Microlighters

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 4:48 pm**

My fellow mad men in their flying machines.
I am busy with a big short term insurance broker in Cape Town who is a good friend of mine.
Told him the other night about our problems with insurance. His immediate reaction was that he knows it is impossible to get trike insurance, but he promised me to once again put a lot of work into this issue.
Well, he just phoned me and told me he has done a lot of work on the bigger insurance companies and some of them want to know about our licence requirements, registration at CAA etc.
Next step will be to get stats from CAA about how many trikes are flying, registered, accidents etc. They are busy with that.
If anybody can forward me some stats regarding this it will also help.
I promised him if he get this right we will support him country wide. SO DONT DROP ME ON THAT ONE!

Will keep you guys up to date on this. Apparently a MOERSE job.
No promises yet, but we will keep on trying.

I am not the BOOZE god for nothing...............
Some are the gods of love..thats not me
Some are the gods of envy......thats not me
Some are the SON ( for da heat) god. like RA.......thats not me
Some are the gods of wheather, like THOR ( although we all whatch him carefully! ), ........thats not me either.....

But the god of the wine......THATS ME!

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 5:30 pm**

you go bachus

i am sure you will have the backing of evry one if you can get this right. you can count me in

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 6:25 pm**

Bacchus, I found some stats, don't know if they will help. Tried to copy and paste, no luck, cause it's in Acrobat.
Go to www.caa.co.za, then on the left bar, go to stats. here are number of a/c in their various types, (by the way, microlights make up the largest number, 2236 at end dec 05).
these might help a little.

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am**

When is this likely to be available. My insurance needs renewal next month. Do I go the expensive Jankelow way for another year?

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2006 3:03 pm**

I cannot give you an answer on when. They are very busy working on this and contacted me again today for more info.
Will keep you guys updated.

Posted: **Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:27 pm**

Disclaimer

I have not been threatened with a law suit or physical harm, and for that I thank DJ&A. Neither will I receive any benefit for putting their ad on the forum.

When is this likely to be available. My insurance needs renewal next month. Do I go the expensive Jankelow way for another year?

I have received a complaint about my comment from Dennis Jankelow & Associates, which I copy here.

Before that,

(a) looking at the advertisement from Dennis Jankelow it states "Underwritten by Santam Insurance Ltd" but I would argue that the impression is created by the heading and text that DJ&A would like to take the credit for offering affordable insurance specifically designed for microlight and gyrocopter aircraft. Maybe Mr Speller's letter should be read with the advertisement making it clear that DJ&A are middle men, and that SANTAM should be blamed for the ridiculous fees.

(b) lacking an alternative, I will now insure ZU-DVE again at the outrageous cost of R10605.00 (insured value R150000), and have the pleasure of paying R7500 (or double excess R15000) should I have the misfortune of crashing, even if I safe most of the trike by using my ballistic chute.

Dear Dr Coetzee

My name is Graham Speller. I am a director of Dennis Jankelow & Associates.

I was concerned to see, in the Microlighters forum, your comment "....do I need to go the expensive Jankelow route for another year...?".

Having discussed the matter with my colleague, Deon Langenhoven, and after reviewing your file, I would like to make a couple of observations.

As you know, we are insurance brokers. We are not an insurance company. We do not set premium rates and we do not decide whether claims are paid or not. As insurance brokers, we represent you in negotiations with Insurers and our function is to (a) provide advice, (b) arrange insurance coverage which fulfils your needs, (c) negotiate the terms and conditions, including premium rates, to your best advantage, (d) collect premium from you and remit it to the Insurers, (d) negotiate claims settlements on your behalf, and so on.

In negotiating the renewal of coverage for ZU-DVE, we secured the best terms available at the time, taking into account the various factors involved, including your current flying experience, the value of the aircraft, etc.

If there were a more competitive alternative available, we would have found it and would have presented it to you. However, there wasn't one at that time.

So what I am really trying to say is that we got the best deal going at that time and so I was a bit disappointed to see your reference to "the expensive Jankelow route.." on the Internet! I think it may have been more accurate - as well as a little fairer! - to refer to "the expensive Santam route" if you felt that way.

