Repo show sillyness

[Ron Natalie]

Just watched a show called Repo Men with Vincent (Pussy) Pastore.
They show a repo of an airplane, labelling it as a 1998 172. It's pretty
clearly a '61 or so (swept tail but no rear window).

[Jim]

Was that the one in Alaska? Funniest pre-flight I ever saw if they were
trying to be sneeky... what were there? 4 guys doing it?!
Jim Burns III

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Just watched a show called Repo Men with Vincent (Pussy) Pastore.
> They show a repo of an airplane, labelling it as a 1998 172. It's pretty
> clearly a '61 or so (swept tail but no rear window).
>
>

[mike regish]

Guy at work told me about it. Said they waited for the guy to land and after
he walked away they just went up, preflighted, and (according to the guy
that was describing it) put some kind of black box on the ignition (?) and
flew it off. His main shock was that they didn't even get permission to take
off. I had to explain non-towered vs. towered field operations.

mike regish

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine that
> that guy can fly.
>
> I guess they staged the repo for TV, but I still like to know how they
> got it back.
>
> Jeff...
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Just watched a show called Repo Men with Vincent (Pussy) Pastore.
> > They show a repo of an airplane, labelling it as a 1998 172. It's
pretty
> > clearly a '61 or so (swept tail but no rear window).
> >
> >

[Casey Wilson]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine that
> that guy can fly.
>
> I guess they staged the repo for TV, but I still like to know how they
> got it back.
>
> Jeff...

When they did the repo on a Lancair last year, they hired a pilot to fly
it. Took a cameraperson along for the ride. Just about drove the repo boss
crazy when the pilot took his time doing the preflight in broad daylight.
The longer the segment went the more people stood outside the FBO office
watching.

[Rad]

I saw that one/ I think it was Glasair III that they repoed...


"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine that
> > that guy can fly.
> >
> > I guess they staged the repo for TV, but I still like to know how they
> > got it back.
> >
> > Jeff...
>
> When they did the repo on a Lancair last year, they hired a pilot to
fly
> it. Took a cameraperson along for the ride. Just about drove the repo
boss
> crazy when the pilot took his time doing the preflight in broad daylight.
> The longer the segment went the more people stood outside the FBO office
> watching.
>
>

[BTIZ]

can you say "re-enactment"?

BT

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Just watched a show called Repo Men with Vincent (Pussy) Pastore.
> They show a repo of an airplane, labelling it as a 1998 172. It's pretty
> clearly a '61 or so (swept tail but no rear window).
>
>

[Nathan Young]

"Rad" > wrote in message >...

> I saw that one/ I think it was Glasair III that they repoed...
>
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine that
> > > that guy can fly.

I saw the GIII repo show last year too. I was very irritated by the
show and some of the risks taken to get the plane. For example... I
couldn't figure out why they had to follow him to repo it - why not
repo it from his home airport?

I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
especially a high-performance experimental.

-Nathan

[BTIZ]

It was locked in his hanger.. they can not break in to anything other than
the vehicle being repo'd

BT

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rad" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > I saw that one/ I think it was Glasair III that they repoed...
> >
> >
> > "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine
that
> > > > that guy can fly.
>
> I saw the GIII repo show last year too. I was very irritated by the
> show and some of the risks taken to get the plane. For example... I
> couldn't figure out why they had to follow him to repo it - why not
> repo it from his home airport?
>
> I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> -Nathan

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message ...
> Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine that
> that guy can fly.

They appeared to have a set of keys. There wasn't any indication of things
like disassembling the P-lead. They did show a rather typcial preflight.

The last repo show I watched showed a guy repo'ing a lancair or something
similar.

[Ardna]

>>I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
>>time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
>>especially a high-performance experimental.

I agree, especially after his first approach to land was too fast, he did
not know what to except from that aircraft - shame on him for doing it in
the first place, putting his life on the line for a few $$$'s.

Ardna



"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rad" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > I saw that one/ I think it was Glasair III that they repoed...
> >
> >
> > "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Rats! I meant to tape that. How'd they repo it? I can't imagine
that
> > > > that guy can fly.
>
> I saw the GIII repo show last year too. I was very irritated by the
> show and some of the risks taken to get the plane. For example... I
> couldn't figure out why they had to follow him to repo it - why not
> repo it from his home airport?
>
> I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> -Nathan

[Mike O'Malley]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message

<snip>

> I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> especially a high-performance experimental.

I don't see what the big deal was/is. Insurence companies have brainwashed us
all into thinking you are hazard to yourself and everyone on the ground if you
don't have 5/10/50 (you pick) hours in type and a CFI checkout before flying
something.

BS- Is it safer to have a checkout with an instructor or experienced pilot
before you fly a new airplane? Yes, maybe. Can you also check yourself out in
a new airplane if you're careful and do your research. Of course you can.

Familiarize yourself with the POH/operators manual. Memorize emergency
procedures and systems. Pay attention to the airspeeds and limitations, then go
fly. Get to altitude and get a feel for the airplane. See how if handles in
the landing configuration. After awhile, an airplane is an airplane. They all
fly the same, some just have a few little quirks.

