Grumman AG5B Transition Training

[kontiki]

I'm really Jonesing bad to go buy a good IFR AG5B.

If I do, where can I get transition training?

I'm checked out to rent C172, DA40, C182, PA28.

Thanks,

 

[Pilawt]

The type club, American Yankee Association (www.aya.org), has an excellent network of qualified instructors in its Pilot Proficiency Program. That and other valuable resources make membership well worthwhile for any Grumman owner or pilot.

 

[ryoung99]

I agree, start with the AYA.

Where are you located, I might be able to help you out.

Rick

 

[ryoung99]

Also, it is an easy transition. I had not flown in 3 years and got signed off in 3 hours of dual, which included a BFR.

Love my Tiger.

 

[kontiki]

I'm in Memphis TN. None of the local FBOs have one on the field. There are a couple around though.

 

[ryoung99]

Join the AYA. There are also two list serves dedicated to the Grummans, Grumman Gang and Team Grumman. Join all 3 for an incredible number of resources in relation to the Grummans.

Like everything there are plenty of opinions, sort through them and do what is best for you.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Is there something in particular about the AG5B that makes you think you would need "transition training"?

 

[Pilawt]

One gets "transition training" to find out if there's something about the new type that makes one need "transition training." If he's never flown the type before, how would he know?

After 45 years, 4,000 hours and over forty types, I still get transition training in every new type.

The characteristics and handling of the AA-5x/AG5B series are different enough (better -- but different) from most other four-seat fixed-gear singles that a thorough check-out by someone familiar with the breed is a very good idea.

 

[RotorAndWing]

One gets "transition training" to find out if there's something about the new type that makes one need "transition training." If he's never flown the type before, how would he know?

After 45 years and 4,000 hours I get transition training in every new type.

The characteristics and handling of the AA-5x/AG5B series are different enough (better -- but different) from most other four-seat fixed-gear singles that a thorough check-out by someone familiar with the breed is a very good idea.

Agreed with a check out if unfamiliar, but it seems more and more that the philosophy today is to make it more like a "type rating" event rather than a check out.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agreed with a check out if unfamiliar, but it seems more and more that the philosophy today is to make it more like a "type rating" event rather than a check out.

The AYA's PFP typically takes about an hour of ground and 2 hours of flight for a currently proficient ASEL pilot. Not exactly a "type rating event," but enough that insurance companies generally waive the common "15 hours in type requirement" for the lowest rates in Grummans.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The AYA's PFP typically takes about an hour of ground and 2 hours of flight for a currently proficient ASEL pilot. Not exactly a "type rating event," but enough that insurance companies generally waive the common "15 hours in type requirement" for the lowest rates in Grummans.

Sounds about right for a check out.

 

[JoseCuervo]

One gets "transition training" to find out if there's something about the new type that makes one need "transition training." If he's never flown the type before, how would he know?

After 45 years, 4,000 hours and over forty types, I still get transition training in every new type.

The characteristics and handling of the AA-5x/AG5B series are different enough (better -- but different) from most other four-seat fixed-gear singles that a thorough check-out by someone familiar with the breed is a very good idea.

What things would get a competent pilot with experience in "C172, DA40, C182, PA28" into some sort of trouble in a Grumman?

Do they have "needle, ball, and airspeed"?

 

[Pilawt]

What things would get a competent pilot with experience in "C172, DA40, C182, PA28" into some sort of trouble in a Grumman?

Do they have "needle, ball, and airspeed"?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Silly me. That's all you need. But the insurance company, who has a vested interest in the outcome, might have something to say about it.



Peace out.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Silly me. That's all you need. But the insurance company, who has a vested interest in the outcome, might have something to say about it.



Peace out.

Is that what drives all this? Insurance companies?


Are there really pilots out there with experience in c172, c182, da40, and pa28 that would not be safe in a Grumman? Speaks poorly of our current system of training GA pilots if we produce pilots who can't fly a single engine airplane after passing their check rides and flying in multiple different airplanes.

Or, do we just produce risk averse pilots that base all decisions on being able to pass liability off to some one else (insurance company)?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

What things would get a competent pilot with experience in "C172, DA40, C182, PA28" into some sort of trouble in a Grumman?

Do they have "needle, ball, and airspeed"?

