Stop me, before I do something crazy...

[Dan Luke]

Drool:

http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html


--
Dan

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html

Go for it, Dan! No way I'd pay $265K, but if you got the stash.... :-)
Maybe the best offer will be a little lower, so make you bid!

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>>
>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
> Go for it, Dan! No way I'd pay $265K, but if you got the stash.... :-)
> Maybe the best offer will be a little lower, so make you bid!

I can't decide which makes more sense: this airplane or a teenage mistress.

--
Dan

"You spend money to buy aggravation."
-Chinese proverb

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 8:33 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
> >>http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
> > Go for it, Dan! No way I'd pay $265K, but if you got the stash.... :-)
> > Maybe the best offer will be a little lower, so make you bid!
>
> I can't decide which makes more sense: this airplane or a teenage mistress.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> "You spend money to buy aggravation."
> -Chinese proverb

Go for the plane,,,, it can't get pregnant. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> I can't decide which makes more sense: this airplane or a teenage
> mistress.


With either one, when those monthly payments stop - she's all yours! :-)

I say go for it, Daddy-O.


Montblack
Now, about that RV-10.... <g>

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>> Go for it, Dan! No way I'd pay $265K, but if you got the stash.... :-)
>> Maybe the best offer will be a little lower, so make you bid!
>
> I can't decide which makes more sense: this airplane or a teenage mistress.
>

Well, I suspect the airplane will be much cheaper in the long run! :-)

[Al G[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>>> Go for it, Dan! No way I'd pay $265K, but if you got the stash.... :-)
>>> Maybe the best offer will be a little lower, so make you bid!
>>
>> I can't decide which makes more sense: this airplane or a teenage
>> mistress.
>>
>
> Well, I suspect the airplane will be much cheaper in the long run! :-)

Amen, brother

Al G

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html

Same plane:
http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=170786

This ones closer and cheaper and also in Alabama:
http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=169506

Cheaper too and close enough to check if your making the trip to Ohio:
http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=172463

'04 Express:
http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=172147

All are glass paneled if thats what you're after. There are at least 3
kits available through Barnstormers as well, from just the tail to 85%
completed...

Did you see the RV6/Rocket in the trades awhile back with 4 seats?
They were rear facing and is alot cheaper in the long run...

[Dan Luke]

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote:

> This ones closer and cheaper and also in Alabama:
> http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=169506

My gawd, that panel looks awful; like a ride at a theme park.

enough to check if your making the trip to Ohio:
> http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=172463
>
> '04 Express:
> http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=172147
>
> All are glass paneled if thats what you're after. There are at least 3
> kits available through Barnstormers as well, from just the tail to 85%
> completed...
>
> Did you see the RV6/Rocket in the trades awhile back with 4 seats?
> They were rear facing and is alot cheaper in the long run...

Thanks.

I'm not really serious about buying a homebuilt. Who would work on it? How
much confidence could I have in avionics support for these non-cert boxes?

--
Dan

[John Galban]

On Jun 3, 5:30 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>

That's a nice looking bird, but that price tag is pretty impressive
too. My buddy went nuts a few months ago and sold his 1.5 yr. old
RV-10 for $120K. I wasn't surprised that it only stayed on the
market for one day.

If I were going to buy an experimental, the RV-10 would be it.
It's a blast to fly. Great cruise speeds and excellent low speed
performance. I think it's the perfect airplane. I would have
bought my friend's bird if I'd had the cash on hand.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> My gawd, that panel looks awful; like a ride at a theme park.

Thats why you want to see lots of pictures (hires) before making the
drive/flight to see it for real... Smart guy doesn't paint it, doesn't
do several things, before selling it and let the buyer choose the
details...

Looks pretty well equipped and useable to me, though some insulation on
the side panels might make the ride a bit quieter...

At the prices the completed RV10's are commanding, you can get a very
nice certified airplane...

> I'm not really serious about buying a homebuilt. Who would work on
> it?

Buy a tail kit, build it, have it inspected and then sell it. Doesn't
that get most people qualified for doing their own annuals on a like
experimental?

> How much confidence could I have in avionics support for these
> non-cert boxes?

