My guess would be that US insurance companies would micro-manage rates on types that are very familiar to them as loss making risks, versus types that are unfamiliar, uncommon, have approximately zero claims and therefore represent a ‘fleet’ that in its entirely is not worth the trouble to study closely.
I’ve generally found that owning and flying unusual types has cost advantages over going with the crowd, especially if the type has a common place engine etc. My plane is one of five of its type currently insured in the US, but has easy to repair mechanicals. I just pay the modest premium every year and haven’t spoken to the broker in person for many years. They offer renewal annually without any new data from me. Cheaper for insurance and everything else IME to stay under the radar and attach yourself to a unusual type that has a small record of competent ownership than to be confused with Mr Average and his crashed daily somewhere plane.
It seems to me the issue with the DA-42 is an expensive plane, high typical hours per year, certified composite structures plus little non-OEM maintenance and infrastructure for any part of the plane including the engines.
There are several reasons for the tightening insurance market here in the US.
One, and perhaps the biggest factor, is the reduction in companies offering aviation insurance. Over the last 2-3 years several players have left the business, so less competition. Never a good thing.
Secondly, there’s the aging pilot population. As far as our insurance broker tells it, there is a pretty steep cliff once you hit 80 (70 or 75 for some types). Doesn’t mean you cannot fly, but you may well be (and many are) restricted to fixed gear and/or SEP. I know of one guy who has flown pretty much anything that has wings and he now flies a C172.
Thirdly, the familiarity (or lack thereof) of a type. While I guess @Peter’s example of a DA42 must be several years old (they are plentiful now), there is a general reluctance to insure more exotic types. This again has to do with the lack of competition.
Peter wrote:
Regarding Beech aircraft, it’s very possible that somebody in the US analysed the business and found that particular types were a lot more likely to crash, perhaps especially carrying high net worth passengers…
Au contraire. In fact a Beech is a relatively easy airplane to insure, as they are built like tanks and are a known quantity in the insurance market. Not so for a Cirrus, which is treated as a write-off after, say, a gear collapse due to an otherwise benign runway excursion.
Lastly, the insurers are factoring in many more variables than in the past. Total hours, hours in make and model, retract, high performance, license (PPL, CPL or ATPL), IR, etc.
172driver wrote:
Secondly, there’s the aging pilot population. As far as our insurance broker tells it, there is a pretty steep cliff once you hit 80 (70 or 75 for some types). Doesn’t mean you cannot fly, but you may well be (and many are) restricted to fixed gear and/or SEP. I know of one guy who has flown pretty much anything that has wings and he now flies a C172.
Yes. There were several examples in Mooneyspace where people had to sell their planes of 30 or 40 years of ownership when they hit the 70ties. Personally I regard this as age discrimination and wonder why there is no legal way to stop this.
172driver wrote:
the biggest factor, is the reduction in companies offering aviation insurance. Over the last 2-3 years several players have left the business, so less competition. Never a good thing.
This has happened in Europe too. Several big players have pulled out totally. As a result rates are up 20% or more.
@Silvaire, you are flying as un-complex as it goes. We were talking of complex. That you don’t have problems therefore is clear, but kindly have a look around. Quite some of your friends flying complex airplanes may be hit by this the next time they need to renew and hit a certain age.
So you fly all your life, and when you finally retire, you don’t have to stop flying because you are old, medically unfit or what, but because the insurers 2nd guess the FAA and de facto pull your privileges? Do you really find that just? Me not.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
@Silvaire, you are flying as un-complex as it goes. We were talking of complex. That you don’t have problems therefore is clear, but kindly have a look around. Quite some of your friends flying complex airplanes may be hit by this the next time they need to renew and hit a certain age.So you fly all your life, and when you finally retire, you don’t have to stop flying because you are old, medically unfit or what, but because the insurers 2nd guess the FAA and de facto pull your privileges? Do you really find that just? Me not.
Again, I’ve only one known one pilot, an 82 year old man, who has had the issues you describe and he found a solution. In any case, the only constant is change and adaptation. You pick the plane, manage your risk and business based on your real world circumstance, then and there, less so based on apocalyptic internet chat. If I did that based on EuroGA posts, I’d probably never leave the house 
Insurance companies provide products that I can choose to buy, or not. The FAA has no involvement, knowledge or interest in relation to my choices. I don’t foresee insurance issues in my future unless perhaps if I buy a Marchetti in 5 years, as per my savings plan 
. I’m actually pretty happy as is, with 130 kts cruise and 1000 fpm climb, but should I go in that direction I believe I’ll be happy by then to fly without hull insurance on a $250K asset. I buy planes with play money, have plenty of alternate toys, and per plan that will remain the case… for me and I think every other aircraft owner I know personally in the US.
I should ask my friend with the Lancair IV what he’s paying for insurance, it might provide an interesting data point. The expensive insurance premium plane that he was flying was a two seat Extra 300, since sold. Those planes have expensive repair issues, tend towards runway accidents and also tend to imitate a lawn dart occasionally, passenger first. As I recall his cost was thousands of $ per year for liability only on two named pilots. There’s a local company that gives rides in similar planes that has so far killed two fee-paying passengers as well as the pilots. I can’t imagine what they’re paying for insurance. I guess its still a viable business or they wouldn’t do it.
