There is a member of my flying club who owns a Cessna 172 on straight floats, and a half share of a light sport Legend Cub which spends its winters on skis and its summers on straight floats. Yeah, some people have it tough, right? I’ve been begging him for a ride for over a year now, and yesterday he asked on the club mailing list if anybody wanted to be his safety pilot while he tried out the new Garmin 430 in his Cessna. I think I set a record for speedy replies to that mailing list with my “PICK ME! PICK ME!” response.
Continue reading “Splashy fun”
Category: Flying
Flying is about to get a lot more expensive
Over the last couple of years, the membership of the flying club has reduced by 25%. Maintenance is more expensive as ridiculous lawsuits have forced parts manufacturers and mechanics to spend more on lawyers and insurance, and stupid TSA rules have constrained our flying and our access to planes and airports and added expenses. Fuel costs have spiraled higher and higher. And IFR flying we practically requires an approach capable GPS, which we’ve only added to one of our planes. We’ve tried to reduce costs by selling one of our planes.
Also in that time, it’s become more expensive and harder to insure complex six seater aircraft. When this first became and issue, we had 12 people flying our Lance and 3 people considering moving up, and the insurance company only wanted to write a policy with 8 named pilots on it. We decided that the best way to pare that “Lance list” down a bit was to put a small “Lance Surcharge” for the people who wanted to be on the list. Unfortunately, even with the small surcharge we imposed, the list immediately dropped down to 7 people, and over time it’s dropped to 5.
A couple of weeks ago we re-ran the numbers, and the numbers told us two things:
- The monthly dues needed to be raised
- The small “Lance Surcharge” is not enough to cover all the expenses of the Lance.
In the past, all members of the club have carried the expenses of all the planes, because the planes were club assets. But with only 5 people allowed to fly the plane, it seems that it’s only fair to put more of the onus on the costs of that plane on those people. And the awful truth is that if you put all the onus on those 5 people, one or more might drop off the Lance list, and then the costs will be spread among 4 people, or 3 people. And then there is the issue of the ancient engine – the Lance’s engine is way over TBO, and will probably need replacing within the year, and that’s going to cost around $35,000.
We haven’t actually figured out what to do, but in the mean time we’ve increased the normal monthly dues by $20 and doubled the Lance Surcharge. And we’re putting the Lance up for sale to see if there is any interest.
Then there is the issue of the other flying club. I wrote about them before. Their current “Lance List” has 5 or 6 people on it, and their monthly fees plus “Lance Surcharge” ends up being double what our current fees are. If we make our Lance Surcharge close to what it would take to actually support the aircraft, it would get pretty close to their total fees. And for our money, we’re getting a worse Lance – theirs has an almost new engine, and a Garmin 530W GPS. If I’m going to pay that sort of money, I want to get the best Lance I can get for the money.
Sigh. I wish good load hauling aircraft weren’t rarer than hens teeth. If only we could get a decent Cherokee 6 for a decent price. The 6 has the roominess and load hauling ability of a Lance, but without retractable gear. That means you lose some speed, but you gain insurability, and lower maintenance costs. Even better, because it would be insurable without a named pilot policy, we wouldn’t need a separate list and surcharge for it. But Piper didn’t make very many of them, and the ones that are out there are selling for $40,000 more than an equivalent Lance for those very reasons.
Dammit, NO!
A Snowbirds pilot has died. Their season only just started – I saw a story about their sign-off show only a week or so ago. Oh man, I know it’s terrible either way, but I selfishly hope it’s not one of the ones who signed my laptop.
Sour grapes is turning me into a rules lawyer
I didn’t want to book any trips until I got IFR current because you never know when you’re going to need to fly in actual. So it was with some dismay a few weeks ago when I realized that one member of my flying club has managed to book the Lance on for the weekends of May 5, 11, 19, 26, June 9, and then solidly from June 17-29, and then somebody else has it solidly from June 30-July 8, and somebody else has it solidly from July 8 to July 22. Unfortunately Vicki has other committments on June 3rd, meaning that if I wanted to plan a weekend trip to Ottawa with a couple of friends, I’d have to wait until July 27th, or figure out how to squeeze four people plus baggage into the Dakota.
