I flew in an Evo about 2 weeks ago with a friend who is brokering one. I about fell over when he said the owner is paying $24k per year for insurance. He explained that the PC-12 parked next to it, which he flies/manages, has far higher limits for a fraction of the premium.

I flew in an Evo about 2 weeks ago with a friend who is brokering one. I about fell over when he said the owner is paying $24k per year for insurance. He explained that the PC-12 parked next to it, which he flies/manages, has far higher limits for a fraction of the premium.

That's BECAUSE he flies/manages it; the insurance companies hate owner-flown in this class. A friend had a PC-12 for several years (in the early 2000s, IIRC) until he got tired of the $45K/year insurance. Even with 800+ hours in type and a clean record he paid twice what he would have with a professional pilot, according to his insurance company.

For liability and not-in-motion only, my queries to insurance agents have returned estimates for the Evolution starting around $12K/year, dropping to $7K with enough time in type.

Dave insurance companies do not 'hate' owner-flown turbine aircraft. The class of business is simply underwritten differently than professionally flown risks. That topic has been beat to death on another thread - right, wrong or indifferent. I insure close to 100 PC12's and have been heavily involved with the POPA (Pilatus Owners Association) for the last 10 years - I can say on that basis there is no hate for an owner pilot in this class of business - if there was serious concern with an owner pilot in a $4m+ aircraft then the policies wouldn't be underwritten at all by any carrier.

How would a guy who flies PC 12 professionally but also has his own PC12 be treated?

In owning that aircraft it would really depend on if he had another job function (such as CEO of a company etc) in how it is rated.

And "differently" being a significant cost delta. In any case, I take your point that the previous poster's comparison of rates for a pro-flown certified SETP to those for an owner-flown experimental tells us nothing about the rates for experimental vs. certified, as the pro-flown and owner-flown classes of business are "underwritten differently".

In owning that aircraft it would really depend on if he had another job function (such as CEO of a company etc) in how it is rated.

That's BECAUSE he flies/manages it; the insurance companies hate owner-flown in this class. A friend had a PC-12 for several years (in the early 2000s, IIRC) until he got tired of the $45K/year insurance. Even with 800+ hours in type and a clean record he paid twice what he would have with a professional pilot, according to his insurance company.

For liability and not-in-motion only, my queries to insurance agents have returned estimates for the Evolution starting around $12K/year, dropping to $7K with enough time in type.

Every situation is different but I could see a strong case being made for A to be rated more favorably than B. Meaning a pro-flown rating applying to A.

Thanks for the info.

I'm so new to turbines I can't use actual figures from my plane. But I did do due diligence and spoke to at least three users of the same or similar model as mine, and they all ended up in the $600-700/hr bracket. They've owned them for years.

I've harped on about how you save about $30K in oil changes over the lifetime on a turbine compared to a piston etc (pays for a no frills HSI), so at least on paper, I get the impression they're the best kept secret in flying: they're only slightly more expensive per hour, but cost the same or even less per NM.

I'll take that for the increased reliability, speed, international fuel travel capabilities and the better deals you can get on Jet A. But ultimately, what I wanted to get away from was piston engine management. Such a pain to deal with the BS of LOP, ROP, shock cooling, cracked cylinders, accessories, spark plugs etc. Took me 10 minutes in cruise to set up LOP correctly when I should have been looking outside.

Tom,

How do underwriters view two-pilot crews (in the multiengine turbine world) with one of the two being the owner? Is that closer two pro pilots or closer to two owner pilots when pricing the risk?

Does it matter if the airframe requires two crew?

Thanks!

Jake-
It depends on the qualifications of the second pilot/owner......if equally qualified then the risk can be viewed as two-crew with favorable ratings. With the PC12 which only requires one pilot - if you have a strong PIC pro-pilot - a second strong pilot whether owner or not won't really reduce the pricing much. The policy will generally be rated on the strong PIC for an airplane which is able to be flown SP - the second guy in has little impact really. However if a lower time owner pilot is on a policy for a PC12 such that he has ability to fly it SP then it can adversely affect the placement in terms of markets interested and pricing - even if the majority of the flying might be single-pilot by the professional pilot.

Thanks Tom!

I was once told that in order to get insurance reflecting the stronger (pro) pilot's logbook, the owner-pilot was contractually prohibited in the policy declarations from touching the controls. This was in a SP situation and makes some sense, but the broker implied that was the default...as in, unless the owner wanted to pay rates reflecting his total time, he or she was not going to be touching the controls as part of a crew on any airplane.

Seems counter intuitive this way...if I am the owner of say a PC-12 but have a pro pilot on staff and occasionally (or always) want to sit up front but never want to fly SP the above statement would imply it would be cheaper to insure, and thus safer, for me to stay out of the cockpit and only have one set of eyes, hands and feet operating the airplane.

Last question, can an insurance policy effectively specify and two-pilot crew for aircraft certified for one pilot?