It just gets better and better. I got the text for the policy
They now want the Sport Pilot renters for our J-3 to have
250 hours total time. 100 hours tailwheel and 25 hours make and model or 15 hours dual with 15 takeoffs and landings
The 15 dual is fine but 250 hours total time is crazy. How can anyone learn to fly with that restriction?
Said renters insurance would not help because if the reqirements are not met or my policy is not for sport pilots then the renters policy is void.
I'm still calling around but this may be a big problem.
I guess the only solution is to not use an old cheap airplane.
better and better
Moderator: drseti
better and better
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
-
Jeff Tipton
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Dickson, TN
Gentlemen - if insurance companies are so reluctant to cover your business for Sport Pilot training ... how do other Sport Pilot training companies (FBO's?) offer it?
Are those companies paying exorbitant premiums? Are they charging super-high rental and instruction rates to cover it? Are they just requiring their student to buy their own hull and liability policies? (or letting students fly "naked"?)
Good grief - 250 hours required before covering a Sport Pilot renting a Cub? So how's the student Sport Pilot get insurance to fly a LSA in the first place?
This is really interesting. We've been talking for over two years about how difficult it is to get insurance for SP instruction, yet there are always a few who say it's no problem at all. Maybe for some it's no problem at all - because they don't provide any insurance, and require renters to assume full liability?
Tom
Are those companies paying exorbitant premiums? Are they charging super-high rental and instruction rates to cover it? Are they just requiring their student to buy their own hull and liability policies? (or letting students fly "naked"?)
Good grief - 250 hours required before covering a Sport Pilot renting a Cub? So how's the student Sport Pilot get insurance to fly a LSA in the first place?
This is really interesting. We've been talking for over two years about how difficult it is to get insurance for SP instruction, yet there are always a few who say it's no problem at all. Maybe for some it's no problem at all - because they don't provide any insurance, and require renters to assume full liability?
Tom
Denise POrter at Aviation West 760-727-7444 is the best person to talk to about insurance. We use her for our school and have been very happy. In what is general a bad industry, she is a delight to work with and actually knows what she it talking about.
If you want to talk about our experience (5 LSA...6 as of today on the flight light), email me at [email protected]
If you want to talk about our experience (5 LSA...6 as of today on the flight light), email me at [email protected]
Thanks for the lead. I did some calling this morning then got sidetracked chasing cell phone companies down. Seems they erected a 199ft tower a mile from the end of our runway on a hill top. Up in one afternoon. Had to make sure it was 199ft and lighted.
I'm still not happy about it but FAA ran it down our throats.
I'll condense this thread over to the why there are so few SP flight schools thread to make it easier to follow.
Will be calling around for more insurance ideas tomorrow.
I'm still not happy about it but FAA ran it down our throats.
I'll condense this thread over to the why there are so few SP flight schools thread to make it easier to follow.
Will be calling around for more insurance ideas tomorrow.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
-
Bob Mackey
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:11 pm
Good conversation, albeit a little depressing, when you start talking about insurance or sport pilot training.
As an independent agent I can tell you there are many hurdles to be overcome in setting insurance for ANY new flight schools, regardless of sport pilot and light sport aircraft. The insurance companies are very reluctant to insurance a new flight school becuase they worry about lack if adeqaute finances, which insurance companies believe leads to the flight school taking short cuts or cutting corners...which may lead to losses.
For the flight schools I've worked with I've found insurance can be obtained, however the exceptions (or challenges) include; tailwheel aircraft and aircraft (ELSA) that have migrated out of the ultralight community. It is difficult to arrange insurance for flight schools teaching sport pilot students in these aircraft. Why? The insurance companies will say (according to their data) tailwheel aircraft have more accidents (on the ground) than tricycle gear aircraft. In addition, since most tailwheel aircraft are tube and fabric insurance companies will say (their data again) that is more difficult to find a repair shop for a tube and fabric aircraft and when you do the cost to repair will be greater than composite or metal. Keep in mind...insurance companies generally across the board charge 25% to 35% more for tailwheel aircraft regardless of the use. Further, when it comes to a flight school the insurance companies stipulate higher pilot requirements because they are afraid of low time pilots in tailwheel aircraft. (It's all drven by the insurance companies loss history. Many insurance companies will not insure any, or very few, tailwheel aircraft.)
