Pressurized pistons and insurance

[Morne]

Idle curiosity and all that rot:

Are pressurized piston aircraft more expensive to insure? P210 versus T210, for instance. Could also compare the 58 Barons or the C320 vs. C340. I think the C337 even had a P model...

If they are more expensive to insure, why? Further, where could one go to get some sort of additional training to make the insurance company happier?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

When I moved to the 58P six years ago, insurance was picky. They wanted initial training at an approved provider: SIMCOM, Flight Safety etc. Don't know about the 210. They also wanted ten hours of instruction in the plane. They require annual recurrent training now.

I think going to the pressurized twin puts you on annual recurrent training RADAR until you have quite a bit of time. I'm being told now, they may go to every other year. I have over 1,000 hours of pressurized twin time now and about 3,000 hours total time. Commercial instrument.

Best,

Dave

 

[Skylane81E]

I'd wager as you've added an extra point of possibly fatal failure...

 

[Ted]

Insurance is higher on pressurized piston aircraft. Reasons:

1) You've added more potential areas of failure. A pressurization failure at high altitude can knock you out if you don't react properly, and then you'll crash the plane.

2) Weather at high-altitude can be different and interesting, and fierce. People who are used to being able to skirt close to thunderstorms typically unscathed at lower altitudes will quickly be reminded why this is a bad idea at high altitudes.

3) Enough people have crashed them that insurance companies have reason to believe you'll crash them again.

You'll want to get as much make and model time as you can, as well as some recurrent training from SimCom, FlightSafety, or some other approved training school.