SR-20 insurance rates

[Wolfala]

General question,

I'm looking to purchasing a 2001 Cirrus SR-20 and leasing it back to a Pt 91 and 141 school in the Bay Area. What are typical rates for leasing back this aircraft if the school doesn't have an accident history or anything major?

Wolf

[Golfer]

Try AOPA and other aviation insurers for quotes wolf.  As you know it all depends on what limitations you put on the pilots who fly it as qualifications go.

If a 172 for "Joe" costs $1000/yr to insure...

And that same 172 for "Joe" costs him $5000 to lease back...

Gotta figure that $3000 (arbitrary...but probably pretty close number) policy you have for yourself is going to ring the gong at 10 or more...$15,000 if it's linear.  Yeowza.

[Chairboy]

One thing, the SR-20 and SR-22 will cost roughly double that of a comparable Cessna or Diamond to insure.  Also, keep in mind that there might be some FAA action coming up for those planes as a result of the accident rate.  MU-2 style action, I'd be worried about how that would affect its rentability.

[Wolfala]

Well, probally wouldnt use it for a training bird. Would keep it as Private Pilot minimums with prob 80 hours PIC as a point to point plane. So no smash and goes - but we'll see what the broker comes up with.

Wolf

[ramzey]

when we can expect this purchase?

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Chairboy
One thing, the SR-20 and SR-22 will cost roughly double that of a comparable Cessna or Diamond to insure.  Also, keep in mind that there might be some FAA action coming up for those planes as a result of the accident rate.  MU-2 style action, I'd be worried about how that would affect its rentability.

lol they're gonna make you get a type rating for it?
i know its fast, but thats ridiculousss!!!1:eek:

[Golfer]

Originally posted by Chairboy
One thing, the SR-20 and SR-22 will cost roughly double that of a comparable Cessna or Diamond to insure.  Also, keep in mind that there might be some FAA action coming up for those planes as a result of the accident rate.  MU-2 style action, I'd be worried about how that would affect its rentability.

When they come out with special training for a Bonanza is when we'll see that.

Frank Robinson has a good record with the R22 and something to what you might be thinking of.  That's a totally different kind of flying all together...

...It's a totally different kind of flying...

I don't see...ever...a regulatory training program for any fixed gear singles.  Insuranced mandated?  Sure and they exist now.  Regulatory?  Not a chance.

[Chairboy]

From R.A.P:
"While attending the EAA Copperstate Fly In at Casa Grande, AZ on Friday, I
had a nice chat with a gentleman from the FSDO Office at Scottsdale, AZ.

We touched on several topics related to my being a relatively new pilot
flying in Arizona in general and the Phoenix area in particular.  I was
pleased to learn (in hindsight) that the FBO where I trained is well
regarded.

I then asked him what he thought of the spate of Cirrus accidents that have
been making the papers lately.

His take on it: Cirrus may indeed be headed for similar requirements as the
MU2 and the R22/R44s.  I mentioned the NYC accident and he seemed pretty
confident that the chain of events leading up to that crash involved what
some here have said:
- Relatively low-time pilot
- Non local CFI unfamiliar with the area
- Tricky airspace (possibly made trickier by Wx)
- Given these three factors...a Cirrus was maybe not the best type of plane
to be in while just noodling around sight seeing.

He explained some interesting things that the FAA and the FAA Safety Team
(FAAST) are trying to accomplish:
- Get manufacturers to share information in order to quantify the types and
frequencies of common accidents/incidents.
- Get FBOs to do the same in an effort to indentify possible training gaps /
problems with rental fleets / issues pertaining to pilots who rent.
- Get more pilots actively involved with pre-emptive safety training related
to risk aversion*.
- Get the insurance industry into this mix so that they make their
premium-related decisions based on facts and not
generalizations/guesstimates.  Also, the FAA would like to see insurers not
hammer specific makes or groups of pilots unless their is real proof that
higher rates are warranted and can be supported by hard numbers.

(*Apparently only about one percent of pilots regularly attend safety
seminars)  I was suprised when he admitted that AOPA is "kicking our butts"
when it comes to pre-emptive safety initiatives but that "we're watching and
trying to learn and get better by observing what AOPA is doing."