Bob
As an independent agent I can tell you there are many hurdles to be overcome in setting insurance for ANY new flight schools, regardless of sport pilot and light sport aircraft. The insurance companies are very reluctant to insurance a new flight school becuase they worry about lack if adeqaute finances, which insurance companies believe leads to the flight school taking short cuts or cutting corners...which may lead to losses.
For the flight schools I've worked with I've found insurance can be obtained, however the exceptions (or challenges) include; tailwheel aircraft and aircraft (ELSA) that have migrated out of the ultralight community. It is difficult to arrange insurance for flight schools teaching sport pilot students in these aircraft. Why? The insurance companies will say (according to their data) tailwheel aircraft have more accidents (on the ground) than tricycle gear aircraft. In addition, since most tailwheel aircraft are tube and fabric insurance companies will say (their data again) that is more difficult to find a repair shop for a tube and fabric aircraft and when you do the cost to repair will be greater than composite or metal. Keep in mind...insurance companies generally across the board charge 25% to 35% more for tailwheel aircraft regardless of the use. Further, when it comes to a flight school the insurance companies stipulate higher pilot requirements because they are afraid of low time pilots in tailwheel aircraft. (It's all drven by the insurance companies loss history. Many insurance companies will not insure any, or very few, tailwheel aircraft.)
Bob
Bob Mackey
Senior Vice President
Falcon Insurance Agency
(EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan)
Senior Vice President
Falcon Insurance Agency
(EAA Aircraft Insurance Plan)
Thanks Bob,
What struck me as odd was the cost for our PA-11.
This airplane is not a taildragger but is tricycle gear. See my photos page on this site
The tricycle gear was installed as an option under the Type certificate data sheet. Not an STC or field approval.
The Quote for this airplane was higher than a new 120,000 LSA.
My hull value is $40,000.
The tailwheels having higher claims I can understand but look up NTSB reports for a J-3 and then a 172 in the same amount of time. I know there are more 172's around but how many of these accidents are due to being tailwheel in the J-3.
I think the insurance companies base odds on all tailwheel airplanes. It is not shown that the tailwheel airplanes usually operate in riskier conditions. Bush strips, skis, floats, pipeline patrol, fish and game spotting, banner tow, glider tow, instruction, aerobatics, airshows.
Private owners usually fly nosewheels and there are more of them .
The type of use is to blame more than the configuration. The end result of the accident may be a ground loop but other configurations run off runways also. Most with more damage.
Same with Stall Spin accidents. There are lots of those but how else are you supposed to crash? If the engine does not fail, weather is good, lots of gas, not overloaded and nobody midairs or does something dumb then stall spin during maneuvering is the only other way to crash.
It is easy to not stall. Easy to recover too. But if that happens then there is no accident.
Historically the airplanes with the most resistance to dumb pilots crash the most. Cessna 337, Ercoupe, ultralights.
As far as looking at finances go. Even the State BOA wants to see my cash flows before considering a grant to help extend the runway. Then they tie my property up with a lein for the entire duration of the grant for the entire amount.
After that they want all the contracts signed and bid before awarding anything. If they back out I'm holding the check.
I guess even employers look at credit ratings for new hires now.
What struck me as odd was the cost for our PA-11.
This airplane is not a taildragger but is tricycle gear. See my photos page on this site
The tricycle gear was installed as an option under the Type certificate data sheet. Not an STC or field approval.
The Quote for this airplane was higher than a new 120,000 LSA.
My hull value is $40,000.
The tailwheels having higher claims I can understand but look up NTSB reports for a J-3 and then a 172 in the same amount of time. I know there are more 172's around but how many of these accidents are due to being tailwheel in the J-3.
I think the insurance companies base odds on all tailwheel airplanes. It is not shown that the tailwheel airplanes usually operate in riskier conditions. Bush strips, skis, floats, pipeline patrol, fish and game spotting, banner tow, glider tow, instruction, aerobatics, airshows.
Private owners usually fly nosewheels and there are more of them .
