Student wants advice to end up flying a high performance 6 seater safely

[systemloc]

Hi!

I'm a student pilot working on a PPL in NC learning in a 172. My school has 172, 152, and an aztec. There are CFIs with CFII, MEI, AGI and IGI.

My primary goal is to fly a plane, but since I'm in it, I was considering useful things to do and places to go. I do like to scuba, and I have family/friends in FL. I would like to be able to fly to FL with passengers and cargo to scuba and visit friends. As scuba is done in pairs, I would like to be able to fly 4 people with about 50 lbs of gear each, so about 1200 lbs of cargo/passengers, plus enough fuel to get from NC to South Florida. I was looking at perhaps a bonanza or a PA-32 with retractable gear. Secondary missions would be flying about the country with my wife and I (2 people only).

I would like any advice anyone regarding the training and experience pathway to go from a 172 to one of the above planes (High performance, high complexity). My school can certainly do IFR training, but the high performance high complexity endorsements would require flying the aztec, and I don't have an interest in multiengine. I'm not sure about the cost in time and money of doing training in the aztec vs finding another school with a suitable single engine plane. I was also considering, should I buy the plane I want first, or get something to build time in and later sell it and upgrade.

Also, I would appreciate any thoughts on the best plane to look for. Comfort and speed are pretty high on the requirements list, so I would not consider a 182 (speed), and everyone says the Bonanza is head and shoulders more comfortable and nicer than the Piper. As far as Bonanza's go, the family is huge and confusing. The older planes seem to have more useful load which is confusing, and I'm not sure whether to go older pre-fuselage extension or not. I wouldn't mind getting an older plane with a little meat still on the engine and an option to STC upgrade the engine to break up the cost a bit, but a late model used Bonanza is within the budget. I tend to buy the lowest cost option that satisfies my wants, though.

Lastly, any comments on additional training to improve safety and insurance costs are appreciated! I've seen the FAA Wings program, but not familiar with other options yet.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Well, if you just need complex/HP, the multi-engine aircraft will still satisfy that endorsement and you can go out and get your PA32 or Bo. It's always great to buy the airplane you want right out of the gate, if you can swing it financially. However, buying an Aztek right now may be cheaper than buying an equivalent PA32, and it'll be faster with a bit more payload. Any of the options is going to be overkill when it's just you and the wife.

 

[FredFenster]

IF you can find an insurance company to insure you in your dream aircraft at this point they're going to require plenty of dual instruction time in the aircraft you buy to get your HP/Complex endorsement.

 

[Jim K]

I second the suggestion to continue through ifr, then buy your airplane and get your hp/ complex during your transition training. I did my private and instrument in an archer, and had about 20 hours in a Dakota when I bought my Lance. I don't think the transition to the lance would've been any harder without the intermediate hp step.

Insurance for a low time pilot in a 6 place, especially a retract, is salty. I'm at $5000/yr now, a fixed gear would've been half, but I'm very happy I got the extra speed of the lance. I understand that 100 hours time in type will make a big difference.

I can't help you on a 'bo. I'm a bit confused about them as well, although I understand the a36 is the desirable one, and tends to run almost double the price of a lance. I needed 7 seats or I would've shopped the beech a little more. The lance consistently does 150 knots on 15gph, and has a useful of 1465lbs. Bo will be faster, but will give up some useful load and interior space.

When you get your ppl, have your instructor validate it in WINGS. You get credit for a completed phase. Same thing with instrument rating. Obviously it doesn't extend your flight review clock, but participation should earn you an insurance discount. An aopa or eaa membership will as well.

 

[Sinistar]

I might question the 50lbs/gear per person if all are divers. If you plan to rent at your destination - sure. But if everyone is hauling wetsuits (3mm), boots, knives, regulator, bcd, specialized weights that can't be rented (ankle/tank), etc, etc. That puts a quick dent in 50lbs and that doesn't include clothing, regular travel stuff and all your tools for the plane. Maybe safer to assume 60...70lbs/person and also consider some takeoffs that may be at low altitudes but higher DA's during the summer. A lot of people use 90% of MTOW as DA's climb. But you are not up in the mountains so less of an issue. It would also seem that trading some speed for easier loading/unloading might be worth it in the end. Example if you throw out the longer flights with you wife. What really is the difference from NC to FL in a 6/300 vs a Lance or Bonanza. I have no clue but if both can be done without a fuel stop maybe its like 50min or less. Just thoughts. 206 works too but probably not the speeds or (low wing) that you prefer.

