Even before COVID reared its ugly head, the flying community was voicing its frustration with another impediment to the skies: Insurance.
“Not a day goes by that I don’t get a call about insurance rates,” AOPA President Mark Baker said earlier this year in an industry forum.
A bit of relief may be in site, now that AssuredPartners Aerospace, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s insurance partner, has teamed with an A-rated aviation insurer that has pledged to explore options for pilots up to age 79.
This development could provide more options to those who fly single-engine, piston-powered aircraft with fixed, retractable, or tailwheel gear configurations, and having six seats or fewer and with hull values as high as $500,000.
BasicMed is also scheduled to be an approved underwriting element, giving some pilots potential relief from burdensome insurance-related medical requirements. This insurer will also offer potential coverage options for younger and newer pilots, AOPA officials report.
Many pilots, especially the more seasoned ones, were complaining that their premiums were spiking, coverages were being limited, and restrictions to just get covered were sometimes harsh – often with little to no explanation.
“While general aviation has experienced a boon in this challenging year, reducing insurance pressures has always been on the front burner for AOPA,” said Baker. “We are excited about an opportunity to provide much-needed insurance relief to some pilots. We will continue to explore more options.”
While some pilots may be getting some insurance relief, it’s important to note that this will not apply to all aviators, AOPA officials warn. In addition, annual flight training or safety pilots may be required depending upon the complexity of the insured aircraft. Hull deductibles also will increase with aircraft value.
“This is a welcome change in the tight insurance market,” Baker said. “But there is more to be done. We continue to work with other underwriters to bring relief to more pilots.”
“We’ve been working hard with AOPA to develop options for those pilots who are experiencing difficulty in finding necessary coverage and reasonable premiums,” said Bill Behan, chief executive officer at AssuredPartners Aerospace. “By bringing another choice to the table, we are aiming to allow more capable pilots to stay in the skies.”
“They say age is just a number, and nowhere is that more applicable than in general aviation,” added Baker. “This is one step forward in having pilots judged by their abilities and experience, and not just their age.”
I’m 91.
I want to buy a $34K experimntal plane with 800 hours total pn oit, and Airworthy.
Can get insurance on it?
If so, what kind/how much?
I am Navy-trained, SMEL, instr,, CFI, and lots of time-types Experimntal, andEAA 5572; etc.
Thanks for a reply,
Terry
I am 75 yrs old and just completed vans rv 12, have air worthiness cert. But can not get insuance for under 3000 to 9000 liability only.looks like I’ll never fly again and will have to sell my new plane,total age discrimination.
I like the idea of a GA insurance company. We won’t be insuring jetliners and we won’t be insuring rocket launches. Our risk level ought to be significantly lower.
Just in case you are interested, the question came up at a city commission meeting here about “What happens if a rocket falls on my house?” We’re about 20 nm from KSC, so this isn’t an entirely theoretical question. Some research found that each and every rocket launch from KSC is covered by 1.75 Billion (B for Billion) dollars in liability insurance. I told this to the city commission and also told them that as soon as the meeting was over, I was going to go paint a big red X on the roof of my house . . .
If we limit the exposure to GA aircraft, the risks are lower and that means the premiums can be as well. I think I’m going to grab some copies of aviation insurance policies (for the verbiage) and some actuarial tables, and buy some fresh batteries for my calculator.
Insurance is a numbers game. We just have to see if we can make the numbers work.
It’s interesting how in recent years Alzheimer’s has shown up in NTSB accident reports as a probable cause. So have stroke, cognitive impairment, etc. Most of these are with older pilots, and all were fatal. How does an insurance company, regardless of whether a cooperative or for-profit enterprise manage risk without considering the well documented relationship between several serious diseases and age? FWIW, I had a conversation a few years ago with a couple of MD’s who specialize in treatment of cognitive diseases. Both told me that within the past month they had at least one individual who was mid stage Alzheimer’s that had recently renewed their drivers license (in Washington State). I’ve heard from other medical professionals of similar stories in other states. A past AOPA President wrote in the AOPA Pilot that “if you’re healthy enough to have a drivers license you are healthy enough to fly an airplane.” Sorry AOPA, that just isn’t true. Not at all!
Why are new pilots with limited flying hours not required to pay higher insurance rates? They will certainly have more accidents! Nevertheless, they are not targeted to pay higher insurance rates! The older age discrimination is just a way for insurance companies to target these pilots for increased profits. Discriminations should be no part of insurance coverage! All pilots should pay the same rate. The acceptable cost of insurance comes from pooling all airplanes into one policy. The insurance rate should be based on each airplane determined by the pooled amount and regardless of the pilot’s status!
The GA article about insurance relief for older pilots by AOPA is already clicking. They have reduced insurance rates that pilots are willing to pay. Nevertheless, I warn you not to read the fine print as your aircraft coverage has dwindled to such a low amount that it is almost worthless! Insurance companies will find cheaper ways to lure in pilots but the coverage is an unacceptable scheme.
I hope I don’t age out of insurability before I even get my PPL. (I’m 66, and looking to restart flying lessons soon). I enthusiastically endorse the idea of a Mutual Insurance Corporation for and by pilots. They would have fiduciary responsibility to their investors, who are also their customers.
Proof of competency should be the criterion, not age!
I,AM glad to see that their may be some adjustments with our Insurance, I,am still going I,am a CFI and ATP, I have second class medical, I,LL BE 81 NEXT MONTH ,AND MY MEDICAL IS COMING UP AGAIN. I GUESS I BETTER START PRAYING MORE.
