What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

40 hour fly off insurance

J

jtrollin

Well Known Member
So I am getting close to finishing my plane, but can't seem to find an insurer that will cover me for the first 40 hours.

Has anyone else had this issue, if so what did you do.

I see my options are:
Just fly and "self insure"
spend $15000 renting a plane to get the extra 100 hours they want (I have 160 hours tt)
Maybe move the plane under a corporation to remove personal liability (not sure if this would even work).

Sucks speending 5 years building a plane and not be able to fly it without risking all my assets.

thanks,
 
Your not as close to flying as you think. Ask me how I know. You most definitely want to have your plane insured for full coverage unless you are financially able to handle a worst case scenario. If you need an additional 100 hours before the insurance company will cover you, that is a good excuse to take the time out and get it done. Perhaps use that time to get your high performance rating (you need that for the -10) and maybe your IFR rating if you don't have those.
 
i have a lot of tail dragger time and went to aopa for my rv7 . hey required 1 hr in rv7 and i got full coverage. i only have total time 400hrs 150 tail dragger.
 
Myself and another local RV-10 builder just got burnt by Agressive leaving the market. My friend is in the same boat as you. Some of the quotes I heard he got were outrageous.

I have 350 hours plus an IFR rating. There are still quite a few companies that won't insure the first flight or Phase I. This means that I have aout two months to get Phase I completed. With my work schedule it will be tough, but feasible if the weather cooperates. If I can complete Phase I before having to switch insurance, I'll save $2k. My rates quotes were all over the map from $3.1k to over $7k.

bob
 
Are Your Referring to Hull Insurance or the Whole Enchilada

If I recall, when I first launched in '04, the liability was covered but not the hull. Seems like the insurance companies have figured out that if something bad is going to happen, it's going to be in the first few hours. At that time, my PIC time wasn't an issue, but I still needed 4-5 hours of transition in make and model to get the liability covered.
Ask the carriers you're looking at what they really want/need to provide (any) coverage. Perhaps the best thing to do is have someone else with strong credentials do the flight testing for you. If you do it right, there's still an awful lot of work to do after each test flight and you'll benefit from being (hopefully) more relaxed while you inspect and debrief. Good luck.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Ask the insurance company if hiring a test pilot for the first X number of hours could reduce the insurance rate and allow for first flight coverage.

Also, did you have tech and first flight advisors involved from your local EAA chapter? I did and they took that into consideration.

Also, I had about 350 TT with 150 tailwheel in a bunch of different planes before making my first flight. All that contributed to a three hour "in any side-by-side RV" requirement.

Talk to them, see what they want. Maybe 10 hours with Mike S. will get you qualified.
 
I already have my instrument rating, high performance and transition training. If I tried to get another 100 hours of flight time I might as well moth ball my 10 as it would take another 2 years to build up that time renting a plane.

Just really frustrated by this, never thought I would be uninsurable in my plane. I have not tried aopa yet, maybe I will give them a call and see what they can do.
 
Insurance during the test phase period

Normally for lower time guys like yourself, for the RV-10 you would need to be placed with a transitional insurance company and these companies do not cover the test phase period. One company may give you liability coverage while flying during the test phase period but not physical damage coverage while flying. There are 4 insurance companies that WILL cover the entire test phase period in full if the pilot is qualified. For the RV-10's most carriers want the pilot to have 200 to 250 total hours. If the pilot is under this than they may decline to quote the risk. You could place another higher time pilot on the policy to fly off all the hours and than if the insurance company approves of this pilot this would now be covered. Then you can build up your total hours in another aircraft to qualify for the insurance. If its too expensive to build up your hours renting another aircraft then once the hours are flown off you can then be placed with one of the transitional insurance companies. You may not get to fly the hours off your aircraft but this may be your only option for now to have the plane covered during the phase one testing period.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.

Jenny Estes
NationAir Aviation Insurance
877-475-5860
[email protected]
 
In 11/2011 there was one that covered me during phase 1 at around 150 TT/VFR. They no longer do. One thing that might have helped me is that I continued to rent 172's while building(1-2 hrs/mo.). Upon renewal late last year, we went with Jenny and highly recommend her.
 
Phase I Insurance

I first flew my bird a year ago. I got my insurance thru Jenny at Nationair. At that time, she told me there were only three insurers that would cover an RV during the flyoff period.
The insurance was more expensive than I had expected (but at least I got it!) Jenny said the premium would drop the first time I renewed after completing Phase I. I'll find that out very soon.
 
