I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

I got about 20 hours in a Bo back when I only had about 120 TT logged.
A few hours with a CFI and you'll be OK. Bonanza's are big airplanes,
so the big engine is "tamed" a little bit, if you will, by the heavier
airframe. If you wanted to get a Eclipse or a TMB, then there would be
some concern. Turbine and larger multi-engine airplanes should only be
attempted by higher time pilots (600 TT and above, I'd say).

Any single (P51's and similar not withstanding) should be no problem
as long as you spend a little time getting used to the (relatively
simple) landing gear system, prop governor, autopilot, etc.

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

I did a private for a student in a Mooney last summer. The guy took
his checkride in his Mooney with all his time in the Mooney. Low time
will just mean that you will need more CFI time to get ready for the
Mooney than a more experienced pilot but its certainly not a
limitation.

-Robert, CFII

> wrote:

>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

A complex, high performance airplane will be more demanding than a Skyhawk,
but why buy an airplane that may dissapoint you with its suitability for the
missions you fly? Don't buy an airplane you can't really use.

There's no reason a 100-hour pilot cannot operate a Bonanza or Mooney safely
if he gets enough training to be proficient.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

Hello:

The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
pilot.

Here is a measure of that...when you are flying "mostly" do you do the
same things with the plane the same way at the same time and use the
checklist? a well trained pilot starts the walkaround the same place
and does the checks the same way every fracken time. The joke is "He/
she is three minutes into the walkaround, if everything is OK he/she
is at blank". Flying along coming into an airport do you start the
descent and approach at the same distance from the plane and do the
landing at the same place (like turning final) or is it a different
place every time.

If there is no "rhythum" to itthen youj are in trouble. One of the
things I do back home is take any primary students I have to the local
Walmart. It is under the approach lanes of one of the major airport.
We watch the Boeings come over...after about 20 minutes I ask them
"what do you see?" and the answer from the people who have a clue is
"the gear and flaps are coming down on all of them just about
here"...thats "Gear Down Flaps 15 Before landing checklist I have the
brake".

A well trained pilot should be like that. If you are not, then
"you" (generic) are a meanace saved from the rest of us by the slow
speed and airspace protection. If you are then with good training and
transition help, you want have any problem.

The insurance cost will be "higher".

Robert

On Aug 28, 4:08 pm, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
>

> The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
> part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
> experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
> happen faster at 300...

If you read Richard Collins he has long shown stasticial correlations
between accident rates and speed in owner flown GA. For instance the
Mooney has more accidents than the nearly identical (but slower)
Arrow. Richard's theory is that the more speed the plane has the more
weather systems and variety of environments you encounter. I tend to
agree with him.

> The insurance cost will be "higher".

Yea, my student had a similar model Mooney to mine and he paid an
extra $4K per year for insurance.

On Aug 28, 6:56 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 4:08 pm, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
>
> > The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
> > part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
> > experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
> > happen faster at 300...
>
> If you read Richard Collins he has long shown stasticial correlations
> between accident rates and speed in owner flown GA. For instance the
> Mooney has more accidents than the nearly identical (but slower)
> Arrow. Richard's theory is that the more speed the plane has the more
> weather systems and variety of environments you encounter. I tend to
> agree with him.
>
> > The insurance cost will be "higher".
>
> Yea, my student had a similar model Mooney to mine and he paid an
> extra $4K per year for insurance.

Hello

I've read Richard Collins for a long time and who the heck am I to
disagree with him....but I do and I dont.

I do in that I think that the faster the airplane flies, the more
complex etc the more likely flaws in the decision making process are
going to be exposed...but I disagree in that I think that the flaws
are still the same wheather it is an ultralight or a B-757. It is
just the issue of when the error chain starts backing up fast enough
so that it is unrecoverable and then finally fatal.

My take is that I dont have a very good view on "MOST" of the private
pilot training programs that are out there. They are not very
"rigorized" meaning that methods and procedures are not stressed from
day 1 and drilled into students. Hence very quickly after the private
people start originating with little competence their own methods.
My first, non government but he was a product of government and
airline training programs, instructor was methodical about "inspiring"
Into me a "rhythum" of procedures and that was when we were just
flying the Cub. There was nothing that was "seat of the pants".

