PDA

View Full Version : Insurance



Kevin Armstrong
1st September 2011, 09:04
Joint Aviation have just insured Steve Ward's Magic Cyclone, which he's just bought from Chris Theakstone, for all risks, ie including flying, for 339, when I applied in April this year they were just going into the market and wouldn't insure for flying risks, but unlike Trafford would, at the time, insure for ground risks, for 231 IIRC.

I thought Joint hit that just about right at the time, as it doesn't matter a jot what level of certification the aircraft is made to if the hangar catches fire or it gets pinched. Why Trafford would only insure third party only is an odd decision.

Must welcome this increase in committment from Joint, and hope we SSDR fliers don't give them cause to regret their faith in our safety sense.

Cheers

Kev

PS bearing in mind the rapidly increasing number of mods to G-MGIC, perhaps they were wise to decline flying risks for it...;-)

MICROLIGHT131
2nd September 2011, 12:18
Hi Kev.....

That's strange, I had no problem insuring my Dragonfly last October with Joint Aviation full hull (all risks).
It was however fairly expensive IIRC I paid about 600 plus there was a 500 excess in the event of a claim.
When it is up for renewal again in October I am most likely going to insure third party with Traffords, unless Joint Aviation can do me a improved deal.

mikesands
2nd September 2011, 16:11
Yep - my experience was the same as Wayne's excpet the excess went up to 750 then 1000. fair dues to JAS, they reduced the excess back to 750 when I pointed out their previous quote, but the trend is a bit alarming, and one can only assume that the underwriter is getting several smallish ground damage claims from SSDR owners. My Dragonfly was very expensive so a 1000 excess next year probably won't put me off, but if someone has paid say 6k second hand they will think twice I guess.

Wayne - the percentage that JAS are applying to the aircraft value to work out your premium for all-risks cover is pretty standard in aviation. Can't see them cutting it much, but let us know if they do :-)
Mike

Mike Cowlishaw
2nd September 2011, 19:33
Similar numbers as Wayne and Mike, but a tip of the hat to JAS who advised that if I could get my hours up from 140 to 150 hours there would be a 100 drop in the premium. Wasn't possible, as it happened (thank you, oh weather deity) .. but nice of them to alert me to that!

Mike

MICROLIGHT131
6th September 2011, 11:28
Hi Guys...
I am currently in contact with JAS regarding my renewal.
I am not very happy as the excess for a claim has doubled from 500 to 1000!
Even in the event of a total loss, so in theory you need to insure the hull value for a thousand pound more than it is actually worth.

Dave Smith
8th September 2011, 09:03
Even in the event of a total loss, so in theory you need to insure the hull value for a thousand pound more than it is actually worth.
Don't think you'd get away with that one Wayne. They'd simply give you their idea of the 'market value' (accounting for age/use), MINUS 1000.

Dave

MICROLIGHT131
8th September 2011, 13:52
Dave Smith wrote:
Even in the event of a total loss, so in theory you need to insure the hull value for a thousand pound more than it is actually worth.
Don't think you'd get away with that one Wayne. They'd simply give you their idea of the 'market value' (accounting for age/use), MINUS 1000.

DaveHi Dave, perhaps I should have worded it differently.
I felt I actually under valued the aircraft when I first insured it.

As you say the insurers would have a market value figure guide regarding the pay out, but if you under valued it yourself would the insurers offer you more!

:smilewinkgrin:

alakin
9th September 2011, 12:11
Wayne,

I think the general rule with insurance is that they pay in proportion to the cover that you have paid for. E.g. If you were insured for 90% of the true value then they would pay out 90% of the market value upon claim.

Dave Smith
13th September 2011, 09:53
But I think you'll find that if you insure for 110% of true value, you won't get 110%.
Dave

Steve Uzochukwu
4th October 2011, 12:00
Just checked with Mark Dale, Technical Manager at the BHPA, and the BHPA membership carries 3rd party insurance which provides cover for SSDR at no extra cost.

