Flying without license/insurance?

[bbchien]

Bruce, i respect your opinion, but i suspect your aviation medical practice has given you an exaggerated sense of risk (people getting back in after accidents, etc). I dont want to lose everything i own, but my god they want four times the amount of my home owners insurance, for half the coverage, at a much lower risk level. If it was $1200/y or something like that, i would agree it would be prudent. If it's over for 4k, for 1m smooth/250k passenger (my HOA policy provides better coverage), i will live with the risk. You have to draw a line somewhere, and thats mine.

If you are not as risk tolerant, or have a family to think of, then you should do what you think is right. It's not for everyone, but self insuring is workable.

It is your reponsibility to have the financial means to make good those you injure. If you don't do that you're acting irresponsibly and schucking the load on others. Liability only will likely be about $1,000/year. "It's too expensive" simply means you shouldn't be doing the activity in the first place.

"....but my god they want four times...." and you dont think the risk is commeasurately greater? that the risk of your doing harm to someone isn't many times greater..... who are you kidding?

Of course, that is endemic in America these days....

 

[Jim Logajan]

Personally I believe such an attitude is both selfish and unfair. What you're basically saying is that you expect others to cover the cost of any damage or injury you cause. I strongly believe that you should carry a reasonable amount of liability insurance for any airplane (or other vehicle capable of inflicting significant damage or harm). BTW many if not most states require this which makes me wonder if you might even be held criminally responsible (jail time) if you have an accident and have no liability insurance at all.

Are you aware that liability coverage is relatively inexpensive compared to hull protection?

The operational definition of liability insurance does expect others to cover the cost of any damage or injury you cause. Having insurance merely modifies some of the at-risk population - it doesn't do anything to actually change the level of risk.

The charge of "unfairness" is somewhat perverse, considering that liability insurance is a relatively modern concept and technically can be said to promote risky actions by reducing the negative consequences.

 

[airguy]

It's more common that most pilots believe (unlicensed operators).

I have a friend out here in west Texas with a 172XP, he is legit (SE-PPL) but taught his teenage son to fly by himself (not an instructor). The son was an excellent pilot and flew for years without any paperwork. The time came to sell the plane and the son knew he would have to rent if he continued to fly, and that meant paperwork checks, so dad made arrangements with an instructor at a nearby FBO for the son to take lessons.

The son literally hopped in the plane solo, took off from their private dirt strip, flew 50 miles to the Class D airport, taxied up to the FBO and met the instructor there, and said "Hi, my name is XXXX and I'm here to take flying lessons."

This was about 10 years ago, and neither of them fly anymore (dad retired, son had a lifestyle change) but neither of them ever wrinkled metal or got busted. It happens more often than you think.

 

[NotSure]

It is your reponsibility to have the financial means to make good those you injure. If you don't do that you're acting irresponsibly and schucking the load on others. Liability only will likely be about $1,000/year. "It's too expensive" simply means you shouldn't be doing the activity in the first place.

"....but my god they want four times...." and you dont think the risk is commeasurately greater? that the risk of your doing harm to someone isn't many times greater..... who are you kidding?

Of course, that is endemic in America these days....

Well, i wont bore you with by detailing my knowledge of insurance underwriting and risk management, so i will simply make you the study sample:

How long have you been flying?

How many accidents have you been in?

How many of those exposed you to mass liability (lets say 2 times hull value for discussion)?

And how much money have you given to the insurance companies during that time (yearly premium times years)?

I am not being rhetorical, i am seriously asking. If i am wrong, show me. Let's see what the math says.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I have been flying since 1999 and haven't been in any accidents. Wind damaged my aircraft and insurance company paid.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You are entitled to your opinion. Relatively inexpensive it is not, at least in my case. Medical issue/SODA, low time (-200 hours) , i was quoted 4700/yr, and that was the only insurer that would even cover me.

Dood, what are you flying? I ain't got no medical at all, about the same hours, and I am paying about 1/3 of that with hull coverage on my taildragger.

And how much money have you given to the insurance companies during that time (yearly premium times years)?

I am not being rhetorical, i am seriously asking. If i am wrong, show me. Let's see what the math says.

The math says that the insurance company makes a profit. So, the total charges for preminums (plus return on their investments) has to be more than what they pay out in claims plus operating costs.

 

[steingar]

If insurance cost me $4K/year for a 40-year old fixed gear single, I would balk myself, though I would probably get out of aviation altogether. I haven't got the assets to reasonably self insure. Besides, I have to insure to stay in my hangar.