I dont see that in a lot of people, even when they get ready to go for
the commuter airline ranks. Now most of them will put that into the
folks or the folks leave......but my experience is that the speed
(velocity) of the plane while important pales behind getting a method
down and using it.

Robert

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

Some people are safe after 50 hours, and some never are -- it all depends on
YOU.

Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
expense, go for it.

When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class who
had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

You might be an idiot, but no worse than a lot of the rest of us. :-)

Seriously, a lot of people do their primary training in Bonanzas and
Mooneys. Insurance companies are more tolerant if you own the plane,
but they will probably require that you get some minimum number of
hours of training in the aircraft before you fly it by yourself.

That said, the Bonanza is called the "fork-tailed doctor killer" for a
reason. Fast planes can get you into trouble in a hurry. They are less
tolerant of incompetence. If and when they do go down, survivability
is much lower because of the higher stall speeds. If you do not fly it
enough to stay sharp, a fast airplane just might end up being a
suicide machine.

All I know is I love my Bonanza. I feel way safer in that than I ever did in
my Cherokee 180. the insurance company wanted 26 hours with an instructor. I
flew by myself for the next 10. I started in a Vtail and then bought an
A36. The A36 is a nice plane. I have never had any buyers remorse.
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?
>

wrote:
> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
> sometimes.
>
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?
>

I had my private at 45 hours, and I started my Arrow training at 90 hrs
TT. I had to have at least 10 before the club I was at would allow me to
solo in the Arrow. The mooney wasn't far behind.

I had a few hours in Grumman Tigers before I started the complex thing,
and that plane was the best (compared to the 150/172/warrior) for honing
attention to detail - speed management, planning ahead. A slick Tiger
prepares you for a slick Mooney.

The key will really be how thick your wallet is, and what you are
prepared to pay for insurance. You may find yourself practially
uninsurable to own a Bo or other slick fastmover at 100 hrs total time
and no Instrument rating. Or have onerous training requirements thrown
at you.

The other thing is, how proficient are you in the slow movers. If you
arent already up to par, you will be behind in a fast mover. Can you
NAIL steep turns now, to commercial standards? No.. you dont need to,
but that one maneuver, above all, indicates how well you can manage
everything (bank, rudder, power, trim - just my opinion, as learned from
my instructors). If not, go play for a bit and polish it up before
throwing money at a fast mover, complex/HP bird. Can you do an approach
stall and not sink below your target altitude. Need to be a pretty good
airman in the slow stuff before tackling airplanes that sink like bricks
when stalled.

If available, and if you have the $$.. go get 10 hours dual in the
closest to what you think you want to own. If there is a rental mooney,
bonanza or 200 hp arrow in a club or on the line somewhere you can kill
two or three birds with one stone. Get the dual, get the complex
endorsement in the process, and after the first hour or so of pattern
work, rather than burning holes, start on your instrument training. You
dont have to do ALL your time in an expensive, complex bird, but if you
are going to be burning gass in the first place, get the most for your $$.

In this process you will discover, with your instructor, if you are
ready for the plane (in the first hour, really, and can back off then if
you choose). You will also likely be learning to work with the
instructor who will likely "check you off" in your own plane, when you
get one.

These are just my opinions. Nothing more.
If you want a good cross country airplane, and can afford it, go for it.
Get the training and do it right.. And.. again, an instrument rating
will reap dividends.. even if you never fly in bad weather

Dave

> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?
>

Some extra training and awareness goes a very long way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

My son learned to fly in a twin, constant speed props, gas heater,
hydraulic gear, etc... Since he didn't know any better he thought the
plane was just like a single, with an extra knob or two... When he
finally did go out in a Warrior he said it was almost frightening.
He kept worrying he had forgotten something because there was almost
nothing to do but push the throttle and point the nose..

denny

wrote:
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

Primary training has been done in Bonanzas and Cirri, you should be fine
by spending quality time with a good instructor.

Check with your insurance company, as they may have certain hourly steps
where rates might change.

