Is BasicMed in jeopardy of being useless for older pilots?

W

Walboy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
503
Display Name
Display name:
Walboy
.
 
Last edited:
What we have also seen (right here in these forums) are pilots skirting the rules by using BasicMed.
Sometimes it's impossible to tell what caused a crash, so whatever criteria they are using for pilot incapacitation or impairment I would like to see.
 
Insurance adjusters are risk adverse and their risk avoidance had impacts to their subscribers. An extreme example of this is seen in the medical industry where doctors limit the procedures they perform because malpractice insurance refuses to cover them for a reasonable price.

I would say that pilots should vote with their feet and actively avoid getting insurance from these insurers.
 
I just read that in this morning's ePilot and am concerned. If the premium increase is too painful, I'll sell my airplane and quit flying. I'm 77, fly an LSA under BasicMed, and in 56 years as a pilot have never been involved in any accident, incident, or deviation, and believe the increase is discriminatory. The insurance companies have suffered some serious losses in aerospace including lost payloads due to launch failures, but those losses and losses due to hurricanes, fires, and tornadoes shouldn't be recovered by increasing general aviation premium costs where the loss data do not justify it.
 
I know that having insurance is the preferred way to do it but how important is insurance anyway? If I have a heart attack or stroke out and crash and die what does it matter? My estate is out some money but so what.
 
As focused as AOPA seems to be on the high-end of the market these days (turbine, jet), I'm wondering if this would be a larger concern at the higher end of the spectrum for hull values. In other words, insuring a new SR-22 vs. a 50 year old Cessna. Also, if coverage will be truly unavailable or some % more. Also, define "older"
 
Morgan3820 said:
I know that having insurance is the preferred way to do it but how important is insurance anyway? If I have a heart attack or stroke out and crash and die what does it matter? My estate is out some money but so what.
Click to expand...

It could be a significant financial burden on your surviving family/estate.

Frankly I don't know how insurance companies stay in business at the premiums we pay. There are big bucks torn up almost daily on Kathryn's report. A few weeks ago two airplanes were destroyed at my airport by one boneheaded guy. Not to mention the lawsuits that come with what I would guess are 25%+ of accidents.
 
GeorgeC said:
Out of curiosity, why BasicMed and not sport pilot?
Click to expand...
Primarily so I can fly at night, George. Several times while flying as a sport pilot I had to land at sunset and spend the night in a hotel an hour before reaching my destination. This was usually after encountering higher than forecast headwinds on a day long cross-country.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I just read that in this morning's ePilot and am concerned. If the premium increase is too painful, I'll sell my airplane and quit flying. I'm 77, fly an LSA under BasicMed, and in 56 years as a pilot have never been involved in any accident, incident, or deviation, and believe the increase is discriminatory. The insurance companies have suffered some serious losses in aerospace including lost payloads due to launch failures, but those losses and losses due to hurricanes, fires, and tornadoes shouldn't be recovered by increasing general aviation premium costs where the loss data do not justify it.
Click to expand...
WAG, I suspect you are ok. I suspect the concern is more with faster, heavier, more powerful aircraft than with an LSA.

For those actually looking at the issue, what types are you seeing where it is becoming a factor, and which not?
 
midlifeflyer said:
WAG, I suspect you are ok. I suspect the concern is more with faster, heavier, more powerful aircraft than with an LSA.

For those actually looking at the issue, what types are you seeing where it is becoming a factor, and which not?
Click to expand...
I hope that's true. One answer may be to simply drop my $50k hull coverage. In the unlikely event I total my airplane I can afford that loss.
 
I read through the article/interview and some points aren't making sense. For example (bolding mine):

" And, as I also noted, “Unfortunately, underwriters today are much less skilled aviators versus gamers,” which in our opinion, their belief is third class medicals are better than BasicMed approvals for pilots and will result in fewer losses. We’ve not seen any data to support that as yet, but underwriting today is more in the hands of actuaries and not those who have any aviation knowledge, skills, or passion."