 

[Tantalum]

Maybe safer to assume 60...70lbs/person

I did the workup once for a Catalina diving trip and when I weighed all my stuff and added a margin for "this will likely be somewhat wet" I budgeted 70 lbs per person

I would like any advice anyone regarding the training and experience pathway to go from a 172 to one of the above planes (High performance, high complexity). My school can certainly do IFR training, but the high performance high complexity endorsements would require flying the aztec, and I don't have an interest in multiengine. I'm not sure about the cost in time and money of doing training in the aztec vs finding another school with a suitable single engine plane. I was also considering, should I buy the plane I want first, or get something to build time in and later sell it and upgrade.

But the plane you want first and get comfortable and competent in that. Practice, experience, proficiency, are what you need. There's no magic formula and everyone is going to be different. I need to fly 1-2 hours ever 1-2 weeks in order to feel proficient. In my opinion complex planes are over rated. There's two extra knobs, a blue one and one shaped like a tire.. it's not rocket science. What takes more time getting used to is a fast plane. If you are used to the pathetic 100 knot cruise speeds of a beater 172 then moving to something that does 150 knots or more will feel faster and you'll need to plan your approaches better.. but's nothing crazy

What do you have against ME? There aren't many "fast" 6 seat planes out there.. you have the Malibu/Meridian (I always forget which is turbine and which is not), but that's probably too much plane for you. Then you have the Bonanza but that is absolutely NOT a 6 person plane. It has 4 seats plus 2 tiny ones in the back for decoration that you cannot really use for size and WB issues. You've got the 210, but same issue with the back seats. The Cherokee Six (Lance, etc.) are awesome planes.. but not exactly fast. An Aztec would give you fair cruise speeds and PLENTY of WB for those diving trips

Comfort and speed are pretty high on the requirements list, so I would not consider a 182 (speed), and everyone says the Bonanza is head and shoulders more comfortable and nicer than the Piper. As far as Bonanza's go, the family is huge and confusing. The older planes seem to have more useful load which is confusing, and I'm not sure whether to go older pre-fuselage extension or not.

The 182, much like the 172, is an over rated slow and expensive piece of trash. It's niche is for people who want to camp and land in tiny dirt runways somewhere. The Bonanza has much nicer "fit and finish" than any Piper, but I place a huge premium on overall comfort and for how big and imposing the plane is they're very narrow. You'll be shoulder to shoulder with who ever is in the front seat and that big stupid bar going across the cockpit blocking all the critical switches is a downright moronic design. And I agree, their WB range is a mystery.

Cheers

 

[Morgan3820]

Don't forget the TBM 850. But if you really want to move people a Cessna Caravan would carry all of your gear and then some.

I am sorry but I grow weary of the, "I have 40 hours in a 172 and I want to carry everything and everyone at light speed over the Himalayas, what should I get?" I have the money (or I have little money and want to get by on the least possible.) and there are no rules that say I can't, right? And yes, I don't have to look at the thread but I view all of these as a potential prelude to an Karen Report with a bunch of 'That is sad' and 'RIP' on the Aviation Mishap thread. This is what gave GA a bad name back in the 70's. These are not suburbans with wings, they are powered kites that Nature is indifferent to.

Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. There is a real reason that the insurance companies charge $5000 for a 200 hr pilot for a high performances, complex aircraft but $800 if he has a C172.
Flame suit on.

 

[systemloc]

Multiengine? My only worry with multiengine is a higher price for a bigger hanger and a much larger maintenance bill for two engines rather than one. My impression is that the costs beyond the purchase price are much higher. Am I wrong there? The only other reason to not go multiengine is I thought it was more plane than I needed.

