Just wondering if anyone has heard what is going to happen with insurance requirements for this upcoming season?
Is it gonna be easier than last summer? Worse or the same?
It seems like the standard to be 250 hrs on floats for 180/185 and at least 500 hrs on floats for Dhc2. Have any CP's/pilots heard what to expect for this coming season?
Perhaps the only given is gonna be that the cost of the insurance has gone up and it still sux for a newbie to break into the float industry.
Insurance Requirements
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Rudder Bug
-
bottom_feeder
- Rank 1
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:14 pm
-
water wings
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:09 pm
I may well be talking out of my a$$ here, but I doubt that a wish to make things safe has anything to do with it. Insurance companies have one priority. Making the largest possible profit.
Upping the base premiums for operating an aircraft on floats will force operators to seek higher-time profits in order to reduce the cost of insurance.
Whether accomplished by upping premiums or cutting pay-outs, they will do as much as possible to maximize their profit.
Previously, insurance companies invested your premiums, and counted on the combination of the interest that was made on that capital and the long-term leveling effect of premiums constantly being payed to counter-balance the effect of incidents that would have cost them money.
These days, insurance companies attempt to report a profit every single year - they seem to have lost their long-term perspective. Industry insiders have come forward and claimed that many underwriters instruct their employees that a minimum of 50% of insurance claims should be disallowed, regardless of circumstances. In addition to that, the industry-wide gouging or percieved "high risk" customers without regard for their actual history has reached new heights - the Alberta Government has recently been forced by public pressure to legislate changes to insurance premiums.
Please note that I'm note talking about individuals with a record of irrepsonsible driving, simply those that don't have a long record of being continually insured on their own policy.
Upping the base premiums for operating an aircraft on floats will force operators to seek higher-time profits in order to reduce the cost of insurance.
Whether accomplished by upping premiums or cutting pay-outs, they will do as much as possible to maximize their profit.
Previously, insurance companies invested your premiums, and counted on the combination of the interest that was made on that capital and the long-term leveling effect of premiums constantly being payed to counter-balance the effect of incidents that would have cost them money.
These days, insurance companies attempt to report a profit every single year - they seem to have lost their long-term perspective. Industry insiders have come forward and claimed that many underwriters instruct their employees that a minimum of 50% of insurance claims should be disallowed, regardless of circumstances. In addition to that, the industry-wide gouging or percieved "high risk" customers without regard for their actual history has reached new heights - the Alberta Government has recently been forced by public pressure to legislate changes to insurance premiums.
Please note that I'm note talking about individuals with a record of irrepsonsible driving, simply those that don't have a long record of being continually insured on their own policy.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
-
Boss Hawg
- Rank 4
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:38 pm
- Location: North of somewhere and south of everything to the north
- Contact:
Re: Insurance Requirements
HA!bottom_feeder wrote:Just wondering if anyone has heard what is going to happen with insurance requirements for this upcoming season?
Is it gonna be easier than last summer?
Has anyone EVER heard of insurance going down? Or fuel? Not knocking you bottom feeder, my contempt is with the insurance and oil co's. The ones who are responsible for killing our industry.
[quote="w squared"] I doubt that a wish to make things safe has anything to do with it. Insurance companies have one priority. Making the largest possible profit.]
Not that i think your wrong but wouldn't having aircraft operating safely translate into more profits? Isn't it around a million per death these days?
Not that i think your wrong but wouldn't having aircraft operating safely translate into more profits? Isn't it around a million per death these days?
I'd say that you're right, neechi...greater safety would mean more profits (as the premiums aren't gonna go down)
My point is that in lieu of trying to reduce accidents, the insurance companies are trying to reduce payouts by denying claims as often as possible.
Maybe it's my own perception (formed more by analagous examples than by statistics), but I'm starting to see insurance companies as reneging on their part of the contract. As a customer, you spend years paying premiums in the belief that if/when something unfortunate happens, you are protected. The underwriters seem to be investing a huge amount of effort in assuring that they will have to pay out as seldom as possible.
-If your home is unoccupied for more than 48 hours, your homeowner's insurance is no longer valid until you return. At least you can get out of this one by having somebody visit your house periodically while you're away - provided that they record when they visited.
-If you have a summer home, and the driveway is not plowed, the underwriter will state that it was not accessible to the fire department, and thus you are not covered in the event of a fire.
