twin commanche insurance requirements

\__[Ô]__/

\__[Ô]__/

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
496
Location
Ames, IA
Display Name
Display name:
david
twin commanche insurance requirements?

Anyone happen to know what requirements I can expect for the open pilot clause on a twin commanche?
 
Last edited:
Re: twin commanche insurance requirements?

\__[Ô]__/;2020401 said:
Anyone happen to know what requirements I can expect for the open pilot clause on a twin commanche?
Click to expand...
I would suspect at least a PPL with AMEL and 25 in type for open pilot. That is what I have on my policy for both the Baron. Could be a little less than 25 hrs, but honestly, I think a Baron is a lot easier to fly.
 
There are apparently only few companies that write policies for the PA30 and they are more restrictive than you would expect for a trainer.
 
Thanks for the information. I was hoping it would be more based on multi time (which I have) and not time in make/model (which I don't).

I'll check with the owner to get the actual details when I get a chance, but it sounds like I might be out of luck on this one.
 
\__[Ô]__/;2020498 said:
Thanks for the information. I was hoping it would be more based on multi time (which I have) and not time in make/model (which I don't).

I'll check with the owner to get the actual details when I get a chance, but it sounds like I might be out of luck on this one.
Click to expand...

Getting you added shouldn't be an issue with a checkout.
 
I do not recall any of our insurance specifics. Sorry.

It was a great plane though! Enjoy.
 
\__[Ô]__/;2020498 said:
Thanks for the information. I was hoping it would be more based on multi time (which I have) and not time in make/model (which I don't).

I'll check with the owner to get the actual details when I get a chance, but it sounds like I might be out of luck on this one.
Click to expand...

The open on my policy for my PA-30 is 1000 TT, 250 ME, 10 MM, IPC in a PA-30 in the last 12 months. I am with USSIC.
 
timwinters said:
That's what she said.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that wise guy....seems a bit surprising/excessive considering the type. I wonder if she negotiated that for a better rate, or that is what the insurance company insisted on?

Requiring an annual IPC in type for a Twin Comanche seems excessive, unless you are getting a screaming deal because of it.
 
Thanks for the clarification.

If you'd expained the question like you did in your follow up then I'd not been a wise guy!

You phrased it quite ambiguously and it came across as doubting that she knew what she was talking about. It looked to me like a lead shark trying to instigate another PoA shark attack.

And I hate PoA shark attacks. Too many here spend far too much time starting and sustaining pizzing contests.

Sorry I took it wrong.
 
timwinters said:
Thanks for the clarification.

If you'd expained the question like you did in your follow up then I'd not been a wise guy!

You phrased it quite ambiguously and it came across as doubting that she knew what she was talking about. It looked to me like a lead shark trying to instigate another PoA shark attack.

And I hate PoA shark attacks. Too many here spend far too much time starting and sustaining pizzing contests.

Sorry I took it wrong.
Click to expand...

I understood exactly what he was saying, it was a simple question requesting more information.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Requiring an annual IPC in type for a Twin Comanche seems excessive, unless you are getting a screaming deal because of it.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has an Apache, and he told me that his insurance company initially required him to have an IPC in it annually, but he was able to negotiate that away. So apparently it's somewhat of a thing.
 
If the checkout is by a CFI listed by the ICS (International Comanche Society) you may be good to go. When I bought mine that's what I did.

dtuuri
 
Kristin said:
The open on my policy for my PA-30 is 1000 TT, 250 ME, 10 MM, IPC in a PA-30 in the last 12 months. I am with USSIC.
Click to expand...

Jesus man! That's nearly enough time to get a job in a regional jet!


Fearless Tower said:
I would suspect at least a PPL with AMEL and 25 in type for open pilot. That is what I have on my policy for both the Baron. Could be a little less than 25 hrs, but honestly, I think a Baron is a lot easier to fly.
Click to expand...

That sounds more realistic


Check these guys out, they are pretty good and gave me the best rate on my hard to buy insurance for plane

http://www.airpowerinsurance.com
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
A friend of mine has an Apache, and he told me that his insurance company initially required him to have an IPC in it annually, but he was able to negotiate that away. So apparently it's somewhat of a thing.
Click to expand...

I know it exists, but it seems excessive to me for a light twin. I'm on my 4th airplane (current one is almost 10,000 lbs) between two different underwriters and I haven't personally had to deal with this requirement.

My question is simply for those whose insurance companies are insisting on annual IPC in type, did you negotiate that in order to get a significant discount or did the insurance company simply insist on it?
 
