Getting back in to flying and aircraft selection

[Ted]

So the FAA has no history of taking issue with quid pro quo arrangements as long as dollars are not exchanged?

There's nothing in the regs saying that your CFI needs to charge you for his services. There's nothing in the regs that says you have to charge someone for using your plane.

I don't know for certain about enforcement actions, but I doubt if anybody would care even if they knew.

 

[Trimup]

"I have / am going to get a big fancy plane.

?? We are talking about a Decathlon and maybe a Cessna here not The Donald's 757.

Instruction to happen in both airframes. Instructor may also ride along in the Cessna if I decide to use it to haul passengers before I am comfortable doing so alone. Instructor is only interested in access to the Decathlon.

 

[Alexb2000]

Solid Caravan on floats costs about as much as a Beaver and unless they have the Texas Turbines engine conversion they don't exactly jump off the water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMDPuqUqOOI

Our lake can be busy so a shorter takeoff run is better. This cub represents the extreme, it could takeoff on the fourth of July. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7WtLOy9Cik

My mission for the floatplane is the same as it would be for the Silver Eagle; safely build time while I figure out what I want to eventually own and fly.

I haven't flown the Caravan on floats but it is no slouch on land. Keep in mind this was at 8,000 lb. With just you and your instructor a 675 horse Caravan will probably get off as fast or faster than a cub. I wouldn't let a youtube marketing video make up my mind (although the Brad Paisley song was genius).

 

[mcmanigle]

?? We are talking about a Decathlon and maybe a Cessna here not The Donald's 757.

Any airplane is big and fancy to a poor PhD student who rents a DA20 when he has spare lunch money

 

[Trimup]

Any airplane is big and fancy to a poor PhD student who rents a DA20 when he has spare lunch money

I think I starred in that same movie about two decades ago.

 

[bflynn]

If you start flying a piston single today, it will be old hat in about three days. If you start flying a turbine single today, it will be old hat in about the same period of time.

The planes fly the same, the only difference is getting comfortable with the presentation of engine information and the slight differences in the power levers.

This.

If you're going to get back into flying and plan on spending 50 hours with an instructor, go ahead and start flying the airplane you want to fly. Whether it's a 182T, a 210 or a King Air, fly it now.

I can't make a suggestion as to what airplane that is because you didn't really say what you want it for. How much speed is important? How far will you fly? Good IFR platform? Flight into known icing? Carrying capacity?

 

[Trimup]

There's nothing in the regs saying that your CFI needs to charge you for his services. There's nothing in the regs that says you have to charge someone for using your plane.

I don't know for certain about enforcement actions, but I doubt if anybody would care even if they knew.

Thanks. We are going to try the arrangement and see how it works for all involved.
I am struck by how little thought I put in to risk assessment when first learning to fly 20 years ago, I remember being consumed by how I would cover the costs. Now I can't stop reading NTSB reports and the costs are a non-issue.

c'est la vie

 

[Trimup]

This.

If you're going to get back into flying and plan on spending 50 hours with an instructor, go ahead and start flying the airplane you want to fly. Whether it's a 182T, a 210 or a King Air, fly it now.

I can't make a suggestion as to what airplane that is because you didn't really say what you want it for. How much speed is important? How far will you fly? Good IFR platform? Flight into known icing? Carrying capacity?

Mission(s) parameters still evolving as it appears wife has more ideas about when and where we are going to be spending our time than I realized.

Just got asked by the company buying me out to consider multi-year contract as consultant, their offices are 700 and 1500 miles from my location. They are offering to cover specific direct operating costs on a personally owned aircraft as part of the deal. Stipulations from their accounting are that all reimbursable costs must relate only to an aircraft wholly owned(not leased, not chartered, not fractional). Acquisition and all maintenance is my responsibility with no hourly prepays or accruals allowed as part of the direct operating costs but they will cover all pilot related costs given my location. I need to find the forum where the corporate jet jockeys hang out and get some opinions on which of the old birds that can be had for a song now are worth owning and which should be avoided.

 

[Ted]

Sounds like you need to give Wayne a call.

 

[Trimup]

Sounds like you need to give Wayne a call.

No slight to him his posts are excellent, but I find it is better to decide if one is interested in the merengue, the hustle or a waltz before choosing a partner.

 

[SbestCFII]

You may consider a good PA32-class (Cherokee 6, Lance, Saratoga, etc.) aircraft. It will meet your current needs and likely be able to handle your eventual needs as well. The lower wing offers much better in-flight visibility and better cross-wind landing performance that the Cessnas. The plus is that the planes handling is pretty docile. These are very stable aircraft and the learning curse is not very steep.