Fenster - So what do I need insurance wise before I go buy my dream plane? That's kinda what I don't know

Cigar - Yeah that's the plan. I'll get my PPL and IFR in a 172. The school rents the planes too, so I can work on maneuvers, cross country to some Class C and B airports to build time and experience. I just don't know what to do after that. I thought a Saratoga was a type of PA-32? Best I can figure, a Piper six, lance, and saratoga are basically the same plane with different options? The Saratoga defintiely looks like a nice fit. The Bonanza is faster, though. I'm a sucker for room. If the Saratoga is roomier, that would be a huge plus.

I don't quite understand the 100 hrs time in type thing. So once you have 100 hrs in type, your insurance goes down? It wouldn't count to do time renting the Aztec, then, since it wouldn't transfer to anything I'm looking for? I didn't realize that it was type specific.

Sounds like Cigar and Jim K are suggesting do as above and once I have IFR, go get the plane I want and get a CFI to do dual instruction in my plane to get the additional ratings? I suppose it's going to be a search to find a CFI with plenty of experience in the plane I get.

Jim K - I get what your saying about the Lance and speed. I have money, but not time. Being able to make a trip quick, and without a fuel stop is the name of the game for NC - FL runs for me. My buddy has a 182 and loves it, also it's a truck with endless capacity, but it's too slow for me to be interested. Thanks a ton for the Wings suggestion.

Sinistar - Well I use 250 lbs for person weight + 50 lbs for luggage. My friends arn't as heavy as me so it evens out. In any case I fly a lot to scuba so I know my gear weight well already. I can make it work in 50 lbs, but 60-70 is awesome if the plane can do it. If it meant a fuel stop though, I can pack light. I didn't consider density altitude yet, but I'm sure with the Summer heat it's a factor. Trip is about 590 miles, so back of the envelope maybe 4 hrs fuel * 13 GPH = 52 gal... Might be out of range to do without a fuel stop.

Edit: I mean I use 250+50 because 250 is my weight and everyone else is lighter so subtracting out their weight from 250, you get that back for the cargo. Because of that I just use 300lbs per person as a rough guide.

Morgan - I understand where your coming from. I check all the boxes for that sad statistic. I would prefer not to be another doc dead in a Bo. That's why I'm looking for advice to get to that capability safely. I could financially get a PPL then go buy a Bo the next day, but that doesn't mean I can fly it safely. I just don't know what's the way to get there.

 

[Daleandee]

I'm gonna do some of that "thinking outside the box" stuff. If scuba is your thing and carrying a lot of weight is needed, while you may sacrifice some speed, the tail wheel endorsement will be a plus ...

 

[systemloc]

Daleandee - I've read a lot about how learning a tail dragger improves your skills. Definitely on my to do list. I'm bummed no one local teaches tail dragger but there are a few within 3 hours away. Also a PC 6 looks like an amazing plane. Read all about them when I first saw 'Air America' as a kid. Way out of my league though You guys are poking a bit of fun at me recommending that and the TBM 850. I'd love a chance to fly in one some day, but out of my budget and need. Fun as heck on flight sim, though

Seriously, what's up with multiengine? I was under the impression that they are way more expensive than a single engine, so I figured they are probably more than I would care to spend and likely more than what I need so excessive running costs.

Would it be a stupid idea to get the plane after the PPL and do IFR training in my dream plane? I was thinking it is too fast and too much plane to handle to learn IFR at the same time. Would save money and also build type hours though if that was not true.

 

[Deelee]

Well, normally the answer would be Bonanza.

But since you need to carry all that gear... I guess the answer is PC-12. Will haul 1200 lbs. 1500nm in pressurized comfort. You can financially get your PPL and then buy a Bo, so what's a little more for a nice single turboprop? Not sure what the transition is like from a 172. Probably not too much different. You should get your IR, too. That will knock a few bucks off the insurance premiums.

 

[Tantalum]

I would prefer not to be another doc dead in a Bo. That's why I'm looking for advice to get to that capability safely. I could financially get a PPL then go buy a Bo the next day, but that doesn't mean I can fly it safely. I just don't know what's the way to get there.

