Category Archives: aviation insurance

Cessna 182, good for low time pilot?

Posted on by

Cessna 182, good for low time pilot?

cessna 182

Recently I had a call asking “should a low time pilot buy a Cessna 182”?  The caller was concerned because they only had 75 hours total time and all of that was in a Cessna 172. On top of that, they had a chance to buy a Cessna 182 that has very low time and is a clean airplane, should they be concerned about their low total time when moving up to a 182?

My quick thoughts. The Cessna 182 is a great aircraft. It offers an excellent platform for instrument (IFR) training, is a respectable cross country aircraft and is reasonably cost effective to operate. As a private pilot, your first year will be a little more expensive to insure because of your low hours, but that’s about it.  Yes, it does cost slightly more to maintain than a Cessna 172, but the difference is slight, mainly in the fuel burn and engine costs.  The Continental six-cylinder, 470 engine (or the Lycoming 540 in the new models) are very reliable engines.  Parts are in supply, aftermarket items and service is available almost anywhere you can fly to.

About the only thing that seems to bother the 182 are the fuel bladders in the pre-1979 aircraft and the nose gear impacts that low time pilots inflict during training. The 182 gets quite a few hard landings on the nose, typically when they are full of fuel and lightly loaded with passengers and baggage.  A pilot tends to run out of elevator in the flare a little higher than they should and drop them on the nose.  Nothing that cannot be corrected with a good dose of training at different loads.

As with any other aircraft, a good pre-buy inspection for damage history, corrosion and maintenance should be done before the purchase.  Also line up an instructor that has a fair amount of time in the Cessna 182 and they can show you how well the aircraft can really perform. Oh, and if you are used to the Cessna 172, the 182 will just require more arm muscles in the flare.  The heavy control pressure will be notable for the first few hours, after that, it’s a typical Cessna!

EXPERIMENTAL, AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS REMAIN BELOW FAA DECADE-LONG CHALLENGE GOAL

Posted on by

Uptick in aircraft accidents in past year a reminder that continual safety focus is essential

EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wisconsin — (November 22, 2019) — While fatal aircraft accident totals in amateur-built aircraft remain at historic lows, a slight increase in the total for the last 12-month reporting period shows the continuing necessity for dedicated educational efforts to push the total even lower, according to the Experimental Aircraft Association.

The Federal Aviation Administration reports that for the 12-month period from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, fatal accident totals for the experimental category overall, including amateur-built aircraft, racing aircraft, those used for exhibit only, research-and-development, and some types of light-sport aircraft, rose to 52 – five above the FAA’s “not to exceed” goal of 47 for the period. Of that total, 39 fatal accidents were in amateur-built aircraft, an increase of four from the previous reporting period.

FAA measures accident totals on an October-through-September annual basis to coincide with the federal government’s fiscal year. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board earlier this month noted that fatal accidents in all categories of general aviation increased in calendar year 2018 after several years of decline.

“What this increase tells us is that enhancing safety is not simply a target number to be reached, but a continual effort to build on the positive foundation we have already established,” said Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety. “We are pleased that the accident totals remain below the challenge goal FAA issued to us in 2010, when the agency asked us to reduce the accident rate by 10 percent over the ensuing decade. It is not enough to simply reach a number, however; we must keep a steady focus on making improvements, especially as the number of general aviation flight hours have increased over the past several years.”

Elliott noted that the overall fatal accident numbers for experimental category aircraft remain much lower than other recreational pursuits, such as boating, skiing and snowboarding, and driving all-terrain vehicles.

EAA has worked closely with the FAA and NTSB on recommendations to reduce fatal accidents, including through participation in the FAA General Aviation Joint Steering Committee that EAA has co-chaired for the past three years. Efforts have also included more than 2,500 copies of the one-year old EAA Flight Test Manual now in the hands of amateur-built aircraft owners and the increasing use of an additional safety pilot during initial flight testing in amateur-built aircraft.

“With already very small numbers involved, a few additional accidents can create a percentage-rate anomaly, so it’s important to focus on driving the overall accident numbers lower,” Elliott said. “We must focus on training, situational awareness, and good pilot skills to complement the ever-improving technology that is part of today’s aircraft cockpits.”

About EAA

EAA embodies The Spirit of Aviation through the world’s most engaged community of aviation enthusiasts. EAA’s 230,000 members and 900 local chapters enjoy the fun and camaraderie of sharing their passion for flying, building and restoring recreational aircraft. For more information on EAA and its programs, call 800-JOIN-EAA (800-564-6322) or go to www.eaa.org. For continual news updates, connect with www.twitter.com/EAA.