Was that handheld satellite weather/gps gizmo of yours certified? ;-)

The Dynon's are nice, I like the pricing of the Stratomaster Enigma
better... http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Enigmapage.html

[Kyle Boatright]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> My gawd, that panel looks awful; like a ride at a theme park.
>
> Thats why you want to see lots of pictures (hires) before making the
> drive/flight to see it for real... Smart guy doesn't paint it, doesn't
> do several things, before selling it and let the buyer choose the
> details...
>
> Looks pretty well equipped and useable to me, though some insulation on
> the side panels might make the ride a bit quieter...
>
> At the prices the completed RV10's are commanding, you can get a very
> nice certified airplane...
>
>> I'm not really serious about buying a homebuilt. Who would work on
>> it?
>

Anyone can work on it. You, your kid, your Border Collie, whoever. The only
log entry that needs to be entered by someone with credentials is the
"Condition Inspection", which is equivalent to the Annual Inspection on
certified birds. The Condition Inspection can be signed off by an A&P, an
IA, or the person who holds the Repairman's Certficiate for that specific
airplane.


> Buy a tail kit, build it, have it inspected and then sell it. Doesn't
> that get most people qualified for doing their own annuals on a like
> experimental?

Nope. You have to be listed on the paperwork as the primary builder of an
aircraft registered with the FAA to get your "Repairman's Certificate", and
that certificate only applies to the airplane you built. You apply for the
certificate at the same time you apply for the airworthiness certificate for
the airplane you built.

KB

>
>> How much confidence could I have in avionics support for these
>> non-cert boxes?
>
> Was that handheld satellite weather/gps gizmo of yours certified? ;-)
>
> The Dynon's are nice, I like the pricing of the Stratomaster Enigma
> better... http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Enigmapage.html

[Kyle Boatright]

Beautiful airplane and Rick does top notch work - I've seen several of his
airplanes and talked with him on a few occasions. However, I suspect he's
testing the market price wise. RV-10's are commanding high prices due to
supply and demand, but this may be on the way, way, optimistic side. Of
course, it costs a lot to build an RV-10, particularly with all new stuff
firewall forward and lots of goodies in the panel. Firewall forward, he
probably has $50k in the airplane, the kit itself is $50k or so if you go
with the quickbuild, and a panel can set you back anywhere from $5k to the
GDP of a mid-sized European country. Add $15k for interior, paint, and
various nit-picky accessories and you can easily spend $150k to build one.

I've looked into building one on the cheap with a mid time engine and a
Day/Night/Gyro VFR panel and think it would take a miracle to bring one in
at $100k or less.

Of course, that's pretty good for a 200 mph cross country airplane that can
carry 4 real people and a few bags.

KB


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
>
> --
> Dan
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

>> Smart guy doesn't paint it, doesn't do several things, before selling
>> it and let the buyer choose the details...

> Nope. You have to be listed on the paperwork as the primary builder of
> an aircraft registered with the FAA to get your "Repairman's
> Certificate", and that certificate only applies to the airplane you
> built. You apply for the certificate at the same time you apply for
> the airworthiness certificate for the airplane you built.

One of those "details" I was eluding to... Thanks for the clarification...

[dave]

That's a beautiful airplane. Does anyone know if insurance is available
for it at that hull value? I don't mean just because it's an
experimental - I'm wondering if an insurance company would accept an
agreed value that high.
Dave
M35

Dan Luke wrote:
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
>


--

[Dan Luke]

"John Galban" wrote:

> If I were going to buy an experimental, the RV-10 would be it.
> It's a blast to fly. Great cruise speeds and excellent low speed
> performance. I think it's the perfect airplane.

Yep. The first time I sat in one at OSH I thought, "This airplane is
perfect."

--
Dan

[Mike Noel]

Nice looking plane, but that panel doesn't look like any consideration was
given to crashworthiness. At least my 74 Archer has a padded eyebrow.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

It is not work that kills men; it is worry. Worry is rust upon the blade.
"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
>
> --
> Dan
>

[Newps]

Guy near me just built a Lancair 4. Beautiful plane, although some of
the design features are just stupid, but a nice looking plane. Has to
be valued at least $350K First years insurance is $12,000.




dave wrote:

> That's a beautiful airplane. Does anyone know if insurance is available
> for it at that hull value? I don't mean just because it's an
> experimental - I'm wondering if an insurance company would accept an
> agreed value that high.
> Dave
> M35
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> Drool:
>>
>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>>
>>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

If the accident is either hard enough to overcome the shoulder belt or the
nose structure of the aircraft that padding on the top of the Archer's panel
isn't going to do much good.





