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

[GRG55]

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.

I hear this sort of stuff all the time.
So let's do some apples and apples.

1. What's his in motion hull coverage replacement value?
2. What's his deductible?
3. How many $Million of 3rd party liability is he carrying?
4. What limitations/time on type and recency do other named pilots on the policy need to have to fly the plane as PIC?

 

[WannFly]

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

thats a red flag to me as well. travelling via GA - you need to keep lots of options available. Icing might not be a problem over there, dont know, but I need to get back to base on Sunday so that I can go to work on Monday sounds like a bad set up to me unless you are flying a very capable airplane (and you have the proficiency to fly it safely)

 

[David Megginson]

thats a red flag to me as well. travelling via GA - you need to keep lots of options available. Icing might not be a problem over there, dont know, but I need to get back to base on Sunday so that I can go to work on Monday sounds like a bad set up to me unless you are flying a very capable airplane (and you have the proficiency to fly it safely)

Time to spare? Why not fly!

 

[Deelee]

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

I have money, but not time

Just saw that. Yeah. That is a pretty big red flag. Not even with a private and already the get-there-itis is creeping in. I have all this money to throw and a fast, long(ish) range aircraft that can haul 1200 pounds... but no time. No time to wait for thunderstorms in FL to shove off. No time to let a nagging mx issue get in the way of making a trip with scuba buddies who took off from work to plan the trip. Probably gets compounded when you are flying a faster, more complex aircraft.

 

[David Megginson]

Just saw that. Yeah. That is a pretty big red flag. Not even with a private and already the get-there-itis is creeping in. I have all this money to throw and a fast, long(ish) range aircraft that can haul 1200 pounds... but no time. No time to wait for thunderstorms in FL to shove off. No time to let a nagging mx issue get in the way of making a trip with scuba buddies who took off from work to plan the trip. Probably gets compounded when you are flying a faster, more complex aircraft.

High-performance airplanes make expensive coffins for people with too much money and not enough patience. (I'm not suggesting that the OP falls into that group.)

 

[Deelee]

Time to spare? Why not fly!

Get the PC-12... no need to worry about time. That thing is a time machine. And bad weather? Meh. It's got deice. And you can navigate around CB all day in that no problem. I'm sure the weather radar in that thing is pretty easy to learn and operate. Or just rely on NEXRAD. That is always up-to-date and accurate for dodging those big, nasty ones.

 

[YKA]

I hear this sort of stuff all the time.
So let's do some apples and apples.

1. What's his in motion hull coverage replacement value?
2. What's his deductible?
3. How many $Million of 3rd party liability is he carrying?
4. What limitations/time on type and recency do other named pilots on the policy need to have to fly the plane as PIC?

Don't know, but will call him tonight after work.

 

[FancyG]

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.

Drop ship a crate to the destination and back with the gear, save the load for pax.

I'd grab a CFI and rent a Lance to check mission suitability first.

Also, the hypothetical dive trips by plane - how many times have you driven a van load of friends diving? Focus on primary mission with the wife 2-4 seats and be prepared to rent a Lance if and when you decide to be a scuba air taxi.

 

[cowman]

I fly a Piper Lance, did most of my training and had almost 500hrs in a Piper Archer with no endorsements or retract time when I transitioned. It only took me 3 hours to transition. There isn't a massive learning curve going from a typical PA28 trainer to a PA32, a PA32 just flies like a heavy PA28. Your real stumbling block, as others have mentioned, is going to be insurance.

I might suggest a fixed gear PA-32.... the six/300 or six/260. Not as fast but without the retractable gear you're basically just flying a big Cherokee, I don't see why getting training in a plane like that would be an issue but I'm not an insurer. They may have other opinions.

If you are intent on going the retract route, see if your flight school has an Arrow or other retractable gear aircraft available that they'll give you some instruction time in. Having the retract hours will help you with the insurance company later.

