Is the 172RG a death trap?

[TMetzinger]

Ran into a weird situation this week - I was asked to ferry a 172RG, and we went through the usual drill of sending my flight summary to the owner's insurance so I could be covered for the flight.

I've got 1100+ hours, 300+ retract time, and 5 hours (last september) in a 172RG and another 22 hours in 182RGs.

When I flew the 172RG last time, THAT owner's insurance just wanted me to go up with the owner and shoot a few touch and goes before I took it solo (the owner was NOT a CFI). They just wanted me to have some logged time before I was solo in the airplane I guess, and I thought that was reasonable. And I didn't find anything weird in the 172RG, it flew like a 172, landed like a 172, and I just needed to remember the gear and to be gentle.

The CURRENT insurance company wants a CFI sign-off, but I don't believe they specified any time minimums - so they just want someone else signing me off as competent and having someone they can point fingers at, I guess. And there's no requirement that the CFI have any 172RG time, so it's likely (as there are relatively few 172RGs around) that I'd end up teaching the CFI about the airplane.

Now I've had to get dual for ferry jobs in airplanes that were brand new to me, but never for any airplane I'd flown in the last couple of years.

Just looking for comments - has anyone else noticed the insurers getting risk-averse to the point of silliness? If I wasn't flying for hire my AOPA non-owned policy would cover it, and all they care about is that I fly standard aircraft with no more than 400 HP.

 

[AdamZ]

- has anyone else noticed the insurers getting risk-averse to the point of silliness? .

Are you kidding? Do you really need to ask that? YES!

 

[TMetzinger]

Are you kidding? Do you really need to ask that? YES!

Well, you know, managing risk is their business, but it seems lately that they all are trying to assume no risk at all.

I see the same thing in information security as well - nobody wants to assume any risk or responsibility, so they they spend X dollars to eliminate the first 85-90% of risk (which is reasonable to me), but then the security folks urge that they spend 10X-100X to get as much as possible of the remaining 10%, and they won't even consider doing a cost/benefit analysis (which to me is part of their duties).

Ah well, I'll climb off my soapbox now.

 

[KennyFlys]

I had heard from one school back in Georgia their insurer was not willing to cover a 172RG beyond what they currently owned. There is too much bad history with the hydraulic power pack in the 172RG.

 

[flyersfan31]

I had heard from one school back in Georgia their insurer was not willing to cover a 172RG beyond what they currently owned. There is too much bad history with the hydraulic power pack in the 172RG.

How does having Tim fly with the owner mitigate the risk of the power pack?

NO, this is insurance company stupidity (or rather, greed). They'll take the premium, cash, check or coin, but god forbid you try to collect from them.

 

[KennyFlys]

How does having Tim fly with the owner mitigate the risk of the power pack?

NO, this is insurance company stupidity (or rather, greed). They'll take the premium, cash, check or coin, but god forbid you try to collect from them.

It doesn't. But then, why should one of the guys I work with have his premiums increase because his vehicle is hit by a drunk driver while he's sitting at a red traffic light?

The requirements on Tim make no more sense than what I just described. If they felt there was a risk based on the power pack history, the prudent choice would be not to insure the bird. But, I'm sure they raised the premium instead.

 

[tonycondon]

poor maintenance is the problem with the power pack, like happened at your old school kenny.

we run a 182RG with essentially identical gear system and have had no changes in our insurance requirements in the last 5 years.

 

[KennyFlys]

poor maintenance is the problem with the power pack, like happened at your old school kenny.

we run a 182RG with essentially identical gear system and have had no changes in our insurance requirements in the last 5 years.

Ditto for the 182RG back at KGVL. I miss that old girl. She's a sweet plane.

 

[jesse]

poor maintenance is the problem with the power pack, like happened at your old school kenny.

we run a 182RG with essentially identical gear system and have had no changes in our insurance requirements in the last 5 years.

and..it has never malfunctioned

 

[Ken Ibold]

I see the same thing in information security as well - nobody wants to assume any risk or responsibility, so they they spend X dollars to eliminate the first 85-90% of risk (which is reasonable to me), but then the security folks urge that they spend 10X-100X to get as much as possible of the remaining 10%, and they won't even consider doing a cost/benefit analysis (which to me is part of their duties).

The business world is full of this. My wife continually is asked to supply $30K in legal services to "remove" an issue that would cost $5K.

 

[Skip Miller]

If they felt there was a risk based on the power pack history, the prudent choice would be not to insure the bird. But, I'm sure they raised the premium instead.

You miss the point of insurance, which is to cover risks. If they didn't insure any risk, how much premium would you be willing to pay?

-Skip

 

[Ken Ibold]

NO, this is insurance company stupidity (or rather, greed). They'll take the premium, cash, check or coin, but god forbid you try to collect from them.

IMO the real problem is that insurance companies in general got fat and lazy when the stock market was booming. Their returns on investment bolstered the bottom line and they all made fat bonuses. Now they can't count on the investment earnings to the extent they once did, and so the pressure is really on to find ways to avoid paying claims.

