Flew a SkyCatcher

KSCessnaDriver said:
There are some funny things that go on at flight schools. I know one that used to have a fleet of nearly 15 airplanes no more than 4 years ago. Flash forward to today and they have 3. Basically, the FBO owners decided that there was too much liability with older airplanes, so they took the GARA approach and thus, won't rent or do training in anything more than 18 years old.
Click to expand...

Really? That's amazing to me.

Insurance companies raise the premiums on older, more-well-maintained aircraft vs. brand new ones?

Given the number of years an airframe lasts, and the maintenance schedules on the motors, you would think the payouts on older airplanes would be considerably less, but I guess not.

Very strange indeed.
 
IMHO, the 150/152 is a great little airplane. Flies easy, lands short (esp. the 150 with the 40 degrees of flaps), is a total Known Quantity when it comes to maintenance. I think it suffers from being the "bar" to which other aircraft are compared, but if you look at it next to a Tomahawk, a Katana, or, God Forbid, a Skipper...(or, apparently, a 162), it actually comes out fairly well. People who dismiss 150/152s typically seem to come from the same demographic as people who buy a Hummer (aka more expensive, less capable, less capacious Chevy Tahoe) instead of a Land Cruiser because it "looks better". To wit, not my sort at all. When I see an oil-streaked 152, I feel nostalgic. When I see a Cirrus, I feel contemptuous.
 
Boris Badenov said:
IMHO, the 150/152 is a great little airplane. Flies easy, lands short (esp. the 150 with the 40 degrees of flaps), is a total Known Quantity when it comes to maintenance. I think it suffers from being the "bar" to which other aircraft are compared, but if you look at it next to a Tomahawk, a Katana, or, God Forbid, a Skipper...(or, apparently, a 162), it actually comes out fairly well. People who dismiss 150/152s typically seem to come from the same demographic as people who buy a Hummer (aka more expensive, less capable, less capacious Chevy Tahoe) instead of a Land Cruiser because it "looks better". To wit, not my sort at all. When I see an oil-streaked 152, I feel nostalgic. When I see a Cirrus, I feel contemptuous.
Click to expand...
Some people who buy Cirruses (Cirrii whatever the hell they call it) usually should be flying a 150 based on their skill level. I've built most of my time a 150 (150 HP, makes it more capable than a 172 at the density altitudes we see out here) and I know the day that this becomes a job and I'm flying a jjjettttttt (or anything else), I will see a 150 and remember the good old days of flying around the desert in a 150.
 
A150K said:
Some people who buy Cirruses (Cirrii whatever the hell they call it) usually should be flying a 150 based on their skill level. I've built most of my time a 150 (150 HP, makes it more capable than a 172 at the density altitudes we see out here) and I know the day that this becomes a job and I'm flying a jjjettttttt (or anything else), I will see a 150 and remember the good old days of flying around the desert in a 150.
Click to expand...

OT - interesting that for the most part, when people don't know how to make something plural, they default to latin, which we have a fair amount in our language, but certainly not in the plural and not at all the base.


Comparing the 150/2 to a cirrus isn't realistic. Two different missions. I don't think you'll see many people comparing the -8 to a 777.
 
killbilly said:
Really? That's amazing to me.

Insurance companies raise the premiums on older, more-well-maintained aircraft vs. brand new ones?

Given the number of years an airframe lasts, and the maintenance schedules on the motors, you would think the payouts on older airplanes would be considerably less, but I guess not.

Very strange indeed.
Click to expand...

They aren't concerned with insurance, really. More about the whole, if the plane is more than 18 years old and we maintain it, we take the liability on the whole thing, should something happen. Not something I agree with at all, but it's what they do. Heck, even their maintenance shop won't touch something more than 18 years old.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
They aren't concerned with insurance, really. More about the whole, if the plane is more than 18 years old and we maintain it, we take the liability on the whole thing, should something happen. Not something I agree with at all, but it's what they do. Heck, even their maintenance shop won't touch something more than 18 years old.
Click to expand...

Wait, now you're confusing me.

You said it's not about insurance, but you've used the term "liability" twice. In my mind, the liability risk is assessed in the insurance premiums or, more accurately, their insurance policy's ability to pay out to a plaintiff who decides to sue for whatever reason. I'm thinking we may be talking about two different things here.

Follow-up question: an O-200 motor, for example, is a relatively straightforward, relatively unchanged design over the last 20 years, right? So why would 18 years be a magic number for them if the TBOs are measured in hours and not years?

I'm really trying to understand this here, because everything I understand about running a business goes somewhat against the grain of what you're saying and I'm trying to figure out why; you obviously have more experience with the aviation world than I do.
 
z987k said:
OT - interesting that for the most part, when people don't know how to make something plural, they default to latin, which we have a fair amount in our language, but certainly not in the plural and not at all the base.


Comparing the 150/2 to a cirrus isn't realistic. Two different missions. I don't think you'll see many people comparing the -8 to a 777.
Click to expand...

Not trying to compare the two, just saying how I like 150s better than cirrus...If I were looking for a single of higher performance, I'd lean towards a 210, Mooney, or an older V-Tail Bonanza (I'm not a fan of the A models) over a cirrus.
 
killbilly said:
Wait, now you're confusing me.

You said it's not about insurance, but you've used the term "liability" twice. In my mind, the liability risk is assessed in the insurance premiums or, more accurately, their insurance policy's ability to pay out to a plaintiff who decides to sue for whatever reason. I'm thinking we may be talking about two different things here.

Follow-up question: an O-200 motor, for example, is a relatively straightforward, relatively unchanged design over the last 20 years, right? So why would 18 years be a magic number for them if the TBOs are measured in hours and not years?

I'm really trying to understand this here, because everything I understand about running a business goes somewhat against the grain of what you're saying and I'm trying to figure out why; you obviously have more experience with the aviation world than I do.
Click to expand...

Well, it is and isn't insurance. Apparently the people who run the place are obsessed that GARA protects them now. They fell that because GARA limits manufacture lawsuits to 18 years from manufacture dte, that they then become the deepest pockets after that point. GARA was the way to restart GA in the country, and basically made it so you can't sue the manufacture for every crash. For some reason, the FBO feels they take the responsibility if GARA no longer covers the manufacture, and thus, won't touch anything more than 18 years old.
 
Flying well to not die... Now there's a concept!

I flew a dir... errr Skycather too today ! It was pleasant yet underwhelming. I even slipped it with full flaps. Puppy carnage everywhere...
 
this is not an optical illusion

n7336b.jpg


^^^ > C162
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top