Mike Noel wrote:
> Nice looking plane, but that panel doesn't look like any
> consideration was given to crashworthiness. At least my 74 Archer
> has a padded eyebrow.
> http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
>
> It is not work that kills men; it is worry. Worry is rust upon the
> blade. "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Drool:
>>
>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:11:16 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Guy near me just built a Lancair 4. Beautiful plane, although some of
>the design features are just stupid, but a nice looking plane. Has to
>be valued at least $350K First years insurance is $12,000.

Yikes, that's a lot of money, but for a $350k, 300+ mph, retract
homebuilt it does not seem that far out of whack.

I did a quick Google groups search and see rates from $5-10k quoted
for Mooney Bravos and SR22s (similarly priced & one is a retract).

-Nathan

[Dan Luke]

"Nathan Young" wrote:

>>Guy near me just built a Lancair 4. Beautiful plane, although some of
>>the design features are just stupid, but a nice looking plane. Has to
>>be valued at least $350K First years insurance is $12,000.
>
> Yikes, that's a lot of money, but for a $350k, 300+ mph, retract
> homebuilt it does not seem that far out of whack.
>
> I did a quick Google groups search and see rates from $5-10k quoted
> for Mooney Bravos and SR22s (similarly priced & one is a retract).

AOPA got me a quote of $3K for $1M smooth, $300K hull on a Turbo 182T.

--
Dan

[Peter R.]

On 6/5/2007 3:18:51 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> AOPA got me a quote of $3K for $1M smooth, $300K hull on a Turbo 182T.

Wow, really? What kind of hours/safety courses do you have in your background
that resulted in such a low quote for $1M smooth at that hull value?

I just re-upped with USAIG and am paying $2900 for the '73 Bonanza with a
hull value around $170k (TKS, new engine, tip tanks, new avionics,
turbo-normalized), not $1M smooth. This quote with an IFR rating and about
1,200 total hrs, 600 hrs in the insured aircraft. Or is the difference due to
the fact that the Bo is a retractable?

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

>
>> AOPA got me a quote of $3K for $1M smooth, $300K hull on a Turbo 182T.
>
> Wow, really? What kind of hours/safety courses do you have in your
> background that resulted in such a low quote for $1M smooth at that hull
> value?

I have 900 hours of retract time insured with them with no claims, accidents
or incidents. Still, they won't cover me until I get 4 hours of dual on a
G1000-equipped airplane.


> I just re-upped with USAIG and am paying $2900 for the '73 Bonanza with a
> hull value around $170k (TKS, new engine, tip tanks, new avionics,
> turbo-normalized), not $1M smooth. This quote with an IFR rating and about
> 1,200 total hrs, 600 hrs in the insured aircraft. Or is the difference due
> > the fact that the Bo is a retractable?

Hmm. I was paying about $2K for $1M smooth, $90K hull on my 172RG.

--
Dan

[Peter R.]

On 6/5/2007 5:35:05 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> Hmm. I was paying about $2K for $1M smooth, $90K hull on my 172RG.

Through AOPA?

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

>
>> Hmm. I was paying about $2K for $1M smooth, $90K hull on my 172RG.
>
> Through AOPA?

Yep.

[dave]

But does that 12k cover the entire hull value? I would doubt that it
would. It may cover partial value or liability and not in motion.
There's a Bo owner I know of that has spent so much on restoring his
airplane that the insurance company will no longer insure it for what
he's got into it. Something like 200k spent and maximum hull coverage
of around 125k. The insurance companies will cover an "agreed" value
but it's a value they have to accept as reasonable.
Dave


Newps wrote:
> Guy near me just built a Lancair 4. Beautiful plane, although some of
> the design features are just stupid, but a nice looking plane. Has to
> be valued at least $350K First years insurance is $12,000.
>
>
>
>
> dave wrote:
>
>> That's a beautiful airplane. Does anyone know if insurance is
>> available for it at that hull value? I don't mean just because it's
>> an experimental - I'm wondering if an insurance company would accept
>> an agreed value that high.
>> Dave
>> M35
>>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> Drool:
>>>
>>> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 3, 7:30 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Drool:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html
>
> --
> Dan

this wont be popular...

