How going cheap nearly killed somebody

[XLR99]

I try to discourage landing light use during the day unless visibility is poor, it's not that they're expensive, but that they only last around 25 hours and if you burn them all day Murphy's law says they'll go out on someone at night when they really need it.

I completely agree with you on the shoulder harness point.

Not to drag us off topic, I just look at it as a primacy issue, and we're in a very busy area with meat missles, gliders, nordos, weekend warriors, flight training, multiple airports within 5nm of each other, all nestled between a Class B and C that almost touch each other. I look at the light as using 'all available means' to avoid trading paint, along with the Mk1 eyeball, flight following and TIS/TAS if you're lucky enough to have it. The place I do some part time instructing at now has HIDs in all the planes-cheaper in the long run because of less downtime or cancelled night flights. I've also got most of the airplane owners I fly with to carry spare bulbs and tools to change them on the ramp.
Back on the bigger topic: for potential students, the issue remains identifying a school/FBO with a culture that fosters safety and good mx, vs "get your license here for cheap". There are many FBOs around that offer very safe, well-maintained older airplanes, but it may be hard for the non-mechanically inclined, total novices to determine what is safe and what isn't. They're literally trusting the FBO with their life.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I really, really wish places would go back to renting aircraft that are less expensive to rent in the first place. Ie., an older 172 with a VFR panel, 150/152s, Cherokee 140s, etc. Basic airplanes have less to break and the hull values are lower, which generally translates to cheaper insurance.

Everyone wants to put <5 year old airplanes out on the line, with glass cockpits or every type of nav radio and GPS known to mankind in them and wonders why business is slow. Not surprisingly, it is the ~$100/hr airplanes that do most of the flying at my club.

I agree completely and have been harping on this for the last few years. Everyone is trying to market themselves as having the newest, most advanced aircraft during a time when cost is bringing down the industry. Flight schools need to do more to cater to the weekend warrior instead of focusing exclusively on those looking to jump to an RJ.

My ownership club has a 1981 172 that's immaculate inside and out with all the bells and whistles. We pay $125 a month which covers insurance, tie-down, and the annual, and $70 wet. Never had to pay a dime out of pocket in 2.5 years for anything maintenance related - which includes an overhaul and replacing our last a/c after it went for a swim in the bay.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

If anyone has ever read the IRS guidelines for independent contractors I don't see how they would risk the hit from the IRS for not doing payroll and SS taxes.

If you are paying a school money for the airplane and instructor, and they are paying them as independent contractors, they are breaking the law. Happens all the time, but it is not legit. Places that do that are frankly "fly by night."

I was paid the same way when I was CFI and I am paid the exact same way as a computer programmer. I have to estimate my Federal and State taxes and pay them quarterly.

In regards to the cheap flight school, all you can do is try to educate the people that come in the front door about the industry and they will have to make their own decisions. If they choose to fly at the "cheap" school well that is their choice and they will have to live with the consequences. Also money doesn't always equal safety. I flew brand new 172R's in the 90's at a well known school and there were some bone head mx mistakes that caused a major or problem or two for a pilot to deal with. Including one engine fire.

Just be careful on how you educate your prospective students. You don't want to open yourself up to a lawsuit. If you are truly worried about the safety of their aircraft and others, stop in at FSDO or call the hotline. I would use them as a last resort because your name will get out.

 

[MusketeerMan]

This can happen more often than you think. My plane I just sold Musketeer) had a cracked muffler (cracked in 2) at the shroud and I didn't have a clue. I used a very reputable A & P for everything and I never smelled exhaust coming into the cockpit at any time. I just happen to be checking something else when I noticed that the exhaust pipe had shifted a little. The annual had been done in the previous 3 months, so it happened in between time period.

 

[BillH]

You are dealing with an idiotic public.
Why don't restaurants ONLY serve healthy non processed, low fat, low sodium, low calorie meals? Because people are stupid, they like fat and do things based on TASTE. Just like people who shop for the lowest price.
Person at the restaurant is NOT looking for healthy food, and a person paying for flight lessons is not looking at the maintenance as a primary concern.

 

[trafficinsight]

Not to drag us off topic, I just look at it as a primacy issue, and we're in a very busy area with meat missles, gliders, nordos, weekend warriors, flight training, multiple airports within 5nm of each other, all nestled between a Class B and C that almost touch each other. I look at the light as using 'all available means' to avoid trading paint, along with the Mk1 eyeball, flight following and TIS/TAS if you're lucky enough to have it. The place I do some part time instructing at now has HIDs in all the planes-cheaper in the long run because of less downtime or cancelled night flights. I've also got most of the airplane owners I fly with to carry spare bulbs and tools to change them on the ramp.

on a good visibility day the landing light is only marginally more effective, if at all... When the visibility goes down then the landing light is worth its weight in gold as that's the first thing that will be seen. It's much better practice to teach excellent scanning techniques, I do like the HID lights and that's probably in my future plans.