I note your comments regarding the ballistic chute fitted to ZU-DVE. Ballistic chutes have been a bone of contention with Insurers for some time. There are differing views as to the value of a ballistic chute from an insurance perspective. Some Insurers (not in SA, but in the global insurance market) feel that ballistic chutes cause more Hull damage than they prevent: usually when the chute deploys accidentally. There is another view that says that the mere presence of a ballistic chute can cause Hull damage when pilots deploy the chutes prematurely (because they are in a state of panic) when, in the absence of the chute, they may have been able to recover control of the aircraft. Please note that I am not saying these are my views, or those of my colleagues, but merely that they are views which have been expressed often within the global aviation insurance industry.

It seems to me that a ballistic chute is there to be used, when all else has failed, in an attempt to save lives rather than to prevent damage to the aircraft itself. The aircraft is expendable, lives are not.

So, I would tend to agree that the presence of a ballistic chute may justify a reduction in the third party and/or passenger legal liability insurance costs, if the available data demonstrated that:

(a) Ballistic chutes do not INCREASE the incidence of accidents
(through malfunction, premature deployment, etc.)
(b) The injury/property damage rate was lessened where ballistic
chutes were installed

I am not aware of any reliable data in this regard, but I would be very grateful if you were able to provide any or to point me in the right direction?

In relation to ZU-DVE, as I am sure Deon has pointed out, your increased experience level resulted in a premium reduction, as did the increased sum insured in respect of the aircraft. For example:

(a) Had your flying experience remained unaltered, the increased
value alone would have resulted in a reduction in rate from 7,25% to 6,65% (-8,27%)
(b) However, your increased flying experience resulted in a further
reduction from 6,65% to 5,90% (-11,27%)

Consequently, overall, your Hull rate reduced from 7,25% to 5,90% as a result of the combination of increased value and increased experience i.e. a rate reduction of 18,62%.

I hope the foregoing comments will perhaps provide some perspective to this issue. Rest assured that we are constantly seeking alternative markets for our clients' insurances. However, we insist on using only those Insurers that can demonstrate an appropriate level of experience and expertise: we will not offer our clients any Insurer purely because their rates appear cheap: if the Insurer cannot provide appropriate levels of coverage, security or service (particularly following a loss), I would agree with one of your colleagues on the Microlighters forum: you're better off not insuring at all.

I know that Deon is working very hard on your insurances and I am sure he will be able to provide a satisfactory solution, but please feel free to contact me for advice or assistance at any time.

With best wishes and kindest regards

Graham Speller
Dennis Jankelow & Associates (Aviation) (Pty) Ltd (FSP No.15808)
Direct: +27 11 840-8331
Switchboard: +27 11 463-5550
General Fax: +27 11 463-5551
Private Fax: +27 11 507-5475
Mobile/Car: +27 82 552-7005
Email: speller@jankelow.co.za
Website: www.jankelow.co.za

Posted: **Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:01 pm**

Hi

I have also been shocked at the high insurance premiums on microlight cover.

Maybe their advertisers should re-consider making their name bigger than the insurance company.

I am sick of insurance company excuses! I dont insure my microlight. What confuses me though is:

[quote]As you[quote] know, we are insurance brokers. We are not an insurance company. We do not set premium [/quote]rates and we do not decide whether claims are paid or not. As insurance brokers, we represent you in negotiations with Insurers and our function is to (a) provide advice, (b) arrange insurance coverage which fulfils your needs, (c) negotiate the terms and conditions, including premium rates, to your best advantage, (d) collect premium from you and remit it to the Insurers, (d) negotiate claims settlements on your behalf, and so on. [/quote]

Isnt there a contradiction here. "Negotiate including premium rates"... Seems like they may have something to do with rates?

Wouldnt it be fair to assume, and I assume they are, that the above mentioned broker is the largest and therefore best positioned to be able to negotiate "group" rates for microlight insurance? To acccept that the underwriter is the only option and say, well, we negotiated with the only ones who do it, doesnt help much!

I see a few guys have tried but maybe they are not succeeding because they dont have the numbers. How many guys do insure with this broker? I reckon if they went to another insurer and said we have this much business, give us better rates - they may come right! If you dont ask you dont get me thinks...