I don't think airplanes fall out of the sky just because the pilot wasn't licensed, medically examined, or insured. Many of the things I was tested for and get biannualed for have surprisingly little to do with ADM and actually flying the aircraft. I doubt any insurance company has ever voided a claim because of any of this. Small market means word of an unfairly voided claim goes around fast.

Doesn't mean I don't and won't continue to follow the rules. But I won't demonize someone who doesn't. A lot of the rules run the gamut from bad ideas to utterly stupid, the new ones about security abysmally so. And when the FAA throws some old guy in jail for flying his little 150 over the cornfields on a sunny day, I bet the news agencies will have a field day. I doubt it has ever happened, but I could easily be mistaken as I am not the keeper of the holy history of the FAA.

 

[elmetal]

Dood, what are you flying? I ain't got no medical at all, about the same hours, and I am paying about 1/3 of that with hull coverage on my taildragger.



The math says that the insurance company makes a profit. So, the total charges for preminums (plus return on their investments) has to be more than what they pay out in claims plus operating costs.

Except this is spread out over all insurance holders. You might end up making your insurance extremely worthwhile while somebody else might pay for 30 years and never get a scratch on their machine and never need insurance money.

 

[NotSure]

Dood, what are you flying? I ain't got no medical at all, about the same hours, and I am paying about 1/3 of that with hull coverage on my taildragger.



The math says that the insurance company makes a profit. So, the total charges for preminums (plus return on their investments) has to be more than what they pay out in claims plus operating costs.

That quote was last year on a Bonanza that i was looking at. My rates were twice what a friend was quoted with similar hours for same plane (we were thinking partnership), but without a medical issue.

The insurace company does not simply make a profit, specialty coverage has an expected return of 50% of direct risk (mainstream is 15-20), over and above all administration costs. They are making a killing betting that i wont be in an accident. I'm making the same bet by keeping my money!

 

[NoHeat]

I remember hearing a story about a guy from an FSDO in Alaska saying his goal was to get 50% of the pilots in the state licensed...when pressed, he said the current number was closer to 30% of people flying had licenses.

Well, Alaska does show up rather often in a scan of NTSB accident reports that mention non-certificated pilots.

Here are two examples:

NTSB Identification: ANC08LA130
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, September 27, 2008 in Delta Junction, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 7/28/2009
Aircraft: MAULE M-5-210C, registration: N289X
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The non-certificated pilot was taking off on a personal local flight when the accident occurred. The pilot said that he taxied the length of the runway three times prior to the attempted takeoff. He said that during the takeoff/initial climb the engine lost power, and the airplane descended, impacting on a roadway and that there was structural damage to the wings and fuselage. Initially the pilot said that he thought carburetor ice was responsible for the loss of power, but then thought someone might have tampered with his fuel supply. He also noted that there may be some issues with his pilot's certificate. He said there were no mechanical problems with the airplane prior to the accident. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector interviewed the pilot and reported that the pilot said that he inadvertently pulled the mixture when the engine lost partial power, thinking it was the carburetor heat. The inspector also recovered about 2 ounces of fuel from the accident airplane's gascolator. The fuel was light blue in color, and smelled like aviation fuel. The sample appeared clear, and no impurities, water, or other contaminants were visible. The sample was tested for the presence of water using water paste, and no water was found. According to FAA records, the pilot did not have a student pilot or any other pilot certificates.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

A total loss of engine power during takeoff due to the non-certificated pilot's inadvertent selection of the mixture control instead of the carburetor heat and his lack of training/qualification.


NTSB Identification: ANC09LA035
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 25, 2009 in Palmer, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/22/2010
Aircraft: PIPER PA-18-135, registration: N3256B
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The uncertificated pilot was on a Title 14, CFR Part 91, local area flight in a tundra tire-equipped airplane. The pilot reported that after landing on a mud-covered tidal beach, while attempting to turn the airplane around for taxi, a gust of wind lifted the tail of the airplane, and it nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing lift strut, fuselage, and rudder. The pilot noted that shortly after the accident he and some friends were able to right the airplane, and he flew it back to his home airport. Witnesses camped on a beach next to the tidal flats reported to the that the airplane was first seen flying recklessly, and very close to the water, then they saw the airplane "ski" across the water, with the airplane's main wheels touching the surface of the water. The witnesses said that after five or six touch-and-go “ski” landings on the water, of which they took a video, the airplane's main wheels struck a sand bar, and it nosed over in shallow water. When the witnesses arrived to check on the condition of the pilot, the pilot told the witnesses, in part: "Don't call the cops." The investigation revealed that the accident pilot's third-class medical had been administratively denied due to two previous convictions of driving while intoxicated (DWI) within the last 10 years. According to State court records the pilot was charged and convicted of DWI in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Additionally, about 8 month before the accident, the pilot was charged with a fourth DWI, which is a felony.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The non-certificated pilot’s decision to attempt to "ski" atop a water-covered tidal area in an airplane equipped with over-sized main landing gear tires, resulting in a loss of control and a nose over.