It may not be the RV & test. For example, they may be looking at the 160 hrs TT.

The first step ought to be to find out what's the issue for the underwriters - you or the airplane? So, for example, what would be the approximate premium for a SR20 for you. Adjust for any hull value difference and see how it compares. It might not be significantly different. In which case, they want the added hours, not to prove the airplane, but to add to your experience.

IIRC, with my 7A, the way the test period coverage worked is that they (AIG - now Chartis) wrote the policy as requested and just had a higher deductible for the first ten hours. (A few years ago and I don't recall the details precisely.)

Dan
 
Things have definitely gotten more difficult. In Oct 2011, I went with Britt/Paulk, no longer in the business, with 150 total hours. 10% deductible for phase 1 for about $2,500. I was worried about the phase 1 risk, but everyone i talked with said they would be comfortable with the risk. I could have paid an extra $1,000 to eliminate the deductible, but i used that money for Avgas instead. It all worked out great.
 
jchang10 said:
Britt/Paulk, no longer in the business,
Click to expand...

Insurance is a for-profit business. Apparently they have all come to the same conclusion, that insuring low time pilots in RV10's does not make money. Since they base their conclusions on claim experience (and to some level gut feel) it suggests, in the words of Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

My personal opinion, as a CFI with about 1000 hours of dual given:

The AVERAGE 160 hr pilot, given some transition training, should be okay in a -10. But the AVERAGE 160 hr pilot has absolutely no business being a test pilot.
Perhaps that's part of the phase 1 issue with the insurance companies.

Edit: I forgot to mention, 80% of pilots think that they are "better than average"!
 
I flew the first 5 hours without insurance then Falcon

I simply could not afford the insurance for the first 5 hours and I was in a situation where I could fly without it and I did. Then I had no problem getting affordable insurance for the RV-6A with 5 hours of flight time. I had around 4000 hours PIC at that time (2004).

Bob Axsom
 
The average builder should not test fly either before having a thorough inspection by several builders/A&P's. Most of our low time -10 accidents were not caused by lack of piloting skills, but a few loose nuts. Insurance companies might be better off ensuring our planes are properly inspected and flown within gliding distance of home base for a short time with another inspection before released out to 75 miles. If I could not have obtained hull insurance, I would have flown my 25 hours anyway.
 
Keep your chin up

Life is a compromise and so is everything around it, especially airplanes.
Experience is not free, it wasn't for any of us.
Your problem is getting an additional 50 to 100 hours before getting acceptable insurance quotes.
You have many options:

At 160 hours you'll need some additional training to get a grip on the RV10.
First off, you'll need some transition training in an RV10 maybe 10 hours or so.
You'll need a check out in a high performance airplane another 4 or 5 hours maybe.
Follow Jenny's advice and find a competent pilot to fly at least the first few hours in your RV-10 and have him covered on at least liability.
Then you have to make a choice, you can either get more experience in a rented airplane or simply assume the risk and fly the Dickens out of your RV-10 until you have accumulated enough hours to qualify for acceptable insurance rates.
You can reduce your risk by flying within gliding distance of an airport, not a big problem at 8000 feet and you can do lots of work in your RV10 to get comfortable.
Everyone has a different tolerance for risk and at almost 3000 hours I opted for liability only for the 40hour test phase.
I also can't imagine that this insurance thing is coming as a complete surprise to you and you must have some sort of plan to get current in a high performance airplane before climbing into an RV-10.
Once again, allowing 2 pilots during the phase one test period would greatly reduce the risk for all of us but that is a subject for another debate.
 
insurance

Aviation Insurance Resources in Frederick MD found me the best rates and full coverage for first flight and beyond. I had five hours transition training in a -10 and 400 hours total SEL prior in a Warrior. I have million dollar liability and 75K hull coverage for $1450 a year.

BTW, 325 hours in three years since first flight. What a great plane!
 
Thread drift warning

If you have a ten with $75 K hull coverage you either have the most bare bones ten out there, or you are very under insured, which has its own problems.

I presume that your "million dollar" liability is restricted to $100K per passenger?

How did you get a high performance endorsement flying nothing but a Warrior?
 
Who actually does your test flying is a different topic entirely from the initial insurance coverage at the time. However, I do concur since i did not do my first flight and initial flight hours and was grateful that several others with a LOT more experience was able to help me.
 
