• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Darn C-180 insurance just jumped up

Alex Clark

Registered User
Life Long Alaskan
I had a very good deal with BWI. The premiums in their 180/185 group deal were great. And are probably still beter than anything else I can find up here.. But the underwriter AIG just decided not to renew Alaskan policies.

For some reason AIG must think 180s and 185s are high risk... So I looked up the NTSB numbers....

There were only 57 C-180 accidents & incidents in the last 3 years and only 45 C-185 accidents......... BUT...., Only one C-185 fatal and two C180 fatals.( one not in the USA )
Which says a lot for how tough the 180/185 airframe is built.
For comparison, there were 63 Fatal C-172 accidents during the same time period.
( 365 total C-172 accidents in the 3 year period. )

Kinda wish I would have known about the price increase before I bought those two G5s.....
 
My agent whom I have been with for 8 years told me everything was up a bit this year, had 3-5% up on both the 180 and Cub, quoted across 4 different carriers.
 
I had a very good deal with BWI. The premiums in their 180/185 group deal were great. And are probably still beter than anything else I can find up here.. But the underwriter AIG just decided not to renew Alaskan policies.

For some reason AIG must think 180s and 185s are high risk... So I looked up the NTSB numbers....

There were only 57 C-180 accidents & incidents in the last 3 years and only 45 C-185 accidents......... BUT...., Only one C-185 fatal and two C180 fatals.( one not in the USA )
Which says a lot for how tough the 180/185 airframe is built.
For comparison, there were 63 Fatal C-172 accidents during the same time period.
( 365 total C-172 accidents in the 3 year period. )

Kinda wish I would have known about the price increase before I bought those two G5s.....

Alex,

It's probably not just 180/185, but rather an Alaska thing. And, when you compare actuarials, comparing 172 to 180/185 is meaningless, simply because of the numbers of 172s out there.

You have about the worst possible combination for insurance premiums: Cessna taildragger, on floats, giving flight instruction, and in Alaska. That pretty much hits most of the hot buttons, unfortunately.

Been there, done that. Not fun.

MTV
 
Old Crowe, who do you use..?? Mine went up 40% yeah.. forty...

Mike, I asked for a non-instruction quote. Just personal use. Still almost $1,500 more than last year.
The 180 is too expensive to run for SES ratings. Pilots are generally a cheap lot, so nobody wants to pay.
I do get plenty of calls from guys I talked with 15 years ago who want to hold me to the price I quoted them back in 2004...
 
Old Crowe, who do you use..?? Mine went up 40% yeah.. forty...

Mike, I asked for a non-instruction quote. Just personal use. Still almost $1,500 more than last year.
The 180 is too expensive to run for SES ratings. Pilots are generally a cheap lot, so nobody wants to pay.
I do get plenty of calls from guys I talked with 15 years ago who want to hold me to the price I quoted them back in 2004...
I go though a commercial agent at Falcon PM me if you want contact info. They stood by me through a total claim of one aircraft while I was doing the pre-buy on another. Trust me, it would be tough to get me to change.
 
All it takes these days is a ground loop. That can total a good 180 - gearbox, engine, prop . . .

There is an excellent under-utilized 180 in Plus One Flyers. The rates are reasonable.

Insurance is strange. I pay only $290 for my Cub (liability only) but $500 for the same coverage when I instruct in someone else's airplane. And when I instruct someone who is not an owner in another Cub, the same coverage is a GRAND! (to cover the owner). The risk, it seems to me, is to the hull, not liability. Most of the time when instructing I have four eyeballs helping me not run into persons or property.

As they say, it is what it is . . .
 
The Catch 22 is that Falcon is just a broker. They put you with the actual insurer. What part does a broker like Falcon play if you have a claim?

I go though a commercial agent at Falcon PM me if you want contact info. They stood by me through a total claim of one aircraft while I was doing the pre-buy on another. Trust me, it would be tough to get me to change.
 
The Catch 22 is that Falcon is just a broker. They put you with the actual insurer. What part does a broker like Falcon play if you have a claim?
A good agent is representing you and your continued business so is motivated and in my case managed to get my overall settlement offer increased.
 
Last edited:
That irony and the humor.

Steve haven't you ever watched airline pilots stealing sugar, creamer and napkins from every cafe they visit?
Heaven forbid that I leave 6 extra rolls of good toilet paper in my guest cabin...the temptation is just too much...:p
 
We paid $60k for the last 9 months of insurance before we sold our airtaxi 2 185’s, 1 Cherokee six and 2 instructing planes 172/150. That was in 1992. But the insurance company had just bought us or paid for 2 185s in 11 days a year or so before :)


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Last edited:
FWIW I just renewed the insurance on my C180,
FWIW it's up about 7% from last year.
A bit more than inflation but not an earth shaking increase.
 
Hot-Rod, who are you using?
I was told that mine would be less if I was not on floats. Odd since floats seem much more safe than tail-wheel to me...
 
Hot-Rod, who are you using?
I was told that mine would be less if I was not on floats. Odd since floats seem much more safe than tail-wheel to me...

