Buying an airplane for private use and instructing

[avi8tor1983]

Hey all,
A couple friends and I have been talking. We are looking to buy an airplane to teach in and possibly rent out. There are none to rent out or to give instruction within an hour drive. I fly for a living, week on and week off. My two friends are a private pilot and an instrument pilot. They both make a good living outside of flying. I would be training both of them up to the CFI level and CFII. This way we could teach at any time. I'm asking what kind of airplane would be good for this kind of thing. We all have been wanting something semi fast for longer trips, but also something simple enougph to teach a PPL in. We have thought about a 182. Any ideas would be great. Thanks all.

PS I really dontz know a whole lot about aircraft ownership.

 

[Blackhawk]

182 sounds like a good airplane for your needs and a good entry airplane. Get a good pre-buy from an independent mechanic, not the normal mechanic who works on it. "Fresh annual" is one of the biggest lies in aviation along with "NDH". Look for reasons not to buy a specific airplane. Look for red flags- such as a prop overhaul earlier than normal, but no indication in the logbook of anything else... such as fire wall damage and an engine tear down. If you can't find any reasons not to buy an airplane it's probably a good airplane. You can take an airplane out of Florida, but you can't take Florida out of an airplane. I've got an ownership cost spread sheet. Feel free to PM me and I'll send you a copy.

 

[cmill]

If you're looking to rent out a plane, i wouldnt go for a 182. They break the 200hp barrier, and would need a HP sign off. I dont know why more people dont go for a cardinal. Fixed gear 172 on steroids. Other than that, theres a reason why 172s are so ubiquitous.

 

[DE727UPS]

I think a 182 is bigger than you need for a one size fits all trainer. I'd go with a Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior or Cherokee 180. Owning a plane is no big deal. Insurance to instruct and rent will cost you four times the regular rate. No big deal as long as you can keep the plane busy.

 

[DE727UPS]

I think a 182 is bigger than you need for a one size fits all trainer. I'd go with a Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior or Cherokee 180. Owning a plane is no big deal. Insurance to instruct and rent will cost you four times the regular rate. No big deal as long as you can keep the plane busy.

 

[Blackhawk]

Problem with a 172 or Warrior/Cherokee will be the OP and his friends using it for personal use. Okay if you are talking two people, but if you are talking about more than two people you need something like a 182. OPs two partners are already private pilots... so I'm assuming they will want a "family" airplane.
On the flip side it does present a problem as a primary trainer, but not one that is insurmountable- I've had several private pilot applicants in 182s (one out of necessity as he weighed about 300 lbs.). It would be more expensive to operate than the other options. Tough call without surveying the market there and really getting down into what the OP and his partners want and what the priorities are. Which brings up the point- sit down with your partners and think through your priorities in an airplane. Make sure all of you will be happy with the same thing. Also make sure you spell everything out in the partnership. AOPA has some good material on forming partnerships. Also, prior to your purchase join the membership club of the type- such as the Cessna Pilot Association (CPA). They have good information.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Renting out an airplane increases the insurance costs 10 fold in some cases. It might not be worth it if you don't have enough business. Have you looked into a Cessna Cardinal?

 

[Murdoughnut]

Renting out an airplane increases the insurance costs 10 fold in some cases. It might not be worth it if you don't have enough business. Have you looked into a Cessna Cardinal?

Does it matter if you make the renter carry renter/borrower insurance?

One of the owners of the last 172 group I was in had owned an airplane back in Pennsylvania years ago that he leased back to a local school. Instructor and student flew it into a mountain in VMC conditions - one was killed, the other badly injured. He was personally sued for something like $8-million even though the accident was 100% pilot error. Insurance settled for less than this cap fortunately. Scary, though.

 

[Pay2]

Early model SR20s can be had for a decent price and make a great trainer. Fast enough and fuel efficient enough to take on some good trips, but it's also a great aircraft for the PPL. Might be out of your price range though. $130k-$140k can get you a 2002ish airframe.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

One of the owners of the last 172 group I was in had owned an airplane back in Pennsylvania years ago that he leased back to a local school. Instructor and student flew it into a mountain in VMC conditions - one was killed, the other badly injured. He was personally sued for something like $8-million even though the accident was 100% pilot error. Insurance settled for less than this cap fortunately. Scary, though.

Outrageous. I get angry just reading this and I'm not even personally involved. How does an NTSB finding of pilot error not prevent people from suing the airplane owner?

Do truckers' families get to sue J.B. Hunt when a trucker gets in an accident?

 

[Blackhawk]

Some people asked for a copy of the spread sheet I mentioned. I need an email address. The file is Excel format and I can't send those via website PM.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Outrageous. I get angry just reading this and I'm not even personally involved. How does an NTSB finding of pilot error not prevent people from suing the airplane owner?

Because NTSB accident reports aren't typically admissible in a civil court case.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

Because NTSB accident reports aren't typically admissible in a civil court case.

And this makes sense because...?

I see that 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) states

No part of a report of the Board, related
to an accident or an investigation
of an accident, may be admitted into
evidence or used in a civil action for
damages resulting from a matter mentioned
in the report.

Who proposed and voted for legislation that says to disregard the considered conclusions of a group of aviation experts, and to defer judgment to a group of 12 randomly selected people who would rather be at home?

Interesting info: http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publi...8-9614-80411b416d33/NTSB_Aviation_Article.pdf

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

I'll contribute to the OP as well so that he doesn't have to solely read my rants against insurance and litigation.

I've taught several primary students in high performance airplanes. That by itself is not a dealbreaker, and it sounds like a Skylane would be a lot more useful to you and your partners than a Skyhawk. Whether the cost benefits for insurance are worth it comes down to the numbers and your expected demand.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Outrageous. I get angry just reading this and I'm not even personally involved. How does an NTSB finding of pilot error not prevent people from suing the airplane owner?

Do truckers' families get to sue J.B. Hunt when a trucker gets in an accident?

Actually ... my dad is a trucker and was once sued (unsuccessfully) for an accident that he wasn't actually even directly involved in. Church bus blew a tire and crossed the median on a two-lane highway. Dad rolled his rig into a ditch to avoid hitting the bus head on - the vehicles never hit. Was sued by the parents of one child on the bus who claim that their kid was forever afraid of large trucks now, and would go into a panic attack when one drove by.

I'm not making absolutely any of this up. Was in the 90s. Kid's parents sued the church as well. My father had to travel to an initial hearing where the case was fortunately dismissed. Fortunately the members of the church flooded him with letters and cards thanking him for his actions to avoid what would have been one of the state's worst accidents.

 

[Roger Roger]

And this makes sense because...?

I see that 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) states


Who proposed and voted for legislation that says to disregard the considered conclusions of a group of aviation experts, and to defer judgment to a group of 12 randomly selected people who would rather be at home?

Interesting info: http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publi...8-9614-80411b416d33/NTSB_Aviation_Article.pdf

Because it (ostensibly) prevents the board from being exposed to pressure to blame this or that person or party involved in the accident, thereby preserving partiality.