Just fly often and slowly expand your envelope. Start with conservative personal minimums, give yourself "missions" and your skill will expand. I find the "this weekend I'm going to X" is a great way to build proficiency, beyond the same 50nm burger run every weekend. When you go 400 nm, even if the weather is all VFR, a lot can change and vary, and you're far enough from home that you'll take the trip seriously. That at least worked for me

Would it be a stupid idea to get the plane after the PPL and do IFR training in my dream plane? I was thinking it is too fast and too much plane to handle to learn IFR at the same time. Would save money and also build type hours though if that was not true.

Depending on the plane. No. I wouldn't get my PPL and then do multi and IR in an Aerostar. But IFR IMC flying is somewhat "scary" at first, it helps to get intimate with one plane so you can really feel how it behaves and handles IMC. I see nothing wrong with the right attitude and competent instructor buying a Bo and doing your IR on that. Plus, the Bo is a very easy plane to fly and land. It's heavier than a PA28/C172 and faster, but it really doesn't have any surprises. The people who kill themselves in the Bo are careless and plow into IMC without an IR and pull the wings off in a disoriented spiral dive.

Seriously, what's up with multiengine? I was under the impression that they are way more expensive than a single engine, so I figured they are probably more than I would care to spend and likely more than what I need so excessive running costs.

..You can buy a **SERIOUS** twin for well below $250K.. There are Aztecs in the mid $100K range that are well equipped. Twice the fuel burn, twice the magnetos, twice the overhaul costs, twice the oil, twice the things that can break and need fixing.. and it's not linear.. so it's probably 2.5X higher hourly operating cost (there are many twin owners here who can give you better answers). But I mean, for the prices of some of these twins you get so much more utility and the price delta in what a newer but far less capable single buys a lot of maintenance reserve. But honestly, after getting my multi it feels like much more "real" flying with two engines.. plus I believe it to be safer. I think another reason twins are cheap is the stupid adage "the second engine gets you to the crash site that much faster" <- okay, if you can't safely fly the plane within its design envelope (IE, on one engine) then you shouldn't be flying it period.

My $0.02

 

[Morgan3820]

I just don't know what's the way to get there.

One...step.. at...a...time. Money cannot buy safety, but it can buy the illusion of it.

You say you hear me, but you are not listening. You say that you check all of those boxes and yet you persist. You have never had a forced landing, I have. You have never had an in flight emergency, I have.

I am disappointed at my experienced peers who should know better.

You would be better served by reading a bunch of fatal NTSB reports.

But hey, not my monkey, not my circus.

 

[GRG55]

If you want to carry a few people and a lot of gear it means you need a larger airplane. Think of it like your grandad's station wagon. Carrying a big payload comfortably and going really fast are competing design objectives in a car, and in an airplane - doing one well doesn't help easily achieving the other.

You'll find many of the people on this board who actually carry large payloads regularly, own Piper 32s. A few of us own 6-place twins...because we want both objectives, just like you. No free lunch when it comes to the immutable laws of physics, not even for the exalted Bonanza owner.

Go finish your PPL. Get some real cross country experience. Then decide what you really want and need in an airplane. And accept that if you want it all, it comes with a price.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

It’s ok to dream....but by the time you get enough experience your needs or wants will be different. So for now.....don’t worry bout it.

 

[Daleandee]

Daleandee - I've read a lot about how learning a tail dragger improves your skills. Definitely on my to do list. I'm bummed no one local teaches tail dragger but there are a few within 3 hours away. Also a PC 6 looks like an amazing plane. Read all about them when I first saw 'Air America' as a kid. Way out of my league though You guys are poking a bit of fun at me recommending that and the TBM 850.

I guess I was a bit tongue in cheek but not totally as I thought if you wanted to carry a bunch of folks and gear to go scuba diving a Porter on floats would save a lot of time and get you to some great locations instead of having to rent a boat and haul all that gear around.

But in reality I think what the others have said rings true ... it's OK to dream but you have a long way to go and, be assured, that dream will change as you move forward. Take the steps as they come ... unless you have a girlfriend that will cosign an 80K loan ...

