!” Is really really rare 

 

 Most crashes are pilot error, not using the rudders, not being on reasonable speed and path, or just bad big picture decision making skills (lack of common sense)

Edited December 22, 2025 by Jackk

[Schllc]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Really? So you don’t get asked these questions at renewal?

Sure I do.  I said they will absolutely ding you if you have losses. 
But where is the question about my near total absence of losses?

Ballpark, I would say over my lifetime, all insurance premiums combined have been close to $8,000,000.00 in paid premiums. (All but healthcare premiums and claims)
In that 40 year span I have had less than $50,000 in damage claims, and 0% of those were a result of my error or fault.  
This is irrelevant to insurance companies, there is no column for those statistics. 

I know agents have no role in this, I do not envy them having to deliver this ridiculous news to people, it must suck. 
My beef is with the people making the regulations.. They do so with zero regard for efficacy.  They may have the best of intentions, but they aren’t stake holders, and they don’t personally suffer the consequences of their idiotic legislation, so they make a stupid ineffective law that hurts more than it helps, then they pat themselves on the back move on, while we are left with the mess.  
This is why I will never contribute to AOPA. 
They are feckless and in my opinion, do little for the causes I feel are important.  
I am sure at one time they did good work and were dialed into pilots needs, but no longer. They have suffered the fate of most organizations that get well funded. They get comfortable, they rub elbows with the powers that be, get intoxicated with the influence and do less and less for the people they are supposed to represent. 
 

Insurance needs a top to bottom overhaul on the rules, and a LOT of deregulation needs to occur, so that rules which actually protect the consumer, and provide a path to profit and solvency for insurance companies can be passed, but today it is broken, and getting worse.
I am neither anti insurance, nor anti government. I just believe too much intervention is just as bad as none.  

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Sure I do.  I said they will absolutely ding you if you have losses. 
But where is the question about my near total absence of losses?

Ballpark, I would say over my lifetime, all insurance premiums combined have been close to $8,000,000.00 in paid premiums. (All but healthcare premiums and claims)
In that 40 year span I have had less than $50,000 in damage claims, and 0% of those were a result of my error or fault.  
This is irrelevant to insurance companies, there is no column for those statistics. 

I know agents have no role in this, I do not envy them having to deliver this ridiculous news to people, it must suck. 
My beef is with the people making the regulations.. They do so with zero regard for efficacy.  They may have the best of intentions, but they aren’t stake holders, and they don’t personally suffer the consequences of their idiotic legislation, so they make a stupid ineffective law that hurts more than it helps, then they pat themselves on the back move on, while we are left with the mess.  
This is why I will never contribute to AOPA. 
They are feckless and in my opinion, do little for the causes I feel are important.  
I am sure at one time they did good work and were dialed into pilots needs, but no longer. They have suffered the fate of most organizations that get well funded. They get comfortable, they rub elbows with the powers that be, get intoxicated with the influence and do less and less for the people they are supposed to represent. 
 

Insurance needs a top to bottom overhaul on the rules, and a LOT of deregulation needs to occur, so that rules which actually protect the consumer, and provide a path to profit and solvency for insurance companies can be passed, but today it is broken, and getting worse.
I am neither anti insurance, nor anti government. I just believe too much intervention is just as bad as none.  

 Exactly 

 

And all of these laws are not for “the children” or any of that nonsense, it’s all about $$

Here's why laws get passed, someone got paid.

 

 

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 Exactly 

 

And all of these laws are not for “the children” or any of that nonsense, it’s all about $$

Here's why laws get passed, someone got paid.

 

 

THAT was disturbing, to say the least 

[M20F]

Of course replace this discussion with part 121 moving to age 70 and you can hear every reason why pilots shouldn’t fly past 65.