I'm not advocating this for everybody. If you have access to a CFI for a
checkout it is MUCH better. But it is not impossible to check yourself out in a
new type. I've done it more than a few times, some with "there's the Green
tail, it's a little heavier than you're used to and not as quick, go fly" Hell,
that plane didn't even HAVE a POH or operator's manual.

--
Mike

[Eric Miller]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> That's gotta be the biggest shock in the world. Go out to preflight
> your plane to discover that item number 1) Visual Overview fails
> miserably because the plane ain't there.
>
> Jeff...

Which reinforces the importance of a good preflight... just imagine if you
took off blissfully unaware and you didn't discover the plane was missing
until your were airborne!

Eric :-)

[John Harlow]

> That's gotta be the biggest shock in the world. Go out to preflight
> your plane to discover that item number 1) Visual Overview fails
> miserably because the plane ain't there.

It is a tragic thing indeed when pilots sometimes omit this crucial step and
attempt to take off anyway.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Mike O'Malley" > wrote:

> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> > time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> > especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> I don't see what the big deal was/is. Insurence companies have brainwashed
> us
> all into thinking you are hazard to yourself and everyone on the ground if
> you
> don't have 5/10/50 (you pick) hours in type and a CFI checkout before flying
> something.
>
> BS- Is it safer to have a checkout with an instructor or experienced pilot
> before you fly a new airplane? Yes, maybe. Can you also check yourself out
> in
> a new airplane if you're careful and do your research. Of course you can.
>
> Familiarize yourself with the POH/operators manual. Memorize emergency
> procedures and systems. Pay attention to the airspeeds and limitations, then
> go
> fly. Get to altitude and get a feel for the airplane. See how if handles in
> the landing configuration. After awhile, an airplane is an airplane. They
> all
> fly the same, some just have a few little quirks.
>
> I'm not advocating this for everybody. If you have access to a CFI for a
> checkout it is MUCH better. But it is not impossible to check yourself out
> in a
> new type. I've done it more than a few times, some with "there's the Green
> tail, it's a little heavier than you're used to and not as quick, go fly"
> Hell,
> that plane didn't even HAVE a POH or operator's manual.
>
> --
> Mike

Of course, be sure that the instructor knows the airplane you are going
to fly. There's nothing worse than an instructor who has flown nothing
but 152s and Cherokees trying to teach you to fly a Belchfire 500, which
he has never flown, either,

[Ron Natalie]

"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message ...

> Familiarize yourself with the POH/operators manual.

A POH/operators manual on a homebuilt is sure to tell you everything you
need to know about flying the thing.

[Nathan Young]

"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message >...
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> > time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> > especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> I don't see what the big deal was/is. Insurence companies have brainwashed us
> all into thinking you are hazard to yourself and everyone on the ground if you
> don't have 5/10/50 (you pick) hours in type and a CFI checkout before flying
> something.
>
> BS- Is it safer to have a checkout with an instructor or experienced pilot
> before you fly a new airplane? Yes, maybe. Can you also check yourself out in
> a new airplane if you're careful and do your research. Of course you can.
>
> Familiarize yourself with the POH/operators manual. Memorize emergency
> procedures and systems. Pay attention to the airspeeds and limitations, then go
> fly. Get to altitude and get a feel for the airplane. See how if handles in
> the landing configuration. After awhile, an airplane is an airplane. They all
> fly the same, some just have a few little quirks.
>
> I'm not advocating this for everybody. If you have access to a CFI for a
> checkout it is MUCH better. But it is not impossible to check yourself out in a
> new type. I've done it more than a few times, some with "there's the Green
> tail, it's a little heavier than you're used to and not as quick, go fly" Hell,
> that plane didn't even HAVE a POH or operator's manual.

Mike,

I agree this is possible for lower performance production planes. But
there is a world of difference between a Cherokee/172 and a Glasair
III.

High-performance experimentals are in a world of their own. For
example, very high wing loadings make landings unique, power-on is an
absolute requirement, and final is flown at 90kts (stall = 70kts,
1.3Vso=90kts).

Plus, the differences go well beyond the handling of the plane, the
differences extend to systems and systems operation as experimentals
do not necessarily follow the standard operating procedures found in
production aircraft. With experimentals - even the POH can not be
taken as gospel. At a minimum, a conversation with the builder or
previous owner is in order before flying an experimental.

Think of all the bugs that may not be worked out (yet) with an
experimental - things that we (somewhat) take for granted in a
production plane:

Examples:
-How does the canopy latch/lock?
-Cooling issues (many experimentals struggle with this)
-C/G
-Improper rigging (takeoff is a bad time to find out the plane has a
rolling tendency).
-Fuel management issues - the GIII has a header tank behind the
instrument panel that feeds the engine. What combination of tank
selection and hi/lo fuel boost pumps will keep delivering fuel to the
engine? What about takeoff/landing vs. cruise configurations?
-What is required to get the gear to lock down? Many experimentals
have issues getting the gear down and locked, particularly with the
nosegear. Some require slowing down to near stall speed to reduce the
airflow against the nose gear to allow it to gravity drop into place
(see Peter Garrison's Flying article from a few months ago on his
Melmoth II).