In terms of plane shopping, first if you haven't learned about weight and balance yet learn it. Then go here http://pilotfriend.com/aircraft performance/acft_list.htm and look up the specs of different aircraft types. And also go here https://www.controller.com/ to get an idea what the market for that aircraft is like. I personally probably spent many many hours reading about different aircraft online and talking to other pilots/a&ps/etc before choosing what I wanted. Every airplane design is a tradeoff between factors like cost, speed, useful load, comfort, and other things. You will often find people in POA chat who will happily tell you how to spend your money and talk about airplanes.

Specific to my plane- the Piper Lance. The PA-32 series are known for high useful loads, mine is around 1400#. Once you fill the fuel tanks to the top that leaves about 850# for people and cargo. Again, this is one of the best piston singles you'll find for useful load. Yes, you can fly with less than full fuel but that creates other issues. Realistic true airspeed in cruise is going to be around 150kts, maybe better on a cold day or worse on a hot one. The turbo versions will go faster but will burn more fuel, have higher associated maintenance costs, and more complicated operation. Fixed gear PA-32s will be slower.

Also as I think others brought up GA travel is never reliable, you're ALWAYS going to be delaying for weather. Don't get me wrong, it's a much more fun way to travel and I do it this way for a reason but if you have to maintain a schedule and reliable travel... airlines, trains, and automobiles are better choices.

 

[systemloc]

Yeah, one thing that struck me was that a study was done that after a check ride, the FAA got PPL pilots to volunteer to go out and check ride again months out from passing and they showed the rapid decline in skill. It really isn't enough to go goof around in perfect conditions once a month. You need continuous training running through emergency procedures to maintain real proficiency that can save your life. That's a lesson I took away. Once I get there, I would think every time you go fly for fun, the mission is reviewing all the emergency procedures.. stalls, gauging an engine out approach, engine out if your in a multi, etc.

Given I have limited time, using the time in the air by myself doing high yield training rather than just turning on autopilot and heading 50mi away for a hamburger seems pretty important. I like the tip Tantalum had. I'm working on "Weather Flying" by Buck and Buck, and working on regular cross countries as a training excercise and learning weather that way is a great concept.

I was also thinking once I get VFR through VFR and IFR to go seek out some real safety oriented CFIs, for example, Dan Gryder and Jason Miller seem to be really focused on improving safety through training. Taking time out to go train a bit with them I think would be high yield. Someone mentioned acrobatic training as well, and I think that's a great move to get a better comfort with edge of envelope conditions that usually only happen in emergencies. I think that's exactly Morgan's point.. hours flying in a straight line in fair weather doesn't make you safer. Experience thinking your way out of a jam and keeping a cool head does. Also, Morgan, I've read a bunch of NTSB reports, "The Killing Zone," and watched all the aviation safety videos that the AOPA made. I'm keen to learn other people's errors rather than make them again myself. I mean most of the stories are pretty amazingly stupid behavior that's just inexcusable. Most of the rest are being pushed around by ATC rather than taking control of the situation.

Daleandee and Deelee - Yeah a PC6 or PC12 would be an amazing plane, also, I haven't seen either for less than a million.. slightly more than a used Bo or Aztec! If I have to make a fuel stop in a Bo, I can still sleep at night!

Tantalum - yeah a twin has great cargo capacity, and a 310 is sure speedy. I was talking to my CFI today and he also mentioned if I every flew over water he personally will only fly over water in a multi. I had thought Bahamas and Carribean but the additional cost of maintenance and fuel to me I would think long and hard about it. If I could buy a single and rent a multi for a trip a year or so, that would be ok with me.

Lance, Saratoga, 182.. I guess I haven't worked out how fast is fast enough. I was more looking at Saratogas and Bonanzas as they are both quite a bit faster than the 182. An Aztec has endless carrying capacity but not quite as fast. Maybe it would actually be fast enough, I dunno. Fast as I can afford I guess is the right answer.


The question I'm really looking to answer at this point, is when to buy the plane. Should I go with David Megginson's fly a few hundered hours in a fixed wheel trainer? Or buy the plane then learn to fly it, as ebetancourt says? I could always get the plane after the PPL and then drill in it and really learn the plane in VFR conditions, then go for the IFR once I have some decent experience in it. I don't feel like I have a good grasp on the pro's and con's of that decision.


Also DC3... yes DC3... yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm of those big radials.