On 8/28/2007 6:52:16 PM, wrote:

>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

I own and fly a turbo-normalized Bonanza primarily to commute to my customers
every week. I had about 500 hours with an instrument rating in a C172 before
making the move up to this aircraft. In my case, I spent around 12 hours with
a CFI in the right seat (and with a rented dual yoke) before becoming
comfortable with the aircraft.

As everyone else pointed out, you are wise to recognize your limitations and
address those limitations with quality CFI instruction. The Bo (and Mooney)
are faster airplanes, which require you to be thinking about and planning
your next phase of flight well before encountering it. This, in turn,
requires you to have a level of comfort with the current workload the
aircraft hands you. Get behind the workload early does not mean more time to
catch up. :)

Additionally, the other big issue will be that these aircraft are slippery.
Drop the nose without a throttle reduction and it won't be long before you
are at Vne. In IMC, you need to be on top of your instrument scan at all
times. I believe most complex, hi-performance aircraft these days are
equipped with an autopilot, which is a great workload reliever. Trade flying
duties with the AP to stay proficient, but allow it to do its job and give
you the breathing room you need.



--
Peter

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
>> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>> sometimes.
>>
>> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> extra training be sufficient?
>
>Hello:
>
>The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
>part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
>experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
>happen faster at 300...
>
>The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
>what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
>precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
>pilot.
>

How does your insurance company determine this?
Do they attempt to "profile" individuals beyond the basic numbers (e.g.
100hr/high perf/complex acft/age/sex)?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:56:38 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>> sometimes.
>>
>> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> extra training be sufficient?
>
>Some people are safe after 50 hours, and some never are -- it all depends on
>YOU.
>
>Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
>hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
>expense, go for it.
>
>When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class who
>had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
>He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.


What is a C400? Cheyenne?

On Aug 29, 4:39 am, Denny > wrote:
> My son learned to fly in a twin, constant speed props, gas heater,
> hydraulic gear, etc... Since he didn't know any better he thought the
> plane was just like a single, with an extra knob or two... When he
> finally did go out in a Warrior he said it was almost frightening.
> He kept worrying he had forgotten something because there was almost
> nothing to do but push the throttle and point the nose..
>
> denny

LOL. I had the same experience after an extended period of flying
nothing but Seminoles. It is a real hoot sometimes checking out
airline pilots in a Cessna 172.

> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Faster airplanes require more planning in advance for let-downs, etc.
and the slippery airframes give you less time to recover in IMC if you
lose it for a few seconds. Lots of people would likely consider this
a cop-out, but a first class autopilot should be high on your list.

Dan Luke wrote:

> > wrote:
>
>
>>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>>know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>>since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>>sometimes.
>>
>>I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>>setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>>Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>>extra training be sufficient?
>
>
> A complex, high performance airplane will be more demanding than a Skyhawk,
> but why buy an airplane that may dissapoint you with its suitability for the
> missions you fly? Don't buy an airplane you can't really use.
>
> There's no reason a 100-hour pilot cannot operate a Bonanza or Mooney safely
> if he gets enough training to be proficient.
>

An more in insurance costs with low time. My opinion only.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:56:38 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
>>hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
>>expense, go for it.
>>
>>When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class
>>who
>>had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
>>He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.
>
>
> What is a C400? Cheyenne?

Columbia 400.

The fellow with the C350 was an youngish (early 30's ?, but anyone under 50
is "youngish" to me) anesthesiologist and very shape.

>
> > Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> > extra training be sufficient?
>
> The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
> insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
> company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
> don't.
>
Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the *******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> >
>> > Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> > extra training be sufficient?
>>
>> The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
>> insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
>> company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
>> don't.
>>
> Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
> *******s!
>
> I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
> believed
> that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
> usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
> about
> as much as I did as a teenager.
>
> Peter

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:22:12 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:56:38 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
>>>hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
>>>expense, go for it.
>>>
>>>When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class
>>>who
>>>had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
>>>He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.
>>
>>
>> What is a C400? Cheyenne?
>
>Columbia 400.
>
>The fellow with the C350 was an youngish (early 30's ?, but anyone under 50
>is "youngish" to me) anesthesiologist and very shape.


Gotcha... I should have have remembered that was Columbia's
designators.