 

[ebetancourt]

I am always fascinated by these threads. The real problem is 100 hours is too few to become a pilot. You can learn to fly in anything, but it takes time. I learned to fly in a T-28A, a whole bunch of people learned to fly in Stearman's and T-6s. The new T-6 II is a bit more than a 172.

My advice is, if you can figure out the insurance, start with whatever you decide is necessary. But build your own syllabus way beyond the FAA minimums. Include aerobatics not for the fun, but to learn to fly at the edge of the envelope.

 

[DFH65]

DC3 is the answer. It really is always the answer.

 

[Morgan3820]

DC3 is the answer. It really is always the answer.

Absolutely, but with amphibious floats and a turbine conversion. And by the time you get the more the multi engine and the float plane endorsement he will be at least over 150 hours. Insurance should not be too bad then.

 

[DFH65]

Absolutely, but with amphibious floats and a turbine conversion. And by the time you get the more the multi engine and the float plane endorsement he will be at least over 150 hours. Insurance should not be too bad then.

Insurance is for bad pilots.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I am always fascinated by these threads. The real problem is 100 hours is too few to become a pilot. You can learn to fly in anything, but it takes time. I learned to fly in a T-28A, a whole bunch of people learned to fly in Stearman's and T-6s. The new T-6 II is a bit more than a 172.

My advice is, if you can figure out the insurance, start with whatever you decide is necessary. But build your own syllabus way beyond the FAA minimums. Include aerobatics not for the fun, but to learn to fly at the edge of the envelope.

Strange hill to die on, but go on.

 

[YKA]

How much insurance do some of you carry?
The rates you pay make me wonder if you have 75 million dollars in third party, and 3 million dollars hull, on a 80k plane.

 

[Salty]

I have money, but not time.

Then rent a plane and pilot.

 

[Tantalum]

The real problem is 100 hours is too few to become a pilot

I was signed off to solo at 8.5 hrs

Hours don't (directly) mean anything. Attitude plays a much bigger part, personal standards, and the type of flying someone does. A weekly burger run 50 nm away is not the same as the person who flies 5 or 6 big 500nm+ cross country flights per year through weather, etc., and neither of these people are the same as the airline dude sitting on autopilot at 35,000 ft for thousands of hours

For any data geeks out there https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201503.pdf






Aviation needs to be skill based, not "hours" based. There's a big leap of faith to simply assume that "1 hr = 1 unit of proficiency"

Both annualized charts above would suggest that people under 200 hours are safer than 2,000 hr pilots. Hell, in the case of IR pilots someone with 500 hours is safer than someone 1,500 hrs

 

[Salty]

Just taking off, flying around and landing at the same airport for hour after hour does improve skills, there is no doubt. But hours spent doing things that you aren't that good at yet are where the real improvements happen. It's like sharpening just the tip of a knife. Sure, it makes the knife sharper. But the knife is much more capable when you sharpen the entire edge.

 

[SkyChaser]

(Info from Google, so I may not know what I'm talking about.)
Piper Lance: 590 nm. Cruising speed 175 knots. 3.3 hour trip.
Cessna 182: 590 nm. Cruising speed 145 knots. 4.1 hour trip.

Not even quite an hour would be shaved off the travel time by getting the faster plane. Is that .8 of an hour so crucial? If time is so short, you may not be able to fly anyway with the wait times needed after scuba diving. It seems like a lot of pressure to place on yourself as the pilot.

Also, how long does a normal fuel stop take? I've done a few - land, fuel up, use the bathroom, update flight plan, preflight/run-up, and off you go again. Unless someone is hogging the fuel pump, the stop may not even break the half hour point. Is that just because the airports I fly to are little?

 

[Jamie Kirk]

I earned my PPL in a complex aircraft I purchased.

6 months after getting my license I got my Saratoga II TC and HP endorsement was done during the required 5 hours dual for insurance.

Buy the plane you want first, it’s cheaper.

 

[Salty]

I earned my PPL in a complex aircraft I purchased.

6 months after getting my license I got my Saratoga II TC and HP endorsement was done during the required 5 hours dual for insurance.

Buy the plane you want first, it’s cheaper.