So is the industry run by actuaries who deal in numbers and stats, or people who guess and go by beliefs/feelings? If the industry is run by numbers people and there are no numbers to show BasicMed results in more underwriter payouts, what logical leg is this insurance CEO trying to stand on?
 
I've yet to have an issue getting an insurance renewal under Basic Med. What is difficult is to increase your liability coverage.

There is no data showing that Basic Med or other self-identified pilots have experienced higher accident rates.
 
Last edited:
chemgeek said:
I've yet to have an issue getting an insurance renewal under Basic Med. What is difficult is to o crease your liability coverage.

There is no data showing that Basic Med or other self-identified pilots have experienced higher accident rates.
Click to expand...
I think age is a big factor for the insurance companies, but I could be wrong. There are a lot of older pilots flying under BasicMed because they fear applying for a third class medical may result in a denial; once they're denied the fat lady has sung.
 
Grum.Man said:
It could be a significant financial burden on your surviving family/estate.

Frankly I don't know how insurance companies stay in business at the premiums we pay. There are big bucks torn up almost daily on Kathryn's report. A few weeks ago two airplanes were destroyed at my airport by one boneheaded guy. Not to mention the lawsuits that come with what I would guess are 25%+ of accidents.
Click to expand...
Just probability and statistics. The insurance companies have the math worked out and adjust it as needed with every renewal. If they weren't making money, things would change quickly. I have been flying for 45 years, flew professionally for 5 of those and have never been involved in an accident which resulted in an insurance claim. And there a lot of of insured aircraft out there that fly very little, if at all.

I do agree about the lawsuits, though. Our trial lawyers need work. As I have mentioned before, America, with ~4% of the world population, has ~75% of the world's lawyers...
 
Kenny Phillips said:
What we have also seen (right here in these forums) are pilots skirting the rules by using BasicMed.
Sometimes it's impossible to tell what caused a crash, so whatever criteria they are using for pilot incapacitation or impairment I would like to see.
Click to expand...
What pilots skirting what rules? I haven't seen what you're seeing, apparently?
 
Sounds like the insurance industry is growing short on cash, so they're trying new and creative ways to boost their bottom lines. I doubt it's occurred to them that they might kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If my insurance goes up 10% I won't like it, but I'll keep flying. If it doubles (which that AOPA article says is happening to some turbine operators) I suspect that'll be it.
 
I’ve never really considered this but the law of unintended consequences says it may result in a flooding of out-of-cycle renewals for the Class III medical.

That’s got to queer up some sort of FAA analysis, and may potentially result in significant workload increases depending on the amount of SIs requiring FAA (not CACI) review.

Expenses may also be increased by pilots having to obtain data to support the SI.

Wouldn’t surprise me to see a weeding out of insureds in the pool, potentially requiring rate increases as well.

At some point, insurance does become untenable for the little guy when commercial operators pass on the rate increases to customers or offset through other methods, and the individual operator can’t.
 
atbroome said:
I read through the article/interview and some points aren't making sense. For example (bolding mine):

" And, as I also noted, “Unfortunately, underwriters today are much less skilled aviators versus gamers,” which in our opinion, their belief is third class medicals are better than BasicMed approvals for pilots and will result in fewer losses. We’ve not seen any data to support that as yet, but underwriting today is more in the hands of actuaries and not those who have any aviation knowledge, skills, or passion."

So is the industry run by actuaries who deal in numbers and stats, or people who guess and go by beliefs/feelings? If the industry is run by numbers people and there are no numbers to show BasicMed results in more underwriter payouts, what logical leg is this insurance CEO trying to stand on?
Click to expand...

I found this part very confusing, and probably just intended to be incendiary. Seems to me that in every facet of the insurance industry underwriting is always driven by actuaries. Setting premiums is all a function of measuring risk based on historical data. What the hell does "passion" for aviation have to do with it?
 
This strikes me as being caused by insufficient data for actuaries to do the risk calculus necessary to establish efficient insurance premiums.