The Grumman AA5 and AA1 are less forgiving then the piper and cessna trainers. They do not like to recover from a spin, they have their fuel in the spars which has some interesting effects, over all though they are not 200kt aircraft though they takeoff and land and handle like a much higher performance plane.

We train our ab into guys in AA1s and I forget how forgiving the cessna and piper standard issue trainers are, until I get some outside cessna guy who who wants to take our planes up, then its "holy he11, who taught you how to fly!".

Standard checkout (and pre solo for students), steep turns, touch and gos (never letting the nose wheel touch is somewhat expected), then falling leaf stalls power on and off.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is that what drives all this? Insurance companies?

No, just safety.

Are there really pilots out there with experience in c172, c182, da40, and pa28 that would not be safe in a Grumman?

Yes. And there are pilots with experience in the C-172, C-182, PA28, and Grumman who would not be safe in a DA40. Also pilots with experience in a DA40, Grumman, and DA40 who would not be safe in a Cessna. The airplanes all have different systems and different flight and handling characteristics. The accident record tells us that the first 5-15 hours in type are the most likely to end in a wreck, and that's why a proper check-out in type is so important in any airplane.

Speaks poorly of our current system of training GA pilots if we produce pilots who can't fly a single engine airplane after passing their check rides and flying in multiple different airplanes.

I'd say your view of the system is somewhat distorted.

Or, do we just produce risk averse pilots that base all decisions on being able to pass liability off to some one else (insurance company)?

Clearly your risk tolerance is a lot higher than mine, or the insurance companies', but it's your privilege to accept that risk. That said, the record suggests that pilots who think like you have a lot more accidents.

 

[poadeleted20]

The Grumman AA5 and AA1 are less forgiving then the piper and cessna trainers. They do not like to recover from a spin, they have their fuel in the spars which has some interesting effects, over all though they are not 200kt aircraft though they takeoff and land and handle like a much higher performance plane.

A number of inaccuracies here. First, spin recovery from a 3-second/1-turn spin is no more difficult than any of the Piper/Cessna types -- this was proven during certification. Second, only the 2-seaters (AA-1-series) have fuel in the spars -- the 4-seaters (AA/AG-5-series) have the fuel in integral tanks in the inboard portion of the wing much like a PA28. In the 2-seaters, the spin tends to flatten after 3-6 turns, making recovery more difficult, which is one reason why intentional spins are prohibited. However, intentional spins are also prohibited in most PA28's, so that's not a big difference.

Standard checkout (and pre solo for students), steep turns, touch and gos (never letting the nose wheel touch is somewhat expected), then falling leaf stalls power on and off.

I'd also suggest some engine-out emergency approach to a landing drills. The AYA PFP also covers aircraft systems (flight controls, fuel, electrical, environmental, etc) as well as tips for care and maintenance.

 

[kontiki]

Is there something in particular about the AG5B that makes you think you would need "transition training"?

I'm not the type of person that skimps on safety related practices.

I did attend a local training seminar on the topic of transition training about a year ago, sounds like a good thing. I do think it 's worth going up and doing stalls in new a new type. A PA28 stall is just about non detectable compared to a C172 stall. It's probably good to do the maneuvers with someone thats done it before.

Also some planes just fall out of the sky if you let them get too slow, some are more forgiving.

I also think common trainers are chosen as trainers because of their handling characteristics, I don't think of Grummans as trainers.

There could also be valuable experience related to how the systems are designed. Maybe good fuel management info, I haven't found a POH online yet.

And, its another reason to fly.

 

[JoseCuervo]

No, just safety.


Yes. And there are pilots with experience in the C-172, C-182, PA28, and Grumman who would not be safe in a DA40. Also pilots with experience in a DA40, Grumman, and DA40 who would not be safe in a Cessna. The airplanes all have different systems and different flight and handling characteristics. The accident record tells us that the first 5-15 hours in type are the most likely to end in a wreck, and that's why a proper check-out in type is so important in any airplane.

I think we are likely agreeing, just maybe seeing things from different sides of the same coin. It is those very "different systems and different flight and handling characteristics" that make him a safe pilot. Maybe I assume too much, but he didn't "master the DA40" and "master the 182" and "master the 172" and "master the PA28", but, instead, he "Mastered" flying airplanes, generically.

