I read a similar article about the U.K. market but can’t find it now. Basically I think it boils down to insurers exiting the sector and risk appetite of remaining ones decreasing. I have also heard that the increasingly elderly age demographic of GA drives the insurers modelling to higher risk and hence higher premiums.
Peter wrote:
Sure, but this is standard industry lingo. Just like an estate agent will always tell you there is another buyer viewing it tomorrow… or the electronic component rep always says that lead times are lengthening (“allocation” is the magic word which scares the s**t out of buyers) so better get your order in quick.
Well, prices are rising. I hope it won’t hit light GA. But it isn’t just lingo.
A couple of comments on insurance validity:
I used to have for many years, and possibly still have, coverage for an unauthorised flight by someone else. Basically theft of the aircraft, but, hey, there are degrees of “unauthorised”, as anyone who rents a plane out will tell you 
I would fully expect a school/club to have a policy which covers them for a pilot who is not legal to fly – it’s an obvious vulnerability. There is no way they can verify everybody’s validity at any time, let alone at all times. However I would expect named pilots to not be covered in such a case if the non-validity is known to the pilot.
And negligence (e.g. doing the above mentioned 360 to reduce takeoff distance) is always covered.
Anecdotally, it seems that out of w&b is usually covered too, despite attempts by some policies to exclude it. It must be hard to prove most of the time, especially with bad accidents.
Peter wrote:
The insurance is clearly void if the pilot is not licensed. Otherwise, why bother to get a license. Just buy a plane, photoshop a PPL if necessary, buy the insurance and fly it around. By this simple reductio ad absurdum, it is self evident that insurance cannot possibly be valid then. The flight has to be legal.
The insurance is clearly not necessarily void if the pilot is not licensed. Maybe in the UK but not in Sweden. This is part of the exclusion clauses for the insurance of my club aircraft (my emphasis):
The insurance does not apply to
That’s what I said above
I would fully expect a school/club to have a policy which covers them for a pilot who is not legal to fly – it’s an obvious vulnerability. There is no way they can verify everybody’s validity at any time, let alone at all times. However I would expect named pilots to not be covered in such a case if the non-validity is known to the pilot.
Whether any syndicates have such a policy is a good Q…
Something from your old message when you posted this originally:
Peter wrote:
or interestingly departing on a runway which is not authorised by the aircraft manufacturer.
Did they ever explain what this meant? I’ve never flown a plane with a list of runways authorised (what are they expecting? A list of authorised airports with ICAO codes?), or even specifying that you even had to use a runway (many of the planes I have flown were designed to be flown out of a sheep paddock). I sometimes land on beaches so expecting me to use a runway always, let alone one authorized by a company that’s been defunct for 50 years, is a bit of a tall order!
(My current policy with Haywards has no mention of this kind of thing).
Did they ever explain what this meant?
I never asked them, but further down is a post from Mr Bevan who owns Visicover so you can ask him.
Hello
Still working the idea of buying my own airplane.
My kids are growing up, and flying a few hours with them will realistically soon be possible (as the idea of leaving them for a few days for travelling with my wife).
I’d like to know which “factors” have a significant impact on insurance rate (and mechanic cost) and in which proportion if possible.
RG ?
6 seats ?
I am dreaming of an IFR SEP, De-Iced, capable of transporting 250-300 kgs of payload (pilot included) with 4,5hrs of usable fuel, at speed of 140-150kts of greater.
I don’t like Cirruses (even the chute is an indeniable safety argument), but I love TB20’s and Bonanza’s.
Peter wrote:
A broker can influence premiums, by shopping around. He’s supposed to do that anyway on behalf of his clients. Well, he’s supposed to recommend the most suitable policy for the client’s needs…
The seriousness with which they do that varies… especially on renewal, I think some cut some corners and just get a renewal quote from the existing insurer. I have had good success in shopping around with several brokers. I learned that not all brokers work with all insurers… My first broker, when I left him for a better offer, and I disclosed what insurer (not broker) had gotten me it, replied “we don’t work with that one”. It was even one from his home country! (More exactly, the local branch / subsidiary of a British one.)
I also strongly suspect he didn’t do a full market search for me on my first renewal. When I confronted him with better offers, suddenly he was able to find something approaching it with another insurer.
You asked whether there are any insurers that are not brokers, yes there is. I got an offer directly from Aviabel, in parallel with brokers. One of the brokers came back with an offer from Aviabel. It was exactly the same offer, even the same offer number, just the line “brokerage fee” changed (the total cost to me was the same, in the direct offer, the insurer pocketed the brokerage kickback themselves).
Peter wrote:
The insurance is clearly void if the pilot is not licensed. Otherwise, why bother to get a license. Just buy a plane, photoshop a PPL if necessary, buy the insurance and fly it around. By this simple reductio ad absurdum, it is self evident that insurance cannot possibly be valid then. The flight has to be legal.
Yes, but if the owner in good faith rented the plane to the pilot (or someone that hired the pilot) with reasonable assurance the pilot was properly licensed, then the insurance should not be void for the owner. The example of that Swedish club was probably exactly that. The owner (the club) rented the plane to the pilot on basis of his PPL, which was fully valid, forbidding the pilot-renter to do commercial flights with the plane. The club didn’t have an enforcer on every flight checking what is and what is not done (nobody does…), and acted in reasonable trust and good faith. No fault of the club, the insurance is valid for them. Fault of the pilot, the insurance recoups the payout from the liability of the pilot.
That is different from an owner-pilot that is insured himself. Pull that stunt of commercial air transport on a PPL as insured owner-pilot, and I can very well believe your cover can be void.
lionel wrote:
It was exactly the same offer, even the same offer number, just the line “brokerage fee” changed (the total cost to me was the same, in the direct offer, the insurer pocketed the brokerage kickback themselves).
Not fair to call it a kickback. Brokers do need to earn money. They get paid commission to write risk and wholesale prices are lower than retail.
