Do you have insurance for your airplane?

[poadeleted20]

Hull plus 100/1M liability -- 1M smooth is closest answer, so I checked it.

 

[stingray]

I can't believe so many people fly without hull insurance! I'd think that if you have a loan on the plane the bank would require it, so unless you own the plane outright AND can afford a total hull loss, not carrying hull insurance seems foolish.

It also seems like it could lead to poor decisionmaking. Too many pilots try to save the plane, and some kill themselves in the process. So much for the "insurance company owns the plane" idea if you have a malfunction. Seems like an excessively bad idea to me!

Just the oposite, If the weather is bad I just do not fly. I do not have to. If I was in business that needed to fly at anytime I would probably have it. I do not plan on bending up the plane so spending $2,000.00 a year just seems foolish. I do have life insurance but not hull insurance. So do you really think I am going to save the plane over my life just because I have insurance and the plane does not!

Dan

 

[docmirror]

Folks who fly with hull insurance prolly don't care about crashing the plane if something goes wrong. Heck, they just figure the insurance company owns it anyway, so why bother to fly or maintain it right.

I prolly should have used a smiley there. It was written totally tongue in cheek. However, I still think hull insurance is a waste of $$$$.

As a corollary, finance and insure appreciating assets, but rent or pay cash for depreciating assets(planes).

 

[Tom-D]

Losing my plane will not change my lifestyle. It's a luxury, not a necessity. I won't insure against a loss that will not change my lifestyle. The last time I paid for collision on a vehicle was 1993. That's when I paid off the loan. since then, I've bought used cars with cash. If I total one, I'll buy another. I figure I've saved enough in premiums to pay for it.

That's a personal loss that I do not want to suffer. If I had a cheap POS aircraft that could be replaced by a visit to the salvage yard I might think like you.

 

[jmaynard]

I prolly should have used a smiley there. It was written totally tongue in cheek.

Yes, you should have.

However, I still think hull insurance is a waste of $$$$.

Tell it to my bank.

 

[docmirror]

Yes, you should have.


Tell it to my bank.

Thank you sir, may I have another.

See post #43, para 2.

 

[CT Arrow]

I can't believe so many people fly without hull insurance! I'd think that if you have a loan on the plane the bank would require it, so unless you own the plane outright AND can afford a total hull loss, not carrying hull insurance seems foolish.

It also seems like it could lead to poor decisionmaking. Too many pilots try to save the plane, and some kill themselves in the process. So much for the "insurance company owns the plane" idea if you have a malfunction. Seems like an excessively bad idea to me!

Yup, sadly all true! I know a local pilot who flys w/ nothing! Zelch, Squat! Simply says it's too expensive.

No insurance is pretty dumb in todays litigious Society! I own the airplane clear and I have max hull value and liabilty. My job is to survive the crash and hand the keys to the insurance Co. You own it!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Just the oposite, If the weather is bad I just do not fly. I do not have to. If I was in business that needed to fly at anytime I would probably have it.

I didn't mean flying in bad weather - I meant you're away from home somewhere, without a hangar, and there's bad weather with the plane tied down on the ramp. Ask Bill and Brent about that one. And the same thing happened to N271G back in the 80's, the whole tail had to be replaced.

You, being an A&P, do have the advantage of being able to make major repairs much cheaper than the rest of us, if you want to put the time into it.

I do not plan on bending up the plane so spending $2,000.00 a year just seems foolish. I do have life insurance but not hull insurance. So do you really think I am going to save the plane over my life just because I have insurance and the plane does not!

Not at all - However, *nobody* "plans" on bending the plane. Planes still get bent. That's why they're called "accidents." Nobody believes they're going to die in the next 5 minutes either, nor do they plan on it. That simple fact can lead to decisions that lead to bad outcomes.

 

[sba55]

The idea that hull insurance prevents bad decision-making doesn't seem very plausable to me.

Like I said, I wouldn't carry hull for a $70k airplane. Nevertheless, in an accident, I would chose the most favorable option. Insurance doesn't change that.

Looking at it the other way, insurance doesn't seem to make a difference. Take that 310 accident in LA a few weeks ago. That guy most likely did have insurance, yet he was messing around with the starters to try to get his props horizontal less than 50' over the ground. Some people are just bad decision-makers. You can tell very quickly by talking to them. Sadly, there's just too many of them, and usually they are the ones that think they're "ahead of the curve".

Hull insurance makes sense if you can't afford the hull loss. Otherwise, it's likelihood of loss vs. insurance costs. Nothing stupid about not carrying hull insurance.