I wouldn't argue with this advice, if you are going to fly enough to become and remain proficient.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

I wouldn't argue with this advice, if you are going to fly enough to become and remain proficient.

Being honest with yourself is the right step. I’ve had my license 18 months and I have over 500 hours flying so for me I knew the plane would be used.

 

[Salty]

Being honest with yourself is the right step. I’ve had my license 18 months and I have over 500 hours flying so for me I knew the plane would be used.

Awesome. But when I saw him say he has no time, that is a red flag to me.

 

[Tantalum]

Piper Lance: 590 nm. Cruising speed 175 knots. 3.3 hour trip.
Cessna 182: 590 nm. Cruising speed 145 knots. 4.1 hour trip.

175 knots seems a little optimistic for the Lance.. however the useful load is close to 1700 lb, that substantially higher than the 182. That 500 lb difference would be enough to go Lance, in addition to the faster speed, low wing arrangement, and barn door in the back with huge comfortable cabin

 

[GRG55]

How much insurance do some of you carry?
The rates you pay make me wonder if you have 75 million dollars in third party, and 3 million dollars hull, on a 80k plane.

Have you insured a plane you own in the last 3 years?

Rates are being pushed up significantly by the underwriters, and some situations are becoming almost uninsurable. I've been flying since 1974, owned my own airplanes since the 1990s, never had a claim of any kind, and my insurance on both my twin and my taildragger increased 21.5 % in this past year, on top of two consecutive 15% increased the prior two years. Our Flying Club fleet insurance also went up 21% this year.

Fewer underwriters writing policies in the aviation sector, so less competition, and we are all paying for the 737 Max fiasco, among other things.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

Awesome. But when I saw him say he has no time, that is a red flag to me.

Very true. If your going to use it once a month your not going to miss .8.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

Have you insured a plane you own in the last 3 years?

Rates are being pushed up significantly by the underwriters, and some situations are becoming almost uninsurable. I've been flying since 1974, owned my own airplanes since the 1990s, never had a claim of any kind, and my insurance on both my twin and my taildragger increased 21.5 % in this past year, on top of two consecutive 15% increased the prior two years. Our Flying Club fleet insurance also went up 21% this year.

Fewer underwriters writing policies in the aviation sector, so less competition, and we are all paying for the 737 Max fiasco, among other things.

Yup, 400 hours in my plane compared to last year and my insurance went UP. I’m about $6k a year

 

[SkyChaser]

175 knots seems a little optimistic for the Lance.. however the useful load is close to 1700 lb, that substantially higher than the 182. That 500 lb difference would be enough to go Lance, in addition to the faster speed, low wing arrangement, and barn door in the back with huge comfortable cabin

Incredibly, I've never even seen either kind of plane in question, so thanks for the clarification. I was just surprised that the OP was so sure that the 182 was too slow vs. a Lance, etc., since it doesn't look that different on paper!

 

[Jamie Kirk]

Incredibly, I've never even seen either kind of plane in question, so thanks for the clarification. I was just surprised that the OP was so sure that the 182 was too slow vs. a Lance, etc., since it doesn't look that different on paper!

I don’t fly a Lance but a Saratoga and I am easily 30kts+ faster than my friend in his 182 when I am running 65%

 

[YKA]

Have you insured a plane you own in the last 3 years?

Rates are being pushed up significantly by the underwriters, and some situations are becoming almost uninsurable. I've been flying since 1974, owned my own airplanes since the 1990s, never had a claim of any kind, and my insurance on both my twin and my taildragger increased 21.5 % in this past year, on top of two consecutive 15% increased the prior two years. Our Flying Club fleet insurance also went up 21% this year.

Fewer underwriters writing policies in the aviation sector, so less competition, and we are all paying for the 737 Max fiasco, among other things.

Yes i have, and paid less for a Seneca lll than some of you are paying for a dinky little Cherokee, and i paid in Canadian dollars. My friend just insured his 206 two weeks ago, $4300 Canadian to insure his 2012 Cessna 206.

 

[David Megginson]

Hi!

I'm a student pilot working on a PPL in NC learning in a 172. My school has 172, 152, and an aztec. There are CFIs with CFII, MEI, AGI and IGI.