Twinkies are unique. Starr would cover me non-owned in a 700hp 9 seat Chieftain but won't touch a PA30 with a ten foot pole.

We have an IPC requirement on the A36 (including the partner with 20k hrs). In our case that came from the limits we carry.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Your insurance requires an IPC in type for a PA30?
Click to expand...

The open pilot clause requires an IPC. They wanted me to have an annual IPC for the first year, but then it went away.

The insurance is a pretty good deal, price-wise. I also carry $1M smooth, which might be why the open is that high as well.

Insurance companies are hinkey about Twinkies. There are only about 3 or 4 companies who will write a Twinkie and only a couple that will do it for $1M smooth (no per passenger sublimit). That being said, with the sub-limit, I know of a number of low time pilots that who have bought a Twinkie and gotten coverage. I just finished up with a guy who went from a Cherokee Six to a Twinkie and he didn't have a multi-engine rating when we started. He coverage required 25 hours dual. As the only ICS endorsed instructor in California, I got that assignment.
 
Kristin said:
The open pilot clause requires an IPC. They wanted me to have an annual IPC for the first year, but then it went away.

The insurance is a pretty good deal, price-wise. I also carry $1M smooth, which might be why the open is that high as well.

Insurance companies are hinkey about Twinkies. There are only about 3 or 4 companies who will write a Twinkie and only a couple that will do it for $1M smooth (no per passenger sublimit). That being said, with the sub-limit, I know of a number of low time pilots that who have bought a Twinkie and gotten coverage. I just finished up with a guy who went from a Cherokee Six to a Twinkie and he didn't have a multi-engine rating when we started. He coverage required 25 hours dual. As the only ICS endorsed instructor in California, I got that assignment.
Click to expand...
Do Twinkies really have that bad of an insurance rap? That is too bad.

I never had to insure one, but did get my ME rating in a PA30. The only thing I thought was challenging with a PA30 was making a nice landing, but even that became natural after 10-12 hours in the airplane.
 
Kristin said:
The open on my policy for my PA-30 is 1000 TT, 250 ME, 10 MM, IPC in a PA-30 in the last 12 months. I am with USSIC.
Click to expand...

Similar for the 310, I want to say 750/250/25, forget if there was an IPC.

Of course, my open pilot clause is slightly more restrictive:

None

:D
 
Fearless Tower said:
Do Twinkies really have that bad of an insurance rap? That is too bad.

I never had to insure one, but did get my ME rating in a PA30. The only thing I thought was challenging with a PA30 was making a nice landing, but even that became natural after 10-12 hours in the airplane.
Click to expand...

Owners and lazy mechanics who don't know the Comanche, frequently let landing gear maintenance go to the point of the gear collapsing. The insurance companies are tired of paying for the two props, two engine teardowns and the belly repair.

I think that there is still this lingering view that the Twinkie is more dangerous on one engine than are other comparable twins. I wrote an article on that which is in next month's Piper Flyer mag. Once the FAA changed their multiengine training requirements back in the 70's, the Twinkie's Vmc LOC accidents dropped to that of comparable aircraft. The AOPA made that determination in the 90's and I confirmed it by looking at the last 10 years of NTSB data.
 
Kristin said:
Once the FAA changed their multiengine training requirements back in the 70's, the Twinkie's Vmc LOC accidents dropped to that of comparable aircraft.
Click to expand...

Just curious, why would an FAA change in training affect the accident rate of one type of twin and not all of them? Is there something specific about how the Twin Comanche reacts near Vmc that was targeted by the change in the training?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Do Twinkies really have that bad of an insurance rap? That is too bad.
Click to expand...

In the 60s, the FAA used twinkies to kill off DPES, instructors and students by requiring a Vmc demo at low altitude. Insurers have been skeered ever since.
 
kayoh190 said:
Just curious, why would an FAA change in training affect the accident rate of one type of twin and not all of them? Is there something specific about how the Twin Comanche reacts near Vmc that was targeted by the change in the training?
Click to expand...

Actually, it did affect other twins, but the Twin Comanche was used more for training than was the Baron, Travel Air, or 310, all of which will hurt you if you mishandle them at Vmc. The Twinkie is just cheaper to operate.

I have a theory which I can't prove. Obviously Piper dealers were more likely to have a Twin Comanche on the line. It is also reasonable that their previous trainer was an Apache. The Apache is about as docile as a twin can get that is not centerline thrust. Twinkie instructors might have been more complacent about doing Vmc demos at low altitude or even single engine stalls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top