-Nathan

[Robert M. Gary]

I actually agree with you. I know quite a few 20,000 plus hour GA
pilots who can take experience in dozens of other airplanes and do
just fine in an airplane they've never flown. Even myself (with less
experience) I cannot think of any of the last dozen or so types I've
checked out in, every needing anything other than the sign off. I
can't ever remember doing something with the airplane that required
the CFI to touch the controls. My J-3 checkout was .6 hours and I was
on the controls the entire time. My Mooney checkout was the 2.0 the
insurance required but again, the CFI never touched the controls or
really said anything not in the POH. I'm pretty sure that 90% of the
active GA pilots could fly anything on the standard GA field without
problem. The difference is that 10% that causes all the checkout
requirements. Hell, I know guys that the first time they ever flew a
plane was from the right seat as the CFI.

-Robert, CFI



"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message >...
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> > time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> > especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> I don't see what the big deal was/is. Insurence companies have brainwashed us
> all into thinking you are hazard to yourself and everyone on the ground if you
> don't have 5/10/50 (you pick) hours in type and a CFI checkout before flying
> something.
>
> BS- Is it safer to have a checkout with an instructor or experienced pilot
> before you fly a new airplane? Yes, maybe. Can you also check yourself out in
> a new airplane if you're careful and do your research. Of course you can.
>
> Familiarize yourself with the POH/operators manual. Memorize emergency
> procedures and systems. Pay attention to the airspeeds and limitations, then go
> fly. Get to altitude and get a feel for the airplane. See how if handles in
> the landing configuration. After awhile, an airplane is an airplane. They all
> fly the same, some just have a few little quirks.
>
> I'm not advocating this for everybody. If you have access to a CFI for a
> checkout it is MUCH better. But it is not impossible to check yourself out in a
> new type. I've done it more than a few times, some with "there's the Green
> tail, it's a little heavier than you're used to and not as quick, go fly" Hell,
> that plane didn't even HAVE a POH or operator's manual.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Ardna" > wrote in message news:<zhPAb.27577$ZE1.12891@fed1read04>...
> >>I also kept thinking how incredibly stupid it was for a pilot with no
> >>time in type to get in and fly a completely unknown aircraft,
> >>especially a high-performance experimental.
>
> I agree, especially after his first approach to land was too fast, he did
> not know what to except from that aircraft - shame on him for doing it in
> the first place, putting his life on the line for a few $$$'s.
>
> Ardna

If you watch again you will notice that that was intentional. The
pilot didn't accidently fly too fast, we wanted to feel the plane out.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sure didn't look like it.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<SUwAb.11539$yf.4091@fed1read01>...
> can you say "re-enactment"?
>
> BT
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Just watched a show called Repo Men with Vincent (Pussy) Pastore.
> > They show a repo of an airplane, labelling it as a 1998 172. It's pretty
> > clearly a '61 or so (swept tail but no rear window).
> >
> >

[Robert Moore]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
> Hell, I know guys that the first time they ever
> flew a plane was from the right seat as the CFI.

How true! I've done it half-a-dozen times myself.

Bob

[Dylan Smith]

In article >,
Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I actually agree with you. I know quite a few 20,000 plus hour GA
> pilots who can take experience in dozens of other airplanes and do
> just fine in an airplane they've never flown.

I would be leary of letting anyone 'unknown' fly a plane I owned,
regardless of their time (even time in type). Whilst I have flown
aircraft without a checkout (three single seat aircraft, the Piper Pawnee
and a fairly unconventional glider, an HP-11, as well as a more
conventional glider - you can't have normal checkout in a single seater!)
a friend of mine was badly bitten by letting a pilot he hadn't flown
with before fly his Europa. This pilot had over 5,000 hours, but still
apparently didn't know that you're not supposed to land a Europa on its
nosewheel, and destroyed the nosegear, prop, engine mounts etc. The
Europa tri-gear is entirely conventional in its handling and landing
characteristics - from flying one myself, I'd say it's no harder than
landing a Grumman Tiger/Cheetah. The Europa's nosewheel is similar to
the Grumman's - a bent bit of wire with a castoring nosewheel intended
purely to keep the prop off the ground.

There are some high-time pilots around who have avoided crashing simply
because of a stout nosewheel.

It's because of things like this, if I fly with a pilot who I don't know
and/or haven't flown with a lot, I'm not going to assume ANY level of
competence until I've seen them fly a bit. This is why insurance
companies have checkout requirements - because without checkouts,
there's a large minority of pilots with reasonable time who'd be
collaping nosegear or groundlooping or other (mainly landing related)
mishaps.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert M. Gary]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > I actually agree with you. I know quite a few 20,000 plus hour GA
> > pilots who can take experience in dozens of other airplanes and do
> > just fine in an airplane they've never flown.
>
> I would be leary of letting anyone 'unknown' fly a plane I owned,
> regardless of their time (even time in type).

Its kind of like saying you wouldn't let someone else sleep with your
wife. Sure they may do a good job, but that doesn't make it ok. :)