Insurance for new low time pilots?

[chrisk]

Not to poop on your party or anything, but I hope you may pose a little thought as to why the insurance intends to charge you so much and whether or not you agree the risk is worthwhile...

I would guess the risk of a prop strike or gear up is what determines the insurance cost.  Either of these is a 50K+ adventure.   Further, I suspect the cost for an E or a  TLS is not all that different.

[PMcClure]

The higher hp, higher altitude certifications, higher repair costs, higher pilot work loads, and higher speeds are the reason insurance is higher for low time pilots on turbo engines. It's the same regardless of the brand. Take some time and talk to the insurance underwriter (not the agent) and ask them some questions and statistics if they will share.   

[rbridges]

I would guess the risk of a prop strike or gear up is what determines the insurance cost.  Either of these is a 50K+ adventure.   Further, I suspect the cost for an E or a  TLS is not all that different.

 

that would surprise me since hull value is quite different between the two.  

[chrisk]

that would surprise me since hull value is quite different between the two.  

My comments were based on something I found on avweb.  "Every month when we prepare a new Used Aircraft Guide for Aviation Consumer, we sweep through between 100 and 200 accidents for a specific model. These almost always yield the depressing finding that between one-third to as much as one-half of all accidents are what we call R-LOCs or runway loss of control. These are overshoots, undershoots, skids, slides, crosswind incidents, hard touchdowns and all sorts of runway mayhem related to the inability to just basically control the airplane. It's hand-eye stuff."

 

I would think RLOC is what drives insurance cost.   It explains why time in type, recent time, and total time make a big difference.  Then I make the leap that the cost to fix any two Mooney models is not too different, at most 2x. (probably closer to a 20% difference).     And finally, at a certain point, the cost to fix damage due to a RLOC is less than the value of the plane.   Maybe at $60K.  So, I would not expect a large difference in insurance cost between a $90K Mooney and a $180K Mooney.  --Some but not much.

 

 

Anyway, if someone has real statistics, I'd love to see them.    

[PMcClure]

Chris, I think our point is that you are ignoring the PILOT risk. For real world information, a new pilot with no time in type without a IR will be 2-4 times the cost of a pilot with 500 hours and an IR rating in the same plane with the same hull value.  Hull value is linear, according to my insurance guy. a $90k mooney would cost half as much as a $180k mooney when comparing the hull value portions. But the pilot experience in type and IR rating mean a lot. 

 

Another example, I just got more life insurance. As a 500 hour plus IR pilot, the aviation risk was barely a factor in the cost. But as a 100 hr VFR pilot in the very same plane, I was uninsurable for many companies and 2-3x higher on others. 

 

That said, if it were me, I would take the time in my M20F club plane, purchase the plane you want and get my IR in that plane with a lot of dual time. Just don't discount the low time, hot airplane risk. That is all I am trying to say. 

[bd32322]

I would buy the aircraft you really want, but I would get all the training required first in retract rentals and get the IFR rating before buying a turbo mooney. Also mooney specific time will be a bonus but not that much of a bonus if you have an IFR ticket. For example, I had 200 hours and 60 hours in retracts/complex and IFR and 0 mooney time. My insurance cost was 1300 with 100k hull value and full coverage (in-flight and on ground)

I think the key issue with a turbo is that you can fly into all sorts of weather at mooney speeds Hence the IFR requirement is key.

Regarding the idea of getting a J model first, I think you will just end up wasting money there unless you have lots of it to burn. The J and a 252 will probably behave similarly on landing. The long bodies (bravo, ovation) will be more different. I would just get what you want in one shot after the required training.

[KSMooniac]

 

I would think RLOC is what drives insurance cost.   It explains why time in type, recent time, and total time make a big difference.  Then I make the leap that the cost to fix any two Mooney models is not too different, at most 2x. (probably closer to a 20% difference).     And finally, at a certain point, the cost to fix damage due to a RLOC is less than the value of the plane.   Maybe at $60K.  So, I would not expect a large difference in insurance cost between a $90K Mooney and a $180K Mooney.  --Some but not much.

 

 

My insurance agent is a friend and we talked about this kind of stuff before I purchased and later on as my premiums came down.  The liability component is primarily related to pilot experience, such as total hours, IR or not, time in type, recent time, etc.  The hull value component scales linearly with the stated/declared value and once you have some decent experience it becomes the driver of the total premium.  In my case IIRC the hull value component is responsible for 70-80% of my total premium.  Doubling my hull value would increase my insurance expense substantially.

 

Yes, having a gear-up or prop strike on a $50k M20E vs. a $100k M20J might cost roughly the same to fix (or perhaps total the E), but the $100k J might also have a stack full of Garmin goodies that are subject to theft, and that risk must be accounted for as well.  It is rare, but avionics theft still happens since nearly any GA plane can be opened in under a minute and lose all of the boxes in perhaps another minute.