So I’ve been kicking myself for leaving it this late to book, and I’ve been a little annoyed at Jim for booking all those weekends. But last night Lenny mentioned that when he booked the Dakota to go to Colorado a few years ago, he was told that he’d have to get approval from the Board of Directors because he’s taking the plane away for more than 10 days. Well, those three block bookings that go straight from June 17th to July 22nd are all more than 10 days. So I’m not proud of myself, but I sent a letter to the Officers and Board of Directors asking if that policy is still in effect.
IPC Interrupted
I finally finished up my iPC this evening. The winds were favouring runways 4, 7 and 10, which meant that the only RNAV approach that had a LNAV/VNAV option was RNAV (GPS) 04. That’s unfortunate, because runway 4 is the one favoured by the big jets – when the wind is coming the other direction, the approach with LNAV/VNAV is RNAV (GPS) 28, and runway 28 is used by commuter jets and turboprops, which means that my 120 knot approach isn’t too far off their approach speed. And sure enough, on the first attempt at an LNAV/VNAV approach they gave me a 90 degree turn onto the approach just outside the FAF. I did a passable but not great job. I followed the needles down well below the Decision Altitude (1200 feet).
The second time was even worse. Just as I was expecting another 90 degree turn half a mile from the FAF, I heard squelch break twice and an inaudible whisper, and then a “23Y how do you hear me”. That was followed by two vectors through the course that took me past the FAF, and an intercept vector that wouldn’t actually intercept. I “fudged’ the assigned vector to one that would intercept. Starting off having to start my descent before I’d gotten squared away on the approach path meant I never really got settled down. Even using the “TRK” reading on the GPS to try to get the right heading didn’t really make it easy. I kept it within acceptable limits down to the DA. But there’s no way in hell I would have accepted such a lousy set of vectors in IMC.
On both approaches, I’d been chasing the needles in both directions, and didn’t get stabilized, although at the end of it the runway was pretty much straight in front of me.
For the last approach, I asked for the ILS 04. This time, we were obviously getting vectored further away – I don’t know if the controllers know how to vector ILSes better, or if things were slowing down so they could have us on the approach longer. Although he tried to vector a Citation in in front of us, but when it didn’t work out he vectored them through the approach course and a 270 degree turn back onto the course behind us. On the downwind, Lenny reminded me to get my pre-landing checklist done, pick a speed and altitude, get well stabilized, and try to maintain both speed and altitude. I picked 110 knots and 2000 feet. And it worked – I got a better turn onto the approach course about a mile outside the FAF, I kept my speed and pulled back the throttle to get a 550 foot per minute descent at the speed I’d trimmed for. A quick check to make sure my TRK was 043 degrees, and then followed the needles down. Everything was pretty amazingly stabilized in both axes until about 1200 feet, when both needles started to wander. Personally I thought there was a bit of a windshift, but Lenny says he thinks I just got fixated on something after switching to the tower frequency.
Afterwards, we did a bit of ground review. Discussed some interesting things, like why on the RNAV (GPS) 04 approach, the DA for the LNAV/VNAV approach is the same as the MDA for the LNAV approach, but the required visibility on the LNAV/VNAV one is way higher (1.25 miles instead of 2400 feet)? (Answer: because you reach the LNAV/VNAV DA 1.9 miles from the runway end, but the LNAV MAP is right at the runway end.) Couldn’t figure out why the DA is so high, however. The ILS DA is 765 feet, compared to the LNAV/VNAV DA is 1200 feet. Discussed the other IFR trivia, looked at some stuff on the charts like the new T-airways (there’s one up near Ottawa on the L24/L25 chart).
Anyway, it’s nice to be current again.