-Felix

 

[RotorAndWing]

All aircraft registered in Minnesota are required to have liability insurance.

It shouldn't be any state's government business whether you insure or not. This is just simply the insurance lobby trying to force their product on unwilling buyers.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It also seems like it could lead to poor decisionmaking. Too many pilots try to save the plane, and some kill themselves in the process. So much for the "insurance company owns the plane" idea if you have a malfunction. Seems like an excessively bad idea to me!

Somewhere in your insurance policy you will probably find the words "prudent uninsured".

I wouldn't tell your insurance carrier that you did anything differently because you had insurance.

 

[gismo]

I'd guess that the average hull value of people's planes is somewhere in the $50-70k range. If so, and if you're actually a safe pilot (those that think they're way ahead of the curve usually are not), maybe buying insurance for hull value isn't necessary. I probably wouldn't do it, because there isn't any dangerous weather here, and I can live with the tiny risk of losing $70k.

But if you're flying a plane with hull value in the $300-400k range, it's a different game. Now we're talking about a house vs. a fancy car. I would get hull for that, even if it is $6k/year.

-Felix

It's all relative Felix. If you own a $400k airplane you are probably as able to afford the loss as someone who owns a $50k airplane. That said, I still carry hull insurance, I just wish there was a way to get a substantial premium reduction in return for a $10-20k deductible and/or an exclusion for a pilot induced gear up landing. But personally given that hull insurance costs 1.5-2% of the stated value you'd have to go a lot more than 6 years to beat the system (more like 50-67 years). For some reason, when people think about saving their hull insurance premiums, they mistakenly include both hull and liability costs.

 

[docmirror]

For some reason, when people think about saving their hull insurance premiums, they mistakenly include both hull and liability costs.

Not all of us. Some folks actually have degrees in math/comp sci and know how to compute an actuarial. If I save hull insurance on all my vehicles(plane, cars, boat, jetski) I save well over $10,000/year in today dollars. Simple non-calculus NPV computation means that every five years or so I can buy another older single engine plane.

 

[Bill]

If I save hull insurance on all my vehicles(plane, cars, boat, jetski) I save well over $10,000/year in today dollars. Simple non-calculus NPV computation means that every five years or so I can buy another older single engine plane.

I guess it depends on scale. 3 cars, a truck, 2 motorcycles, and an airplane, and hull is $3500/yr total for all. So, *my* older single engine plane would take 14+ yrs in savings. Still not chump change, but worth it in my book.

 

[sba55]

It's all relative Felix. If you own a $400k airplane you are probably as able to afford the loss as someone who owns a $50k airplane. That said, I still carry hull insurance, I just wish there was a way to get a substantial premium reduction in return for a $10-20k deductible and/or an exclusion for a pilot induced gear up landing. But personally given that hull insurance costs 1.5-2% of the stated value you'd have to go a lot more than 6 years to beat the system (more like 50-67 years). For some reason, when people think about saving their hull insurance premiums, they mistakenly include both hull and liability costs.

I agree, it is relative, Lance. I was saying that if someone could afford a 400k or a 50k airplane, he might chose not to get insurance for the 50k airplane.

 

[gismo]

Not all of us. Some folks actually have degrees in math/comp sci and know how to compute an actuarial. If I save hull insurance on all my vehicles(plane, cars, boat, jetski) I save well over $10,000/year in today dollars. Simple non-calculus NPV computation means that every five years or so I can buy another older single engine plane.

Well it appears to me that your degree isn't holding up too well. Yes every 5 years you could buy a $50k airplane, but could you buy a plan, car, boat, and jetski every 5 years for that? How many years of not paying your hull insurance on a $50k airplane would pay for another $50k airplane? Including the premiums saved on all that other stuff just confuses the issue (just like including the liability premium).

 

[Larryo]

Not all of us. Some folks actually have degrees in math/comp sci and know how to compute an actuarial. If I save hull insurance on all my vehicles(plane, cars, boat, jetski) I save well over $10,000/year in today dollars. Simple non-calculus NPV computation means that every five years or so I can buy another older single engine plane.

Doc,

You have the right idea, except that the $10K a year also has some value. Even at 10%, in 5 years you'd save $68K and in 10 years you'd save a whopping $180K. Not chump change.

Insurance is a financial risk/benefit decision and the vast majority of us will loose our premium dollars by taking care of our planes (and other things). So, if one can spread the risk over time, or has enough assets, they will usually win hands down by going uninsured.