Tiger or Arrow

Posted on by

Tiger or Arrow

Received this email about buying a Tiger or Arrow.

Hi Scott,  I attended your seminar on “How to buy an airplane”. This will be my first airplane purchase, and I would like to spend around $75,000 or less. I think I’ve narrowed down my options, and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the following two aircraft a Tiger or Arrow.

Tiger: 1976-1979 vs. 1990-1993. Are there any advantages with paying more for the later year models? I found many ’76-’79 models with low hours asking between $36K – $65K depending on condition. The ’90’s models seem to be $75K and up. What are your thoughts?

Piper Arrow: The owner of my flight school asked me if I was interested in buying a ’73-’74 Arrow as a leaseback for the flight school. Personally, I do not really need a retractable, and the cruise speed is about the same as the Tiger. But I only fly about 75 hours per year so the flight school would help offset the costs a little. It would be the only retractable (and I think the only low wing – except for one Tiger) for rent in my area, so I expect that it would mostly be rented by more experienced pilots, and according to the flight school owner, also those who are going for their commercial license.

I’ve run the numbers for a lease back on this model, and after all expenses, maintenance and engine/prop reserve, they seem to work in my favor by about $750-1,000 per month, based on 60/hours rental per month at $120/hour. Am I right? What is the best way to evaluate a leaseback scenario?

I really enjoyed your seminar, and I’ve read your book “How to buy a single-engine airplane.” You’re honest with the facts and figures, and you don’t pretend that buying an airplane is not a big deal – it is! I appreciate that! I have 108 total hours, mostly in a C-172. I really like the low-wing models, and I’d like to make trips to Phoenix, so the cruise speed is somewhat significant, 135 knots is nice.

My answers about the Tiger or Arrow

The Tiger is a great aircraft. It offers retractable gear speeds with fixed gear.  I owned an AA1A (two seat) for a while and really enjoyed flying it. I have a few hours in a Cheetah and Tiger which I really like.

I am not sure that there is any significant difference between an old and a new Tiger…except for age. I tell a lot of people to buy as new as possible. But sometimes an older aircraft that has all the upgrades and all the avionics that the newer one does might be a better deal.  All the goodies without all the extra expense.  If you buy old and put new “stuff” in it, you’ll get pennies on the dollar back for the investment.

I think the big factor would be hours, equipment and the condition of the older models.  Since the Tiger is a different construction (bonded honeycomb) age can have a dramatic effect on the seams/bonding.  You would want to check for damage to joints and seams from any paint stripper and any corrosion.  Of course, it doesn’t matter if it is a new or old aircraft that would still be a concern!

As far as the Arrow? It is another good aircraft. It is especially good as a personal run around aircraft and commercial trainer.  But because it is a retractable gear aircraft your maintenance and insurance costs are going to be higher.  Not only the gear but you also have a constant speed propeller.  The Arrow is cheap, as far as maintenance is concerned, but still it will typically cost more than a Tiger… for the same speed and load abilities.  Insurance for rental on the Arrow could be $5000 a year or more (depending on the value).

Leaseback.  If you put your aircraft on leaseback it becomes a piece of equipment.  You will not have the freedom to use it or control its care like your own.  But if you use it as a piece of equipment, don’t get personally attached; don’t worry about the details, (like scheduling your flights through the FBO, etc.).  It might be okay.

Make sure you know all the details of the contract before you do a leaseback.  Many FBO’s require that the owner cover all the expenses.  Understand how they figure the cost of maintenance and what type of maintenance will be expected.  Just think, at 60 hours month, it will need the 100-hour inspection (a mini annual) every month and a half. How much are they going to charge for the 100 hour inspection? Are parts discounted?  Will you get a break on expenses?  When you calculate your cost per hour, make sure you take into account the speed at which you will need an engine or prop overhaul or need to comply with AD’s and service bulletins etc.

If it is going to be your personal pride and joy, I don’t think you would be happy as a leaseback.  Leaseback does help pay the bills. But it also increases the hours the aircraft is flown.  Adding hours, wear and tear and abuse.  A commercial trainer will be used to teach people maneuvers, engine outs, landings, etc.  All of which add to the wear on an aircraft. It is still being used as a trainer (even though it is being used by current pilots).

Personally, if the cost per hour is a factor, buy an earlier Tiger at a lower cost. Get the most equipment and lowest hours you can and fly it as your own aircraft.  If you can fly 75 to 100 hours a year, it would be cheaper per hour to own the aircraft than to rent.  And with the Tiger you won’t have the higher insurance and maintenance costs.

Tiger or Arrow

Grumman Tiger

Tiger or Arrow.

Piper Arrow