 

[systemloc]

"Also as I think others brought up GA travel is never reliable, you're ALWAYS going to be delaying for weather. Don't get me wrong, it's a much more fun way to travel and I do it this way for a reason but if you have to maintain a schedule and reliable travel... airlines, trains, and automobiles are better choices."

Yeah, I expect that. I can cope with that. How much does having IFR change that? I'm far enough south that icing isn't a major headache.


Pilotfriend looks amazing! That's a great resource I hadn't seen, thanks!

 

[Sac Arrow]

"Also as I think others brought up GA travel is never reliable, you're ALWAYS going to be delaying for weather. Don't get me wrong, it's a much more fun way to travel and I do it this way for a reason but if you have to maintain a schedule and reliable travel... airlines, trains, and automobiles are better choices."

Yeah, I expect that. I can cope with that. How much does having IFR change that? I'm far enough south that icing isn't a major headache.


Pilotfriend looks amazing! That's a great resource I hadn't seen, thanks!

The short answer is yes. It's a game changer. But, as I have learned, icing can change all of that.

 

[cowman]

"Also as I think others brought up GA travel is never reliable, you're ALWAYS going to be delaying for weather. Don't get me wrong, it's a much more fun way to travel and I do it this way for a reason but if you have to maintain a schedule and reliable travel... airlines, trains, and automobiles are better choices."

Yeah, I expect that. I can cope with that. How much does having IFR change that? I'm far enough south that icing isn't a major headache.

Icing is just one factor. Another big one is thunderstorms. There's also something a lot more basic- I don't know where you are in your training but you probably have heard at least a little about VFR cloud clearance requirements and how getting into a cloud can make you specially disoriented and lead to a probably fatal crash. Well what you find out in real world cross country flying is that weather forecasts are often wrong and sometimes the METARS weather reports at airports are misleading. You always have to leave a safety margin to deal with that plus be ready to go land if things get nasty. That means there are going to be a lot of days when you technically could make a legal VFR flight but really you probably shouldn't.

What most instrument rated single engine airplane pilots like me who don't fly every week use their IFR rating for is going on those technically legal days(usually called marginal VFR) and climbing above the low cloud layers(getting on top) so we can cruise in what are basically VFR conditions above the clouds, then descend back through a layer at our destination and make a normal VFR style landing. My rating allows me to legally take off in zero visibility and fly approaches down to minimums. That doesn't mean it's safe for me to do that with my level of proficiency and equipment... and that's the sort of judgement you have to use in aviation all the time to keep yourself safe.

Instrument rated pilots die all the time from spacial disorientation, ice, and trying to pick there way through embedded thunderstorms and accidentally flying into one. The commercial guys who do that stuff regularly are flying on instruments frequently, they have a co-pilot to help them, and they have a flight deck full of fancier more capable equipment than you likely will.

Anyway to answer your actual question- yeah it is a game changer. It gets you out on a lot of days when you shouldn't or couldn't fly VFR, but it's not a magical fly any day card either.

 

[YKA]

I hear this sort of stuff all the time.
So let's do some apples and apples.

1. What's his in motion hull coverage replacement value?
2. What's his deductible?
3. How many $Million of 3rd party liability is he carrying?
4. What limitations/time on type and recency do other named pilots on the policy need to have to fly the plane as PIC?

Got your answers, $550k hull, 2 mil 3rd party, 10k deductible, PIC will have over 100 on type, and over 2000 TT, over age 25.

 

[jbarrass]

I vote PA-32 -- Cherokee 6/300 (or a later variant). Pretty much all the room you want and all the cargo you want. Low 6 figures for a nicely equipped one.

Not fast, probably 30 knots slower than a Bo or Comanche, but seriously, that is an hour a trip. In exchange, it's easy to fly, easy to maintain, easy to insure, and you won't need to worry about 50 vs 60 pounds worth of gear.

I flew VA to FL for many years. It's usually easy IFR, but you'll need an IR or you'll have to fly low and get beat up my mom nature.