I asked him if the above ideas related to data gathering would help to
quantify what pilot's are doing.  His reply was yes, but while a lot of the
the data is out there and available, no one has really made a concerted
effort to collect it and break it down.

I half-jokingly said to him "You'll have to get past the prevalent pilot
mindset of: "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help...""  He immediately came
back with "Yeah, yeah, I know..."Blah, blah, blah...We're not happy until
you're not happy..."

He described the number of safety issues that actually get reported as being
similar to an iceberg and that what most people hear about is only the tip.
The FAA theorizes that for every *one* incident/accident that generates
enough buzz to really "ping" the FAAs safety radar...there are roughly
**600** that do not!

He went on to add that this covers the entire gammut of safety issues from
the really low-level things like landing with a slight tailwind (no big
thing but still potentially dangerous if there were enough other
circumstances...) to the extremes like VFR into IMC, flight into known
icing, etc.

It's nice to know that the FAA may actually be somewhat forward thinking in
some areas.

Humbly submitted:

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ"

[Chairboy]

It was Mike Halloran, the safety program manager at the Scottsdale FSDO, btw.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Golfer
When they come out with special training for a Bonanza is when we'll see that.
...

they got that, its called a complex & high performance endorsement

[Casca]

Originally posted by Wolfala
General question,

I'm looking to purchasing a 2001 Cirrus SR-20 and leasing it back to a Pt 91 and 141 school in the Bay Area. What are typical rates for leasing back this aircraft if the school doesn't have an accident history or anything major?

Wolf

This Guy  has a pretty good write up on being a Cirrus owner.  As you can see from the quote it's pretty restrictive.  If the airplane is being flown 61 (I'm almost sure you meant) or 141 I expect it would get pretty pricey.  Good luck.


"With just me on the policy I was quoted between $3,500 and $5,000 per year for insurance, roughly double what I was quoted for a Diamond DA40 or a single-engine Cessna. Unlike the "any pilot" clause that I had with my old Diamond Star, the insurance came with a limitation to pilots with 500 hours total time and at least 10 hours in Cirrus. I was required to attend factory training and to do annual recurrent training."

[Debonair]

maybe Bonanza drivers do need more training...

[Chairboy]

How else do you think baby Bonanzas are made?

[Wolfala]

Yes I meant Pt 61. I do agree it is very unforgiving to a low timer who isn't properly trained of its handling. Sorta on call the Mooney line had with "being difficult to land", but I think for a majority of the drivers out there who are properly trained and manage their risk (Key factor in all flying activities), unless you are a complete waste of genetic material and have a total disregard to respect the machines ability to snap back, bite u in the bellybutton - and yes, kill you - then it will remain.

But, IMO - the Mooney is an easy to land, extremely solid IFR machine based on a 50 year old design. So, we'll have to see how it turns out down the line in the eyes of pilot opinion for the Cirrus. When you consider the wing loading on a typical M20J, which hovers around 18 lbs / sq foot, going upto a Cirrus at 22 lb / sq ft is not a trivial jump, and only becomes more profound in the SR-22 at 26 lbs  sq foot.

With that, you are in Lancair Legacy territory, which is a 250 kt cruiser with stub wings which you have a fence speed at 100, and maybe 90 at the numbers.

So long as the pilot recognizes the Cirrus isn't anywhere close to an easy mode plane like a Cessna, Grumman or M20 series - hopefully he'll be extra vigilent and know that this plane does not like to get slow - EVER. Our esteemed Yankee's player would've been heeded to do his homework on that one before attempting a 180 on the east river from the middle of the river which you couldn't pull off in a M20J or a Grumman Tiger with 1/2 the wing loading of the SR2 series.

Wolf

[Golfer]

After a couple hundred hours in M20Js I never could figure out why they get a bad rap.  I don't have one bad thing to say about them except after 3 hours I really want to stretch my legs and empty my bladder.

81kts seemed to be my magic number on short final.  Over the fence and off with the power you got a smooth landing in under 1000'

If you needed it...she'd stop in under 500'.   Just like the Apache