He now knows that sometimes he uses flaps on take-off, sometimes he doesn't. He now knows that sometimes there is one of them "blue thingy" controls next to the throttle and the mixture, sometimes there isn't. He now knows he sometimes has use carb heat, sometimes he doesn't. He now knows sometimes he flies in KTS and sometimes in MPH. He knows sometimes he has to look for the fuel valve by his ankle, sometimes above his knee. Sometimes you have to turn it back and forth, sometimes you just leave it. He has likely learned that sometimes you chop the power, and you sink. Other times you don't. Sometimes you carry power across the threshold and into the flare, sometimes you don't.

I'll defer to you about how people's brains and learning works with flying skills, but the whole "license to learn" is what he has mastered and allows him to learn a new type.

I'd say your view of the system is somewhat distorted.

Clearly your risk tolerance is a lot higher than mine, or the insurance companies', but it's your privilege to accept that risk. That said, the record suggests that pilots who think like you have a lot more accidents.

Last insurance policy I looked at said "any pilot rated and endorsed" could fly the plane and would be covered. Didn't seem like the insurance companies really cared. Maybe they do, but even the typical 7-8% premium for being "low time" in the type is still only $150 a year, until he gets the extra hours.

We had another thread where a guy posted about transitioning from a Warrior to an Archer, one of the first replies was the guy should go get 3 hours of transition training. And other guys agreed.

A number of inaccuracies here. First, spin recovery from a 3-second/1-turn spin is no more difficult than any of the Piper/Cessna types -- this was proven during certification. Second, only the 2-seaters (AA-1-series) have fuel in the spars -- the 4-seaters (AA/AG-5-series) have the fuel in integral tanks in the inboard portion of the wing much like a PA28. In the 2-seaters, the spin tends to flatten after 3-6 turns, making recovery more difficult, which is one reason why intentional spins are prohibited. However, intentional spins are also prohibited in most PA28's, so that's not a big difference.

If the OP came to you with the original request, would you do spin training with him? Or, are you going to just go out and do some slow flight, some stalls, some steep turns and then head back to the pattern for a few touch and goes, then, depending on how he does, sign off that he can rent your planes?

I'd also suggest some engine-out emergency approach to a landing drills. The AYA PFP also covers aircraft systems (flight controls, fuel, electrical, environmental, etc) as well as tips for care and maintenance.

Is that what the one hour of ground instruction would be? Honest question, but is there something in the Grumman "flight controls, fuel, electrical, environmental, etc" that needs to be taught and not just read in the POH? Is there a reason the Grumman is referred to as a "sliding canopy Dr. killer"?

The Grumman AA5 and AA1 are less forgiving then the piper and cessna trainers. They do not like to recover from a spin, they have their fuel in the spars which has some interesting effects, over all though they are not 200kt aircraft though they takeoff and land and handle like a much higher performance plane.

What does the location of of the fuel in the spar vs inboard wing affect the plane?

We train our ab into guys in AA1s and I forget how forgiving the cessna and piper standard issue trainers are, until I get some outside cessna guy who who wants to take our planes up, then its "holy he11, who taught you how to fly!".

Standard checkout (and pre solo for students), steep turns, touch and gos (never letting the nose wheel touch is somewhat expected), then falling leaf stalls power on and off.

The OP doesn't state his experience, but we know he has a HP endorsement and is getting ready for an instrument rating, so we assume he has more experience than the C150 guy who shows up wanting to switch CFI/FBO's. What would your expectation be on how long to sign him off for your Grummans?

I'm not the type of person that skimps on safety related practices.

I did attend a local training seminar on the topic of transition training about a year ago, sounds like a good thing. I do think it 's worth going up and doing stalls in new a new type. A PA28 stall is just about non detectable compared to a C172 stall. It's probably good to do the maneuvers with someone thats done it before.

Also some planes just fall out of the sky if you let them get too slow, some are more forgiving.

I also think common trainers are chosen as trainers because of their handling characteristics, I don't think of Grummans as trainers.

There could also be valuable experience related to how the systems are designed. Maybe good fuel management info, I haven't found a POH online yet.

And, its another reason to fly.

By all means, go fly with whomever and however long YOU feel you need. My guess is the biggest learning is you flying by yourself, without somebody yapping in your ear, learning how the plane flies.