-Nathan

That's the killer, I guy I know just picked up a really, really nice
V35 Bonanza for 50K since the owner was getting premium quotes of
14-18K. I ran my numbers though AOPA and came up with $930 per year,
hull and liability.

Bush

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:52:20 -0700, wrote:

>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>sometimes.
>
>I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
>Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>extra training be sufficient?

On 2007-08-28, > wrote:
> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> extra training be sufficient?

It depends on you.

If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.

If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.

Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
want to stay current.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article >,

>
> It depends on you.
>
> If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
> fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
> effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
> runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
> a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
> flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
> I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
> tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.
>
> If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
> nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
> mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
> ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.

It is also a function of your attitude toward flying. If you take a
lackadaisical approach, even a Cub is a deadly weapon in your hands. I
know high-time people who are absolutely DANGEROUS and low-time people
who are good pilots.

If, however, you take each flight as a learning opportunity, and improve
your abilities, go for it!

Learn to fly with your fingertips and toe tips and keep your head
OUTSIDE the cockpit when VFR; know your systems inside and out;
understand the mechanics of your airplane.

> Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
> flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
> stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
> faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
> want to stay current.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > >
> >> > Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> >> > extra training be sufficient?
> >>
> >> The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
> >> insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
> >> company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
> >> don't.
> >>
> > Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
> > *******s!
> >
> > I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
> > believed
> > that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
> > usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
> > about
> > as much as I did as a teenager.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...
>
>
Yuk, yuk...

As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who routinely
attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
bicycles?" on this NG.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
>> > *******s!
>> >
>> > I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
>> > believed
>> > that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort
>> > of
>> > usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
>> > about
>> > as much as I did as a teenager.

[Missed this the first time]

Do you understand statiscally derived actuarial data? That it's only a
estimate, and that under many current laws, it's a _haphazzard_ guess?

>> Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...
>>
>>
> Yuk, yuk...
>
> As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who
> routinely
> attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
> are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

Welcome to reality, most commonly refered to as "Liability Law".

>
> For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
> bicycles?" on this NG.

As above.

As for trust of insurance companies (some, not all, by a long stretch) that
routinely try to weasel, have you ever considered the source of our current
liabilityphobia?

On Aug 30, 9:30 pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-08-28, > wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
> > setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>
> > Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
> > extra training be sufficient?
>
> It depends on you.
>
> If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
> fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
> effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
> runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
> a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
> flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
> I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
> tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.
>
> If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
> nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
> mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
> ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.
>
> Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
> flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
> stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
> faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
> want to stay current.
>
Remember the first time you ever flew a high performance machine and
how circuits were so rushed as you went through all the drills?.
And, after an hour or so suddenly it all came together, you could
enjoy the experience
Then to climb back into a C150 and fly a circuit :-)

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
> Remember the first time you ever flew a high performance machine and
> how circuits were so rushed as you went through all the drills?.
> And, after an hour or so suddenly it all came together, you could
> enjoy the experience

IIRC, they call that becoming "velocitized".

> Then to climb back into a C150 and fly a circuit :-)

Analogy: Pull off a freeway after doing 75MPH, the get on a side street
where you have to do 20-25.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
> liabilityphobia?
>
>
>
Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
> ------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
> current
>> liabilityphobia?
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:05:58 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
>> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>> sometimes.
>>
>> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> extra training be sufficient?
>
>I did a private for a student in a Mooney last summer. The guy took
>his checkride in his Mooney with all his time in the Mooney. Low time
>will just mean that you will need more CFI time to get ready for the
>Mooney than a more experienced pilot but its certainly not a
>limitation.

Don't forget $$Insurance$$ for a low time pilot in a complex retract.
That being said, I know of several pilots who earned their PPL in an
A36 Bo and one in a Glasair III. They could afford the insurance.
<:-))

I know of one nearby who was flying a Piper Twin Comanche with under
100 hours.

Roger
>
>-Robert, CFII

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:08:03 -0700, Luke Skywalker
> wrote:

>On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
>> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>> sometimes.
>>
>> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> extra training be sufficient?
>
>Hello:
>
>The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
>part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
>experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
>happen faster at 300...