My UK broker has me (age 80) insured with Great Plains, who are US.
Silvaire wrote:
Insurance companies provide products that I can choose to buy, or not.
Yes, but that means that if I choose not to buy insurance, I stop to fly. YES I know you can fly without, but not many will.
As for the FAA not having to do anything with it, again, legally in the US this is true (in Europe not, as you HAVE to have insurance, so you can’t get insurance, you are grounded. Same if you get outpriced.)
However: The FAA is the authority which determines who is to carry out the privileges of pilot. They are the ones who conduct check rides, who oversee pilot fitness, medical and competence. So who are the insurers to second guess this? The FAA won’t give a license to anyone who they determine a “high risk”.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The FAA is the authority which determines who is to carry out the privileges of pilot. They are the ones who conduct check rides, who oversee pilot fitness, medical and competence. So who are the insurers to second guess this?
The US system does not in general rely heavily on government to manage our risk, especially financial risk. FAA does not therefore quantify insurance company financial risk, which is a very broad spectrum of risk within legal operations, nor do they guarantee a pilot is safe – in the US that is primarily his own responsibility. FAA just sets a minimum standard to be demonstrated (once), issues a ‘license to learn’ (a certificate of one time achievement actually), and then they step away. My 93 year old dad who suffers from early stage dementia hasn’t flown in decades but he has a valid Private Certificate, a drivers license that would serve as an Sport Pilot medical, and would only a need a CFI flight review logbook entry to satisfy the FAA… and they wouldn’t even know if he had that logbook entry until there was a reason to investigate. Oddly enough, notwithstanding that my dad isn’t dumb to do anything really stupid, in this case insurance companies with dollars at stake would probably be a little more demanding than FAA bureaucrats who have no legal responsibility nor any skin in the game
Mooney_Driver wrote:
if I choose not to buy insurance, I stop to fly.
I don’t know what would specifically concern you about flying without aircraft insurance but obviously liability and hull coverage are two different and independent things. Levels of coverage for each are up to the consumer in the US. I don’t think liability coverage is what’s concerning insurance companies with retractables etc. so I don’t think there’s much to discuss there. In relation to hull coverage, my current minimum comfort level for is zero coverage – I don’t buy in flight hull coverage now, and only buy ground hull coverage because its cheap. The maybe $40K value of my plane is in the noise relative to other financial risks I have running in parallel, i.e. my retirement fund and property values each bob up down that much or more on a regular cycle, and I think that would be the norm for most US plane owners.
At $250K the hull value would get more of my attention, but when and if I buy something that valuable I’ll be old enough (by design) that an up to $250K loss would not much affect the rest of my life – at some point spending the money will become my problem, not conserving it. I don’t anyway buy toys I can’t afford to lose, regardless of never having had any financial trouble with repairing any vehicle, nor having ever made an insurance claim to repair any vehicle. There can always be a first time, and I find dealing with insurance companies annoying.
Silvaire wrote:
Insurance companies provide products that I can choose to buy, or not. The FAA has no involvement, knowledge or interest in relation to my choices.
3rd party liability insurance is not compulsory in the USA? It is in Europe.
No, aircraft liability insurance is not required by the FAA or any other Federal body (US aircraft are regulated at the Federal level, unlike cars). This drives the lawyers crazy and they regularly lobby (unsuccessfully so far) for a change that would mandate deep pockets for them to drain, and in particular deeper pockets than most insurance buyers currently feel necessary. Government is a great way to increase your paycheck
Most people don’t know that a few US states independently require liability insurance, on the honor system – given that the states have no regulatory role over aircraft, there is no way for them to know either way. And no FAA employee is ever going to ask.
Also, local governments or master ground lease holders may mandate liability insurance if you want the plane in a hangar they control, to shield them if e.g. your plane explodes and burns down the hangar row. Sometimes they do ask, although not in my case.
Few people in the US forego liability insurance. I might do so if I were flying a Cub around a corn field in the middle of nowhere. Otherwise its cheap enough to be in the noise, in my case a little over 10% of my hangar rent for liability coverage.
Silvaire wrote:
I don’t know what would specifically concern you about flying without aircraft insurance
Two things. If I have an accident where third parties get damaged, then various existences can be at stake if I need to pay damages. Mine, those whom I have damaged property and my whole family. This does not only apply to airplanes, but also to cars and general third party insurance for your person, children and family.
There are many examples where people thought they can do without. The result can be life long poverty.
Therefore, third party insurance is mandated for any means of transport in Europe. And that is very good so. I know that you snub this, but well, let’s assume a reckless driver smashes into your house, sets it ablaze and injures your family, only to shrug, declare bancruptcy and be gone, while you sit on all the cost. Or a child of yours inadvertently damages property and gets a million dollar claim, which it has to pay off for the rest of its life.
As an aircraft owner, you can argue, well likely you will be killed anyway. I regard this as the epitome of egoism: Your family and the damaged party will have to live with the fact that you were to stingy to buy insurance.
Hull loss is a very different thing indeed. Here I agree, the risk assessment should be with you, as only you suffer from the loss of your plane or car. I don’t have hull loss on my car, as it is a 20 year old Toyota I can replace for money I actually have. But I do have hull loss insurance for my plane, because if something happens, I have no means to pay for repairs or to replace it. But that is my decision.