 

[greghughes]

...and the learning curse is not very steep.

Uh ohhhh... Jinxed.

 

[wabower]

Good plan. I think I have the test flight and follow-up evaluation articles on almost every plane in the kerosene fleet if you find something you want to pursue and want to read more about it.

No cost or obligation, I post here because I own and fly little planes, not to generate purchaser rep business for bigger planes.

But as a little-plane guy who has spent a fair amount of time doing the JJ routine as well, I'm going to suggest that if you plan to make those trips on a regular basis you're going to find that the novelty of anything with props will wear off pretty quick.

No slight to him his posts are excellent, but I find it is better to decide if one is interested in the merengue, the hustle or a waltz before choosing a partner.

 

[Ted]

And that's why I'd suggest giving Wayne a call.

 

[bflynn]

Am I missing something here?

That a CFI has a commercial certificate and can be compensated for flying? It's a guess that's what you think you're missing but this is a not a 61.103 situation.

 

[Trimup]

Good plan. I think I have the test flight and follow-up evaluation articles on almost every plane in the kerosene fleet if you find something you want to pursue and want to read more about it.

No cost or obligation, I post here because I own and fly little planes, not to generate purchaser rep business for bigger planes.

But as a little-plane guy who has spent a fair amount of time doing the JJ routine as well, I'm going to suggest that if you plan to make those trips on a regular basis you're going to find that the novelty of anything with props will wear off pretty quick.

I am thinking the choice is Hawker 700, Sabreliner 65, or Westwind II. I am leaning towards a Westwind based on inspections by time not calendar as I can not predict a flight utilization schedule. What do you have on these three? Is there another with a solid reputation that is selling at the kind of rock bottom rates these three are?

I have access to an A&P, that used to split his time between two corporate jet flight departments but one closed up shop during the downturn, to handle my MX. He has extensive experience with both a Hawker 700 and a Westwind but none with Sabreliner. I asked him how to ensure reliability with jets of this vintage and he jokingly said "buy two". After consideration I think he may be on to something. The market has crushed the value out these airframes, the nicest examples can be had for $500K. I am thinking buy the nicest example possible ignore all the MSP nonsense and just fly it until a major expense, say 30-50% of acquisition, then just go buy another identical unit and start cannibalizing one for parts. Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary.

 

[Ted]

On the other hand, MSP has its advantages. When your engine breaks, you get a loaner engine. Engine costs are predictable. Some definite advantages to it. Plus then you don't find yourself dumping a bunch of money into an airframe that you then lose if you buy another airframe, unless you choose to take the engines from the "new" plane for your current ride.

I've only seen one Sabreliner flying ever, a later model with TFE731s (the early straight turbojets are never seen these days). Man did it look cool...

I've thought that an MSP-esque idea would be good for piston engines and make it more affordable, but it would be hard to accomplish without electronic engine controls.

 

[dell30rb]

I've thought that an MSP-esque idea would be good for piston engines and make it more affordable, but it would be hard to accomplish without electronic engine controls.

You make a good point, too many engines/cylinders are 'murdered'

 

[Ted]

You make a good point, too many engines/cylinders are 'murdered'

That's the issue. You need a means of forcing reliable operating techniques. I think it could be worked, but would require some structure.

 

[Trimup]

On the other hand, MSP has its advantages. When your engine breaks, you get a loaner engine. Engine costs are predictable. Some definite advantages to it. Plus then you don't find yourself dumping a bunch of money into an airframe that you then lose if you buy another airframe, unless you choose to take the engines from the "new" plane for your current ride.

I've only seen one Sabreliner flying ever, a later model with TFE731s (the early straight turbojets are never seen these days). Man did it look cool...

I've thought that an MSP-esque idea would be good for piston engines and make it more affordable, but it would be hard to accomplish without electronic engine controls.

The market in these older jets is off its axis. There is a Westwind for sale with $470K worth of interior upgrades, while at the same time the recent sales are indicating no Westwind is worth more than $500K. The used engine suppliers still want $300-400K for a single mid life TFE731 but one can buy an entire airplane with two low time 731s but ratty cosmetics for $300K.

