How common are aircraft partnerships compared to outright ownerships?

xyzzy wrote:
I personally don't
like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both types
(which is an added expense and hassle),

If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.

Newps wrote:



xyzzy wrote:
I personally don't

like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
types (which is an added expense and hassle),


If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.

True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's
agree?

xyzzy wrote:

Most members just fly one type
though, because each type caters to a different market.

Hmm. My ideal club would have little "sports" airplanes (I'd put a super
decathalon in that set, for example) and larger "travel" airplanes (ie. a
182 or 206, for example). Esp. with families, a six-seater looks *very*
attractive.

We're having that discussion now, looks like the club board has decided
to sell two of the four Warriors and buy 2 172's.

That's not really the kind of diversity that would excite me. What's the
point?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

xyzzy wrote:


Most members just fly one type
though, because each type caters to a different market.


Hmm. My ideal club would have little "sports" airplanes (I'd put a super
decathalon in that set, for example) and larger "travel" airplanes (ie. a
182 or 206, for example). Esp. with families, a six-seater looks *very*
attractive.


We're having that discussion now, looks like the club board has decided
to sell two of the four Warriors and buy 2 172's.


That's not really the kind of diversity that would excite me. What's the
point?

I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.

xyzzy wrote:
Newps wrote:



xyzzy wrote:
I personally don't

like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
types (which is an added expense and hassle),



If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.


True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's
agree?

Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
that is just money grubbing.

xyzzy wrote:

I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
172's

Ah. That makes sense then, even if it's not a diversity issue.

- Andrew

Newps wrote:



xyzzy wrote:

Newps wrote:



xyzzy wrote:
I personally don't

like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
types (which is an added expense and hassle),




If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.



True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club
SOP's agree?


Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
that is just money grubbing.

We require a "club annual" which is basically a BFR, every year. Plus
between annuals you have to have a certain number of flight hours and
landings within six months to stay current. It's not a real high
number, and it has never been a factor for me. It may sound onerous,
but it helps us get a good insurance policy, which is hard for clubs to do.

Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do
a one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it
was an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from
one to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club
may need to require more.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:

Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
need to require more.



If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

Newps wrote:

Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
need to require more.




If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you.



I'm just guessing on the 3-5 hours, they haven't set the requirements
yet. That's what a Warrior checkout for a new member is. Skyhawk
checkout may be less onerous, but it will be required. I'm pretty sure
the insurance will demand it, no matter how many pilots know that the
transition is in fact easy.

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:

Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
need to require more.



If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you.

I think the pertinent question is what model 172 requires this 3-5 hour
checkout?

A fuel injected 172 does not require priming on a normal day. Ever sit and
watch unfamiliar pilots try to start a 172SP? Prime, grind, grind, grind,
grind pause grind, grind, grind, grind pause grind, grind, grind.

How many seconds should a 172's starter be engaged before a cool-down time
is needed? How many minutes should one wait to attempt a restart?
Mixture lever in or out when attempting to start?

The flight school where I trained actually had a CFII (not from that
school) recently get "stuck" at a nearby airport because he could not start
a 2003 C172SP equipped with a new battery, new starter, and full fuel. He
killed the battery trying to start it! Upon speaking to the flight school
manager, he claimed that the aircraft and maintenance were to fault, not
him. The flight school sent maintenance and a CFII to the airport to
recharge the battery and rescue this person (who, somehow convinced the
school he didn't need a complete checkout). The aircraft fired right up.

What about the new 172s equipped with Garmin G1000 flight displays that are
beginning to appear at US flight schools? You will need probably a
minimum of 10 hours of check-out time to fly one of those.

I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----