Pilotage

Mark R. Twombly is a writer and editor who has been flying for 35 years. He lives in Florida.

Be it business, personal, or political, most things are driven by economics. True love is one of the few exceptions; aviation is not.

It's becoming apparent that aviation insurance underwriters stung by losses and, probably more important, the downward plunge in their stock market investments are rewriting the rules for pilots wanting to move up into cabin-class piston twins, turboprops, and single-pilot jets. The new reality includes significantly higher hull premiums, lower liability limits, and in some cases, much tougher experience requirements.

Now is a wonderful time to be flying a general aviation aircraft. Yes, we have to be more vigilant about suspicious activity around the airport and about avoiding uncharted temporary flight restrictions, but the very reason we have these new concerns — national security — also makes a strong case for flying in your own airplane.

Public air transportation is hardly the interesting and enjoyable travel experience it once was. Given new baggage screening requirements, it surely will become even more tedious.

GA is nothing short of fabulous in comparison. We have complete command of the aircraft, as well as control of who and what gets in it and when and where we go. The people who work in GA are friendly and accommodating, and FBOs don't ask to examine our smelly shoes. We can fly to thousands more airports that are more convenient to our ultimate destinations than most airline airports, and along the way we can consume as many bags of pretzels and full cans of soda as we please.

So, now more than ever, there's no lack of justification for relying on GA as primary transportation. For those with the means, it's a great time to move up. A businessman I fly for is looking to do just that. A former million-mile airline traveler, he bought a pressurized piston twin last year because he had had enough of a life organized around scheduled transportation. He also had fallen in love with flying. A student pilot, he's happiest when sitting up front in his own airplane.

His airplane isn't doing what he needs it to do, however, which is to fly a 1,000-nm trip nonstop in time to make a morning meeting. We've been looking at airplanes that will do the job, and we're finding that the economy is influencing the decision on many levels, both positively and negatively.

From a buyer's perspective, the picture looks good. After a good five years of appreciating, used aircraft prices have gone soft. However, some of that advantage is lost when the buyer is moving up and has an airplane to sell or trade. It's discouraging to hear that the beautiful airplane bought a year or two ago will fetch significantly less today, but in this economy moving up means taking two steps forward and one step back.

Make that another half-step back when you consider insurance. I've been shopping for insurance for a twin turboprop and a light jet, either of which would easily fulfill our mission requirements. The results have been sobering.

First, what had been a competitive field of underwriters interested in and capable of insuring that class of aircraft has been reduced to a handful. I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that less competition has made it easier to raise premiums and restrict coverage.

Second, underwriters are biased in favor of jets. Based on the three quotes I received, insurance on a single-pilot jet would cost from 13 to 33 percent less than the annual premium for a twin turboprop.

Third, pilot training and experience is a major factor in determining insurance limits and premium costs, as it should be. The FAA may allow someone to operate a twin turboprop IFR under Part 91 with nothing more than multiengine and instrument ratings, but no insurance company will. Type-specific training and experience are required; beginners need not apply.

Even with type-specific training, a pilot new to turbines, or even to pressurized piston twins, likely will have to be accompanied in the cockpit by a pro for 250 to 300 hours or more. It all depends on the pilot's experience going in — and the underwriter's mindset. Just like pilots, insurance underwriters seem to favor certain makes and models and shun others. And, like pilots, each one's list of likes and dislikes is different.

Insurance not only affects an owner's ability to move up, it also has a crucial role in the sale of the existing airplane. My owner has seen two prospective buyers for his piston twin drop out after they got quotes from their insurance agents. Both currently own and fly singles.

Even when the economy improves, the trend toward more expensive and restrictive insurance is not likely to reverse course. This could have a chilling effect on the success of the Eclipse 500, Cessna's new Mustang, and other similar light single-pilot jets now under development. An important part of the market for these aircraft is owner-pilots, many of whom will take delivery of their dream machines with little or no high-altitude turbine aircraft experience.

Will insurance even be available to them, and if so at what cost? In addition to a type rating, how much turbine experience will underwriters require of new light-jet pilots, and how will they get it? How long will owners of single-pilot jets have to fly with experienced pros as required crewmembers?

The answers may not be what buyers want to hear, but that's the new insurance reality.