 

[systemloc]

jbarrass and cowman : I get what you guys are saying, I think becoming proficient IFR in actual IMC is a prerequisite to my FL-NC runs. IFR opens a can of worms with embedded thunderstorms and the like, so requires a good bit of weather briefing, monitoring in flight, and gear, like radar/stormscope.

cowman:
I vote PA-32 -- Cherokee 6/300 (or a later variant). Pretty much all the room you want and all the cargo you want. Low 6 figures for a nicely equipped one.

jbarrass:
I might suggest a fixed gear PA-32.... the six/300 or six/260. Not as fast but without the retractable gear you're basically just flying a big Cherokee, I don't see why getting training in a plane like that would be an issue but I'm not an insurer. They may have other opinions.

I'm clearly missing something here. Why not get a PA-32 with retractable gear? What's the downside? I'm not understanding why you guys suggest a Cheokee 6 with the fixed gear. What's the differential as far as insurance? Is it way more due to risk of gear up landings?

I want to say thank you to everyone that posted, this has been a very educational discussion for me.

 

[Motor6]

I have been lurking for some time. I am in the market as a low time pilot as well. I really don’t have access to rent anything with the capabilities of a PA-32. I have been renting PA-28’s, 172’s, and a Grumman Tiger. I own a Toyota Sequoia, not because I use its capabilities all the time, but because I want to be comfortable on longer trips and take as much with me as I please.

For the price, the PA-32 seems like a great option. I was wondering about the insurance as a low time pilot flying with 6 seats and/or retractable gear as well. I called a broker and got some figures. She could only pull up recent examples of policies issued without an N number to give me an exact quote. There was a student pilot 90k hull value Cherokee 6/260 was quoted at just under $4k. A 135 hr private pilot with 40 hrs of retract was quoted $6500 on a turbo Lance with $135k hull value. Hope this helps.

The broker also said there are very few options of companies that will issue a policy on 6 seaters without the IR. The companies know this and charge a premium. Honestly it was about what I was expecting. $4-5k the first year with a 50% premium if I went with a retract. I plan to get the IR ASAP, but I want to train on the equipment I will be using. After the first year and the IR she said I could expect a significantly better rate.

 

[tspear]

Worry less about the actual plane, more about the platform for your IR. If you want a G500, make sure to train on one. Same for nav/com.....

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

Why? I have a G500, GTN750/650 and a fancy autopilot. I trained on “steam” gauges and no autopilot. I’m glad I’m comfortable in both configurations.

Doing your instrument rating in a TAA really seems like cheating. You deprive yourself of the opportunity to gain a situational awareness in your mind without depending on the fancy glass to tell you where you are. Seems like this could get you in trouble if you ever fly a less “advanced” airplane or have an instrument failure.

Part of transitioning to any new airplane is learning the avionics. Shouldn’t take you more than a few hours to learn how to use the radios.

Because transitioning is never that easy for the vast majority of pilots.
Primary lessons are the best learned, least forgotten. How does the steam gauge help the G1000 pilot handle vertigo?
What is more likely to fail, pilot, engine or avionics?

The pilot is generally and statistically the weakest link in the chain. So set the pilot for success by training in what you fly.
Now, if you want to fly as much as the pros and train as often, ignore me.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

I think you’re making my point for me. You brought up the Law of Primacy - A G500/1000 does a bunch of things for you that you don’t have to do yourself - identifying navaids, auto slew, waypoint sequencing, etc. If you do your initial training on these then you don’t learn to do it yourself and you set yourself up to fail (or at least have a much harder time) when you fly a less advanced aircraft (or a different system). This “best learned least forgotten” principle is EXACTLY why you don’t want to learn initially on a platform that takes a bunch of the steps out of the process for you- because you don’t learn the steps.

Not sure I get the point of the G1000 vertigo. I’ve experienced the same effects with G1000, G500 and steam gauges so not sure how the physiology differs.

The OP asked about a larger/faster more complex piston single. Depending on budget, the OP will either get a six pack or a PFD, same thing for VOR Nav/Com or a GPS/VOR Nav/Com. Budget will determine what he buys.
My point is he should train with the equipment level he planes to purchase.