Cost of BHPA membership is here:

BHPA Fees (http://www.bhpa.co.uk/members/fees/index.php)

I pay 82 a year as a member who pays by direct debit.

You might want to consider checking with the BHPA as this could be a bargain if you free fly and SSDR too.

Dave Smith
4th October 2011, 15:27
Bugger. Just renewed with Traffords today...
Dave

Wally Hayward
4th October 2011, 16:02
Just looked at the "Evidence of Insurance" pdf and it states

"in relation to Hang gliding and paragliding activities only"

Steve Uzochukwu
4th October 2011, 16:32
Wally Hayward wrote: Just looked at the "Evidence of Insurance" pdf and it states

"in relation to Hang gliding and paragliding activities only"
That's the policy summary. You need to check the Master Policy document by asking either Martin Heywood (Insurance Officer) or Mark Dale (Technical Manager).

I've seen the master policy document, and checked with these guys above.

david888
4th October 2011, 16:52
oh joy great news 2 for the price of 1 can we get reward points as well steve

Wally Hayward
4th October 2011, 17:21
Thanks Steve............... I always did look in the wrong place for everything:-)

Mike Cowlishaw
4th October 2011, 18:53
> can we get reward points as well steve

Chuckle .. did have a pleasing moment earlier this year when I used my AAdvantage credit card to pay for some flying lessons .. thereby earning airmiles for flying a flexwing :-)) Enough to get me 1/20 of the way to the USA, in fact!

Mike

Dave S
6th October 2011, 12:29
mmmm interesting! i have 2 SSDRs and although one of them is not flying yet, (be ready in a month or so) the other is added to part of my fleet policy for all risks inc hull. now I would quite happily loose the hull cover and join the BHPA (i have been toying with the idea of a paraglider) if it coverd me 3rd party on them, be an idiot not to, but will they provide some kind of cert for the CAAs proof of insurance requirement??

Dave

Paul Dewhurst
6th October 2011, 12:49
I checked it out today, and have a copy of the policy.

It does the pilot for any SSDR ( a simple add on for them as SPHG and microlight towing hangliders was already in the policy), and gives basically 2 mill of third party cover. No hull provison or fire / theft/ other ground risks, it does not cover you for passengers. It does cover the landowner of where you are operating from for 5mill in respect of claims aginst them arising from your activity - which could prove useful reassurance for that reluctant farmer with a good pasture field.

Cost if not already a BHPA member is 89 plus 15 joining fee. Once a member you can get a two year flying membership for 77PA.

So a very good option for low cost third party only insurance - and you get the mag, and support another sport aviation association.

Paul

Wally Hayward
6th October 2011, 13:15
Which, to me, indicates that when it was suggested elsewhere on the Forum, that the BMAA looked into offering a "Club" 3rd party insurance, it was put to one side "as not possible" was possibly incorrect.?
I would suggest that it we could offer such an insurance for SSDR machines, it may well be an added incentive for such owners to continue to remain BMAA members.

MICROLIGHT131
6th October 2011, 13:24
Wally Hayward wrote:
Which, to me, indicates that when it was suggested elsewhere on the Forum, that the BMAA looked into offering a "Club" 3rd party insurance, it was put to one side "as not possible" was possibly incorrect.?
I would suggest that it we could offer such an insurance for SSDR machines, it may well be an added incentive for such owners to continue to remain BMAA members.


You make a very good point Wally.

As a SSDR aircraft owner there is no need for me to remain a BMAA member.

However I choose to be as I appreciate the efforts of Paul D and co in making this possible.

It would certainly be a added incentive though, as you say, if we had a scheme like the BHPA.

Paul Dewhurst
6th October 2011, 16:44
I cant really see it happening. The BHPA have a 163,275 premium per annum for third party insurance. They have a big membership that need just this cover, which then means they have the necessary numbers to make it happen.

BMAA has a fraction of the members, and many fly syndicate where its better to insure the aicraft. Also our members have more complex needs - our carft are more expensive, and amny want hull inurance, ground risks, passenger laibilty etc etc. Third party is a small part of that requirement and mnay inurers will throw it in at small or neglible cost if part of a more complex policy.