My primary goal is to fly a plane, but since I'm in it, I was considering useful things to do and places to go. I do like to scuba, and I have family/friends in FL. I would like to be able to fly to FL with passengers and cargo to scuba and visit friends. As scuba is done in pairs, I would like to be able to fly 4 people with about 50 lbs of gear each, so about 1200 lbs of cargo/passengers, plus enough fuel to get from NC to South Florida. I was looking at perhaps a bonanza or a PA-32 with retractable gear. Secondary missions would be flying about the country with my wife and I (2 people only).

I would like any advice anyone regarding the training and experience pathway to go from a 172 to one of the above planes (High performance, high complexity). My school can certainly do IFR training, but the high performance high complexity endorsements would require flying the aztec, and I don't have an interest in multiengine. I'm not sure about the cost in time and money of doing training in the aztec vs finding another school with a suitable single engine plane. I was also considering, should I buy the plane I want first, or get something to build time in and later sell it and upgrade.

Also, I would appreciate any thoughts on the best plane to look for. Comfort and speed are pretty high on the requirements list, so I would not consider a 182 (speed), and everyone says the Bonanza is head and shoulders more comfortable and nicer than the Piper. As far as Bonanza's go, the family is huge and confusing. The older planes seem to have more useful load which is confusing, and I'm not sure whether to go older pre-fuselage extension or not. I wouldn't mind getting an older plane with a little meat still on the engine and an option to STC upgrade the engine to break up the cost a bit, but a late model used Bonanza is within the budget. I tend to buy the lowest cost option that satisfies my wants, though.

Lastly, any comments on additional training to improve safety and insurance costs are appreciated! I've seen the FAA Wings program, but not familiar with other options yet.

Take a few hundred hours to make most of your mistakes in a fixed-gear trainer, first. They're less likely to hurt you, and you can move on to your dream plane once you've survived the overconfident phase that happens to most of around 250-500 hours in.

 

[ebetancourt]

If you read into my post that hours are important, I didn't do a very good job of explaining my point. In my mind, to become a safe pilot, you need a lot training that you can't accomplish is much less than 100 hours. Learning to fly at the edge of an airplane's performance envelope, learning how to be comfortable in unusual situations takes practice.

Time to solo? Ultralight pilots can do it in 0 time. Those Air France pilots that left Brazil and stalled an airliner into the water had more cross-country time in bad weather than most. Really learning to fly takes more than 100 hours, and it takes more than routine trips.

I was signed off to solo at 8.5 hrs

Hours don't (directly) mean anything. Attitude plays a much bigger part, personal standards, and the type of flying someone does. A weekly burger run 50 nm away is not the same as the person who flies 5 or 6 big 500nm+ cross country flights per year through weather, etc., and neither of these people are the same as the airline dude sitting on autopilot at 35,000 ft for thousands of hours

For any data geeks out there https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201503.pdf

View attachment 93606


View attachment 93607

Aviation needs to be skill based, not "hours" based. There's a big leap of faith to simply assume that "1 hr = 1 unit of proficiency"

Both annualized charts above would suggest that people under 200 hours are safer than 2,000 hr pilots. Hell, in the case of IR pilots someone with 500 hours is safer than someone 1,500 hrs

 

[Tantalum]

If you read into my post that hours are important, I didn't do a very good job of explaining my point. In my mind, to become a safe pilot, you need a lot training that you can't accomplish is much less than 100 hours. Learning to fly at the edge of an airplane's performance envelope, learning how to be comfortable in unusual situations takes practice.

Time to solo? Ultralight pilots can do it in 0 time. Those Air France pilots that left Brazil and stalled an airliner into the water had more cross-country time in bad weather than most. Really learning to fly takes more than 100 hours, and it takes more than routine trips.

That's a fair point. This is why I recommend that people set up for themselves "missions" and have a conservative personal envelope but are always looking to gain experience to expand that envelope. I really dislike the same routine local flights that a ton of people do. If I had 2,000 hours in the last 3 years flying around the same six airports locally I would feel far less equipped to launch out on a 700nm trip than I do now.. so I think we agree haha