180 float time

[patter]

Is that taildragger time?
For insurance purposes?

[digits_]

Ask the insurance. They all have their own rules. Probably not though.

[photofly]

If you have to ask...

[digits_]

I've heard it the other way around though, that some floatplanes have higher premiums because their wheel counterparts are tailwheel planes. So it isn't that weird a question.

[Float_lover]

don't think so.
You're not flying on wheels but on float.

Digits_, I suppose that the insurance count that your floatplane can still be on wheels if you switch the gears.

[BGH]

I’m in the middle of renewal for my 185;total time in type was the most important but they also asked for a breakdown in each configuration - wheels,floats & Amphibs.If I had skis they would of also had me report that time as well.

Daryl

[PilotDAR]

180 float time.......
Is that taildragger time

Would you feel practiced at tailwheel techniques following your flying the 180 floatplane?

[ahramin]

Let's not get too sanctimonious. Patter was asking the question for the purposes of insurance. The aviation underwriters still in the Canadian market have gone completely retarded and have lost all sense of aviation reality. I admit asking the question on AvCanada shows a lack of critical thinking ability, but I really do think it's possible an underwriter in Canada would count 180 float time as tailwheel time. It wouldn't hurt to ask them.

[PilotDAR]

The aviation underwriters still in the Canadian market have gone completely retarded and have lost all sense of aviation reality.

Aside from my dislike for a particular word there, I otherwise agree.

However, deliberately exploiting an insurer's possible confusion to misrepresent experience hardly helps any of us. If a pilot groundloops someone's 180, and the insurer who insured that pilot, based upon an understanding of that pilot's tailwheel experience, later comes to understand that all of the that tailwheel experience was on floats, will (a), look for a way out of the claim, and then (b), make insurance just a little more difficult for the rest of us to get.

Understand that right now, in the Canadian insurance market, there are some certified airplane types, for which new insurance is unobtainable (one I'm thinking of is a taildragger). Does it help anyone to give insurers more justification for this restrictive behavior? Let's do good business with insurers to strengthen our position in realistically being able to be insured at all....

[valleyboy]

Back in the day most recreational aircraft owners did not carry hull insurance, only liability. What has changed - I'm thinking the way pilots are trained today and the move away from conventional gear. As I mentioned in another thread, when I learned to fly that is all we did was look around for places to land away from licensed airports.

Time marches on

[digits_]

Back in the day most recreational aircraft owners did not carry hull insurance, only liability. What has changed - I'm thinking the way pilots are trained today and the move away from conventional gear. As I mentioned in another thread, when I learned to fly that is all we did was look around for places to land away from licensed airports.

Time marches on

Did people spend the equivalent of a small house on an airplane 'back in the day'? Honest question, I'm curious.

I would find it hard to believe someone would spend the equivalent of 150-200k on an airplane and be happy with liability only.

[PilotDAR]

I would find it hard to believe someone would spend the equivalent of 150-200k on an airplane and be happy with liability only.

I know a few. Neither of my planes carry hull insurance, I just fly carefully!

[valleyboy]

well back in the day a 90 hp zero time j3 on floats wheels and skis was about 6 grand but a house was 25000 so I think the ratio is about the same