Is this fair?

[Ted]

You really do want that Jetstar don't you!

I need to win the PowerBall for that - a normal lottery wouldn't do. But it would be more feasible with a homebuilt and pistons. B-17 replica, maybe?

 

[rbridges]

You did not read the FBO's policy, did you?

The FBO is covered, you are not.

If something unfortunate happens, and the airplane gets damaged while you are responsible or it, the insurance company will write a check to the FBO to cover the damages, then be knocking at your door looking for reimbursement.

Disclaimer-

Student pilots are covered. The FBO/insuctor is considered the responsible party. As soon as one passes the Private Checkride, Renter's Insurance becomes neccessary.

I was a student pilot, and I only used planes owned by the instructor, not an FBO. So I guess my experience may not apply to the OP's question.

 

[Headspace]

If you aren't paying attention and you lose an engine, it can get hairy in a hurry.

To my why of thinking it takes a certain sort of discipline to fly one with reliable safety. Many folks jukst don't have it, will never have it; some can be trained but many should NEVER go there.

Is there any insurance benefit to be had, in your guys' experience, for holding a multi-engine rating if you're not actually flying multi?
I'm guessing no, but I was curious.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

So is the general consensus to buy the full coverage (1Mil/50k) when renting no matter what the flight school requires?

 

[JHW]

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins.

because most any mishap can total the plane. Get a dual prop strike and it's all over, economically-speaking.

 

[bbchien]

Is there any insurance benefit to be had, in your guys' experience, for holding a multi-engine rating if you're not actually flying multi?
I'm guessing no, but I was curious.

No. The insurors see your claimed hours and they know the story.

I cost half of what a cirrus costs to insure and I'm 1 Mil smooth in the Seneca, hull value well into the 6 digits.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins. And yet the multi-engine rating doesn't appear to even take that long to get. Is there an inherent difficulty in flying them or is it more a matter of people biting off too much plane than they can chew?

Well, if you don't pay attention, losing one can make the plane get away from you in a hurry.

But, I think maybe the bigger thing is that all twins have complex systems (ie expensive to repair) and are relatively fast, meaning that pilots who aren't used to thinking at that speed can get behind a twin pretty quickly. I would imagine that if you look at insurance rates for high-performance singles that are similar to the twins and then take into account the additional expenses of repairing two engines in a gear up for example, as well as the slight added risk of loss of control after an engine failure that the numbers would probably make sense.

 

[greghughes]

So is the general consensus to buy the full coverage (1Mil/50k) when renting no matter what the flight school requires?

Yes, or at least that's my general consensus. You want a policy where you are the named insured, guaranteed, no matter what. When I was learning to fly, the FBO would only rent me their airplanes if I had renters insurance. They have insurance too, but it covers their losses, not the renter.

The best way to be sure and to be in control of your own risk is to minimize it yourself. That counts in the insurance world, too.

I'd think you could get the insurance you're looking for at a lower price. Give Sherri a call and see what they can work up for you, great company and they'll shop around for what you need at the various insurance companies:

Sherri Spears
Regal Aviation Insurance
800-275-7345
www.regalaviation.com

 

[Fearless Tower]

So is the general consensus to buy the full coverage (1Mil/50k) when renting no matter what the flight school requires?

It depends on what you have to lose.

An 18 year old kid with zero assets probably only needs the minimum required coverage to fly. You can't get blood out of a turnip.

On the other hand, many folks who fly GA are able to do so because they have the financial means which means assets that lawyers will come after if something goes wrong (whether it was their fault or not). If you have assets behind you, you need max coverage.

 

[wabower]

Insurance carriers measure occurrence risk and financial exposure if it occurs.

Both are high in twins. See Jeff's example. If a $75k Bo and a $75k Baron (same basic structure other than number of motors) both suffer gear-up landings on the same day with no injuries or property damage other than to the planes, the engine tear-downs and prop repair costs of the Baron are at least double those of the Bo.

If the insurance company totals both hulls, pays the owner the insured value of the policy and sells the hulks to a salvage yard or rebuilder, they know the buyer will consider the cost of repair for each plane and offer much less for the Twin. Twin prices are in the ditch, so nice ones aren't worth much and damaged planes are worth a lot less.

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins. And yet the multi-engine rating doesn't appear to even take that long to get. Is there an inherent difficulty in flying them or is it more a matter of people biting off too much plane than they can chew?

An instructor that I've worked with was able to get a policy in a VLJ easier than in a twin.

 

[bluee]

This is not always the case. I trained at an FBO that covered renters as named insured.

In fact, I'd love to hear of an actual instance where the insurance company came after a renter for aircraft damage where renter's insurance wasn't required and the renter didn't do something utterly stupid/illegal. I bet it doesn't happen the way people here seem to think...

It happened to me several years ago. The owner told me I was covered by their insurance, I was stupid to believe them. I was taxiing an airplane and I scratched a wingtip on a bush. Yeah, I guess it was stupid, but I swore there was something wrong with that airplane because it stopped turning. I offered to pay for it, but they said no, insurance would cover it. But then they found all sorts of things wrong with it, which they claim I did, but it was ridiculous. Long story short, it cost me $10,000 to the insurance company and another $5000 to my lawyer. I was livid, I absolutely refused to pay for this crap I didn't do, but my lawyer finally convinced me that a lawsuit would cost more in legal fees even if I won, and according to the rental agreement, I had little chance of winning because the total burden of proof was on me; the rental company could claim anything and I had little recourse. I have no printable words for that money-grubbing lying sack of **** owner. What really got me is that later I found out after the airplane was fixed, the owner donated it to a charity for the tax deduction. So now I have insurance and will believe no one who would ever say I was covered by their insurance. Also, if I am ever in any kind of incident/accident, I would consult a lawyer before filling out any insurance forms. Insurance people twist any words you say about what happened and use it against you.