I came to flying late I guess, I was 34. Now in my 70’s I have supported the industry by owning and flying aircraft, paid insurance companies many dollars (Amphibian and tailwheel costs are very high), subscribed to AOPA, EAA and others during my flying hours, paid CFI’s, generally used my disposable dollars flying for pleasure. It is disappointing to think I’ll be un-insurable not because of my skill or health, but because only of age. While 79 may seem like a big improvement with the AOPA agency, that is only one small concession. They wouldn’t talk to me when I bought an Amphib, or when I bought a tail wheel cub. Another insurance company was glad to bind the coverage.
Hopefully some additional changes will come in the next few years. Seems like a company that will accept older pilots could make a business case for the book of business. They just need to do a bit of upfront work looking at experience and qualifications.
I would like to think about Experimentals. And over 15 years ago, I asked about multi-engine coverage for an experimental. I was told why don’t I just build and RV and be happy?
This from a company that supposedly specialized in Experimental aircraft.
My first comment, which I repeat [25 July 2019] and as the ‘saying’ goes, is directed to all seasoned pilots:
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. However, there are no old bold pilots. [That’s a hard say’n.]
Therefore, old pilots are not bold [and being old, they don’t do dumb things, anymore (a harder say’n)].
As a result, their insurance rates should be lower than all others until they [the others] have proven themselves more insurance worthy, and you have to be old to do that. [Much truth is spoken in jest.]
============
Next comment directed to Mark and Bob:
The established insurance companies will be of no help. Contrary to their purported mission of extreme concern for their insureds, they are risk averse and profit focused. Over the long haul it is an industry of unending longevity and an industry which has consistently done better than all others. At the same time it is only fair to observe in so doing they have honored their fiduciary duty to their owners, their shareholders or other investors [they have few parents]. To their insureds they only owe a contractual duty, and they will use that contract to deny coverage at every turn possible [honoring the fiduciary duty stated]. To even think they will help is shouting at the [to avoid politics] tide [for those of you who are washed].
So, what is the only feasible answer for policies which have not tailored out exception after exception in an effort to make them ‘competitive?’ A new Mutual Company owned by pilots and headed by pilots with policies issued customized to the wishes of the insured and requiring only reasonable restrictions on availability [letting claims history assist in making future decisions as to fair insurability and premium structure – knowing all of us will become uninsurable at some point, which is NOT in lockstep with age (and, as to Bob’s point, fixed age limits on insurability doesn’t sound like age discrimination, it IS age discrimination].
For sure. Also put in place a check pilot testing program to inflight test the proposed insured rather than just arbitrarily cutting off at a certain age.
Sounds like age discrimination to me. As an active & current & qualified private pilot with no claims history, why am I no longer insurable just because I have survived for 80 years or more, never having had an incident or accident. The insurance companies have gladly taken my money for several decades, never had to pay any claims.
If I were feeble, unable to recognize my self in the mirror, then I could understand the lack of desire to insure, but as a 79 year old, rapidly approaching the “Magic 80”, do I just give up flying, lay down & die, or continue as I have in the past, fly when I feel like it.
No matter what I do, especially at this age, mow the grass, paint the house, or drive the car, if I do not feel right, I do not proceed with the endeavor. Flying is the same, if I do not feel right, I do not fly. My medical says I meet the required parameters to fly. Self Assessment is the key.
with a NEW thought in the back of my head, that if I do crash, I hope I have the correct address of the owners of the insurance companies, so I can plant my airplane on their business. Age does not make one unfit to fly.
The pilot community is aging. This is another way to make sure they quit earlier. Don’t hold your breath on getting the relief…we are entering an age of turbulent economic unknowns for the country.
Mark, this is great news. We’ve heard hints from insurers before, promises that once “the pool” is refilled after covering big airplane and rocket losses (which is b.s. to general aviation pilots). You could start with your in-house agency; their rates for pilots 70+ are outrageous, at least double for me at last look a couple of years ago. Apparently my 14,000 hours including mostly jet time, over 500 hours tailwheel, a couple of thousand hours single engine time doesn’t cut any ice with them and I’m only flying day, VFR, in my CallAir (Interstate) Cadet and Glastar.
What difference does this make when one is currently limited to less than one million dollars liability insurancefor GA aircraft (unlike the situation for automobiles).
Catch 22;
If one has very few assets …they can’t afford an airplane. If they have assets suitable for owning and operating an airplane……they can’t afford the unwise risk of under insurance for liability. Thus general aviation dies……unless situation can be changed by having major auto insurance companies cover general aviation aircraft with adequate liability insurance.
This insurance issue, or should I say insurability, has generated more comment than any other issue I can remember. The reason is obvious; it is an ongoing and increasing problem, will de-aviate many qualified aviators, and wreak havoc on GA aircraft valued as the market will have a supply side larger than demand. So, as a group, let us not allow this problem to go unsolved.
Therefore, please let me say again that the solution may be found in a new mutual company manned by pilots for pilots with the actual needs of pilots kept in mind as the guiding policy of the company’s purpose and how it functions. This new mutual company can enter onto a treaty of re-insurance with a rock to insure any necessary or unexpected liquidity calls, to further assure its capacity to survive calls for coverage and yet continue to operate through any challenge. Let us not miss this opportunity.