Insurance for a training aircraft

NotarPilot

NotarPilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
100
Location
Montana
Display Name
Display name:
NotarPilot
I currently own a Mooney M20J but I’m considering possibly purchasing a second airplane to do some instructing in. I know the rough rule of thumb formula for my aircraft, as a retractable, is roughly 1% to 1.3% of hull value for your insurance premium. Mine happens to be closer to 1% paying about $1,000 per year.

Is there a rough rule of thumb percentage to figure insurance on a simple training aircraft like a Skyhawk or Cherokee that will be used for flight instruction? Or can someone share what is typically costs to insure one valued at $50k to $70k? Thanks.
 
You need to talk to your agent. Limited instruction (where you are only allowing the aircraft to be used while you are instructing), won't cost much if any additional.
If you want to rent the plane out to your students to fly, you can expect your premiums to triple.
 
I guess I'm doing something wrong. My premium is much higher than 1.3% of hull value.
 
Yes, obviously the students would rent the plane to fly solo or fly passengers once they are rated. Again, this would NOT be in my Mooney but a dedicated trainer I would buy.
 
Perhaps you pay more as a lower time pilot? I’m only assuming here, I apologize if I’m wrong. I have over 6000 hours and have an instrument rating as well.
 
NotarPilot said:
Perhaps you pay more as a lower time pilot? I’m only assuming here, I apologize if I’m wrong. I have over 6000 hours and have an instrument rating as well.
Click to expand...
That seems logical, but I think that fact is also germane to your question. The people flying the plane won't have 6000 hours and an instrument rating.
 
Assume something like a mid 80s-90s 172, insurance will probably run about 1200-1600 yr. because the student will need it for solo work. Your ratings are irrelevant when the student is solo in the airplane. But you’ll also need to consider the maintenance costs often 3x a regular annual because it’s 100 hour, not annual, IIRC.

Like others are saying, contact your insurance carrier for real numbers.
 
For a cherokee or 172 being rented out for primary instruction? I've heard 3AMUs+ a year.
 
We shell out $5500/year to insure a nice 172L used for primary instruction and rental (where students can solo).
Since I live in Alaska, there are fewer options and pretty much all insurance costs double, so a Lower48 denizen can maybe divide this by a factor of two...
 
A few years ago when I had the Navion on lease to a flying club, the insurance was three times what it was when I pulled it off the line. Oddly, there was no real difference between the various aircraft (the club had two 172's, a 182, a 170, a 180, the Navion, and a turbo arrow). All the insurance rates scaled pretty much linearly with the hull value.

This was a few years back but was paying like $4200 for a $40,000 hull value (whereas I got coverage for $1600 on my own).
 
Is it a option to just have liability and insist on proof of renters insurance on the renters part?
 
Salty said:
Is it a option to just have liability and insist on proof of renters insurance on the renters part?
Click to expand...
Won't work if you finance the aircraft. Further, I'm not sure it will make a whole lot of difference. The hull insurance carriers will have the option of subrogating against the renters (it was getting harder to find waivers of subrogation and breach of warranty insurance), so they're probably not going to give you much of a break, you'll probably still need to carry it for yourself.
 
In 2016 when I rented out my Cherokee with $25,000 hull value I paid 2,960. In addition to unlimited students, it included three named pilots and two instructors with no right of subrogation of us.
 
flyingron said:
A few years ago when I had the Navion on lease to a flying club, the insurance was three times what it was when I pulled it off the line. Oddly, there was no real difference between the various aircraft (the club had two 172's, a 182, a 170, a 180, the Navion, and a turbo arrow). All the insurance rates scaled pretty much linearly with the hull value.

This was a few years back but was paying like $4200 for a $40,000 hull value (whereas I got coverage for $1600 on my own).
Click to expand...
JScarry said:
In 2016 when I rented out my Cherokee with $25,000 hull value I paid 2,960. In addition to unlimited students, it included three named pilots and two instructors with no right of subrogation of us.
Click to expand...
That gives me an idea of what I wanted to know, thanks.
 
Last week I got a quote for a Cessna 150 with a hull value of $15k. $2,220/year to allow instruction in it.
 
murphey said:
Assume something like a mid 80s-90s 172, insurance will probably run about 1200-1600 yr. because the student will need it for solo work. Your ratings are irrelevant when the student is solo in the airplane. But you’ll also need to consider the maintenance costs often 3x a regular annual because it’s 100 hour, not annual, IIRC.

Like others are saying, contact your insurance carrier for real numbers.
Click to expand...

That's way too low unless you meant 1200-1600 for one student ... also not sure what you mean by a 100-hour costing 3 times more than an annual. But yes he will need to do 100-hour inspections if it flies more than 100 hr/year.
 
KLRDMD said:
Last week I got a quote for a Cessna 150 with a hull value of $15k. $2,220/year to allow instruction in it.
Click to expand...
Was that to allow the students to rent it solo as well?
 
JScarry said:
In 2016 when I rented out my Cherokee with $25,000 hull value I paid 2,960. In addition to unlimited students, it included three named pilots and two instructors with no right of subrogation of us.
Click to expand...

10% seems like about the number I have commonly seen. We rented out our Scout for a few years for Dual instruction only, mostly tailwheel endorsements. A primary trainer might do better, but we did just enough instruction to not quite break even on extra insurance we were paying for the instruction. Since the planes primary purpose was for towing gliders we stopped doing instruction and it became a dedicated tow plane costing us about the same but getting a lot less wear and tear.