Also, factor in the premium dollars that do not go to pay claims.... the overhead, buildings, commissions, lawyers, etc, and that's just lost money.

NOW, here's another thought..... your hull premiums "could" pay for a major accident (gear up or worse) in perhaps 15 years or so.... and if you're that bad (or unlucky) of a pilot, perhaps flying is not for you......

 

[docmirror]

Well it appears to me that your degree isn't holding up too well. Yes every 5 years you could buy another $50k airplane, but could you buy a plan, car, boat, and jetski every 5 years for that? How many years of not paying your hull insurance on a $50k airplane would pay for another $50k airplane? Including the premiums saved on all that other stuff just confuses the issue (just like including the liability premium).

Well, given the toy count, I think I'm doing all right. Even though I graduated a long time ago. Although I can't buy all of the toys every five years, I can buy one nice toy, or pay down a mortgage, or pay for grad school for my daughter, or take several nice vacations, or invest in the market, or blow it at Vegas. Seeing a theme here? It's my money, not Allstate's.

If you want to buy hull insurance that's fine with me. I just get a little miffed when people think I'm nuts for not buying it. Heck, maybe next week I'll have a loss and you can all say 'na-na-nana-na, told ya so'.

 

[stingray]

I didn't mean flying in bad weather - I meant you're away from home somewhere, without a hangar, and there's bad weather with the plane tied down on the ramp. Ask Bill and Brent about that one. And the same thing happened to N271G back in the 80's, the whole tail had to be replaced.

You, being an A&P, do have the advantage of being able to make major repairs much cheaper than the rest of us, if you want to put the time into it.



Not at all - However, *nobody* "plans" on bending the plane. Planes still get bent. That's why they're called "accidents." Nobody believes they're going to die in the next 5 minutes either, nor do they plan on it. That simple fact can lead to decisions that lead to bad outcomes.

So you saved $2,000 on insurance and you are away from home. $100.00 will get you into a hanger. Most of my flying is away from home and I have always been offered a hanger (For free) if one was needed.

My point on the plane being bent was, I am not going to land any different if I had insurance or not. I am always going to land where "I" have the best chance for survival. You are right it does make a difference that I can fix it myself.

My insurance choices do not stop with the plane. I do not insure all of my houses or any of my vehicles either. The only two I do are the Caddy and the corvette and only because combined they are only $260 a year for full coverage:smile:. Give me that kind of coverage on the plane and I will cover that too.

Dan

 

[jmaynard]

If you want to buy hull insurance that's fine with me. I just get a little miffed when people think I'm nuts for not buying it.

It's your decision to make. So was financing my airplane, buy you claimed I was nuts (or foolish) for doing so...

 

[docmirror]

It's your decision to make. So was financing my airplane, buy you claimed I was nuts (or foolish) for doing so...

Thank you sir, may I have another.

Well, I just went back and reviewed my post and damned if I can find where I called you personally nuts or foolish. I did make a blanket statement to the effect that hull insurance is a foolish waste of money. I stand by that statement. Additionally, I think my position on freedom to buy/finance what you want is clear and unambiguous. Here's a funny thing, I once financed a small part of an aircraft purchase, so I speak from a small position of history on that. If you ask around other business/investment communities(not the car buying biz), I think you'll find similar opinions.

 

[jmaynard]

I did make a blanket statement to the effect that hull insurance is a foolish waste of money. I stand by that statement.

When you call others foolish, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you. If you wish the right to make your choices unmolested, you should grant others that same right. My choice is different from yours; note that I have not said anything about the propriety of yours. Please grant me the same courtesy.

 

[Ted]

I guess I'll forever be a fool for carrying full coverage on my cars, too.

So far, insurance has yet to make a dime on me, though, so it's worked out pretty well on my end.

 

[jmaynard]

Well, I just went back and reviewed my post and damned if I can find where I called you personally nuts or foolish.

Also, what was this, then?

Thank you sir, may I have another.

See post #43, para 2.

The first was certainly not a complimentary reference to Animal House, with any one of several derogatory implications; the second was a condescending reminder of a condescending post that had definite statements on how others should manage their money.

Whether you like it or not, and whether you approve or not, people do make choices other than your own about how they manage their finances. I respect your right to do so; why don't you respect mine? And no, I'm NOT interested in hiring you to manage my finances, so kindly MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS.

 

[docmirror]

Jay, as I go back and look, you first quoted me with a "BS and baloney"(#35). To which I responded with a conciliatory tone saying I should have used a smiley. That was insufficient for your ego, so you got a few more digs in(#45).