BobTurner said:
Insurance is a for-profit business. Apparently they have all come to the same conclusion, that insuring low time pilots in RV10's does not make money. Since they base their conclusions on claim experience (and to some level gut feel) it suggests, in the words of Walt Kelly, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

My personal opinion, as a CFI with about 1000 hours of dual given:

The AVERAGE 160 hr pilot, given some transition training, should be okay in a -10. But the AVERAGE 160 hr pilot has absolutely no business being a test pilot.
Perhaps that's part of the phase 1 issue with the insurance companies.

Edit: I forgot to mention, 80% of pilots think that they are "better than average"!
Click to expand...

Wow. As far as i know, the company no longer insures all time RV-10 pilots alike. Without further facts or insider knowledge, not sure how one can make such speculative statements about the decisions made at a private company.
 
Wayne Gillispie said:
The average builder should not test fly either before having a thorough inspection by several builders/A&P's. Most of our low time -10 accidents were not caused by lack of piloting skills, but a few loose nuts. Insurance companies might be better off ensuring our planes are properly inspected and flown within gliding distance of home base for a short time with another inspection before released out to 75 miles. If I could not have obtained hull insurance, I would have flown my 25 hours anyway.
Click to expand...

This is drifting from the original topic, but perhaps should become its own thread.

I agree with Wayne. I'm not aware of any pilot induce errors during Phase I, at least in a RV-10. All the incidents that I'm aware have been mechanical in nature, using due to something not being installed correctly. (I.e. fuel lines not properly tighten). No fatal injuries, but some airframes were severely damaged. I don't have any data as to the amount of pic time for each of these incidents.

So the debate may be, how do we ensure a more consistent quality control? The intent of the EAA Tech Counselor program is good, but the implementation is flawed. I know that my personal experience with multiple Tech Counselors, is that some genuinely care and perform an outstanding job at mentoring and spend a significant amount of time inspecting. But I've also witnessed the five minute drive by, which is totally not adding value to anyone. Fortunately, I have had other RV-10 builders and A&Ps inspect my work. It's amazing what a fresh set of eyes can find.

I am also not endorsing that low time pilots become test pilots. But I also think that pic time may not be an accurate gauge of pilot skills. I do think if you are a relatively low time pilot, you should spend time with a EAA Flight Counselor to see if you are well prepared to conduct the first flight.

So the real question is how to we learn what the underwriters true concerns are, so we can address them head on to assist in lowering our premiums? Surely there has to be more metrics than just time in make/model. (Although that never is a bad thing)
 
"...Surely there has to be more metrics than just time in make/model..."

That hasn't seemed to be the case with all the aircraft that I have owned. Seems like the more time you have the better they like you (cost)...at least to a point. Beyond that it doesn't seem to matter....

It has been my experience instructing, that there is a definite danger zone when low time pilots feel they are bulletproof and know all there is to know. (come to think of it, there are some high time guys like this, too!)Once they realize that no one knows it all and everyone can learn more, things are much better.

Point is, it doesn't matter how much time you have (except to the insurance companies). Take the proper precautions, get some instruction in the type if you can, make a plan, and FLY THE PLAN.

BE SAFE OUT THERE....
 
rocketman1988 said:
"...But the AVERAGE 160 hr pilot has absolutely no business being a test pilot..."
Click to expand...
I'd like to see stats on this, but I have suspected for many years that pilots who have just completed their PPL may be well qualified, at least for a short time thereafter. They've spent significant time in one-on-one training, practising forced approaches, spin avoidance, and are generally quite well in tune with the aircraft they're training on. If nothing else, they're comfortable enough with those activities that they have something "left in the tank" to deal with other new stuff that might come up.

Contrast that to someone with 1000 hours, but only 10 in the last year or two (maybe) as the RV was being finished. How likely is it that those 10 hours included any forced approach practise, spins, slow flight, etc?

I suspect only the insurance companies would be able to comment on any of this, as they have the actuarial tables. But it would be interesting to see. In my area I can only recall hearing of *one* student pilot dying in a crash while solo. Every other student-involved crash I can recall had an instructor on board as well...
 
"...They've spent significant time in one-on-one training, practising forced approaches, spin avoidance, and are generally quite well in tune with the aircraft they're training on..."

But how many train in a "high performance" aircraft?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I think a newly minted PPL test flying a high performance airplane carries additional risks over one that is test flown by someone with thousands of hours in high performance airplanes.

Not saying that the new PPL shouldn't or can't do it, just that there may be additional risks. Apparently, the insurance companies think the same...

Whatever you do, FLY SAFE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top