Private pilots flying the GA fleet are pretty much a known risk at this point. LSA suffers a lack of statistics but the risks are limited. Speed, complexity, number of passengers to make liability claims, day VFR only. BasicMed lets you put 5 other people at risk of making liability claims and can find you in a Meridian or Cessna 340 flying hard IFR in icing conditions at night, getting way behind the airplane. It would not be easy to quantify how the risk of an insurance claim changes by the pilot self-certifying his medical ability to fly vs. an aviation doctor doing so.

Insurance is supposed to be nothing more than risk pooling, each person paying for his contribution to the risk-of-claim pool plus the insurer's overhead. A combination of market failures and shoehorning regulation has changed that foundation in many markets, most notably health insurance. I think aviation insurance is one of the markets closest to pure insurance remaining, so it is unsurprising that an unknown risk will cause chaos.
 
bradg33 said:
I found this part very confusing, and probably just intended to be incendiary. Seems to me that in every facet of the insurance industry underwriting is always driven by actuaries. Setting premiums is all a function of measuring risk based on historical data. What the hell does "passion" for aviation have to do with it?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Aviation writing has never been terribly good. I think the author's idea of "harding up" the insurance industry is right on. They've had losses, so they have to boost profits. I've seen this happen before. It usually goes on a 5 or 6 year cycle, but the insurance industry has been soft a long time. Probably because there weren't many domestic losses of big commercial aircraft. I bet having two brand new 737 Max's crash and kill everyone changed that dynamic hard.
 
I just got off the phone with my broker. I told her about the AOPA article, and asked whether if I, a 68-year-old on Basic Med with a 42-year-old 172, have anything to be worried about.

She said that rates are going up, but “shouldn’t be too bad with a 172.” (My rate did go up about 10% at renewal last October.) She said some underwriters are tightening up on older pilots, but “it hasn’t been anything we can’t work around,” and renewals have generally not been a problem. They haven’t had any trouble finding coverage for Basic Med pilots, though sometimes the carrier will require a flight review annually instead of biannually (am I allowed to use that word any more? o_O ).

So for now the panic button remains unpushed.

Hope this is helpful.
 
An observation, if you still have your plane/s when u pass away, they will be more or less worthless to your estate. By the time the plane is sold and gone through probate, your estate has lost all the yearly hanger fees, it is out of annual, has not been flown in several years, and is considered is have a run out engine. I would plan accordingly
 
Morgan3820 said:
I know that having insurance is the preferred way to do it but how important is insurance anyway? If I have a heart attack or stroke out and crash and die what does it matter? My estate is out some money but so what.
Click to expand...

That takes you out of the running for Father/Husband of the year award
 
I'm looking at 82 right around the corner on Basic Med. 2 older planes at 20 and 25K . Insurance cost 1600 last year, which was up maybe 10%.
If it gets too bad, maybe liability and not in flight coverage. If I was refused liability, I'd probability bag it.
Paul
Salome, AZ
 
Stan Cooper said:
I hope that's true. One answer may be to simply drop my $50k hull coverage. In the unlikely event I total my airplane I can afford that loss.
Click to expand...
I agree. I often wonder how much you save by just having liability and potentially "not in motion" coverage vs the chance that you'll gear it up. Then you have to figure out what would be covered/not covered if you land in a field. Damage to the fences/etc would be covered by liability, injuries to your passenger would be covered, but what about recovery? Obviously, repairs are on you, but I wonder if recovery would be as well.
 
MIFlyer said:
I agree. I often wonder how much you save by just having liability and potentially "not in motion" coverage vs the chance that you'll gear it up. Then you have to figure out what would be covered/not covered if you land in a field. Damage to the fences/etc would be covered by liability, injuries to your passenger would be covered, but what about recovery? Obviously, repairs are on you, but I wonder if recovery would be as well.
Click to expand...