Back on the bigger topic: for potential students, the issue remains identifying a school/FBO with a culture that fosters safety and good mx, vs "get your license here for cheap".

Can't it be both?

 

[tonyw]

Cheap isn't always bad, I'd much rather pay 85 an hour for a basically safe airplane with some broken plastic than 125 an hour for a sparkly new version of the same old airplane.

:yeahthat:

You definitely can save a few bucks here and there without compromising safety.

For primary instruction, there is absolutely no need to pay for the bells and whistles like a GPS and autopilot. Save money that way!

 

[unclenobby]

Has going expensive ever nearly killed any one?

 

[falconvalley]

It is certainly possible to do an annual on a light single recip in 6 hours, but that's pretty fast. There would have to be few squawks.

 

[Killtron2000]

I've always been surprised how poorly some places maintain their aircraft but still don't have any accidents. At one airline I had mechanics refuse to fix airspeed indicators that stick until 100mph, alternators that only last 10 minutes into flight, broken door hinges you name it but they have never had an accident from maintenance they falsified mx logs and management backed them up on this 100%. Meanwhile the operation across the street with newer planes and better maintenance has crashed 2 because of pilot error and had their certificate revoked. I'm not sure what the moral of that story is.

 

[jdlilfan]

My point in telling the story was to get people to think beyond doing their flying with whoever is cheapest. This scenario could be played out at dozens of schools or airports across the country.

Similar situation to some of the above postings. Nearby flight school has had a number of these "situations", it is a wonder how they keep attracting students other than their low prices. Granted most of the instances have been swept under the rug or falsified somehow? Annuals in a day, 100 hours within hours all with only one A&P. They have a track record with the local ATC because their aircraft radios are worthless. One time they landed gear up (actually multiple times, but I was there to witness this one). The owner was furious that the instructor had done it at our towered airport because it would have to be documented. The airplane sat for about a few days so that the FAA could come visit and document the incident. After the FAA released it, they took the props off their other multi and slapped them on the one they just wrecked and flew it back. It was being used for instruction the very next day...They have geared up almost all of their aircraft (the ones with retracts). They totaled their 310 they used for charter. Most aircraft have multiple instruments broke, not allowed to squawk. One instance of engine failure due to oil starvation due to MX (had an oil leak, ran out of oil just as it landed, MX found/fixed it, topped it back up with oil, sent it on its way with a student, engine seized on the upwind). They had a contest going to see how much ice one could carry on a 172. Their instructors brag about doing rolls and loops in skyhawks, RG's, etc... Their instructors are "contractors". They don't charge sales tax and have been getting away with it.

I could go on but I don't want to turn my post into a rant.

It sucks that these people still operate and get away with their shinanigans but I guess they will always exist in some form or another in aviation.

 

[Cessnaflyer]

Has going expensive ever nearly killed any one?

Yes. When new GPSs or gee wizz computers are installed and the pilot looks inside the cockpit while flying through traffic patterns.

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Isn't that where the term DR killer came from? the big expensive airplane that was way easy to get ones hands on?

 

[jrh]

Yes. When new GPSs or gee wizz computers are installed and the pilot looks inside the cockpit while flying through traffic patterns.

Don't even get me started on this.

GPSs and "gee whiz" computers have the potential to revolutionize safety in GA flying.

The problem is that so few instructors know how to teach these pieces of equipment properly.

As an industry, we act like modern = bad. I couldn't disagree more.

What you're talking about is a training problem, not an equipment or expense problem. We need to be teaching pilots how to integrate these pieces of equipment in to their operation without sacrificing skills in other areas (such as looking inside too much). Flipping off the GPS and acting like it shouldn't exist is not the answer.

 

[jrh]

Isn't that where the term DR killer came from? the big expensive airplane that was way easy to get ones hands on?

Again, this is a training issue, has nothing to do with expensive being a bad thing.

 

[ppragman]

Don't even get me started on this.

GPSs and "gee whiz" computers have the potential to revolutionize safety in GA flying.

The problem is that so few instructors know how to teach these pieces of equipment properly.

As an industry, we act like modern = bad. I couldn't disagree more.

What you're talking about is a training problem, not an equipment or expense problem. We need to be teaching pilots how to integrate these pieces of equipment in to their operation without sacrificing skills in other areas (such as looking inside too much). Flipping off the GPS and acting like it shouldn't exist is not the answer.

Its bad when people don't know the fundamentals of airmanship (e.g. looking outside, calculating groundspeed, wind drift, etc.) and use modern and incredibly fallible technology as a crutch. Its also bad when people get overwhelmed with the technical gadgetry inside the airplane and forget to fly it.

In many ways, modern is bad. What are we going to do with a whole generation of pilots who've only flown G1000s and don't have any steam guage time jump into an aircraft without them. People need to know how to survive when all of the fancy things inside their airplanes fail. When RAIM is unavailable, and when the canyon walls block the GPS signal from reaching satelites low on the horizon. Yes, you are correct, this is a training problem, but there is another more deepsided societal and social problem involved with this. People believe that technology is always good, and better, however, when that technology becomes a crutch, things tend to go bad very quickly.