MSP is one of Honeywell's single most profitable areas vastly so compared to new engine sales. Their pricing model socializes the risk plus their hefty profit margin for all engines in service and then parcels it out to any suckers who sign up. As a non-smoker I don't want to pay higher health insurance rates to cover a smoker's increased chance of disease, I would be upset if my car insurance charged me the same rates as my neighbor seeing as how they have three teenagers, and my cars all go inside and they have three or four parked outside all the time. MSP does an excellent job of locking an operator in to paying for the hourly costs accrued by an average Part 121 or 135 user. As my use does not benefit in any way from cost averaging and I can readily accomodate lower dispatch reliablility, than a for hire carrier, service plans make no sense for my application. If they existed for piston engines Lycoming and TCM would have you locked in to subsidizing all the units that never make TBO due a loose nut behind the yoke.

 

[Ted]

Then you have some reasons why you could benefit from not having a cost averaging. But for many people for whom insurance does make sense, there are benefits to MSP as well. Part of my reasoning for not wanting to enter the turbine world is the uncertainty with operating costs (where $70k+ parts are common) and many other operators feel the same. Since you're also looking at self-insuring your plane, you might not fit into that catehory. But I also have insurance and would much rather pay the premiums I never use than risk a $100k+ botch-up, or just having a $70k fuel controller go out on my TPE-331 (if I had a TPE-331). To call those who sign up "suckers" I think ignores some of the realities they may face and what might make more sense for their requirements. Also, turbine engines have the advantage of more consistent operation and tolerance to varying operating modes.

You are correct at the problems with doing it on a Lycoming or TCM, hence why I say a FADEC would about be a necessity and some structure that keeps people honest. I wouldn't be interested in a MSP-esque setup on pistons personally, but I know a bunch of people who would...

MSP is one of Honeywell's single most profitable areas vastly so compared to new engine sales. Their pricing model socializes the risk plus their hefty profit margin for all engines in service and then parcels it out to any suckers who sign up. As a non-smoker I don't want to pay higher health insurance rates to cover a smoker's increased chance of disease, I would be upset if my car insurance charged me the same rates as my neighbor seeing as how they have three teenagers, and my cars all go inside and they have three or four parked outside all the time. MSP does an excellent job of locking an operator in to paying for the hourly costs accrued by an average Part 121 or 135 user. As my use does not benefit in any way from cost averaging and I can readily accomodate lower dispatch reliablility, than a for hire carrier, service plans make no sense for my application. If they existed for piston engines Lycoming and TCM would have you locked in to subsidizing all the units that never make TBO due a loose nut behind the yoke.

 

[Alexb2000]

Why not lease? If you look at the performance vs. operating cost of a Westwind II or any of the other examples you are not far from a lease cost on something more efficient.

There is a guy here in Taos that has his CIII on charter/lease for ~$2600 an hour. That's going to be hard to beat and you can walk away any time.

There is another guy that has his Jetprop on charter/lease for ~$700 per hour. Cheapest entry point into the turbine world IMO. Plus the pilot is one of the most skilled you could ever hope to fly with. You could just use a bird like this for trips and learn something along the way.

JA Air for example has some really good lease rates. Citation Bravo $2550, King Air C90B $1400, etc.

All I'm saying is why not dip your foot in the pool a little and go from there. I talk to these guys about their operating cost and the numbers are just staggering. If a $100K repair makes you blink then I would lease.

 

[Trimup]

Then you have some reasons why you could benefit from not having a cost averaging. But for many people for whom insurance does make sense, there are benefits to MSP as well. Part of my reasoning for not wanting to enter the turbine world is the uncertainty with operating costs (where $70k+ parts are common) and many other operators feel the same. Since you're also looking at self-insuring your plane, you might not fit into that catehory. But I also have insurance and would much rather pay the premiums I never use than risk a $100k+ botch-up, or just having a $70k fuel controller go out on my TPE-331 (if I had a TPE-331). To call those who sign up "suckers" I think ignores some of the realities they may face and what might make more sense for their requirements. Also, turbine engines have the advantage of more consistent operation and tolerance to varying operating modes.

You are correct at the problems with doing it on a Lycoming or TCM, hence why I say a FADEC would about be a necessity and some structure that keeps people honest. I wouldn't be interested in a MSP-esque setup on pistons personally, but I know a bunch of people who would...

I agree my case is unusual. Cost averaging ensures the operator will pay the average cost of operation as hours accrue. I always prefer to either pay later or even better never, IE use the engines up until no longer airworthy then buy another airframe and use up some different engines.

I am actually well acquainted with turbine costs and realities both from the theoretical perspective and the operational. I boat powered by a pair of T53s pieced together from a 40' sea can full of undocumented non-airworthy components originally cast off by the Rhodesian airforce about 20 years ago. Despite being assembled out of mystery components, being run substantially above original design output and running on "close enough" volume based mixes of unleaded and No2 diesel both units have proven to be able to hold their own against any automotive derived powerplants especially on a long high speed leg.