It certianly is a great airplane and this particular model looks to be
well built...but color me as someone not all that impressed or at the
very least "turned off" by the sticker. (of course I say that about a
182 for 1/4 million dollars).

Private airplanes do two things...they bring joy and transportation.

An airplane this costly has to justify itself in someway, we are
talking "house" price here. Look I like women in uniform and women
who are tough "broads" (to quote my fiance..falling in love again
after my wife passed away)...so I am (again to quote her) "wierd" in
terms of what appeals to me.

but I dont see how one justifies spending that much money on personal
transportation...and spending that much money on personal "fun".
There is a LOT Of "ego" here.

and for the most part (looking at the electronics) it is more ego then
most 100-200 hour a year pilots can master and stay current in.

Robert

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 5, 10:11 am, Newps > wrote:
> Guy near me just built a Lancair 4. Beautiful plane, although some of
> the design features are just stupid, but a nice looking plane. Has to
> be valued at least $350K First years insurance is $12,000.
>
>
>
> dave wrote:
> > That's a beautiful airplane. Does anyone know if insurance is available
> > for it at that hull value? I don't mean just because it's an
> > experimental - I'm wondering if an insurance company would accept an
> > agreed value that high.
> > Dave
> > M35
>
> > Dan Luke wrote:
>
> >> Drool:
>
> >>http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/id19.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is more then my house! (the insurance).

Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Luke Skywalker" wrote:

> but I dont see how one justifies spending that much money on personal
> transportation...and spending that much money on personal "fun".

Why does it need to be justified, Robert? Did you ever see a Brinks truck in
a funeral procession?


> There is a LOT Of "ego" here.

There is a lot of "judging" here.


> and for the most part (looking at the electronics) it is more ego then
> most 100-200 hour a year pilots can master and stay current in.
>

Not a problem, it seems to me. If this were my airplane, I'd fly 100+ hrs of
IFR/year in it. I guarantee you I'd have it mastered.

--
Dan

"Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told his wife
that he was three days late because he had been swallowed by a
whale." -Gabriel Garcia Marquez

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 6, 5:58 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

>
> Not a problem, it seems to me. If this were my airplane, I'd fly 100+ hrs of
> IFR/year in it. I guarantee you I'd have it mastered.
>
> --
> Dan
>

a 100 hours a year..my question to someone who tells me this is there
anything else in the "complex" category that one does for 2 hours a
week and stays proficient enough to bet their life on it...?

Robert

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> Did you ever see a Brinks truck in a funeral procession?


No, but I've seen (a movie) where they put the loot in the casket - only to
discover plans changed and the family decided on cremation.

I've seen (a commercial) with a bright red VW Bug at the end of a long line
of black funeral vehicles.

http://www.adclassix.com/vwvolkswagenbusbeetleads.htm
Not in here - Drat. Fun ads, nevertheless.

(NAC) Necessary Aviation Content
http://www.adclassix.com/a3/68vwairplaneengine.html


Montblack
Fun site. My first car:
http://www.adclassix.com/caradsindex.htm
1968 Pontiac Catalina Coup ....with the 400 engine. "Zoom-Zoom"
1968 Pontiac Catalina Sedan (color)

[Newps]

dave wrote:
> But does that 12k cover the entire hull value? I would doubt that it
> would. It may cover partial value or liability and not in motion.



Full coverage. It had to be since he had a loan on the plane.

[Dan Luke]

"Luke Skywalker" wrote:

> a 100 hours a year..my question to someone who tells me this is there
> anything else in the "complex" category that one does for 2 hours a
> week and stays proficient enough to bet their life on it...?