Perhaps instead of writing long winded letters there may be time in the day to negotiate some better rates

????

Give me a ballistic chute anyday over my micro insurance policy... if its a choice, I am in. Perhaps financing of ballistic chutes is a good business proposition for someone?

[/quote]

Posted: **Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:08 pm**

I am also insured VIA DJ&A and my application was handled by Deon Langehoven. It was done fast, efficiently and effortless and I was impressed and knew that I was in capable and informed company. However, like you guys I also feel that I am paying too much and I use my vehicles insurance as yardstick, which I admit might not be a fair one

Still, 4 times the value at half the price

The real issue for me though is that all my current short term insurance is and has been with Santam for the last 5 years and it is impossible for me to deal directly with Santam on this one. They refused that my curent broker, which I've had for the last 6 years, also underwrite this for me. It has to go via DJ&A.

why?

I am not saying that DJ&A is not entitled to their fees for services rendered, indeed they have acquired intellectual capacity through the years and were able to sell their product/know-how with confidence to the underwriters. However the question remains: who is doing the cashing-in???

The underwriter, or the broker (DJ&A)?

Posted: **Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:51 pm**

Hi,

GR8-DAD wrote

It has to go via DJ&A. why?

and

who is doing the cashing-in???

This is where the cloak and dagger stuff begins. All so transparent for the consumer.

it is impossible for me to deal directly with Santam on this one.

Don't know why suddenly the word Monopoly strucks my mind

and all this after reading this heart rendering letter they wrote to Gert. I nearly shed a tear for all Insurance Brokers.

Regards,
Arnulf

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:48 am**

One year of insurance premiums will most probably cover any repairs to your trike in case of an "oops". Might as well put that money aside in a bank account rather than pay it out to the insurance company - at least you still have the money if you do not need to use it. As far as my life goes I cover that risk with my ballistic chute.

There are far better things to do (like fly) than try and change the mind of a company like Santam. They will not give you a lower premium because they do not understand microlights or the people that fly them and they do not have figures that they can punch into their calculators to allow them to assess the risk.

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:36 am**

Surely the broker who has many aviators as his clients should negotiate with the insurance companies when it concerns the rates that we pay ..... And also educate them when it comes to understanding the microlighters needs ?

I agree that paying that kind of insurance premium is day light robbery. I would rather spend the money and fit a Ballistic Chute , which will save my life if i am in a situation where i could not carry out a forced landing or for some reason i had structual damage and had to deploy the chute. As it has already been said , if you save the money that you pay to a insurance company then you will be able to repair the aircraft with ease.

I just feel sorry for the guys who have finaced there microlights as they have no choice but insure. If you can rather take a second bond on the house, this will cost you far less.

with the price of fuel and the insurance premiuims we better get second jobs ..........

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:32 am**

Seems riding a motorbike is far safer than flying a plane

A colleague has a R150k BMW motor bike. Insurance is also underwritten by Santam. His monthly premium is R380. (if it smells fishy, and look fishy...)

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:49 am**

eyetie wrote:

with the price of fuel and the insurance premiuims we better get second jobs .........

What do you mean, I am already into my second job..

wat nou

Me thinx this is how male prostitution started.......

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:45 am**

A friend of mine recently got a quote to replace an etire Aquilla undercarriage from Solo wings (Frontwheel assembly, seatframe, wheels engine mount .. etc.) for R22k.

If you can manage to fly the first few years without having a spill (and put away the money you would have spent on insurance!) you can cover yourself.

Now how big a no-claim bonus am I going to pay myself this year? Free Kalahari bundu bash sounds about fair....

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:38 pm**

I don't think the broker's at fault. He survives on a commission, I doubt a mark-up. I would also prefer a specialised broker handle my contract rather than your local Santam poppie

The problem is only one reputable insurer willing to offer a product. So why does a dog lick himself? Coz he can! They're in business for the bucks. I think also the schlepp of a few microlight covers is little in comparison to the rest of their aviation trade - commercial, jets, charter loads e.t.c.

So, cancel insurance and put to a flying slush fund.

Microlighters

Trike insurance....MAYBE!

Trike insurance....MAYBE!