 

[Trimup]

Why not lease? If you look at the performance vs. operating cost of a Westwind II or any of the other examples you are not far from a lease cost on something more efficient.

There is a guy here in Taos that has his CIII on charter/lease for ~$2600 an hour. That's going to be hard to beat and you can walk away any time.

There is another guy that has his Jetprop on charter/lease for ~$700 per hour. Cheapest entry point into the turbine world IMO. Plus the pilot is one of the most skilled you could ever hope to fly with. You could just use a bird like this for trips and learn something along the way.

JA Air for example has some really good lease rates. Citation Bravo $2550, King Air C90B $1400, etc.

All I'm saying is why not dip your foot in the pool a little and go from there. I talk to these guys about their operating cost and the numbers are just staggering. If a $100K repair makes you blink then I would lease.

Stipulations from their accounting are that all reimbursable costs must relate only to an aircraft wholly owned(not leased, not chartered, not fractional).

As to why, I am not asking too many questions but my suspician is they have a historical precedent with their audit committee for limited reimbursement for a consultant using a wholly owned aircraft. I know their internal flight rules prevent them from leasing any aircraft for their own flight department without top level approval. After the hassling we had over the original sale terms I have learned that lots of their policies end up being the equivalent of the "Because I said so" I am prone to give my nine year old when he is pestering me.

 

[wabower]

The reason that Garrett owners buy MSP and Pratt owners don't buy the equivalent ESP is pretty simple. One failed fastener on the compressor section in the front-end of a 731 can field-strip the entire engine as it works its way back through the engine. The repair costs are (or in the past have been) so onerous that they simply couldn't self-insure the risk. Now that old engines are available for a fraction of the historical prices, the dynamics have changed and more owners are going naked.

The market in these older jets is off its axis. There is a Westwind for sale with $470K worth of interior upgrades, while at the same time the recent sales are indicating no Westwind is worth more than $500K. The used engine suppliers still want $300-400K for a single mid life TFE731 but one can buy an entire airplane with two low time 731s but ratty cosmetics for $300K.

MSP is one of Honeywell's single most profitable areas vastly so compared to new engine sales. Their pricing model socializes the risk plus their hefty profit margin for all engines in service and then parcels it out to any suckers who sign up. As a non-smoker I don't want to pay higher health insurance rates to cover a smoker's increased chance of disease, I would be upset if my car insurance charged me the same rates as my neighbor seeing as how they have three teenagers, and my cars all go inside and they have three or four parked outside all the time. MSP does an excellent job of locking an operator in to paying for the hourly costs accrued by an average Part 121 or 135 user. As my use does not benefit in any way from cost averaging and I can readily accomodate lower dispatch reliablility, than a for hire carrier, service plans make no sense for my application. If they existed for piston engines Lycoming and TCM would have you locked in to subsidizing all the units that never make TBO due a loose nut behind the yoke.

 

[Trimup]

The reason that Garrett owners buy MSP and Pratt owners don't buy the equivalent ESP is pretty simple. One failed fastener on the compressor section in the front-end of a 731 can field-strip the entire engine as it works its way back through the engine. The repair costs are (or in the past have been) so onerous that they simply couldn't self-insure the risk. Now that old engines are available for a fraction of the historical prices, the dynamics have changed and more owners are going naked.

I could actually see buying JSSI Unscheduled coverage just for the catastrophic contingency but prepaying for all normal maintenance based on what the manufacturer says the statistically likely future repairs will be when they also set the parts prices seems like gambling in Vegas to me, the house always wins in the long run.

 

[wabower]

The power contracts are similarly drawn. Careful reading is recommended.

I could actually see buying JSSI Unscheduled coverage just for the catastrophic contingency but prepaying for all normal maintenance based on what the manufacturer says the statistically likely future repairs will be when they also set the parts prices seems like gambling in Vegas to me, the house always wins in the long run.

 

[Trimup]

The power contracts are similarly drawn. Careful reading is recommended.

Good advice as always thanks.

I know a local company that got bathed on their Lear when it was new due a blizzard of service bulletins. It seemed like Lear finished the engineering in the field, some bulletins were of dubious value for their mission profiles and could/should have been ignored but they were 135 at the time. I am thinking the number of SBs and ADs on the old mules I am talking about has got to be pretty minimal, but how would one know?

 

[Ted]

It's not uncommon for a plane to have lots of new SBs once it enters service. The customer always manages to find new and innovative ways to break airplanes in ways that engineers can't imagine.