Ok, you win - I loose. You were right I was wrong. You are a better manager of money, and prolly a good looking guy as well. I apologize unreservedly and beg pardon as we say in TX. If you're ever down this way, first beer is on me(not literally).

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I can't believe so many people fly without hull insurance! I'd think that if you have a loan on the plane the bank would require it, so unless you own the plane outright AND can afford a total hull loss, not carrying hull insurance seems foolish.

It also seems like it could lead to poor decisionmaking. Too many pilots try to save the plane, and some kill themselves in the process. So much for the "insurance company owns the plane" idea if you have a malfunction. Seems like an excessively bad idea to me!

I hear ya and it's true for lots of pilots regarding their decision making but, then they invariably have other deficiencies as well.

Somehow I have definately gained the ability to decide what I'm trying to save when an airplane is going down and the best way to do it.

 

[Dan Thomas]

It shouldn't be any state's government business whether you insure or not. This is just simply the insurance lobby trying to force their product on unwilling buyers.

Nope. Not most of the time. In Canada aircraft owners MUST carry third-party liability insurance, minimum $100K for smaller aircraft, brought about by people driving into other people's airplanes or crashing into other people's houses or other property, and the injured party not being able to collect anything for the damage. It's neither fair nor ethical to present a risk to others without having some means of reimbursing them if you screw up.

My little homebuilt Jodel costs me about $130/year for $100K third-party coverage. Passenger liability is a lot more and I don't have it because I'm alone most of the time or have a family member along. The hull is worth too little to spend much to insure.

Dan

 

[BaltimoreBill]

Own plane; have Liability and Hull coverage.

HR

Same here.

 

[wabower]

Staring down the gun barrel can help crystalize the decision. My partner in a number of airplanes and a vacation home was killed in the crash of our 340. We were both on the note and had a healthy amount of our own money invested in the down payment and avionics upgrades. The insurance didn't bring them back, but was good to have. All the talk about "and I will probably be dead" doesn't take into account all the circumstances that may come into play in the event of such an accident.

In June 07 the 180 Convention was held in Fredericksburg, TX. WX was crappy for a week prior, but started to clear the day I could leave so I filed and flew down for the weekend. A night or two later, the biggest, meanest storm I have seen in 10 years made a beeline at us, all the way from Amarillo. We could see it intensifying and bearing down on us, so we re-tied and secured as best we could as the wind freshened, then went inside to watch the mayhem.

Just north of us the storm split into two separate systems, one of which dumped 19" on Marble Falls and generally tore up a good-sized chunk of Texas. Watching that event unfold at close range and thinking about the potential total loss (of more than 60 airplanes on the ramp) that appeared immenent caused quite a bit of soul-searching and second guessing in the bar that night. I was covered at the time, but even so the helpless feeling at the time isn't something I forget easily, especially at renewal time.

Seeing four friends lose or suffer significant damage to six airplanes during the Breckenridge tornado in May, along with several similar events around Dallas a few days later reinforced the decision, as did the sight of a fallen 40' hangar door that missed our King Air by less than a foot. The hull insurance premium for my fleet is slightly more than 1% of insured value each year. I'm going to keep it. YMMV.

I hear ya and it's true for lots of pilots regarding their decision making but, then they invariably have other deficiencies as well.

Somehow I have definately gained the ability to decide what I'm trying to save when an airplane is going down and the best way to do it.

 

[gismo]

Well, given the toy count, I think I'm doing all right. Even though I graduated a long time ago. Although I can't buy all of the toys every five years, I can buy one nice toy, or pay down a mortgage, or pay for grad school for my daughter, or take several nice vacations, or invest in the market, or blow it at Vegas. Seeing a theme here? It's my money, not Allstate's.

If you want to buy hull insurance that's fine with me. I just get a little miffed when people think I'm nuts for not buying it. Heck, maybe next week I'll have a loss and you can all say 'na-na-nana-na, told ya so'.

Hey, I don't think you're nuts for not buying hull insurance, that's a very personal decision (assuming no note on the airplane) based on your perceived risk, your ability to absorb the loss, and the cost of the insurance.
Definitely not ons size fits all. The point I was trying to make is that if you want to make an informed decision, you need to consider only the hull premium vs the amount at risk. For a total loss that would be 50-65 years per loss to break even if you ignore the present value of the money. Even if you add that in, I think you're looking at 35-50 years per loss. Then again there are losses that aren't equal to the full hull value so if you factor those in you could be break even in as little as 25-30 years between claims. It should be true that the majority of policies make money for the insurer so it should definitely be possible to come out ahead by self insuring but I don't think you'd come out way ahead on average either.