I i insured thru Bill White for the first 4 years, then shopped around a bit & went with Regal out of Hillsboro OR last year cuz they came in a bit cheaper.
Went back to BWI this year even though they were a touch higher than Regal, just because IMHO Bill has done a lot for the 180/185 community over the years.
Just the article he wrote years ago about wheel landing the skywagon was worth
this years difference in insurance cost all by itself.
 
Float insurance has always been higher than wheels, in my experience. A loss on floats is often a really expensive recovery/loss. Taildraggers often come to grief on runways.

Maybe.

MTV
 
Most float accidents total all the panel equipment. That alone is a monstrous expense, so I have assumed that to be the reason for float insurance rates to be so high.
 
I doubt repair costs make much difference. Loss of life is the big deal. Many of those are during landing or takeoff while in flight the risk is the same as tires. This summer gave us too many examples.
 
Sometimes I doubt there is any rhyme nor reason to how they come up with policy costs.
One phone conversation with AVEMCO.

ME: Can I get a policy for dual instruction only on floats with my C-180?
AVEMCO LADY: No, we do not cover instruction in a 180, just 182s.
ME: So if I had a 182 on floats you would write me a policy?
AVEMCO LADY: Yes, but not for your 180.
ME: Why is That?
AVEMCO LADY: Because your 180 is a tail-wheel.
ME: But I will only be on floats....
AVEMCO LADY: Nope, our system shows it as a tail-wheel even though you are on floats.
 
They claimed to have some sort of deal for CFIs using their own planes. But as you can see, it did not work for me.
The only good thing AVEMCO has, is that they will let you pay by the quarter and let you adjust for being out of the water or tucked into a hangar for the winter.
BWI was pretty good.
And I had London Aviation underwriters for years.

I think my policy would be less if I registered the plane to the house we own in Texas.
 
The entire aviation insurance industry is getting tighter. Expect premiums to rise for the next few years. There have been a few underwriters exit the market lately and the rest appear to be increasing rates slowly but surely.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I doubt repair costs make much difference. Loss of life is the big deal. Many of those are during landing or takeoff while in flight the risk is the same as tires. This summer gave us too many examples.

Then why is it that hull coverage is the one that takes the big jump? For years, I instructed in my airplane. I always carried liability, but never hull, because hull would have been several thousand. Liability didn’t change due to instructing, as long as there was no solo.

MTV
 
Had a quick chat with Avemco this morning about my old float rates. They told me both hull and liability go up on floats. I don't know which goes up by how much and I never paid attention the relationship of the two lines because I all I was interested in was the total. They said liability is higher for human risks as well as environmental risks. Having been in fuel spill litigation I understand their concern there. To the hull thing I'd think recovery costs add something to the formula.
 
Had a quick chat with Avemco this morning about my old float rates. They told me both hull and liability go up on floats. I don't know which goes up by how much and I never paid attention the relationship of the two lines because I all I was interested in was the total. They said liability is higher for human risks as well as environmental risks. Having been in fuel spill litigation I understand their concern there. To the hull thing I'd think recovery costs add something to the formula.

Stewart,

I insured with AVEMCO in Alaska till I started instructing. I never carried hull, because rates were so high, but I always checked, thinking as I gained experience hull rates would decrease. They did, some, but hull was always waaaay higher than liability. When I started instructing in my plane I switched (reluctantly) to Falcon, who treated me well for a number of years, but the prices were the same ratio: $1500ish for liability, and $5000 or so for hull.

The ratio of liability to hull suggested to me that the losses were greater in hull.

These are old numbers, but I doubt the ratio has changed much.

MTV
 
I looked into putting my 185 on float last spring and Avemco wanted $9300.00 and we pay $4300.00 on wheels. The Husky would have been $8000.00 on floats and 3500.00 on wheels. This is in Alaska. That is for full coverage on both. It’s getting to the point of getting a inexpensive plane and no ins.
 
I had a very good deal with BWI. The premiums in their 180/185 group deal were great. And are probably still beter than anything else I can find up here.. But the underwriter AIG just decided not to renew Alaskan policies.

For some reason AIG must think 180s and 185s are high risk... So I looked up the NTSB numbers....

There were only 57 C-180 accidents & incidents in the last 3 years and only 45 C-185 accidents......... BUT...., Only one C-185 fatal and two C180 fatals.( one not in the USA )
Which says a lot for how tough the 180/185 airframe is built.
For comparison, there were 63 Fatal C-172 accidents during the same time period.
( 365 total C-172 accidents in the 3 year period. )

Kinda wish I would have known about the price increase before I bought those two G5s.....

The number of accidents alone isn’t a good indicator of likelihood of an accident. A better indicator would be accidents per hours flown. It wouldn’t surprise me if that statistic showed a much higher rate of accidents in the 180/185 group compared to the 172s.

Alaska had a lot of fatal accidents this year; I wonder how many AIG had to pay for. Maybe it was a lot, and they decided it wasn’t worth the risk any longer.
 
Just got my new 180 quotes, this one was the lowest (three pilots).

$145,320 Hull with $0 deductibles
Liability Limits of $1M per occurrence with a sublimit of $100K per passenger
Medical payments of $5,000 for each person
Total Annual Premium: $2,168

Liability insurance in the lower 48 is a very small part of the cost. Mine is under $500 on this plane.

sj
 
Back
Top