According to my policy, the expense of recovery is only reimbursable if you have comprehensive physical damage coverage, aka "inflight". If you go ground-only (whether in motion or not-in-motion) or liability-only, you're out of luck on the recovery costs for an off-airport excursion.

That's why I made the same remarks on the SAT Malibu thread, when I found the YT video of the Archer on the road. How they craned and truck-flatbed that thing, with police and fire escort all the way to an airport then craned it down from the flatbed. That chit looked EXPEN$$$IVE, and that was an easy one due to road access. Imagine making access to a soft field to accomplish the same recovery. No way that would pencil out for me if I was liability-only, especially on the kind of hull values I dabble in. I suppose the only way that would pencil out is if there was absolutely no damage to the airplane and the engine didn't have a big hole in it. Any kind of engine chunk missing or airframe bent? Forget it.
 
Pilawt said:
A lot of owners don’t have the option of going uninsured, since many (most?) hangar and tiedown leases require proof of liability insurance.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. The gentrification of the hobby continues....
 
Pilawt said:
A lot of owners don’t have the option of going uninsured, since many (most?) hangar and tiedown leases require proof of liability insurance.
Click to expand...

I suspect the liability coverage is a pretty small portion of the premium on a lot of airplanes.
 
ahypnoz said:
An observation, if you still have your plane/s when u pass away, they will be more or less worthless to your estate. By the time the plane is sold and gone through probate, your estate has lost all the yearly hanger fees, it is out of annual, has not been flown in several years, and is considered is have a run out engine. I would plan accordingly
Click to expand...

I have ... I saved your message. Please e-mail me if you get in bad shape so I can pick up your plane for a couple of hundred bucks and save your estate all "those headaches":eek::confused:;)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
What we have also seen (right here in these forums) are pilots skirting the rules by using BasicMed.
Sometimes it's impossible to tell what caused a crash, so whatever criteria they are using for pilot incapacitation or impairment I would like to see.
Click to expand...

Curious, what rules have you seen that are being skirted by BasicMed?

I'm curious about the criteria you mentioned as well. Last I searched (a few months ago) there was only one fatal crash I could find in the NTSB DB that was potentially pilot incapacitation...
 
MIFlyer said:
I agree. I often wonder how much you save by just having liability and potentially "not in motion" coverage vs the chance that you'll gear it up. Then you have to figure out what would be covered/not covered if you land in a field. Damage to the fences/etc would be covered by liability, injuries to your passenger would be covered, but what about recovery? Obviously, repairs are on you, but I wonder if recovery would be as well.
Click to expand...

When I stuffed my plane into a swampy field my liability insurance (Avemco) covered the recovery, which cost $2700. They covered it because the property owner (the state of NY) demanded that it be removed before sunset. Unfortunately I didn't have hull so I ate the loss.
 
I just did a quote on Avemco to test the waters. I have Travers as my broker. They let me know my carrier (Elevon- Allianz) for last 3 years is not renewing any aviation policies. Avemco quoted me double what I pay now. But, they were a little higher when I looked at them after buying the plane.

From my broker

The insurance company your account was placed with is exiting the aviation insurance market and may not be offering renewal terms. The name of the insurance company is Elevon / Allianz. This does not change your current policy. Allianz is a large worldwide A+ rated insurance company. Allianz is still a strong insurance company and is one of the best major carriers in the world.
 
Insurance companies are their own worst enemies. I know of an older champ that ground looped. They totaled it and paid him the 3x what its worth because that’s what he had it insured for. Another cost benefit analysis fAiL
 
Last edited:
My girlfriend has been an underwriter for the last 25+ years, working for large multinational insurance companies. She tells me that the industry has been losing its shirt on aviation over the last decade or so.

For a while, companies were knowingly losing money in order to gain market share, hoping to drive out competition, kind of like the Survivor TV series.

Many companies are now getting out of this ever shrinking market with ever increasing losses, and the ones who remain will raise the premiums in order to be able to turn a healthy profit. The company she works for wouldn't touch an airplane with a ten foot pole anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top