 

[NoHeat]

The math says that the insurance company makes a profit. So, the total charges for preminums (plus return on their investments) has to be more than what they pay out in claims plus operating costs.

Some insurance companies only break even on claims vs. premiums. The way they can still make a profit is interest on "the float", i.e., earnings from investing the premiums while waiting for the claims.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

This is one I came close to making an offer on:

"On July 5, 2003, at 1550 central daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Ruminski Ultra Pup, N124TR, piloted by a non-certificated pilot sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain during landing roll on runway 24 (5,500 feet by 150 feet, asphalt), at Richmond Municipal Airport (RID), Richmond, Indiana. The flight was being conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 without a flight plan at the time of the accident. The pilot reported no injuries. The local flight originated from Mettel Field Airport, Connersville, Indiana, at 1500.

According to the pilot, he arrived at Richmond Airport approximately 1530. The pilot reported setting up for landing on runway 24. The pilot stated there was a left quartering headwind, and he "had to crab into the wind line to stay lined up on the runway." He reported that as he flared he was not "square" with the runway and touched down "a little sideways." The pilot stated, " The tail got ahead of my inputs and I ground looped the aircraft."

Butler County Regional Airport, located 28 nautical miles east of RID reported weather at 1453 eastern standard time as: wind variable at 3 knots; visibility 10 statute miles and clear.

The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures."

But I elected to pass on it for reasons unrelated to the above incident.
(Nice looking airplane BTW)

 

[azure]

That quote was last year on a Bonanza that i was looking at. My rates were twice what a friend was quoted with similar hours for same plane (we were thinking partnership), but without a medical issue.

I'm paying about 1/3 what you were quoted on a Cardinal RG. They didn't ask me specifically about medical issues, just my class of medical certificate, date of examination, and whether I was flying on a waiver. Though I don't currently have a SI, I did at one time, and it did not seem to make a difference. I was then a non-equity partner in a friend's airplane who had an identical policy to what I have today.

On general philosophy, I agree with everything Steingar said. Though I follow the rules (and am required to be insured as a condition of my hangar lease), I don't have a problem with someone who opts out of insurance or even flies without a medical, provided they're not impaired. I just have trouble believing that any pilot who isn't low time in type, holds a 3rd class medical and hasn't had enforcement action against them or a string of prior claims wouldn't be able to find a reasonable insurance quote on a simple or even complex single. I trust you did some shopping? Depending on the carrier and how much liability coverage I wanted, my quotes covered a pretty wide range. Also, I found only one company willing to quote me 1 million smooth, and it wasn't cheap.

 

[sba55]

I'm paying about 1/3 what you were quoted on a Cardinal RG. They didn't ask me specifically about medical issues, just my class of medical certificate, date of examination, and whether I was flying on a waiver. Though I don't currently have a SI, I did at one time, and it did not seem to make a difference. I was then a non-equity partner in a friend's airplane who had an identical policy to what I have today.

You are insuring a small 4 seater trainer. He's trying to insure a HP 6 seater. It's not surprising that his insurance - with or without the medical issue - would be more expensive AND that they would ask more questions...

It sounds like he said he got a quote for 1 MM smooth as a 200 hour pilot for a Bonanza. I find that very hard to believe. If he indeed managed to do that, then something in the $4k range wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

 

[gismo]

You are entitled to your opinion. Relatively inexpensive it is not, at least in my case. Medical issue/SODA, low time (-200 hours) , i was quoted 4700/yr, and that was the only insurer that would even cover me. I have significant assets, so if i lose my rental properties, house, and boats, well i knew the risks going in. The risk of inflicting harm on others (ground damage, non passenger injuries) is extremely small, virtually non existent for GA. The insurance does not reflect risks, it reflects what insurers like to call a captive market. I choose not to be a prisoner. You can choose what you like.

I admit I'm ignorant of the effects of a medical issue/SODA on insurance rates but the 1MM smooth liability I carry on my Baron costs around 1amu/yr and the 100/300k liability (max I can get) on the Porterfield is a whopping $280/yr so I'm having trouble understanding how liability only coverage could cost you nearly 5amu unless the airplane itself represented an unusual risk (e.g. L-39 etc). What kind of airplane are we talking about and are you certain that quote was for liability only?