We have all jumped in different N-numbers of the same model and found the planes were very different, and time in your specific plane is going to make you the most comfortable.


Interesting discussion, to me.

 

[poadeleted20]

JC: You don't get it, and it appears you don't want to get it. You also have a lot of misinformation about the Grummans, which isn't surprising since you seem to think once you've flown a few types you can safely operate and fly them all without anything more than reading the owner's manual. These are ideas which, as I've said already, create the disturbingly high accident rate for pilots with less than 15 hours in type, especially with les than 5 hours in type. As long as you deny reality like that, I can't help you.

 

[JoseCuervo]

JC: You don't get it, and it appears you don't want to get it. You also have a lot of misinformation about the Grummans, which isn't surprising since you seem to think once you've flown a few types you can safely operate and fly them all without anything more than reading the owner's manual. These are ideas which, as I've said already, create the disturbingly high accident rate for pilots with less than 15 hours in type, especially with les than 5 hours in type. As long as you deny reality like that, I can't help you.

Nothing you can really verbalize?

Could you teach us? Like what are the differences between the fuel system on the Grumman and the PA 28?

I think you brought fuel systems up as an example.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nothing you can really verbalize?
Could you teach us? Like what are the differences between the fuel system on the Grumman and the PA 28?

Verbalize? Sure -- but it would take about an hour to cover all the differences between a PA28 and an AA-5x, and I'd be charging you my standard rate for the training. But I'd be happy to oblige if you schedule some time with me.

 

[madtrader]

Last time I was at Ellington Field near Houston, I thought I saw a bunch of Tigers at the flight school there. I'd like some time in one, so it's been in the back of my mind to go there next time I'm in the area.

 

[docmirror]

If the OP came to you with the original request, would you do spin training with him?

Is that what the one hour of ground instruction would be? Honest question, but is there something in the Grumman "flight controls, fuel, electrical, environmental, etc" that needs to be taught and not just read in the POH? Is there a reason the Grumman is referred to as a "sliding canopy Dr. killer"?


Interesting discussion, to me.

That would be particularly interesting in the Grumman AX-5, very different than the 172 or PA-28 I'm guessing.

 

[ryoung99]

Just to be clear on the insurance question, because I think Ron's point was the correct one and somewhat dismissed.

As a new Tiger owner, my policy stated that I had to be checked out by a CFI with 5 hours in make in model, which I did via a BFR.

In addition the policy states the policy will not cover just any pilot (other than pilots listed/stated) that do not have 300 TT and 25 hours in make and model. Is this something a 172 policy states?

Does this mean the plane is different? I don't know but the insurance company that studies risk seems to think so.

Even though my check-out was without issue, I am happy to have spent the time doing one and think the OP is making a good decision. Whether he "has" to have one would be up to him and his insurance company (unless he has the cash to self insure). I do think the DA40 time I had was beneficial with the transition, but each of us are different.

 

[Skylane81E]

Can't speak to 172s but my 182s insurance is very similar. I didn't need any CFI or solo time as I already had a bit over 5hr TIT. I think my open pilot numbers are 250 TT and 50 TIT. I got a kick out of it because when I bought the thing that was more than I had.

 

[poadeleted20]

I should also point out that the AYA PFP covers a lot more than just flying the airplane -- it's a Pilot Familiarization Program, not just a "checkout". We also try to educate the new owner on care and maintenance, including the various AD's and SB's, and recommended practices for keeping the plane in good shape, not just making good landings. I think you'll find the ABS's highly respected BPPP does much the same. And for new Cirrus owners, the Cirrus Standardized Instruction program takes about 2-3 days.

Throw that all together, and it's usually two hours from the first handshake until we get into the plane, and that doesn't include when the new owner/pilot wants a flight review thrown in and we have to do all the things the FAA recommends for a flight review which would not be part of the PFP otherwise. I've done all-day PFP/flight reviews before, especially when the trainee was a bit overdrawn at the memory bank on flight rules and pilot/aircraft legal requirements for flight.

 

[slacktide]

I'm really Jonesing bad to go buy a good IFR AG5B.

If I do, where can I get transition training?

I'm checked out to rent C172, DA40, C182, PA28.