The type of use is to blame more than the configuration. The end result of the accident may be a ground loop but other configurations run off runways also. Most with more damage.
Same with Stall Spin accidents. There are lots of those but how else are you supposed to crash? If the engine does not fail, weather is good, lots of gas, not overloaded and nobody midairs or does something dumb then stall spin during maneuvering is the only other way to crash.
It is easy to not stall. Easy to recover too. But if that happens then there is no accident.
Historically the airplanes with the most resistance to dumb pilots crash the most. Cessna 337, Ercoupe, ultralights.
As far as looking at finances go. Even the State BOA wants to see my cash flows before considering a grant to help extend the runway. Then they tie my property up with a lein for the entire duration of the grant for the entire amount.
After that they want all the contracts signed and bid before awarding anything. If they back out I'm holding the check.
I guess even employers look at credit ratings for new hires now.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
What does your stable consist of now? Last I knew it was 2 SkyArrows, the Tecnam and the SportCruiser. I hope you added a couple of Tecnam. Sweet plane. I'll be flying it Saturday weather permittingtadel001 wrote: If you want to talk about our experience (5 LSA...6 as of today on the flight light), email me at [email protected]
Ron
2 Sky Arrows, the Tecnam Echo, and the Tecnam Sierra.
Helen
Helen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Quality Flight Training, Rentals, and Service
Factory Authorized RV-12 Training and Service Center
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Quality Flight Training, Rentals, and Service
Factory Authorized RV-12 Training and Service Center
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com
Insurance companies want sure thing bets, or as close as they can get.
Therefore, they want all schools to use 172's or other known airplanes. Everything else is suspect - NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS KILLS. They do not care one iota, they are not betting on a better mousetrap even if they know that means the trap will possibily not survive in the market.
If insurance companies cared about lives, they would set up policies in line with what they preach about saving lives. No one starting a flight school will put new planes on the line unless they are otherwise making lots of money. Simply put, they need to right off the school loss against their other income to make it work at all. Now, if the business doesn't start renting out the new plane at a rate of over 400 hours a year, it will lose so much money due to insurance costs that it will likely fold.
Every new plane has a Hobbs or TAC. Yet the insurance companies continuously ignore this as a way to measure their liability and not charge a school owner $1,000 per month for a plane that sits in a hangar. I have spoken to a bunch of them about how to work the math for this so that they are practically guaranteed higher profits, yet all they can say is that they don't do it that way. Not that it wouldn't work, not that it's worth looking at, just that it's not the way it's done. One of the guys is now President of his firm (Avemco)
Yes, that's right, the insurance industry that now has as much influence over your healthcare as your doctor, is full of these people. It's a good thing that health insurance wasn't started a hundred years ago, or they would still use Leeches for everything that ales you.
Sorry to Bob, and I hope he doesn't take it personally, but I can't take it anymore.
Therefore, they want all schools to use 172's or other known airplanes. Everything else is suspect - NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS KILLS. They do not care one iota, they are not betting on a better mousetrap even if they know that means the trap will possibily not survive in the market.
If insurance companies cared about lives, they would set up policies in line with what they preach about saving lives. No one starting a flight school will put new planes on the line unless they are otherwise making lots of money. Simply put, they need to right off the school loss against their other income to make it work at all. Now, if the business doesn't start renting out the new plane at a rate of over 400 hours a year, it will lose so much money due to insurance costs that it will likely fold.
Every new plane has a Hobbs or TAC. Yet the insurance companies continuously ignore this as a way to measure their liability and not charge a school owner $1,000 per month for a plane that sits in a hangar. I have spoken to a bunch of them about how to work the math for this so that they are practically guaranteed higher profits, yet all they can say is that they don't do it that way. Not that it wouldn't work, not that it's worth looking at, just that it's not the way it's done. One of the guys is now President of his firm (Avemco)
Yes, that's right, the insurance industry that now has as much influence over your healthcare as your doctor, is full of these people. It's a good thing that health insurance wasn't started a hundred years ago, or they would still use Leeches for everything that ales you.
Sorry to Bob, and I hope he doesn't take it personally, but I can't take it anymore.