And in any case, the cost/benefit to you isn't the issue I raised, it's your choice to expose others to a risk (however small) without owning up to the responsibility.

 

[gismo]

It sounds like he said he got a quote for 1 MM smooth as a 200 hour pilot for a Bonanza. I find that very hard to believe. If he indeed managed to do that, then something in the $4k range wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

I sensed some confusion WRT "smooth" coverage in that this word appeard right next to a 250k sublimit but based on my limited knowledge of insurance costs I strongly suspect the $4700 included hull coverage and that sounds about right for a low time pilot in a Bonanza. And depending on the value of the Bonanza, I'd bet that less than 1/4th of that was for liability which is the only kind of coverage I believe should be mandatory.

 

[azure]

You are insuring a small 4 seater trainer. He's trying to insure a HP 6 seater. It's not surprising that his insurance - with or without the medical issue - would be more expensive AND that they would ask more questions...

I've never heard a Cardinal RG referred to as a trainer before -- but yes, I'd expect a HP 6-seater to be more expensive to insure, just not THAT much more expensive, everything else being equal.

It sounds like he said he got a quote for 1 MM smooth as a 200 hour pilot for a Bonanza. I find that very hard to believe. If he indeed managed to do that, then something in the $4k range wouldn't be a bad deal at all.

Yes I noticed that he was looking for a million smooth limit, which is why I added that last sentence. If he is only a 200 hour pilot then I'm impressed that he even found a company willing to quote him, and can believe that the premium would have been sky-high. As I said even at 600 hours and over 100 hours in type at the time (now >200), I would have paid twice my current premium for a million smooth. Still I would be surprised if he couldn't find an affordable policy with a lower liability limit (say $250k), with or without the medical issue (depending on the airplane of course and his hours in type).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Was looking for an NTSB report for another thread, and found this one...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20070510X00541&ntsbno=NYC07FA096&akey=1

Membership cards, credit cards, and medical consultations found in the wreckage, along with the pilot's website and friends, identified the name of the pilot. However, there were no Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airman or medical records linked to that name.

A subsequent investigation by the New York State Police identified the pilot under another name. According to FAA records, under the second name, the pilot, age 51, held a commercial pilot certificate with single engine land, and instrument-airplane ratings. He also held a flight instructor certificate, for airplane single engine land, which expired on June 30, 1978. The pilot's latest FAA second class medical certificate was issued on November 20, 1981, and at the time, he claimed 3,000 hours of flight experience. No pilot logbooks were located.

And the accident was in a Baron... So, no multi rating in addition to no medical.

I just found an old thread from another board about this, and it made me realize that Dave S has talked about this crash here before...

 

[gismo]

Was looking for an NTSB report for another thread, and found this one...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20070510X00541&ntsbno=NYC07FA096&akey=1



And the accident was in a Baron... So, no multi rating in addition to no medical.

I just found an old thread from another board about this, and it made me realize that Dave S has talked about this crash here before...

Yeah, that was "Scott Thomas" a pilot that Dave and I trained with at Simcom. He had both of us completely fooled IIRC.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah, that was "Scott Thomas" a pilot that Dave and I trained with at Simcom. He had both of us completely fooled IIRC.

You weren't the only ones. I'm not sure which identity "Scott Thomas" was, but the FAA originally thought the pilot had no certificate at all, and it wasn't until after talking to the state police that they discovered that he had another name and that one had a pilot certificate, just not with the correct ratings.

Crazy case, all the way around!

 

[azure]

I wonder what name he filed under to FTT...

 

[Henning]

I've never heard a Cardinal RG referred to as a trainer before -- but yes, I'd expect a HP 6-seater to be more expensive to insure, just not THAT much more expensive, everything else being equal.


Yes I noticed that he was looking for a million smooth limit, which is why I added that last sentence. If he is only a 200 hour pilot then I'm impressed that he even found a company willing to quote him, and can believe that the premium would have been sky-high. As I said even at 600 hours and over 100 hours in type at the time (now >200), I would have paid twice my current premium for a million smooth. Still I would be surprised if he couldn't find an affordable policy with a lower liability limit (say $250k), with or without the medical issue (depending on the airplane of course and his hours in type).

You can get quoted on anything with any hours. They will set a premium and set stipulations on training. You may have to look, and you may not like the costs, but you can insure anything. $4700 is a first year/100hr price anyway. The $4700 included hull I'm sure, so base hull coverage is 1.5% of hull value and has risk multipliers, I'm not sure how much the multiplier for his medical is, but I'd guess a doubler. The question that needs to be answered to say whether it's a good deal or a rip off is what was the hull value?