M20J Pilot Qualifcatiions

[FLYFST]

Dear fellow Mooniacs, I would appreciate your advise regarding what kind of experience I should look for from potential equity share owners in my soon to arrive M20J-201.  I plan to sell up to 75% interest to three other pilots and I can wait for the right pilots, with the right experience. Personally I have 780+ hrs, instruments rating and complex and high performance endorsements, but zero M20J time, which I am about to resolve.  I expect to get that much within the first 2-3 months of having the airplane, most of it with a highly experienced Mooney CFII.

My initial thoughts are to require at least 25 hrs PIC in the M20J, at least 500 hrs total time (300 hrs if also IR), no accident history, and a willingness to commit to flying the airplane often enough to remain proficient. I also expect to have each potential share owner go through a thorough checkout in the airplane before finalizing any commitment.

[flyboy0681]

I personally think the 500 hour requirement is kind of rash. Anybody who has a good amount of retract time should do just fine. When i bought into my partnership last year I had about 125 hours in an Arrow but total time of only about 325 hours. The insurance company found that sufficient enough to require me only 5 hours dual with a qualified Mooney instructor. To play it safe I flew with my instructor long enough (11 hours) until I feel comfortable to go it alone.

One thing that is vitally important is your choice of partners. I lucked out with mine but I've heard horror stories. Get the rules straight before signing anything, that includes maintenance reserves, whether fuel will be included in the hourly rate, if you will use an online schedule as well as subscription costs and their feeling about spending thousands to do upgrades.

 

 

 

[aerobat95]

Your insurance company will probably require at least 10 hours in type....maybe more.  I personally would want an instrument rating and probably 300 hours total time.  Good luck with your purchase!!  

[WardHolbrook]

The insurance company will insure to the least qualified guy. I'd ask your insurance guy what they're going to require then set your minimums appropriately. I'd also try to arrange your partnership agreement to "encourage" utilization and recurrent training. Low-time guys that fly often and receive appropriate recurrent training along the way won't be a problem. An guy who flys 50 hours a year and gets an hour dual with a CFI every couple of years probably isn't going to be someone you'd want flying your new Mooney. That being said, if you sell 75% of the airplane you'll just have one vote out of four. Choose your partners wisely and have an exit strategy in your agreement. 

[aerobat95]

"An guy who flys 50 hours a year and gets an hour dual with a CFI every couple of years probably isn't going to be someone you'd want flying your new Mooney."

Good point....I would rather have a lower time guy who flys often than someone who hardly flys at all.  Plus the lower time guy who flys often will quickly rack up time and experience.  The other thing is getting the rules up front as said earlier.  I have heard of guys in partnerships that want to upgrade say a radio or autopilot and then one of the partners decides he doesnt like/need it and then the upgrade doesnt happen. 

[scottfromiowa]

I think you ask a good question...I live in Cedar Rapids, IA and finding a qualified "Co-Owner" for a 1966 M20E is not easy, much less finding 2-3 partners. I would NOT qualify as I only fly 50-75 hours/year and am NOT instrument rated.  I wish to find someone that is stable in C.R. (won't want to be "selling out") and that is a "good" pilot.  Good to me means he is willing and desires to fly the required insurance check-out time with a CFI.  That is like-minded regarding safe operation "knows his/her limitations" as demonstrated in joint operations.  My future co-owner is an E.R. physician, good golfer (hand/eye coordination/decision making) has a wife and young son and a primary mission that is between 400-500 miles and wishes to fly about 75-100 hours per year.  We have flown together in my plane for about 12 hours (he in the right seat, but doing most of the flying/navigating and communicating).  He is instrument rated and LOVES Mooney's.  I hope it works out.  We drafted a lengthy agreement and plan to establish a Corporation for the plane.  Good luck in your search for "qualified" partners/co-owners in your plane.

[Cruiser]

Four of you at a minimum of 50 hrs/yr means the AIRPLANE is flying 200 hrs/yr..... that's about 4hrs/week. A pretty tall bar to leap without scheduling problems or very, very diverse flying patterns for the members.

[jetdriven]

We just did a partnership and one partner has 8k hours, etc.  One has 300 hours and a PPL only, one has 105 hours and PPL only.  Ours actually will be just fine.

Things to consider.

1.  income.  Do they make 50K or 100K per year?  Do they have the financial wherewithall to absorb an unexpected engine oberhaul or an accident? Are they "gadget crazy" and want a 430/530/G500?  Or does dual 170Bs and a KLN-89B suit them fine?