I never had to bet my life on trigonometry, but it's pretty complex and I
mastered it in a lot fewer than 100 hours.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

> Fun site. My first car:
> http://www.adclassix.com/caradsindex.htm
> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Coup ....with the 400 engine. "Zoom-Zoom"
> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Sedan (color)

My first car:
http://www.hubcapcafe.com/ocs/pages01/cuda6701.htm

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 6/5/2007 3:18:51 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:
>
>> AOPA got me a quote of $3K for $1M smooth, $300K hull on a Turbo 182T.
>
> Wow, really? What kind of hours/safety courses do you have in your
> background
> that resulted in such a low quote for $1M smooth at that hull value?
>
> I just re-upped with USAIG and am paying $2900 for the '73 Bonanza with a
> hull value around $170k (TKS, new engine, tip tanks, new avionics,
> turbo-normalized), not $1M smooth. This quote with an IFR rating and about
> 1,200 total hrs, 600 hrs in the insured aircraft. Or is the difference due
> to
> the fact that the Bo is a retractable?
>
Probably.

My insurance went from $3425 on a 1991 B36-TC (HV:$365k), to only $3865 for
a 2006 C400 (HV:$575k).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Montblack" wrote:
>
>> Fun site. My first car:
>> http://www.adclassix.com/caradsindex.htm
>> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Coup ....with the 400 engine. "Zoom-Zoom"
>> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Sedan (color)
>
> My first car:
> http://www.hubcapcafe.com/ocs/pages01/cuda6701.htm
>


My second (they didn't have my first on the list) car but not that awful
color. Mine was blue.

http://www.adclassix.com/a3/79chevroletcamaroz28.html

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>>> Fun site. My first car:
>>> http://www.adclassix.com/caradsindex.htm
>>> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Coup ....with the 400 engine. "Zoom-Zoom"
>>> 1968 Pontiac Catalina Sedan (color)

> My second (they didn't have my first on the list) car but not that awful
> color. Mine was blue.
>
> http://www.adclassix.com/a3/79chevroletcamaroz28.html


Links:

http://www.adclassix.com/ads/68pontiaccatalinacoupe.htm
1968 Pontiac Catalina Coup ....with the 400 engine. "Zoom-Zoom"

http://www.adclassix.com/ads/68pontiaccatalinasedan.htm
1968 Pontiac Catalina Sedan (color)


Montblack

[dave]

Although that's a ton of money for insurance, I'm glad to hear that he
was able to get full coverage. I was wrongly under the impression that
it wasn't available.
Dave
M35

Newps wrote:
>
>
> dave wrote:
>> But does that 12k cover the entire hull value? I would doubt that it
>> would. It may cover partial value or liability and not in motion.
>
>
>
> Full coverage. It had to be since he had a loan on the plane.
>

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" wrote:
>
>> a 100 hours a year..my question to someone who tells me this is there
>> anything else in the "complex" category that one does for 2 hours a
>> week and stays proficient enough to bet their life on it...?
>
> I never had to bet my life on trigonometry, but it's pretty complex and I
> mastered it in a lot fewer than 100 hours.
>

Trigonometry is complex? Really??

Matt

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jun 6, 10:56 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" wrote:
> > a 100 hours a year..my question to someone who tells me this is there
> > anything else in the "complex" category that one does for 2 hours a
> > week and stays proficient enough to bet their life on it...?
>
> I never had to bet my life on trigonometry, but it's pretty complex and I
> mastered it in a lot fewer than 100 hours.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> "How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
> -Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Hello:

I found trig and Calculas (at least basic calculas) not that all
complex.

But even if one found them hard, on the "scale" of how task are
learned trig is a far different task then say programming an FMS or
using a 396 much less interpreting them and not at all similar to the
procedures necessary to operate a "complex" aircraft. And we are not
even talking about "basic" piloting skills that require "motor"
control.

And worse...all this assumes very standardized, procedurized methods
of training.

Most GA training is nothing like that...particularly as one gets into
the various"complex" aircraft that exist today.

I'll give you an example.

about two years ago I gave a pilot a BFR and an insurance renewal
checkout in his Saratoga. He was a fairly "active" (180 hours in the
last year) pilot including some reasonable instrument time. I asked
him "Had any concerns" and he self confessed that he had "almost"
landed gear up at least four times in the last six months.

It didnt take "to long" flying with him to see why. We did six
different approaches and EACH time with no real variation in traffic
he put the gear down at a "different time" in the approach. Sometimes
downwind, sometimes final, in the two instrument approaches, it was
never the same place.