Thanks,

Not to co-opt the transition training debate, but why an AG5B instead of an AA5B? There are a lot of reasons to prefer the earlier models. '78-'79 are best of breed, but I am biased.

 

[dukeblue219]

Not to co-opt the transition training debate, but why an AG5B instead of an AA5B? There are a lot of reasons to prefer the earlier models. '78-'79 are best of breed, but I am biased.

Can I ask what those reasons are? I thought that they generally made the interior "nicer" and added the improved split cowl along with other cosmetic changes, but I haven't heard of any significant downsides. Plus, you can get an AG5B made in the last 10 years with a standard dual-430 setup if that's what you want. What's better about the late '70s models?

 

[poadeleted20]

Can I ask what those reasons are?

Having flown Grummans of nearly every model year from 1975 to 2006, my feeling is that American General Aircraft Company (AGAC) made a big mistake when they went to the 24/28v electrical system on the AG-5B. The changes to the baffling and air box to accommodate the larger alternator really created cooling and induction problems. As a result, the AG-5B's generally perform worse and run hotter than the legacy AA-5B's.

I thought that they generally made the interior "nicer" and added the improved split cowl along with other cosmetic changes,

They did, and they also changed the cowling from aluminum to carbon fiber, and both of those changes have their advantages in comfort and maintainability (the aluminum cowlings of the 75-79 Tigers are always cracking and being repaired).

Plus, you can get an AG5B made in the last 10 years with a standard dual-430 setup if that's what you want.

That's true for the AG-5B's built by Tiger Aircraft in the 1999-2006 time frame (and integrated with an S-Tec 30 autopilot and a modern audio panel, too) but not the AG-5B's built from 1989-1993 by AGAC.

What's better about the late '70s models?

Lighter, faster, and fewer problems with engine cooling.

 

[kontiki]

Not to co-opt the transition training debate, but why an AG5B instead of an AA5B? There are a lot of reasons to prefer the earlier models. '78-'79 are best of breed, but I am biased.

Keep in mind I still haven't even gone for a ride in any Grumman aircraft yet. I don't expect negatives, but need to check it out. I also recognize I know very little about the aircraft. I did submit an AYA membership form, nothing back yet.

Because of my already tight schedule, I want an IFR cross country airplane I can fly, not a project.

I'm not young but doing real well, if I can get over 10 years before first engine overhaul, that might be all I get on the medical (hope not, but who knows).

I do want a nicer vs not so nice plane. I also believe there is better value per dollar spent to stay out of the lowest cost range for any type.

Where I work with avionics professionally (albeit for an entirely different class of airplane) I do want to at least marginally evaluate how some of the newer equipment and services perform, so I want an avionics package that's plausibly got an upgrade path vs complete replacement in the next 4-5 years.

And I want something that, performance wise, plausibly is in my safety envelope for a pilot with less than 1000 hours. I do have my instrument rating, and have been slowly working on a commercial (just to have a reason to fly).

 

[poadeleted20]

Go find someone who has one and get a ride in it -- you'll be sold for sure. Check the AYA events calendar for fly-in's in your area -- no problem getting a ride on those occasions.

 

[Pilawt]

You shall be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

 

[docmirror]

Another plus vote here. Landings and take off are just a bit different, but you'll pick it up quick. Great visibility, moderate comfort and outstanding handling. If you do a fair amount of IR work, a single axis coupled AP is quite handy.

The early birds are also my favorite as well. I would look for a AA-5B with the radios you like and a Century I or other AP and the Sensenich prop mod.

Fletchair in TX has about everything you would ever want, and they have experts in the airframe and give great advice. They saved me about $1200 on my AA5 with a 10 minute phone call.

The Sensenich prop mod, and a very careful dynamic balance will help keep the cowl and other fatigue cracks to a minimum. The alt bracket also is a high failure item and the new prop and balance will minimize that too.

Fly one at your peril! Pretty soon you'll write one of those big checks. lol

http://barnstormers.com/classified_792833_Grumman+Tiger+-+Loaded.html

 

[slacktide]

Can I ask what those reasons are? I thought that they generally made the interior "nicer" and added the improved split cowl along with other cosmetic changes, but I haven't heard of any significant downsides. Plus, you can get an AG5B made in the last 10 years with a standard dual-430 setup if that's what you want. What's better about the late '70s models?

