Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:04 -0800, "BTIZ"
wrote:

engine loss on most twins.. in the Reno/Tahoe area will NOT keep you out of
trouble..

On departure, maybe not. I'm thinking more at cruise or if you've
already got some altitude. Engine failures on departure are dangerous
no matter what you are flying. There is no way to eliminate all risk,
I just hope to minimize risk as much as possible.


The single engine service altitude on some twins is well below that mountain
pass.

This is something I will have to investigate with any aircraft I will
consider buying.

wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...
I recently got back into flying after a 12 year layoff. I am current,
and flying high-performance singles (182). I have around 80 hours in
high-performance planes, including retracts. I am currently building
time to improve my skills and getting ready to take the next step.

I am finally in a financial position to not only be able to afford to
fly, but to own an aircraft. I've been doing research on the various
costs, fixed and hourly, and I will not buy an airplane unless I am
sure I can:

1. afford to fly it regularly
2. have sufficent income to handle unexpected expenses
3. have funds for initial and recurrent training
4. can put 50-100 hours of dual in type

I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I
want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course
I'd do, if I went for a twin).

So, here is my dilema. I've pretty much settled on a T210 or a
400-series Cessna. I'd prefer the twin, because I'd like to replace
most or all of my airline travel. I want to be able to take 4-6 people
on medium to long trips. I'm based on the west coast, in California.
We seldom have seriously bad weather here, and if I travel east, I
would allow plenty of time to divert or wait out bad weather.

One reason I'd prefer a twin is that certain areas of California can
have persistant fog, with below-IFR ceilings, that I occasionally need
to overfly. If you lose a single engine, an emergency landing in those
conditions have a low chance of success. To get use out of my plane, I
would like to be able to fly over areas with those conditions. A twin
would almost certainly get you to a clear weather airport.

My total time is about 300 hours. Yes, I know, low time. If I went for
either plane, I would do all my training in that plane. That would
mean 50-100 hours of dual. When I started my refresher (extended BFR),
I told the instructor I was in no hurry, and we'd keep going until we
were both satisfied. If I buy either plane, I would do the same. No
hurry with time, no money constraints on training. I'd tell the
instructor I want to go through training slowly and do everything over
and over until there is no doubt I'm ready for the next thing. I would
also plan several dual-instruction, cross-country, point to point
flights (hopefully in actual IFR) to gain practical experience in the
system and with my plane.

As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to
add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that
would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready
and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time.

So, the questions a

1. are there any schools that specialize in 414/421 initial and
recurrant training?
2. any advice on how to find local instructors that have experience in
type?
3. if anyone has any advice on buying and training in T210s and 400
series, your advice would be welcome

Again, I want to emphasize that I would do EXTENSIVE training,
including extended training and dual instruction flights, before I'd
consider myself worthy of acting as PIC. I realize that a 400 series
Cessna is a very complex aircraft, and I would do everything necessary
to become proficient in my aircraft. I take flying and training very
seriously.


Have you considered not insuring the hull? Flight Safety and Simcom would
be the preferred places to get trained.

Mike
MU-2

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:20:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:




Have you considered not insuring the hull? Flight Safety and Simcom would
be the preferred places to get trained.

So the idea would be that if I wrecked it, I'd take the loss, not the
insurance company? Would that make a significant difference in price
and my "insurability"?

In article 1104514642.0540a981e3e373fdfec3f46fbafc3ee2@teran ews,
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:20:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Have you considered not insuring the hull?

So the idea would be that if I wrecked it, I'd take the loss, not the
insurance company?

You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
premium).

Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
premium).

Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.

In article 1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@teran ews,
wrote:

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.

I strongly recommend that anyone seriously thinking of purchasing an
aircraft pick a likely looking candidate and get a real quote for it.
I got 'estimates' but they were way, WAY off the actual quotes I got.

Looking at the first policy I found (not this year's) the breakdown
was about 14% liability, 1% medical, 35% not-in-motion and 50% in-
motion.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Another thing to consider besides insurance cost is the operating cost of
the plane.

Don't think that two engines is just double the cost, stepping up to a 414
from a 210 is 3x or 4x the cost.

Kent Felkins

wrote in message
news:1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@t eranews...

You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
premium).

Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.


The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by far.
On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the total
premium.

Mike
MU-2

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:3IlBd.51226$k25.45830@attbi_s53...
In article 1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@teran ews,
wrote:

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.

I strongly recommend that anyone seriously thinking of purchasing an
aircraft pick a likely looking candidate and get a real quote for it.
I got 'estimates' but they were way, WAY off the actual quotes I got.

Looking at the first policy I found (not this year's) the breakdown
was about 14% liability, 1% medical, 35% not-in-motion and 50% in-
motion.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Hull insurance goes up with the value of the hull, liability does not, so,
for an expensive airplane the hull coverage is the overwhelming portion.

Mike
MU-2

The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by far.
On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the total
premium.

I'm looking at 421s in the $150-180k range. There are at least a half
dozen on trade a plane at any one time.