Insurance question? Maybe?

DavidWhite

DavidWhite

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,218
Location
49
Display Name
Display name:
DW
So, in this completely hypothetical scenario a person is applying for a job, and said job offers him/her a position higher than what he/she applied for. The aircraft does not require an ATP or type rating to fly, but the insurance does. Would an R-ATP satisfy the insurance requirement or would an unrestricted ATP be necessary? In this hypothetical scenario the person is close to qualifying for an R-ATP but is 2 years away from Unrestricted.
 
DavidWhite said:
So, in this completely hypothetical scenario a person is applying for a job, and said job offers him/her a position higher than what he/she applied for. The aircraft does not require an ATP or type rating to fly, but the insurance does. Would an R-ATP satisfy the insurance requirement or would an unrestricted ATP be necessary? In this hypothetical scenario the person is close to qualifying for an R-ATP but is 2 years away from Unrestricted.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically.

(Actually no idea but wanted to say that)
 
r-atp is not an ATP so I would say no. At least if I was the insurance Co I would say that. They want an ATP because an ATP has a defined amount of experience and not just a degree and 33% less experience.

Edit: I am more experienced than a new rATP but not as much so as a unrestricted. I suppose I qualify too.
 
I think you'd have to ask the insurance people for a definitive answer.

John
 
DavidWhite said:
So, in this completely hypothetical scenario a person is applying for a job, and said job offers him/her a position higher than what he/she applied for. The aircraft does not require an ATP or type rating to fly, but the insurance does. Would an R-ATP satisfy the insurance requirement or would an unrestricted ATP be necessary? In this hypothetical scenario the person is close to qualifying for an R-ATP but is 2 years away from Unrestricted.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You (hypothetically) applied for a job but got offered a better position. But insurance wise that position requires a rating you don't have. In a nutshell, that is what you are saying.

If that is the scenario, I would think the insurance thing is something the employer needs to address. I imagine all it takes is for the employer to call the insurance company and ask them what it takes to cover you. I suspect what would happen is that the insurance company would cover you as is for an appropriately higher premium.

Bottom line is that it really isn't your problem, it is the employer's problem.
 
jsstevens said:
I think you'd have to ask the insurance people for a definitive answer.

John
Click to expand...

This. Unfortunately. The underwriters might have some wiggle room, depending on how good of a relationship the sales force has with him, and how tight the guide lines written by the actuaries is.
 
NJP_MAN said:
r-atp is not an ATP so I would say no.
Click to expand...

Except the only requirement a person with the restricted ATP does not have is the age requirement, IIRC. They meet every other requirement. This may be just a technicality if all the insurance company wants is the experience level.

That is assuming that we are talking about meeting all the requirements except age, and not the proposal whereby you get an ATP Lite with less than the currently required time. I am not even sure the latter is in effect yet.
 
As the others said the R-ATP isn't a real ATP.

They could be just wanting the ATP as a proof of experience, instead of asking for X hours TT, cross country, instrument, night, etc. they just ask for a ATP.

Only way to know for sure is to ask the insurance company.

My guess would be no, R-ATP and a ATP are not the same deal.
 
NJP_MAN said:
r-atp is not an ATP so I would say no. At least if I was the insurance Co I would say that. They want an ATP because an ATP has a defined amount of experience and not just a degree and 33% less experience.

Edit: I am more experienced than a new rATP but not as much so as a unrestricted. I suppose I qualify too.
Click to expand...

The aforementioned hypothetical person has enough time to qualify for an unrestricted ATP, but is not old enough.

Greg Bockelman said:
Let me get this straight. You (hypothetically) applied for a job but got offered a better position. But insurance wise that position requires a rating you don't have. In a nutshell, that is what you are saying.

If that is the scenario, I would think the insurance thing is something the employer needs to address. I imagine all it takes is for the employer to call the insurance company and ask them what it takes to cover you. I suspect what would happen is that the insurance company would cover you as is for an appropriately higher premium.