You do have to think farther ahead and that takes time to get used to
even if they are the same mistakes. There is also a big difference
between 130 MPH and 200 MPH when flying in marginal weather.
The 100 MPH mind in a 200 MPH airplane is an accident waiting to
happen, particularly if that pilot has always flown stabilized
patterns.
>
>The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
>what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
>precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
>pilot.
>
>Here is a measure of that...when you are flying "mostly" do you do the
>same things with the plane the same way at the same time and use the

Doing the same things at the same time in high performance implies
inflexibility. With checklists I agree, to a point.

>checklist? a well trained pilot starts the walkaround the same place
>and does the checks the same way every fracken time. The joke is "He/
>she is three minutes into the walkaround, if everything is OK he/she
>is at blank". Flying along coming into an airport do you start the
>descent and approach at the same distance from the plane and do the
>landing at the same place (like turning final) or is it a different
>place every time.

It virtually has to be different just to take into account the winds
as the length of downwind, base and final will be different.
The stabilized pattern is the best way to learn. It is a bad thing if
it's the only way the pilot can land. I've seen that at Oshkosh.
Reguardless of how the pilot normally flys, they tell them when to
turn base, trun final, and where to put it down on the runway. They
are also likely to tell the pilot to slow up or speed up. All pilots
should learn this kind of flexibility. I've seen the ones who haven't
really mess up the pattern over there. The pilot who stalled the one
in when told to land farther down is an excellent example of always
doing things the same and not having the flexibility to change.

It's not, "do they do it the same every time", but can they put the
plane on a specific spot on the runway reguardless of the pattern.
A good pilot knows their airplane well enough that when told to turn,
where to turn and where to put it down can do so without having to
think about it. They also know whether it's within the capabilities of
the airplane.

>
>If there is no "rhythum" to itthen youj are in trouble. One of the

Again, I disagree. A good pilot has to be flexible, know the
characteristics of their aircraft and its limits thouroughtly . You
have to be able to fit into a traffic pattern that may have planes far
slower than you. You may end up in a pattern where the pattern is a
steep down wind into a U-turn base to the runway. There may be traffic
that requires an extended downwind. I've had ATC tell me to keep the
speed up. I normally intercept the GS at 120 and dump the gear at
that point. It depends on the wind whether I'm running no flaps or 15
to 20 degrees of flaps at that point. I've hit the GS at 180 and not
put the gear down until I could hear the MM start. I had added just
enough flaps to slow to the gear down speed at that point. When I hit
the gear switch I hit the flap switch to full as well. It landed right
on the touch down zone. This happened to be with a Mooney pilot riding
in the right seat as a safety pilot. He remarked he'd have stopped the
Mooney some where in the bean field off the other end of that 8,000
foot runway.

I parctice tight patterns, wide patterns, slow patterns, fast
patterns, base way out, base in close, base a slipping u-turn to the
touch down zone, and all with spot landings at various points on the
runway. I practice engine out landings which are considerably faster
than normal VFR landings. Normal is 80 MPH minus 1 MPH for each 100#
under gross and I fly those numbers. Power out is 90 MPH, BUT if you
are on downwind you get the speed up to 120 and do not put the gear or
flaps down until the runway is made. I probably spend more than half
my non cross country time as practice. I like the maneuvers and I
like spot landing. I'll make one pattern stabilized, the rest will be
anything but. Landings are short field, soft field, and with various
flap settings from none to full, although normal is full reguardless
of conditions.

>things I do back home is take any primary students I have to the local
>Walmart. It is under the approach lanes of one of the major airport.
>We watch the Boeings come over...after about 20 minutes I ask them
>"what do you see?" and the answer from the people who have a clue is
>"the gear and flaps are coming down on all of them just about
>here"...thats "Gear Down Flaps 15 Before landing checklist I have the
>brake".
>
>A well trained pilot should be like that. If you are not, then
>"you" (generic) are a meanace saved from the rest of us by the slow
>speed and airspace protection. If you are then with good training and
>transition help, you want have any problem.