-If you make a personal disability claim after an accident, it is a commonly accepted practice to delay, stall, and litigate for as long as their lawyers can devise in an attempt to pauperize you and force you into accepting a smaller settlement. A friend of mine's sister is in that situation right now - the only reason that she has been able to hold out as long as she has is her husband's income.
As a result, the only type of insurance that I take any comfort in is liability insurance. In the event of a lawsuit aimed at me, provided that there is no way of their wiggling out of coverage, all of those stalling and evasion tactics will be used to avoid paying out to someone else. Kinda sad, isn't it. I don't see myself as a truly cynical person...but realism and cynicism seem to get closer all the time.
My point is that in lieu of trying to reduce accidents, the insurance companies are trying to reduce payouts by denying claims as often as possible.
Maybe it's my own perception (formed more by analagous examples than by statistics), but I'm starting to see insurance companies as reneging on their part of the contract. As a customer, you spend years paying premiums in the belief that if/when something unfortunate happens, you are protected. The underwriters seem to be investing a huge amount of effort in assuring that they will have to pay out as seldom as possible.
-If your home is unoccupied for more than 48 hours, your homeowner's insurance is no longer valid until you return. At least you can get out of this one by having somebody visit your house periodically while you're away - provided that they record when they visited.
-If you have a summer home, and the driveway is not plowed, the underwriter will state that it was not accessible to the fire department, and thus you are not covered in the event of a fire.
-If you make a personal disability claim after an accident, it is a commonly accepted practice to delay, stall, and litigate for as long as their lawyers can devise in an attempt to pauperize you and force you into accepting a smaller settlement. A friend of mine's sister is in that situation right now - the only reason that she has been able to hold out as long as she has is her husband's income.
As a result, the only type of insurance that I take any comfort in is liability insurance. In the event of a lawsuit aimed at me, provided that there is no way of their wiggling out of coverage, all of those stalling and evasion tactics will be used to avoid paying out to someone else. Kinda sad, isn't it. I don't see myself as a truly cynical person...but realism and cynicism seem to get closer all the time.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
Great insite w squared. Some of the other reasons insurance rates have increased is the speculation on older airframes that aren't being manufactured anymore plus the operaters modernization of switching to Turbine engines in the DHC fleet and the addition of Cessna 208's have driven the price of airframes into the stratosphere.
The insurance companies are very very nervous. When these guys get nervous they tend to extrapolate all sorts of statistics to justify their interference. One of those extrapolations is the young driver stats. They figure if they are crappy car drivers then it only figures they are crappy plane drivers. We all know nothing is further from the truth, but tell them that, they have all the money.
I've been a professional pilot for 35 years and for the last 32 have made my living using my seaplane endorcement. How were things 32 years ago? They were stable and just as safe as they are now so we must have been doing something right. I started flying real people with a bare minimum float rating and so did my buddies. Lots of them are still flying floats today although the ranks have slimmed out a bit.
Making young pilots pay for next to useless flying does not a safer industry make. The gumitup mandates insurance and then they stand by has the bastards pick our pockets, the funny thing is the insurers are taking a sizable chunk of what used to be a tax base! Operaters are no safer today than they were 32 years ago infact I would venture they are less safe because instead of getting good pilots and exersizing their good judgement they have to go with the pilots that can afford to jump through next to useless hoops in the time requirements
The insurance companies are very very nervous. When these guys get nervous they tend to extrapolate all sorts of statistics to justify their interference. One of those extrapolations is the young driver stats. They figure if they are crappy car drivers then it only figures they are crappy plane drivers. We all know nothing is further from the truth, but tell them that, they have all the money.
I've been a professional pilot for 35 years and for the last 32 have made my living using my seaplane endorcement. How were things 32 years ago? They were stable and just as safe as they are now so we must have been doing something right. I started flying real people with a bare minimum float rating and so did my buddies. Lots of them are still flying floats today although the ranks have slimmed out a bit.
Making young pilots pay for next to useless flying does not a safer industry make. The gumitup mandates insurance and then they stand by has the bastards pick our pockets, the funny thing is the insurers are taking a sizable chunk of what used to be a tax base! Operaters are no safer today than they were 32 years ago infact I would venture they are less safe because instead of getting good pilots and exersizing their good judgement they have to go with the pilots that can afford to jump through next to useless hoops in the time requirements