Besides Ron's notes regarding the 28v electrical system and hotter running engine...

They used a fire retardant in the interior materials of some of the AG models which can causes corrosion and has a service bulletin noting as such.

They went from push-pull engine controls to a throttle quadrant which takes up tons of room (my knees bump into it constantly) and costs a LOT more to maintain when the cable inevitably wears out, due to complexity of installing and adjusting the new cable, compared to the cheaper part price and simpler labor for the earlier system.

They changed the yoke from a nice small lightweight unit which was perfect for the light control forces a Tiger needs, to a big unergonomic beast suited for a Boeing. I've been told that they were going for a "big airplane feel." I guess they succeeded?

They added heater ducts for the rear passengers which intrude considerably on the front passenger foot space.

They messed around with the placement of the instruments resulting in, in my opinion, a less ergonomic setup and more wasted space.

The marketing guys insisted on adding a lot of filler putty to cosmetically smooth the transitions between the rear turtledeck and fuselage, and between the upper and lower portions of the vertical stab. Adds nothing aerodynamically, but it's a load of dead weight for no reason.

They moved the landing light from the nose to the wingtip. It's longer lived out there... Unfortunately they also made it a non-standard bulb, tiny, dim, and hard to aim.

Advantage of the '78-'79 models as opposed to the 75-77 models include better corrosion proofing (DuPont Corlar primer on interior surfaces), better parking brake (hydraulic valve instead of friction lock on master cylinder), and easier to install/remove and more comfortable front seats.

Only disadvantage I can think of for the '78-79 is that they switched from really simple and cheap but not as fancy fuel caps to fancy looking but expensive and complicated fuel caps, which require replacement of the o-rings every few years or you will end up with water in your fuel after rainstorms... much like Cessnas and Beechcraft with use the same Shaw brand fuel caps.

If I were spending your money (my favorite hobby!) I'd be looking for a well upgraded late '70s model.. You can find them with way better interior and avionics than a stock 90's model came with.

 

[dukeblue219]

Thanks both for your length responses. I've got plenty of time in an '03 AG5B but haven't flown an AA5A/B before. Definitely can agree on the knee bumping on the edge of the throttle quadrant...

I think, though, that in the end I prefer having a newer plane. It's a personal thing, and I know there's some real beauties from the '70s. It's just hard to grasp flying something older than I

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks both for your length responses. I've got plenty of time in an '03 AG5B but haven't flown an AA5A/B before. Definitely can agree on the knee bumping on the edge of the throttle quadrant...

I think, though, that in the end I prefer having a newer plane. It's a personal thing, and I know there's some real beauties from the '70s. It's just hard to grasp flying something older than I

If you've flown it, and read the W&B, and you're happy with all of it, then go, buy, and enjoy.

 

[docmirror]

Thanks both for your length responses. I've got plenty of time in an '03 AG5B but haven't flown an AA5A/B before. Definitely can agree on the knee bumping on the edge of the throttle quadrant...

I think, though, that in the end I prefer having a newer plane. It's a personal thing, and I know there's some real beauties from the '70s. It's just hard to grasp flying something older than I

Suit yourself. I'm in my 50s and the two planes older than me were the sweetest flying, and best loading planes I've ever owned. Age in planes is not the same as age in houses or cars.

 

[madtrader]

I was looking up that King Air for the other thread and notice that the other flight school in this area has a Grumman Tiger listed on their rental page.

http://www.air-venture.com/aircraftrental

 

[slacktide]

Thanks both for your length responses. I've got plenty of time in an '03 AG5B but haven't flown an AA5A/B before. Definitely can agree on the knee bumping on the edge of the throttle quadrant...

I think, though, that in the end I prefer having a newer plane. It's a personal thing, and I know there's some real beauties from the '70s. It's just hard to grasp flying something older than I

No prob, every decision is a trade off after all. Only other advise I'd have is to call around to the various Grumman service experts and find out if they know of any aircraft that meet your specs which might be coming up for sale. They often hear about these things long before they hit Trade-A-Plane/Barnstormers/Controller. They know who's suddenly only flying a few hours a year and is looking to get out... Places like Fletchair, Air Mods Northwest, Excel Air, etc... pretty much anyone who has an ad in the AYA Star magazine is a good bet.