Here I view the pilot who always does things the same as an accident
looking for a place to happen in variable conditions which is almost
always and particularly when changing to a much higher performance
aircraft. Not sutdents as they've not progressed beyond that point,
but this is a pilot's group, not student. Sure, I put the gear down at
the end of the runway outbound on the downwind every time, but that is
the same place, not the same way and I do it to make sure I remember
to do it. I may be doing 140 , or I may be doing 100. I do the
landing checklist in the same order as well as downwind, base, and
final changes and checks. I do the preflight the same way every time
too unless I find something wrong, then I may have to start over.

The Deb and moat F33s have pretty much the same wing loading as a
Cherokee 180 or around 17# per sq ft yet the Beech with the gear up
has twice the glide ratio of a 172 while the Cherokee has less. With
the gear down and full flaps it makes a Cherokee 180 with the Hershey
bar wing look like a sail plane... Well, maybe not quite<:-)) but it
comes down fast and steep.

There are far too many pilots who never do stalls or steep turns once
they get their PPL. Doing them on a BFR (if they do them) is not the
same are regularly practicing them. From my observations over the
years most pilots are still flying mechanically rather than by feel
and instinct.

How many of these pilots when confronted by an oncoming plane out of a
blind spot can stand it on end and recover without making a mistake?
How many can recover when a gust of wind (wind shear) causes a sall
close to the ground? What do they do in the case of an engien failure
be it on landing or take off? Been there and done that. It was over
before I had to stop and even think about what I was going to do. All
of the actions were ingrained due to a very good Air Safety Foundation
instructor.

Proficient does not mean always doing things the same, it means easily
arriving at the same result under varying conditions.

>
>The insurance cost will be "higher".
>
>Robert

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:59:15 -0700, cjcampbell
> wrote:

>On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
>> I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>> know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>> since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>> sometimes.
>>
>> I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
>> setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>> Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>> extra training be sufficient?
>
>You might be an idiot, but no worse than a lot of the rest of us. :-)
>
>Seriously, a lot of people do their primary training in Bonanzas and
>Mooneys. Insurance companies are more tolerant if you own the plane,
>but they will probably require that you get some minimum number of
>hours of training in the aircraft before you fly it by yourself.

I had 375 hours in a Cherokee 180. They required 25 hours of dual.
About the first half of that was getting used to the speed difference.

>
>That said, the Bonanza is called the "fork-tailed doctor killer" for a
>reason. Fast planes can get you into trouble in a hurry. They are less

One reason is because pilots land them too fast. Land a Bo like a
Cherokee and it'll probably do well. Other than the Bo is easier to
land.

>tolerant of incompetence. If and when they do go down, survivability

That it is. I think the airplane is sentient and knows when to dish
out a dose of humility.

>is much lower because of the higher stall speeds. If you do not fly it

Now what do you suppose the stall speed of an F33 might be?
It's far lower than most think. The way I fly mine it's around 57 MPH
with gear and flaps down. 63 *MPH* at gross. With the tip tanks and
gaps seals it's actually lower than that.

>enough to stay sharp, a fast airplane just might end up being a
>suicide machine.

The only difference is the Bo is a slippery airplane. Not that it has
a high stall speed. From a stall with power on and the nose let drop
it'll accelerate around 20 MPH per second. That means if you don't get
it straightened out soon, or get it slowed down it's not considered a
good thing.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > ------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
> > current
> >> liabilityphobia?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.
>
> So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
> companies?
>
>
>
My Dear Mr. Barrow:

Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums for
a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so. It
was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Peter

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> LOL. I had the same experience after an extended period of flying
> nothing but Seminoles. It is a real hoot sometimes checking out
> airline pilots in a Cessna 172.

I heard a story of an instructor who let an airline pilot fly his 172
without a checkout. He overran the runway and rolled it up in a ball. He
walked away, but the plane was a total loss.

No insurance on the plane, so the owner saw no reason to tell the FAA or
NTSB about it.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:05:55 -0500, Bush
> wrote:

>That's the killer, I guy I know just picked up a really, really nice
>V35 Bonanza for 50K since the owner was getting premium quotes of
>14-18K. I ran my numbers though AOPA and came up with $930 per year,
>hull and liability.

