![]() |
||
Clydes Cockpit: Rising insurance rates dont discriminate against deaf pilots published in the Fall 2000 Newsletter By Clyde Smith, IDPA President Henry Kisor and Mark Stern have already written about the fly-in last June at San Martin, California, in the Summer 2000 newsletter. Another article from me about the fly-in is unnecessary, but I would like to comment on Mark's hard work and obvious sacrifice of his own time to make the IDPA 2000 Fly-In the best to date. On behalf of the IDPA members at the fly-in, I take my hat off to Mark for a wonderful job, well done. The events and activities were well planned and the banquet facilities were beautiful. Thanks a zillion, Mark! Insurance coverage problems Several IDPA members and I have talked about insurance coverage problems. Some members were inclined to believe that some kind of charge should be brought against certain insurance companies for discriminating against deaf or hard of hearing pilots. I have read some articles about insurance rates that are hurting some FBOs and hearing pilots, but to date I have found no evidence of discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing pilots. A recent 60 per cent surge in insurance rates has small-business operators reeling, although rates for personal coverage are rising slowly. Many FBOs, flight schools and charter operators around the country are deeply concerned for the future of aviation, for sharply rising insurance rates and tighter underwriting standards are causing some operators to shut their doors. Today only eight companies will write aviation business policies for FBO insurance, compared to 10 years ago when 25 companies were writing these policies. As for personal coverage, the movement toward higher rates is targeted more toward the transitional pilot, such as one moving from an airplane from fixed landing gear to one with retractable gear. "Count yourself lucky if you are a pilot with 500 hours or more and own an airplane with fixed gear and an engine with less than 200 horsepower," said Flyer magazine in articles in its June 9 and 23, 2000, issues (available on www.flyer-online.com). "This market, the very heart of general aviation, remains 'very competitive.' " But several aviation insurance companies have decided to stop providing coverage for non-IFR rated pilots flying high-performance aircraft. They have tightened their underwriting standards and prefer to provide insurance coverage for these planes only if their pilots are instrument rated. The standards apply to both hearing and deaf or hard of hearing pilots. (Deaf pilots, however, cannot earn IFR ratings at present.) However, a few insurance companies are still willing to cover high-performance aircraft flown by VFR-only pilots with a slight raise in rates. In one case, an accomplished deaf pilot who owns a high-performance plane was not allowed to renew his insurance coverage because he was not IFR rated. I contacted AOPA, who helped him find an insurance company willing to underwrite coverage for him. He was surprised to find that his rates had decreased, not increased, and he's now happy with his new company. (I co-own a Cessna 150. My partner and I have had no problem with our insurance company. In fact, the company decreased our rate to $480 per year, compared to last year's $520. We both have logged over 500 hours.) Some insurance companies believe IFR rated pilots are better risks than VFR-only pilots because of the more rigorous training for an instrument rating. In my opinion, this is wrong. I strongly believe that VFR pilots fly more safely than IFR pilots because they fly within good visibility in nice weather. IFR pilots, however, often fly into hazardous weather with almost no visibility, which in my opinion increases the chances of an accident. But I have found no evidence of discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing pilots by insurance companies, only against VFR pilots in general. For this reason, if you decide to buy a high-performance airplane, I strongly advise you to discuss coverage with an insurance company first. Flyer Magazine suggests the following:
Boyer snubbed by Senate I was saddened to learn that Phil Boyer, AOPA president, was not recommended by the Senate Commerce Committee to serve on the new FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC). President Clinton had asked Boyer to serve. Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, questioned Boyer's qualifications because he and Boyer have often been at loggerheads over the idea of aviation user fees. McCain circulated a draft agenda to the membership of the Commerce Committee, indicating Phil Boyer and Debbie Branson's names would not be sent to the full Senate for confirmation. On behalf of the IDPA, I have written a letter in support of Boyer. The decision not to recommend him to serve on the MAC for his opinions and views against user fees is unfair and unjust. I will copy this letter and send it to McCain and the newly formed MAC. Go back to Newsletters page. |
||
Welcome | About DPA | Newsletters | Fly-ins | Questions | Return to Top |