Bottom line is that it really isn't your problem, it is the employer's problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly it. It is not uncommon for this plane to be required to have an ATP to fly it by the insurance company.
 
Dave, if that employer offered the position knowing that the hypothetical pilot was not old enough for an unrestricted ATP but otherwise was qualified, I would think that getting the insurance thing taken care of would not be a huge obstacle.

By the way, what airplane type?
 
Last edited:
Doubt the insurance would cover a RATP. If they would everyone would get theR instead of a full ATP.
 
frfly172 said:
Doubt the insurance would cover a RATP. If they would everyone would get theR instead of a full ATP.
Click to expand...

Insurance is negotiable. Just a matter of what premium they assign. Besides, what we are talking about here is the age thing, not the experience thing.
 
DavidWhite said:
The aforementioned hypothetical person has enough time to qualify for an unrestricted ATP, but is not old enough.
Click to expand...

Well then I look like a fool for talking down on the ratp. I dont like rATP but if age is the only limit then I would insure you.
 
The employer will have to take it up with the insurance company and ask them or demand they be less restrictive.
 
DavidWhite said:
So, in this completely hypothetical scenario a person is applying for a job, and said job offers him/her a position higher than what he/she applied for. The aircraft does not require an ATP or type rating to fly, but the insurance does. Would an R-ATP satisfy the insurance requirement or would an unrestricted ATP be necessary? In this hypothetical scenario the person is close to qualifying for an R-ATP but is 2 years away from Unrestricted.
Click to expand...

If it is an insurance regulation, ask the insurance company. If the boss really wants you, something will be negotiated. The FAA doesn't care at all.
 
Most things are negotiable in insurance. It's just a matter of finding agents and underwriter(s) who are more than box-checkers, and whether the insured is willing to pay an appropriate premium.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
By the way, what airplane type?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Watcha flying that would "require" an ATP but not a type.......
Twin Otter.....Caravan......DC-3, no too heavy needs a type... hmmmm oohh a Porter or some other weirdo exotic STOL???
 
ChemGuy said:
Yeah. Watcha flying that would "require" an ATP but not a type.......
Twin Otter.....Caravan......DC-3, no too heavy needs a type... hmmmm oohh a Porter or some other weirdo exotic STOL???
Click to expand...

The ATP is an insurance requirement alone, so the duty requires neither ATP or TR. I can't imagine an upgrade position into a Beaver or Porter, he has minimal if any Tailwheel time.

I'm guessing right seat in a 2 pilot freighter.
 
Henning said:
The ATP is an insurance requirement alone, so the duty requires neither ATP or TR. I can't imagine an upgrade position into a Beaver or Porter, he has minimal if any Tailwheel time.

I'm guessing right seat in a 2 pilot freighter.
Click to expand...

Probably right but definitely not as cool as an Otter or DC3....:D

So right seat for FEDEX flying 777?? :D:D
 
Henning said:
The ATP is an insurance requirement alone, so the duty requires neither ATP or TR. I can't imagine an upgrade position into a Beaver or Porter, he has minimal if any Tailwheel time.

I'm guessing right seat in a 2 pilot freighter.
Click to expand...

I got an offer flying 185s with 50 hours of Tailwheel Time, but it's a summer job and I'm looking for year round. The job I'm looking at is flying a 'van, but they want me to get my ATP so I can qualify for insurance and fly their king air.
 
It seems like a cool gig, I'm excited to check it out and see if it's as advertised. If so I'll be a full-time Alaskan in a couple months.
 
Henning said:
DC-3 is not excluded as a right seat potential.
Click to expand...

There's only a couple companies in Alaska that fly -3s and they are kinda dead-end. They're for the multi-time builder, and there is generally no potential to upgrade. Only company I would consider going to and sit right-seat would be Era 121 or Everts in the -6. Of course, I have neither the qualifications or requirements for either one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top