Mine runs about $1600 for 80 grand with Hull, liability, and medical.
However it takes 750 TT (up 50 since last year), 200 retract, 20 or 25
make and model, and an instrument rating (also new) for some one else
to fly it unless they are a named pilot. Adding a named pilot with
1800 TT with no (fender benders) and instrument rated, but only 20 in
retract was nearly $500

>
>Bush
>
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:52:20 -0700, wrote:
>
>>I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
>>know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
>>since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
>>sometimes.
>>
>>I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am

The Mooney is much more efficient, but the Bo is more comfortable with
seats setting up high like chairs.

>>setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.
>>
>>Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
>>extra training be sufficient?

That is determined by attitude and training. With a good attitude and
training (take the American Bonanza Society and Air Safety Pilot
Proficiency course) if you go that route. I'd bet there is something
similar for the Mooney.

Good Luck,

Roger

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > ------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
>> > current
>> >> liabilityphobia?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.
>>
>> So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
>> companies?
>>
>>
>>
> My Dear Mr. Barrow:
>
> Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
> company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
> was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums
> for
> a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
> personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
> rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

Dear Mr. Dohm,

Sounds like your comprehension of statistics is lacking; here's a couple key
words: 1) population, and 2) sample.

Also, it sounds like your grasp of the current state of liability is, shall
we say, stunted?

>
> My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
> has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so.
> It
> was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
> solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Seems your math skills are on par with your statistical skills and your
grasp of legal liability as well.

Get a clue (and maybe get on medication for your paranoia).

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:05:55 -0500, Bush
> > wrote:
>
> >That's the killer, I guy I know just picked up a really, really nice
> >V35 Bonanza for 50K since the owner was getting premium quotes of
> >14-18K. I ran my numbers though AOPA and came up with $930 per year,
> >hull and liability.
>
> Mine runs about $1600 for 80 grand with Hull, liability, and medical.
> However it takes 750 TT (up 50 since last year), 200 retract, 20 or 25
> make and model, and an instrument rating (also new) for some one else
> to fly it unless they are a named pilot. Adding a named pilot with
> 1800 TT with no (fender benders) and instrument rated, but only 20 in
> retract was nearly $500

These premiums seem pretty low. What liability limits are we talking about?
Smooth or per injured party? 2 million liability with 100K per person might
be pretty inexpensive in a 4 passenger aircraft whereas 2 million smooth
might be pretty expensive in a 2 passenger aircraft. In the first case the
company is extending 400,000 in insurance and in the second extending
2,000,000 in insurance.
Howard

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:D9MBi.62496
:

>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> ------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
>> current
>>> liabilityphobia?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.
>
> So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
> companies?

Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:D9MBi.62496
> :
>
> >
> > "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> ------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
> >> current
> >>> liabilityphobia?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.
> >
> > So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
> > companies?
>
> Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
> of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
> first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

>> Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
>> state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
>> "settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
>> distribution?
>
> A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
> price)!

Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.

When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an uninsured
individual?

It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
> >> state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
> >> "settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
> >> distribution?
> >
> > A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
> > price)!
>
> Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
> they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.
>
> When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an
uninsured
> individual?
>
> It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
> system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I would
repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which they
know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it would reduce
the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect. The real benefit
would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I
> would repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."
>
> I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which
> they know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it
> would reduce the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect.
> The real benefit would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

I'm not a legal expert, but I believe the bigger issue is that there is no
downside in a contingency lawsuit. There need to be consequences brought to the
loser of a legal action if he initiated it.


Otherwise the legal system stands to protect the rich instead of the
innocent...

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
> > If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I
> > would repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."
> >
> > I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which
> > they know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it
> > would reduce the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect.
> > The real benefit would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.
>
> I'm not a legal expert, but I believe the bigger issue is that there is no
> downside in a contingency lawsuit. There need to be consequences brought
to the
> loser of a legal action if he initiated it.
>
>
> Otherwise the legal system stands to protect the rich instead of the
> innocent...

Yes, fixing that is in my top three, and I have heard an emotionally
compelling argument to apply that fix to criminal law as well. However, I
remain comfortable about keeping the strict liability issue as my first
priority.

Peter