Brian
 
My knowledge of the insurance processes is minimal, particularly as it relates to owned aircraft policies. To me it seems policy premiums and terms/conditions are totally arbitrary. I've flown in places with very liberal terms/conditions, low deductibles and apparently still had affordable premiums and I've flown in places where the terms/conditions were very strict, moderate deductibles and very high premiums. I started a thread where I remarked and questioned this before as I couldn't understand what was so different about my one east coast flight school (with its strict rules on currency and aircraft checkouts, high prices and constant complaints from the owner/management staff about the insurance premiums) from the one I was working with on the west coast (with its extremely easy/lax rules, moderate prices and generally good feedback on their insurance) and other schools I've worked with in the mid-atlantic region, Texas and Florida.

With all of that being said, and I defer to the greater knowledge of the members of the board, why cant one get insurance for "instruction time only" and require students bring their own renter's insurance for solo work?
For that matter, couldn't you technically do the same? If you put the plane into an LLC, get high deductible insurance and/or lowered hull-value for the plane and then bring in a secondary renters policy?

Its also my understanding that I would still want/need renters insurance if I am going to continue to rent/borrow planes other than my own from others as unlike car insurance where my vehicle insurance offers protection in the event of an accident in a rental, the owned aircraft insurance only covers the specific plane and named pilots/pilots meeting the open pilot minimums, which does have some similarities to car insurance (named drivers and specifically defined vehicle though the insurance will still provide coverage to anyone driving the car even if they aren't named). Is that correct?
 
apr911 said:
With all of that being said, and I defer to the greater knowledge of the members of the board, why cant one get insurance for "instruction time only" and require students bring their own renter's insurance for solo work?
Click to expand...
Because if something "breaks" on the plane and causes an accident, you still need to be insured in case the solo student gets hurt while not being at fault.
Its also my understanding that I would still want/need renters insurance if I am going to continue to rent/borrow planes other than my own from others as unlike car insurance where my vehicle insurance offers protection in the event of an accident in a rental, the owned aircraft insurance only covers the specific plane and named pilots/pilots meeting the open pilot minimums, which does have some similarities to car insurance (named drivers and specifically defined vehicle though the insurance will still provide coverage to anyone driving the car even if they aren't named). Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Some policies can be written to expand your coverage to other aircraft in some circumstances.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Because if something "breaks" on the plane and causes an accident, you still need to be insured in case the solo student gets hurt while not being at fault.
Click to expand...

Fair but why does that affect the price of tea in china? If the student is truly not at fault, then why does the fact a student was flying it solo change the cost of the premium?

I understand why a student would change the price of "instruction time" since its no longer just the pilot's experience at the controls and now includes the added risk the student does something stupid that the instructor does not catch, cannot catch (such as a error on short final) or is late in catching resulting in damage.
 
apr911 said:
Fair but why does that affect the price of tea in china? If the student is truly not at fault, then why does the fact a student was flying it solo change the cost of the premium?

I understand why a student would change the price of "instruction time" since its no longer just the pilot's experience at the controls and now includes the added risk the student does something stupid that the instructor does not catch, cannot catch (such as a error on short final) or is late in catching resulting in damage.
Click to expand...
So something breaks with a solo pilot with less than 25 hours experience. What are the increased chances that the student reacts badly to a stressful situation vs a 1000 hour pilot?
 
RyanShort1 said:
So something breaks with a solo pilot with less than 25 hours experience. What are the increased chances that the student reacts badly to a stressful situation vs a 1000 hour pilot?
Click to expand...

A student's reaction vs a 1000 hour pilot could go either way really. Some people are better at handling stressful situations than others and number of hours of "experience" in normal conditions isn't going to change how they react when it does happen. That being said I do acknowledge, while there is no guarantee, the 1000 hour pilot is likely to have a better response.

A bad reaction however does involve an element of fault that falls into the category of pilot error. If my engine quits and I choose to land in the open field 1NM to the left of me instead of the 6000' paved runway 1NM to my right, my decision will be questioned and found to be a contributing factor to the both the property damage and injury damages done regardless of whether I have 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000+ hours

I do hate the NTSB/FAA rulings that seem to reach for pilot error yet at the same time they are not usually wrong. Insurance companies looking to mitigate their liability typically reach even further.
 
apr911 said:
A student's reaction vs a 1000 hour pilot could go either way really. Some people are better at handling stressful situations than others and number of hours of "experience" in normal conditions isn't going to change how they react when it does happen. That being said I do acknowledge, while there is no guarantee, the 1000 hour pilot is likely to have a better response.

A bad reaction however does involve an element of fault that falls into the category of pilot error. If my engine quits and I choose to land in the open field 1NM to the left of me instead of the 6000' paved runway 1NM to my right, my decision will be questioned and found to be a contributing factor to the both the property damage and injury damages done regardless of whether I have 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000+ hours

I do hate the NTSB/FAA rulings that seem to reach for pilot error yet at the same time they are not usually wrong. Insurance companies looking to mitigate their liability typically reach even further.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies don't care about possibilities, they look at statistics and data generally speaking. They have a reasonably good idea what their risks are, and I'm sure you can think of instances that might not have been an individual's actual fault, when a jury or a judge has awarded money to an injured party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top