When we met for our next session...I took him to the parking lot of
the local walmart which is on the approach path to a busy metropolitan
airport. We did nothing for 20 minutes but sit and watch the
jetliners approach. his task was to figure out what was the same with
all of them. The answer is that they all put the gear down at the
walmart, and all the 737's went to gear down and flaps 15 right around
the Walmart.

The concept of putting the gear down at the same place at the same
time, had never really been taught to this guy, indeed the concept of
"everything is the same on every landing" was a kind of foreign
concept.

Look at every gear up landing (absent mechanical problems) and I will
show you a pilot whose methodology and procedure skills are non
existant.

If you dont have those and one flies a complex airplane...one is an
accident waiting to happen.

Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> I never had to bet my life on trigonometry, but it's pretty complex and I
>> mastered it in a lot fewer than 100 hours.
>>
>
> Trigonometry is complex? Really??

Well, for *me* it was.

But then, I have to look myself up in the phone book to find my way home every
day.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Luke Skywalker" wrote:
> about two years ago I gave a pilot a BFR and an insurance renewal
> checkout in his Saratoga. He was a fairly "active" (180 hours in the
> last year) pilot including some reasonable instrument time. I asked
> him "Had any concerns" and he self confessed that he had "almost"
> landed gear up at least four times in the last six months.

!!!!!

Jeez!

In 7 years and 900+ hours of flying a retract, I never came close once.


>
> It didnt take "to long" flying with him to see why. We did six
> different approaches and EACH time with no real variation in traffic
> he put the gear down at a "different time" in the approach. Sometimes
> downwind, sometimes final, in the two instrument approaches, it was
> never the same place.
>
> When we met for our next session...I took him to the parking lot of
> the local walmart which is on the approach path to a busy metropolitan
> airport. We did nothing for 20 minutes but sit and watch the
> jetliners approach. his task was to figure out what was the same with
> all of them. The answer is that they all put the gear down at the
> walmart, and all the 737's went to gear down and flaps 15 right around
> the Walmart.
>
> The concept of putting the gear down at the same place at the same
> time, had never really been taught to this guy, indeed the concept of
> "everything is the same on every landing" was a kind of foreign
> concept.
>
> Look at every gear up landing (absent mechanical problems) and I will
> show you a pilot whose methodology and procedure skills are non
> existant.
>
> If you dont have those and one flies a complex airplane...one is an
> accident waiting to happen.

No argument there. You're preaching to the choir.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Luke Skywalker wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:56 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Luke Skywalker" wrote:
>>> a 100 hours a year..my question to someone who tells me this is there
>>> anything else in the "complex" category that one does for 2 hours a
>>> week and stays proficient enough to bet their life on it...?
>> I never had to bet my life on trigonometry, but it's pretty complex and I
>> mastered it in a lot fewer than 100 hours.
>>
>> --
>> Dan
>>
>> "How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
>> -Chief Inspector Dreyfus
>
> Hello:
>
> I found trig and Calculas (at least basic calculas) not that all
> complex.

Is that anything like calculus? :-)

I found geometry the most difficult. Too much raw memorization and
proofs just aren't my idea of a good time.



> It didnt take "to long" flying with him to see why. We did six
> different approaches and EACH time with no real variation in traffic
> he put the gear down at a "different time" in the approach. Sometimes
> downwind, sometimes final, in the two instrument approaches, it was
> never the same place.

Sounds like he didn't use checklists either as that should include gear
down. If he wasn't using checklists consistently, then putting down the
landing gear was only one of his problems!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" wrote:
>> about two years ago I gave a pilot a BFR and an insurance renewal
>> checkout in his Saratoga. He was a fairly "active" (180 hours in the
>> last year) pilot including some reasonable instrument time. I asked
>> him "Had any concerns" and he self confessed that he had "almost"
>> landed gear up at least four times in the last six months.
>
> !!!!!
>
> Jeez!
>
> In 7 years and 900+ hours of flying a retract, I never came close once.

It is good that you just sold your airplane as making this statement
almost guarantees a gear incident! :-)

Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> In 7 years and 900+ hours of flying a retract, I never came close once.
>
> It is good that you just sold your airplane as making this statement almost
> guarantees a gear incident! :-)

You got that right.

I'm not superstitious, but...

--
Dan
? at BFM