 

[jrh]

Its bad when people don't know the fundamentals of airmanship (e.g. looking outside, calculating groundspeed, wind drift, etc.) and use modern and incredibly fallible technology as a crutch. Its also bad when people get overwhelmed with the technical gadgetry inside the airplane and forget to fly it.

In many ways, modern is bad. What are we going to do with a whole generation of pilots who've only flown G1000s and don't have any steam guage time jump into an aircraft without them. People need to know how to survive when all of the fancy things inside their airplanes fail. When RAIM is unavailable, and when the canyon walls block the GPS signal from reaching satelites low on the horizon. Yes, you are correct, this is a training problem, but there is another more deepsided societal and social problem involved with this. People believe that technology is always good, and better, however, when that technology becomes a crutch, things tend to go bad very quickly.

Training, training, training. I don't know what else to say.

Modern *is* better if a person has been trained properly. Of course it shouldn't be a crutch, but that's what training is for.

You're right, a person shouldn't jump straight from a G1000 panel to a conventional panel with no additional training. The same could be said for transitioning from conventional to glass. That's common sense.

Everything you've brought up could be said about every other technological shift since the dawn of aviation.

Many pilots from the 1920s and 1930s died while scud running in planes equipped for instrument flight. You know why they were scud running? Because that's how they'd flown since Day 1 and they didn't trust their new fangled instruments. They felt safer at 100 AGL in VMC than at 8000 feet in IMC. Obviously they weren't.

I can imagine pilots critical of the modern VOR system when it first came out. "It's too simple," they might have said. "How the hell are these young bucks going to fly a 4 way radio range if their fancy VOR goes out?" Obviously somewhere along the line four way radio ranges went the way of the dinosaur.

My hope is that 20 years from now we'll be arguing about how the young ones will be able to handle their first freight job, flying those old beat up G1000 panel aircraft, since they've done all their training in aircraft with HUDs.

 

[ppragman]

Training, training, training. I don't know what else to say.

Modern *is* better if a person has been trained properly. Of course it shouldn't be a crutch, but that's what training is for.

You're right, a person shouldn't jump straight from a G1000 panel to a conventional panel with no additional training. The same could be said for transitioning from conventional to glass. That's common sense.

Everything you've brought up could be said about every other technological shift since the dawn of aviation.

Many pilots from the 1920s and 1930s died while scud running in planes equipped for instrument flight. You know why they were scud running? Because that's how they'd flown since Day 1 and they didn't trust their new fangled instruments. They felt safer at 100 AGL in VMC than at 8000 feet in IMC. Obviously they weren't.

I can imagine pilots critical of the modern VOR system when it first came out. "It's too simple," they might have said. "How the hell are these young bucks going to fly a 4 way radio range if their fancy VOR goes out?" Obviously somewhere along the line four way radio ranges went the way of the dinosaur.

My hope is that 20 years from now we'll be arguing about how the young ones will be able to handle their first freight job, flying those old beat up G1000 panel aircraft, since they've done all their training in aircraft with HUDs.

I can't argue with any of that. You're right. Training is the key, you are cognizant of that, many instructors, unfortunately, are not. My G430/530 training was "ehh, you'll figure it out." And though I did, I didn't like it. We need more instructors like you who understand the necessity of high levels of training in general.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Its bad when people don't know the fundamentals of airmanship (e.g. looking outside, calculating groundspeed, wind drift, etc.) and use modern and incredibly fallible technology as a crutch. Its also bad when people get overwhelmed with the technical gadgetry inside the airplane and forget to fly it.

This is the exact reason I like the training here at UAA. The PPL people I beleive are taught to use the basic features of the GPS, but are mainly taught how to use as crutch to what they are working on. The same goes for the instrument people.

Once the students are taught how to fly and use all available resources and move onto commercial they get to use glass equipped airplane.

 

[XLR99]

Ppragman and jrh both hit the nail on the head :going expensive will kill you if you go expensive on the equipment, then go cheap on the training.
Totally an extension of the ME generation, I think. "I want it all for FREE!! If not free, I don't want to pay a dollar more than the minimum!!"
You see it every spring when the weather finally breaks; weekend warriors head out to the airport, haven't been in an airplane since October, tires screaming in protest from side load landings, go-arounds til the cows come home from poorly managed approaches, but I'll be d@mned if I'm going to pay a CFI to go with me for an hour to help me knock the rust off....
Same thing is true with GPS, glass, transitions, etc:
-"Cirrus factory syllabus is a rip off- the CSIP is just padding his logbook with XC time!!"
-"I have 200hrs in a 172, why should I spend more than an hour on a G1000 checkout"
-"I don't need to go up with a CFII and train on this nifty new W430, I'll just figure it out as I go"
-"Insurance says I need 25 hrs with a CFI before I can solo-what a bunch of BS!!! How much different from a 172 can this Bonanza be? I have almost 200hrs now, I'm not a novice...."