 

[docmirror]

The hull insurance premium for my fleet is slightly more than 1% of insured value each year. I'm going to keep it. YMMV.

Good price. If I could insure my hull for $400/year I prolly would. I can't, so I don't.

 

[flyersfan31]

I prolly should have used a smiley there. It was written totally tongue in cheek. However, I still think hull insurance is a waste of $$$$.

As a corollary, finance and insure appreciating assets, but rent or pay cash for depreciating assets(planes).

Yeah - a smiley would have alerted me to the fact that you are not, in fact, an idiot!

Hull insurance paid a $20k claim for damage courtesy of a disrespectful helo pilot who windblasted my elevators and rudder. Even gust locks won't protect against that.

I had a BLaw professor in grad school, NH Supreme Ct judge who, incidentally, served with Souter and had some great stories about him, who gave very sage advice about insurance. To whit -- buy as much as you can. Particularly liability insurance - one numnut who decides to sue you can cost a whole bunch more than decades of premia. I have assets to protect; ain't no way I'm flying without insurance.

 

[docmirror]

I had a BLaw professor in grad school, NH Supreme Ct judge who, incidentally, served with Souter and had some great stories about him, who gave very sage advice about insurance. To whit -- buy as much as you can. Particularly liability insurance - one numnut who decides to sue you can cost a whole bunch more than decades of premia. I have assets to protect; ain't no way I'm flying without insurance.

Of course that's what they told you, protect your assets with liability insurance. I've already said the same thing a number of times. It's kind of hard to sue yourself for a loss of your own property. But I guess you could - try......

 

[30703]

.....That said, I still carry hull insurance, I just wish there was a way to get a substantial premium reduction in return for a $10-20k deductible and/or an exclusion for a pilot induced gear up landing. But personally given that hull insurance costs 1.5-2% of the stated value you'd have to go a lot more than 6 years to beat the system (more like 50-67 years).

How about just underinsure the hull value? At 1.5 to 2% hull insurance cost of stated value, underinsuring the hull by $20K gives you $300-$400 premium reduction/year.

 

[tonycondon]

i have the glider insured for 5000 and the trailer for 1000. each has 100 deductible. Liability of 1,000,000 combined single limit of bodily injury and property damage excluding passengers, and 1000 of medical coverage per occupant per seat.

last years premium was 325. last year i landed off airport 5 times and put quite a few miles on the trailer. given this, i will always make sure to get hull coverage as long as i can afford it.

 

[jmaynard]

How about just underinsure the hull value? At 1.5 to 2% hull insurance cost of stated value, underinsuring the hull by $20K gives you $300-$400 premium reduction/year.

Careful when you do this, though, because it also makes the insurance company more likely to total the airplane rather than fix it, since the total value will be lower.

 

[gismo]

How about just underinsure the hull value? At 1.5 to 2% hull insurance cost of stated value, underinsuring the hull by $20K gives you $300-$400 premium reduction/year.

Doesn't work for aviation insurance, if you underinsure a minor ding could result in the insurer taking the airplane and handing you a check for the understated value. They would be pretty tempted too if they could turn around and sell it for what they give you.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I can't believe so many people waste money on hull insurance!

So when you experience a less-catastrophic emergency and land off-airport hundreds of yards or even miles from a road, which kind of insurance pays to remove your aircraft for repair?

Which kind of insurance pays for damage to your aircraft from a third party and they can't or won't cover the damage?

And if you happen to crash land on state or federal land and they require on threat of prosecution that every scrap of aluminum be removed from the area, be it mountaintop or swamp, which kind of insurance pays?

 

[gismo]

And if you happen to crash land on state or federal land and they require on threat of prosecution that every scrap of aluminum be removed from the area, be it mountaintop or swamp, which kind of insurance pays?

I'm pretty certain this one would be covered by the liability portion.

 

[docmirror]

So when you experience a less-catastrophic emergency and land off-airport hundreds of yards or even miles from a road, which kind of insurance pays to remove your aircraft for repair?

Which kind of insurance pays for damage to your aircraft from a third party and they can't or won't cover the damage?

And if you happen to crash land on state or federal land and they require on threat of prosecution that every scrap of aluminum be removed from the area, be it mountaintop or swamp, which kind of insurance pays?

I'm gonna go with ----- The savings from my unpaid insurance premium.


Did I win? :smile: