I have a friend that just got a job offer from another ( very ) rich friend that just bought a King Air C90, my friend says that he has about 900TT and 150 multi, w/ no Turbine Time. They have not checked into insurance yet, even if he goes to Sim some where will any insurance pick him up? They will be running the King Air Part 91 Single Pilot. What would be some solid mins?
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Is he Drunk??
- Thread starter Habib
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
USAIG and AIG are the two heavy hitters when it comes to writing policies for turbine powered equipment.
Pilot experience is one the the biggest factors underwriters use when determining risk.
The first thing the pilots need to due is make contact with an aviation insurance broker and get a Pilot experience summary form filled out and submitted to the underwriters.
You will then know what you are up against.
IMO, if the PIC of this plane has only 900 tt and NO turbine, very little ME time, and obviously NO time in type, s/he will find insurance VERY expensive, if it can be gotten at all.
Additionally, underwriters tend to even more restrictive on policy issues when writing them for a "new" operator.
Good luck
Pilot experience is one the the biggest factors underwriters use when determining risk.
The first thing the pilots need to due is make contact with an aviation insurance broker and get a Pilot experience summary form filled out and submitted to the underwriters.
You will then know what you are up against.
IMO, if the PIC of this plane has only 900 tt and NO turbine, very little ME time, and obviously NO time in type, s/he will find insurance VERY expensive, if it can be gotten at all.
Additionally, underwriters tend to even more restrictive on policy issues when writing them for a "new" operator.
Good luck
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
Dude, you can't ballpark this sort of thing, as far as pricing goes. What will ULTIMATELY determine what he pays for insurance is based on WAY to many factors to be able to "ballpark" it for you...
Likely, the underwriter will look at the qualifications and experience level of who they approve as PIC. Which WILL NOT be your friend.
Other factors which will also come into play is the value of the airplane and the limits in liability the insured chooses to have. For example, you're going to pay a bunch more money annually for 100 million in liablity while operating a plane with a hull value of 3 million bucks, vs. carrying 5 million liability on a plane worth 500 grand.
The principle needs to determine what liability limits are appropriate for them.
This is a unique case, as 900 hr pilots don't typically go out and buy King Air's. GET an insurance agent involved NOW. The stuff you get off this board is of little use for you at this point.
Likely, the underwriter will look at the qualifications and experience level of who they approve as PIC. Which WILL NOT be your friend.
Other factors which will also come into play is the value of the airplane and the limits in liability the insured chooses to have. For example, you're going to pay a bunch more money annually for 100 million in liablity while operating a plane with a hull value of 3 million bucks, vs. carrying 5 million liability on a plane worth 500 grand.
The principle needs to determine what liability limits are appropriate for them.
This is a unique case, as 900 hr pilots don't typically go out and buy King Air's. GET an insurance agent involved NOW. The stuff you get off this board is of little use for you at this point.
ultrarunner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,322
But if it's examples you're looking for, here is mine.
Aircraft... 22 year old small jet. Insured for 1.7 million.
Professionially flow.
Both pilots ATP/type rated with a combined TT of about 20,000 hrs.
Greater than half of that in turbojet aircaft.
Annual training consistently for the past 12 years.
PIC has 3000 IN TYPE, mostly as PIC.
NO accidents, incidents, DUI's or LOI's.
Airline experienced. 135 experienced.
Aircraft hangared and operated 91 only.
Annual sim training.
Liability limits are 100 million.
Annual policy cost is just under 40 grand.
there you go!
Aircraft... 22 year old small jet. Insured for 1.7 million.
Professionially flow.
Both pilots ATP/type rated with a combined TT of about 20,000 hrs.
Greater than half of that in turbojet aircaft.
Annual training consistently for the past 12 years.
PIC has 3000 IN TYPE, mostly as PIC.
NO accidents, incidents, DUI's or LOI's.
Airline experienced. 135 experienced.
Aircraft hangared and operated 91 only.
Annual sim training.
Liability limits are 100 million.
Annual policy cost is just under 40 grand.
there you go!
LJDRVR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,134
I hate to say it, but in today's insurance environment, your friend will not be covered. Our KA pilots all have 2000-4000 hours and simulator training. We are now having to hire FO's as our underwriter will not longer allow single-pilot operations. Part 91 operators are experiencing the same issues. For budgeting purposes, your friend is going to have to recieve sim training, and plan on hiring an experienced contract guy or gal to ride herd for a while. After your friend has 500 in type or so, an FO could be hired to replace the contract person. SIngle-pilot operations by less than extraordinarilly experienced pilots is simply not insurable.
LittleDeuce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 341
I don't believe so. A 90 is a very forgiving aircraft. Personally I feel it is easier to fly than the Bonanza. While it may be difficult to get coverage in his situation, it will not be impossible. It will take time and there will be a list of requirements and restrictions. We operate Cheyennes and CE421s. It is easier to get our pilots on the Cheyenne than it is the 421. His being a Part 91 operation will help to a degree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't believe so. A 90 is a very forgiving aircraft. Personally I feel it is easier to fly than the Bonanza."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think so huh. Go back about two years ago to the accident in Nashville where an owner operator had an engine failure on T/O and did not make it back to the airport in VMC. These operators are not just hazards to themselves, they endanger the pax and other opperators.
"I don't believe so. A 90 is a very forgiving aircraft. Personally I feel it is easier to fly than the Bonanza."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think so huh. Go back about two years ago to the accident in Nashville where an owner operator had an engine failure on T/O and did not make it back to the airport in VMC. These operators are not just hazards to themselves, they endanger the pax and other opperators.
It has more to do with attitude than total time. I have flown with some very fine pilots that were low total time. And some high time pilots that I couldn't turn my back on. As for businessman-pilots, one of the best ones I have ever dealt with had less than 1000 hours. When he flew, he acted like a professional pilot, no business, etc. If had to deal with business enroute, like clients on board, he had a professional pilot fly. He went to recurrent at least once every 12 months. In short he acted like a professional.
As for the accident you refered to, any aircraft will bit you in the ass if you let it, even a single engine Cessna. You want a hard T/P to fly, try a Merlin or MU2. They're harder than a 20 series Lear to fly.
As for the accident you refered to, any aircraft will bit you in the ass if you let it, even a single engine Cessna. You want a hard T/P to fly, try a Merlin or MU2. They're harder than a 20 series Lear to fly.
501261
Consigliere
- Joined
- May 27, 2002
- Posts
- 829
I agree with Rick, the 90 is one of the easiest airplanes out there. If I was an underwriter I'd rather insure an owner-operator in a 90 than just about any piston twin.
As far as insurance, if he doesn't need more than $10M in liability and doesn't fly charter, then insurance shouldn't that much of a problem. The big thing with insurance is making the underwriter feel comfortable writing you a policy (that's directly from the underwriter). So how do you make the underwriter feel comfortable? Go to sim training, write an ops manual, and invite the underwriter out to your operation.
As far as insurance, if he doesn't need more than $10M in liability and doesn't fly charter, then insurance shouldn't that much of a problem. The big thing with insurance is making the underwriter feel comfortable writing you a policy (that's directly from the underwriter). So how do you make the underwriter feel comfortable? Go to sim training, write an ops manual, and invite the underwriter out to your operation.
Ty Webb
Hostage to Fortune
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2001
- Posts
- 6,524
It's not what the engines burn, it's where they take you.
If your friend is like most 900 hr pilots, they don't have much experience operating pressurized aircraft in the middle altitudes dealing with icing and thunderstorms on a regular basis. They usually don;t have time operating into high-density terminal areas (some arrivals can get very busy, especially single pilot- look at the plate for the Civet arrival into LAX for example), and are not used to thinking ahead of an airplane that is going twice as fast as they are used to thinking, capable of taking them in excess of a thousand miles without refuelling, getting more weather, etc. I have taken a King Air 200 nonstop from TPA to Jackson Hole, Wyo . . . . obvioulsy, a pilot needs to be as capable as the aircaft they are flying.
A professional pilot, or a pilot with the attitude of a professional, will learn all these things over time, and your friend probably will too, but the insurance company will want him to have sim-based training and quite a bit more experience, probably at least 500 hrs in type, given his low time.
If your friend is like most 900 hr pilots, they don't have much experience operating pressurized aircraft in the middle altitudes dealing with icing and thunderstorms on a regular basis. They usually don;t have time operating into high-density terminal areas (some arrivals can get very busy, especially single pilot- look at the plate for the Civet arrival into LAX for example), and are not used to thinking ahead of an airplane that is going twice as fast as they are used to thinking, capable of taking them in excess of a thousand miles without refuelling, getting more weather, etc. I have taken a King Air 200 nonstop from TPA to Jackson Hole, Wyo . . . . obvioulsy, a pilot needs to be as capable as the aircaft they are flying.
A professional pilot, or a pilot with the attitude of a professional, will learn all these things over time, and your friend probably will too, but the insurance company will want him to have sim-based training and quite a bit more experience, probably at least 500 hrs in type, given his low time.
The insurance companies will want to see sim based training in the 90 not the 200 with 90 differences. And a full motion sim. Yes, they will most likely want to see 100 to 200 hours with an experienced KA pilot.
Ty, I agree that where they go could be an issue. But, considering the current price of aircraft right now, if range of operation was an issue, this owner would be looking at something faster. Most TP trips are an hour or less in length. Yes, they can do long range operations, I have flown Metros from the US to Europe twice. But the average trip is much shorter.
Terrain can get even highly experienced pilots into trouble. Look at the G3 accident at Aspen. The crew was familar with the airport.
My point is that if this particular pilot uses the right attitude and knows and respects his limitations, I don't see too many problems. Burt then we all have to do that don't we?
Ty, I agree that where they go could be an issue. But, considering the current price of aircraft right now, if range of operation was an issue, this owner would be looking at something faster. Most TP trips are an hour or less in length. Yes, they can do long range operations, I have flown Metros from the US to Europe twice. But the average trip is much shorter.
Terrain can get even highly experienced pilots into trouble. Look at the G3 accident at Aspen. The crew was familar with the airport.
My point is that if this particular pilot uses the right attitude and knows and respects his limitations, I don't see too many problems. Burt then we all have to do that don't we?
Ty, The numbers you quoted are accurate for the 200. But the original poster was talking about a 90 which is somewhat slower.
What I was talking about is that industry wide the average TP trip is around an hour in length. Most people who have that type of money, don't want to spend that much time in an airplane if they have any sort of control over it. And right now for the price of a late model C90 they can get an early LR35 or WW1. Then life gets more interesting for that pilot. The biggest point I am trying to make is that the pilot's attitude has more to do with the safety of the operation than the pilot's total time. Yes, with more experience he should, statisticly speaking, be able to handle more stressful situations. But if he realizes what his limitations are and stays within those limitations, he should not too many problems.
What I was talking about is that industry wide the average TP trip is around an hour in length. Most people who have that type of money, don't want to spend that much time in an airplane if they have any sort of control over it. And right now for the price of a late model C90 they can get an early LR35 or WW1. Then life gets more interesting for that pilot. The biggest point I am trying to make is that the pilot's attitude has more to do with the safety of the operation than the pilot's total time. Yes, with more experience he should, statisticly speaking, be able to handle more stressful situations. But if he realizes what his limitations are and stays within those limitations, he should not too many problems.
English
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,374
"SIngle-pilot operations by less than extraordinarilly experienced pilots is simply not insurable."
posted by LJDRVR (I haven't figured out the quote feature yet)
I'm insured single-pilot...see my profile for my flight time...I'm not extraordinarily experienced by any means and I'm insured. BTW, I'm not the lowest-time single pilot Citationjet driver at my company...
posted by LJDRVR (I haven't figured out the quote feature yet)
I'm insured single-pilot...see my profile for my flight time...I'm not extraordinarily experienced by any means and I'm insured. BTW, I'm not the lowest-time single pilot Citationjet driver at my company...
Last edited:
Mrs_Boeing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Posts
- 16
I know one CJ being flown single-pilot by an owner-operator who did his ATP ride in conjunction with his 525 type. I am told he has less than 2000 total, though more than half of his total time is multi turbine in the C90B he owned previously which he also flew single-pilot. I have been told that he did most of his training in a Seneca III which he bought right after his PPL, then he bought and flew the 90 with an experienced stick from around 500 TT to about 900 or so, at which time he began flying without a babysitter in the C90. If I am remembering this correctly he flew with an experienced Captian in the 525 for just over 100 hours after the ATP/type ride and has since been turned loose in it SP. He goes to training twice a year, as he has done since he bought the C90, at SimCom and considers the recurrent money well-spent. His wife and kids fly with him constantly and he endeavors to maintain professional-level skills at all times for this reason.
So it can be done, but to be done safely and sensibly the training MUST happen regularly, just like any commercial operator running a 91 or 135 operation.
Come to think of it, this gentleman maintains a commitment to training unmatched by many crusty old 135 Captains. The same Captains who smirked and said he'd be falling out of the sky trying to fly a King Air all over the Southeast single-pilot at 900 hours. He puts many pros to shame in his knowledge and dedication to be constantly learning.
Mom
So it can be done, but to be done safely and sensibly the training MUST happen regularly, just like any commercial operator running a 91 or 135 operation.
Come to think of it, this gentleman maintains a commitment to training unmatched by many crusty old 135 Captains. The same Captains who smirked and said he'd be falling out of the sky trying to fly a King Air all over the Southeast single-pilot at 900 hours. He puts many pros to shame in his knowledge and dedication to be constantly learning.
Mom
Last edited:
G4 and 400hrs
My boss is handling pilot on his new G4. he has an FAA CPL, Instrument, (only rated as SIC). FSI felt a type rating not in the public interest......Approx 400hrs. with over 200 on type. He also has a King Air 200. The insurance is on the back of a European AOC, (135). However whislt he is handling pilot, there is always a rated professional pilot in the right seat. Often also a rated copilot is in the jump seat.
The professional crew never actually handle the aircraft. I have one landing to my credit the year, and the copilot, (in jump seat), has no landings (or take offs) either.
As to his minimums we have established 900ft, and 2 miles. This is why I have a landing logged........
To save money the two cabin crew are sitting at home, to save hotel accomodation. His wife acts as cabin crew......
My boss is handling pilot on his new G4. he has an FAA CPL, Instrument, (only rated as SIC). FSI felt a type rating not in the public interest......Approx 400hrs. with over 200 on type. He also has a King Air 200. The insurance is on the back of a European AOC, (135). However whislt he is handling pilot, there is always a rated professional pilot in the right seat. Often also a rated copilot is in the jump seat.
The professional crew never actually handle the aircraft. I have one landing to my credit the year, and the copilot, (in jump seat), has no landings (or take offs) either.
As to his minimums we have established 900ft, and 2 miles. This is why I have a landing logged........
To save money the two cabin crew are sitting at home, to save hotel accomodation. His wife acts as cabin crew......
Publishers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,736
Flame
Without trying to be flame bait, this person is not a professional pilot who should be doing a King Air 90 single pilot/
Secondly, thiough, I agree that when I had an A90, in many ways it was easier to deal with than my 402. It would have been a great deal of fun had it really gone fast or high, none of which could it accomplish. Nevertheless, I did not find management of the aircraft that difficult and it certainly had more performance than the 402.
Later, two of the pilots that worked for me put me in the seat of a Cessna Citation ISp and without any imput from them, I managed to get a whole trip in. It was a lesson in seeing how easy the Citation was to fly. While not perfect, we did prove the point to some extent. I do not think we would have tried this with a Lear 23.
Back then I had about 1500 TT 400 Multi and 200 in the King Air 90 and 100. I would not have thought about going anywhere in the 90 or 100 we had single pilot. The second pilot is the least expensive insurance you can buy
Without trying to be flame bait, this person is not a professional pilot who should be doing a King Air 90 single pilot/
Secondly, thiough, I agree that when I had an A90, in many ways it was easier to deal with than my 402. It would have been a great deal of fun had it really gone fast or high, none of which could it accomplish. Nevertheless, I did not find management of the aircraft that difficult and it certainly had more performance than the 402.
Later, two of the pilots that worked for me put me in the seat of a Cessna Citation ISp and without any imput from them, I managed to get a whole trip in. It was a lesson in seeing how easy the Citation was to fly. While not perfect, we did prove the point to some extent. I do not think we would have tried this with a Lear 23.
Back then I had about 1500 TT 400 Multi and 200 in the King Air 90 and 100. I would not have thought about going anywhere in the 90 or 100 we had single pilot. The second pilot is the least expensive insurance you can buy
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