If the OP is going to spend more and get a plane with a PFD and a GPS Nav/Com; as a general rule the pilot will never again really fly with a six pack, and I highly doubt he will ever fly IFR with said six pack. PFDs and GPS Nav/Coms are becoming more and more standard equipment on what most even consider to be mid level airplanes. It is getting harder and harder to find IFR capable aircraft that are not equipped in this fashion; it can be done, but it is a shrinking percentage of the fleet.

My comment on the G1000, I have seen many pilots who are used to steam gauges get flustered and unable to use the G1000, or the GNS 430 with an Aspen. All this new tech, requires a new brand of situational awareness, you need to know how to navigate the systems; sure old school VORs taught you how to find via radials where you are on a map. However, they did not have you deal with suspend, OBS, VLOC.....

I am a good example in many ways. I started with a PFD/GNS430 combo (still flying the same stack, different plane). In over 800 hours, I have logged roughly 15 behind a six pack. That was for a rental PA44 for my MEL. Can I fly a six pack, sure, but I detest it.

Tim

 

[David Megginson]

Why? I have a G500, GTN750/650 and a fancy autopilot. I trained on “steam” gauges and no autopilot. I’m glad I’m comfortable in both configurations.

Doing your instrument rating in a TAA really seems like cheating. You deprive yourself of the opportunity to gain a situational awareness in your mind without depending on the fancy glass to tell you where you are. Seems like this could get you in trouble if you ever fly a less “advanced” airplane or have an instrument failure.

Part of transitioning to any new airplane is learning the avionics. Shouldn’t take you more than a few hours to learn how to use the radios.

I half agree. I think the important thing in all cases (whether you're flying an NDB approach on steam gauges with no moving map or an LPV approach in a plane with a glass panel) is holding an attitude and heading and and correcting when necessary, rather than chasing the needles or the virtual bugs and magenta line. You can/should learn that in any aircraft, but I agree that the lesson gets lost more easily with glass because of all the distractions.

That said, advanced avionics are hard, and they do deserve their own training after you've learned the basics of controlling a plane by instruments. It takes about 2 seconds to explain the NDB — "compare the beeps the dots and dashes on the chart, and the needle points at the station" — but weeks to learn a modern GPS navigator or full glass panel properly.

 

[David Megginson]

I don't know if I'll ever actually do it, but my retirement dream is to own a less-technically-advanced aircraft: let my IFR recency lapse and get a little taildragger with the minimum instruments on the panel. I might still go for an electrical system, though, because the days are short here in the winter, and external lighting is useful.

 

[thito01]

It's an old thread, but I am going to jump in.
I jumped into a 182 deal with only 50 hours and a fresh PP card. Spent 300+ hours in it and got my IFR. Traded it in for a Lance (low-tail) when my family grew. 500+ hours and a Commercial and I still have a lance. So, I know both aircraft well.
If you are going to be adding about 100 hours the first year and will have your IFR by the first renewal, then go for the PA32R, but not until you have your PP. The extra cost for insurance for one year will cover the sales tax for and other non-recoverable costs of purchase that would occur when you traded up from a C182 to a PA32R. But, you need those hours and IFR ticket before the first renewal or you will see a costly renewal. (But, verify you can even get coverage before you sign for the aircraft.)
That is just the numbers talking. Now, for the non-numbers stuff.
Most likely you will not get as many hours the first year as you think you will. And, you will not make that IFR rating the first year either.
One of the bad things about faster aircraft is that it takes longer to get the number of hours you need. The first year, you really want to pull the mixture back, fly slow and save fuel just so you can build hours. And, you build those hours so you can get better insurance and more ratings all the while saving money by using less fuel going slow.
So, where am I going with this? I think you should go with the C182 and limit your trips to 2 or 3 divers. Maybe 4 if they are skinny and don't weigh like a normal American. You can always leave some of the fuel behind. (Hint: Get a 182 with long-range tanks.) Build your hours, get your IFR and then do most all your training for the commercial in the C182. Swap the C182 for a PA32R and finish the commercial. The first renewal should look good. And, you are more likely to find insurance for the PA32R with your IFR and hours.
And, don't pull a JFKjr.
Tony T.