So that means there would be very little demand for such a stand alone thrid party policy, and we wouldnt ever be able to get the premium down to the level BHPA has by virtue of much larger membership all needing just this.

So thats why I am more than happy to recommend the BHPA deal - its cheaper than insuring seperately, and with the saving you will be able to pay for your BMAA membership.. :)

Paul

Wally Hayward
6th October 2011, 17:15
Thanks Paul... puts it into perspective.

Mike Cowlishaw
6th October 2011, 19:16
Hmm, according to the BHPA site, BHPA membership is "about 7000 pilots". Wouldn't the BMAA membership (and their partners, etc.) be rather similar, and not just 'a fraction of the members'?

So perhaps the main difference is the third-party-only coverage, whereas BMAA aircraft probably are more valuable and hence hull insurance is more of an issue.

Mike

Paul Dewhurst
6th October 2011, 22:43
We have around 3700 total BMAA membership and not all are pilots. We have around 2000 aircraft in permit. That's a fairly small fraction of 7000 pilots all needing that third party insurance.

The BHPA insurance may be a useful scheme for some. But it certainly isn't a panacea. If you want your mate to be able to fly your machine occasionally for instance, it would be cheaper to conventionally third party insure your machine. Most useful for addicts who have multiple single seaters..

Paul

Kirk
7th October 2011, 06:19
Paul Dewhurst wrote: We have around 3700 total BMAA membership and not all are pilots. We have around 2000 aircraft in permit. That's a fairly small fraction of 7000 pilots all needing that third party insurance.

The BHPA insurance may be a useful scheme for some. But it certainly isn't a panacea. If you want your mate to be able to fly your machine occasionally for instance, it would be cheaper to conventionally third party insure your machine. Most useful for addicts who have multiple single seaters..

Paul
I would disagree - if everyone went for third party on themselves for all aircraft under 500kg then my mate is covered third party when flying mine occationally. Then it is a logical extension to get the member association to think about a group policy for member third party any aircraft. The only reason we in the Uk Microlight aircraft pool have odd aircraft specific insurance is at the direction of the insurance industry because they get more policies and more premium. Other countries and other sports have broken away from this aircraft specific insurance focus and moved to member/person insurance.

For me I fly all my aircraft on one policy for one premium and anyone else's third party for the same ... And the premium on my policy was exactly the same from a previous aircraft specific policy.

Steve Uzochukwu
7th October 2011, 08:49
Mike Cowlishaw wrote: Hmm, according to the BHPA site, BHPA membership is "about 7000 pilots". Wouldn't the BMAA membership (and their partners, etc.) be rather similar, and not just 'a fraction of the members'?
Hi Mike,

The insurance document bases the premium on the figure you quoted. So, 7,000 members v 3,700? members for the BMAA.


Mike Cowlishaw wrote: So perhaps the main difference is the third-party-only coverage, whereas BMAA aircraft probably are more valuable and hence hull insurance is more of an issue.
Yes, this is the issue. If you're in the newer Quantum/Quik/450/Kiss/Tanarg (traditional) fraternity or brand new SSDR (Dragonfly, Magic Cyclone), your aircraft is worth a lot of money and hull insurance is an issue. If you're operating an older SSDR, then you may not want or need hull insurance and bingo, you're sorted. My insurance for my Q excludes SSDR, so should an opportunity to fly in one arise, I'm covered by the BHPA insurance.

IME the biggest claims have come from passengers and people under instruction. YMMV. Neither of these issues arise with SSDR under the BHPA insurance, as no training or carrying passengers takes place.

Dave Smith
7th October 2011, 15:29
Paul D,

Appreciate your point about the numbers of BMAA members requiring SSDR, third-party-only insurance are quite small, but could the Council consider approaching the BHPA to see if we could hang onto their coat-tails?

My proposal:
BMAA SSDR flying members paying a supplement, either via the BMAA or direct to the BHPA to provide this same cover, as if they were BHPA members.

That way, the BMAA retains SSDR pilots as members, and the BHPA makes a useful 'broker's fee' on every take-up.