Then you've got old planes that run into aging fleet issues. Some can be permanently complied with, some can't. So it pays to have an expert look into it.

In the piston world, ADs on fuel hoses, propellers, etc are common.

 

[Skylane81E]

ADs are easy(ish)
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage
Go there and look up EVERYTHING installed, the plane, the engines, props, avionics, you name it.

SBs come from the manufacturers.

 

[Alexb2000]

As to why, I am not asking too many questions but my suspician is they have a historical precedent with their audit committee for limited reimbursement for a consultant using a wholly owned aircraft. I know their internal flight rules prevent them from leasing any aircraft for their own flight department without top level approval. After the hassling we had over the original sale terms I have learned that lots of their policies end being the equivalent of the "Because I said so" I am prone to give my nine year old when he is pestering me.

So "wholly owned" means a personal asset? That means you will have to register the aircraft in your name AND you are self insuring?

If so, then WOW that is a lot of personal risk especially when you carry passengers. I would never consider doing that.

 

[wabower]

Buyers of the first ship-set of new models are always thinly disguised production test. After that it can get better, but as they say at the sales seminars "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression."

Some of the sorting-out problems take longer than others. Cessna finalized the design of the 650 (Citation III, VI, VII) after S/N 103. Pilots know that the plastic windshields with their bleed-air and fan heating and cooling systems are a huge PITA and that developing a good cockpit flow is difficult due to the number monkey-motion steps required by the environmental system.

Even though the recent spate of Beech Premier crashes may not be related to the fleet's earlier problems with gear and ground spoiler deployment, all of us who were around at the time remember them and wonder.



Even though the

Good advice as always thanks.

I know a local company that got bathed on their Lear when it was new due a blizzard of service bulletins. It seemed like Lear finished the engineering in the field, some bulletins were of dubious value for their mission profiles and could/should have been ignored but they were 135 at the time. I am thinking the number of SBs and ADs on the old mules I am talking about has got to be pretty minimal, but how would one know?

 

[Trimup]

So "wholly owned" means a personal asset? That means you will have to register the aircraft in your name AND you are self insuring?

If so, then WOW that is a lot of personal risk especially when you carry passengers. I would never consider doing that.

Wholly owned by the consulting entity which is going to be a newly created LLC.

I did check and they said whether or not the aircraft in question is part 135 doesn't matter for their purposes. I could put a Hawker 700 on with a 135 operator at my home field if the engines were on MSP. He is not interested in a Sabreliner or a Westwind. I just don't think it makes sense to mess with too many new forced costs versus the revenue offset. I don't rent my house in Beaver Creek anymore for the same sort of reasons.

 

[Alexb2000]

Wholly owned by the consulting entity which is going to be a newly created LLC.

Maybe you are well versed on LLC's and aircraft I don't know. If not it might bear some investigation and consultation with an attorney familiar with the scenario. You can also search this site for more information about it.

Offers no personal liability protection IMO (especially when you are flying), but that's just one opinion.

 

[wabower]

The top-tier aviation lawyers who lecture at the NBAA tax and risk conferences unanimously and unequivocally say that insurance rather than deal structure is the key to eliminating/mitigating financial risk. They flatly state that thinking an LLC provides meaningful protection is pure folly.

 

[Trimup]

Maybe you are well versed on LLC's and aircraft I don't know. If not it might bear some investigation and consultation with an attorney familiar with the scenario. You can also search this site for more information about it.

Offers no personal liability protection IMO (especially when you are flying), but that's just one opinion.

I won't be flying any of the jets under consideration.

 

[Trimup]

The top-tier aviation lawyers who lecture at the NBAA tax and risk conferences unanimously and unequivocally say that insurance rather than deal structure is the key to eliminating/mitigating financial risk. They flatly state that thinking an LLC provides meaningful protection is pure folly.

Agreed. The jet will have to be fully insured due its mission profile and the consulting entity will not be reimbursed for costs of insurance.

 

[wabower]

But you will still have the single-purpose flight-department company whose primary purpose is providing transportation services and the associated rules to deal with.

I won't be flying any of the jets under consideration.

 

[dell30rb]

But you will still have the single-purpose flight-department company whose primary purpose is providing transportation services and the associated rules to deal with.

AKA 135 ?


Or would it be 91 if only used for the OP's consulting business

 

[Alexb2000]

I won't be flying any of the jets under consideration.

OK now I'm confused, I thought the start of this thread was about you building up the experience to fly a turbine?

If that isn't the goal then why do this?