 

[KennyFlys]

You miss the point of insurance, which is to cover risks. If they didn't insure any risk, how much premium would you be willing to pay?

-Skip

I do understand it. I'm saying that if the risk was felt too great, don't insure it. However, most carriers will insure a high risk service or product but with premiums consistent or greater than the risks involved.

Then again, I'm sure there are times a carrier will not issue a policy regardless of the proposed insured's willingness to pay a high premium.

 

[Everskyward]

Just looking for comments - has anyone else noticed the insurers getting risk-averse to the point of silliness?

On the other hand, I've noticed that with bigger airplanes the insurance companies seems to be more willing to insure with lower times in type. I was surprised to find out that, as far as the insurance company was concerned, two pilots with fresh type ratings earned 100% in a simulator could climb into a brand new business jet and fly it away. Granted, simulator schools do a decent job of instruction but it's still not the real thing. It was the owner, not the insurance company, who wanted me to have 20 hours with a contract pilot before flying with our own zero-hour SIC. The contract pilot gave me a lot of good pointers, but it was not an instructional situation by any means, and we were carrying passengers the whole time (part 91).

 

[TMetzinger]

Mari, I bet that they wouldn't let someone with hundreds or thousands of hours in the jet jump in and fly it if none of the time was recent (like the last 90 days). I spoke with an underwriter today and what they want more than anything else is recent time in type or a recent flight with an instructor/check airman.

And that makes sense when you're assuming a high risk like a multimillion dollar jet - but the value of a 172RG is less than 100K, and the liability for the policy in question wasn't that high. So I think it comes down to the fact that the people making the decisions are working from a "one-size-fits-all" script, and there's no judgement in the process anywhere.

 

[Everskyward]

Mari, I bet that they wouldn't let someone with hundreds or thousands of hours in the jet jump in and fly it if none of the time was recent (like the last 90 days). I spoke with an underwriter today and what they want more than anything else is recent time in type or a recent flight with an instructor/check airman.

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote before, but they were requiring zero hours in type, recent or otherwise, unless you counted the simulator. Granted, the checkride was within the same month. I don't have any idea what that insurance costs but I guess the insurance companies haven't seen too many claims resulting from this kind of situation.

 

[TMetzinger]

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote before, but they were requiring zero hours in type, recent or otherwise, unless you counted the simulator. Granted, the checkride was within the same month. I don't have any idea what that insurance costs but I guess the insurance companies haven't seen too many claims resulting from this kind of situation.

No - that's my point - what seems to matter is recency of experience or training (and the sim counts of course), rather than total time in type. Thus someone just out of initial training is seen as a lower risk than someone with hundreds or thousands of time in type but the time was a while ago.

I can see where that would be attractive - you've got a CFI or training organization who just certified the pilot as competent. If he bends one, you've got a potential person to sue to recover some of your losses.

 

[Ted]

That is most surprising, Mari, it surprised me, as well.

Of course, even though I can legally fly any single engine plane up to 12,500 lb gross weight, nobody would insure me on it. You, on the other hand, have more hours than I ever will, and so I see that as a slightly different risk assessment.

 

[Everskyward]

No - that's my point - what seems to matter is recency of experience or training (and the sim counts of course), rather than total time in type. Thus someone just out of initial training is seen as a lower risk than someone with hundreds or thousands of time in type but the time was a while ago.

I understand and agree with this part. Recency counts for a lot.

My only point is that while the sim is a great training tool, it is not the airplane. For one thing, you never get to see anything aft of the cockpit. Even opening and closing the main door is a new experience. Also, the real airplane may not be set up anything like the sim as far as avionics and other aftermarket add-ons are concerned. That's not so much a big deal with an airplane right out of the factory, but older airplanes have had many things done to them and they are sometimes quite different than the sim. Of course it's not anything you can't usually figure out on your own or by asking someone.

I can see where that would be attractive - you've got a CFI or training organization who just certified the pilot as competent. If he bends one, you've got a potential person to sue to recover some of your losses.

Good luck with that, especially in the case of the CFI. I guess I just found it interesting that the insurance companies appear to be more particualar with a 5-6 figure 172 than an 8 figure business jet, but I'm sure the statistics prove that their reasoning is justified.

You, on the other hand, have more hours than I ever will, and so I see that as a slightly different risk assessment.

Haha. The thing is that I still see myself as the same person I was when I flew much smaller Cessnas. Even then I would sometimes think, "I can't believe someone is letting me do this." But that rarely stopped me. Hey, if someone hands me the keys I'm going to try it.

 

[Ted]

Haha. The thing is that I still see myself as the same person I was when I flew much smaller Cessnas. Even then I would sometimes think, "I can't believe someone is letting me do this." But that rarely stopped me. Hey, if someone hands me the keys I'm going to try it.

That was my exact thought when I was flying back from my check ride after having passed. I still keep on feeling that way... and I haven't turned down an opportunity to try something new yet when thrown the keys. Of course, the owner always comes with me to tell me what I need to know.