I imagine the only reason the BHPA may not be interested in such an arrangement, is that they'd have to approach their insurer, and raise the whole SSDR issue. They may not want to 'rock the boat'.

Dave

PS. I used to get cover from Versperien in France for 40 Euros, before they excluded the UK as not being a proper part of Europe. So it's not a risky enterprise.

Steve Uzochukwu
8th October 2011, 08:31
The insurance covers members, officers and employees of the BHPA, with another extra section for land owners.

The insurance would require a re-write to cover non members who would then get the insurance at a discount compared to members.

I can't see the members being too keen on this, with some small risk to their current T&Cs and a very minimal (and possible detrimental) financial benefit to the association.

Nope, best to ask them to join up.

v23nb
8th October 2011, 14:16
Trying to understand the implications of all written above. I am BHPA pilot rated for PG (hill and power) for which I am insured (except when I fly my paramotor with my speedwing). I fly a Target/Doodlebug legally as an independent (no BHPA rating) uninsured. Recently I insured my SSDR Typhoon/Tripacer (that I fly legally on my ATPL) with Traffords to make that legal however I gather the above now says I could use my BHPA cover instead of Traffords. If true it's great news. If this is true can I get in through the back door to get a HG Pilot rating for Power?

(edited to correct Target/Dragonfly to Target/Doodlebug)

Steve Uzochukwu
8th October 2011, 14:45
Ian White wrote: Trying to understand the implications of all written above. I am BHPA pilot rated for PG (hill and power) for which I am insured (except when I fly my paramotor with my speedwing). I fly a Target/Dragonfly legally as an independent (no BHPA rating) uninsured. Recently I insured my SSDR Typhoon/Tripacer (that I fly legally on my ATPL) with Traffords to make that legal however I gather the above now says I could use my BHPA cover instead of Traffords. If true it's great news. If this is true can I get in through the back door to get a HG Pilot rating for Power)
Hi Ian,

You will need to ask Mark Dale about this.

My gut feeling is that you might be able to get cover on the speed wing as a PPG if you can register yourself as a pilot on the sub 20m^2 category (Bill Morris is the expert, ask him) and then register the speedwing itself as a sub 20m^2 wing.

The BHPA has no ratings for SSDR as this is covered by NPPL/PPL etc.

You should be able to fly both your SSDRs under BHPA membership + insurance.

As for the HG power rating, you should ask Mark what you need to do extra to get this. If you download the technical manual from here (http://www.bhpa.co.uk/pdf/BHPA_Tech_Manual.pdf) and look at Section 3.4.1, you may have an idea of what's needed.

Dave Smith
8th October 2011, 17:02
Steve,

I was suggesting that BMAA membership would be mandatory for the 'joint' cover. So no one would be able to sidestep membership of either organisation.

But I fully understand the fear of raising the issue.

Dave

Dave S
8th October 2011, 18:19
I will be joining monday!

do you automaticly get a "cert" or do you have to ask them??

Sounds like a good comunity to get involved with

Dave

Steve Uzochukwu
8th October 2011, 18:33
Dave Stephens wrote:
do you automaticly get a "cert" or do you have to ask them??

You'll have to ask. The cover Paul D refers to is only a summary on the web site. You have to ask for the full certificate.

v23nb
8th October 2011, 23:34
Steve, many thanks for the reply. I made a couple of mistakes in my first post (currently in China and posted after returning from the pub!). I have one FLPHG and one SSDR rather than 2 SSDR's as I had incorrectly listed a Target/Dragonfly when I should have typed Target/Doodlebug, which is how I was able to legitimately make the statement that I could legally fly it uninsured, although that is something I would like to change by getting a BHPA ticket for HG. I flew paramotors for many years as an independent before being accepted into the direct entry scheme by Dave Thompson subject to him checking my logbook and then me completing the written paper. This warm welcome persuaded me to add the Hill environment to my ticket however the 'politics of the hill' means that I usually chose to launch powered from my garden a mile and a half out from in front of the Dyke.