2. Do they plan on having kids in 2 years and "taking a break" from flying?  Are they likely to continue getting a medical for the next few years? You dont want to partner with someone for "a short time"

3. Attitude and ability.  Our lowest time partner has 100 hours but had good instruction, applied things learned, and has strong natural ability.  Also had zero complex time and the fastest they had flown was 105 knots in a 172.  I flew with a couple times before we formed the partnership.  The 10 hour checkout requiremnt was probably overkill, but insurance is insurance.  The other partner has more experience but less recent currency (hours).  Again, normal learning curve though. I would fly with them in their most current aircraft and observe.  Are they professional?  Do they know how to plan a flight, not run out of fuel, talk to ATC, know the FARs,  know how to operate an aircraft and engine with efficiency and competency? Believe in OWT's?   Remember, its a 20 or 30K engine out front and runnning "a gallon richer than book" , lean to rough and forward a "half inch", or climbing at 25 square is going to affect the life and cost of operation for you as well.  Coming in 20 miles over book and landing with half flaps and burning the tires out is another.

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

I've had one partner in each of three prior plane partnerships.   In all three, the plane was virtually always there when we wanted it, and in all cases each partner over-estimated the number of hours he would fly.    My experience is not "proof" of anything but it is a data point.  

Another way to look at 4 guys flying 50 hours per year for 200 hours total is that as a year is about 8700 hours the plane is idle about 98% of the time -- Pretty good odds of finding it in the hanger. 

Worry more about finding GOOD partners than about the plane being overused, that is my counsel. 

 

 

[jetdriven]

more planes are under used for sure, and remember if you sell a 50% or greater share of the plane you lose control of it. You may find yourself without a plane at all while theh others ride off into the sunset.

[FLYFST]

Wow, thanks so much to all for your thoughtful contributions. In general your comments confirm a perspective that I share with many; that it is far more important to find partners with similar values and attitude toward airplane ownership and safe operations than those with some subjective minimum combination of "numbers", and I expect to adjust accordingly.

The insurance company does indeed determine a minimum threshold. In my case, zero time in the M20J means I am required to get 8 hrs of dual instruction in my airplane, with an Instrument Proficiency Check, from a CFI that meets all the requirements of the policy. That in my view is just the bare basics and I intend to get approximately 25 hrs of dual as I have been advised to do by trusted advisors.  For other pilots (not named on the policy), my insurance requires 500 hrs total, including 100 hrs in retractable and 10 hours in make and model.

While the 100 hrs retractable seems too much to ask for a "named pilot", requiring a complex endorsement with 10 hrs minimum in make and model over the past 12 months, before the candidate share owner's checkout can begin, seems more appropriate.  The insurance requirement for me does pose an interesting idea -- to require as part of the initial checkout either a BFR for a VFR pilot or an IPC for an Instruments Rated pilot.  That should help mitigate any concerns about their initial proficiency. 

As for the 500 hrs time, it may indeed be unnecessarily high (for named pilots) and a number like 200 may be more appropriate, so long as they are willing to pay for the extra insurance cost and the company will set the cost based on pilot with the lowest qualifications.  I mentioned 500 hrs as a starting point because I remember reading that for low time pilots the accident rate drops substantially after 500 hrs.

My "business plan" calls for sharing up to 75% of the airplane, but the more I read, particularly about partnerships gone bad, the less likely I become to share any of it; time will tell. 

Please keep your thoughts coming, I really appreciate them, and thank all of you.

[Jeff_S]

Here's my perspective on both of the issues...take it for what it's worth. On the former, qualifications to be a safe J driver? I had 500+ hours and an instrument rating but no complex time when I got my J. I got the requisite 10 hours dual and endorsement in two days when the plane came to me, but it took me about 30 more hours before I really felt comfortable and like I could "wear" the airplane as well as I had my Warrior.

I agree with others that it's not total time that matters in a potential partner, but rather their general philosophies on how to operate and maintain the plane. If you like to baby the engine, keep it washed and waxed and keep the interior free from every speck of dirt and dust, then you don't want a partner that will fly it 10° ROP and return it to the hangar/tie-down with bug mash all over it and the interior looking like the inside of the average mini-van (apologies to all those who have kids!).

[Becca]

Quote: Aviator4Life

The insurance company does indeed determine a minimum threshold. In my case, zero time in the M20J means I am required to get 8 hrs of dual instruction in my airplane, with an Instrument Proficiency Check, from a CFI that meets all the requirements of the policy. That in my view is just the bare basics and I intend to get approximately 25 hrs of dual as I have been advised to do by trusted advisors.  For other pilots (not named on the policy), my insurance requires 500 hrs total, including 100 hrs in retractable and 10 hours in make and model. 

Make sure to ask the insurance company ALL the questions.  Don't assume.  I had zero Mooney time, and was a fairly low time pilot (<300 hrs, no instrument or commercial rating, but some complex time and an endorsement)   Tinsurance company required me to have 5 dual/5 solo, and my even lower time partner 10 dual/10 solo.  However, it wouldn't cover my regular instructor, when I first asked, despite many M20F hours under the open pilot policy because he had no M20J time.  But it was no problem to just name him on the insurance, and then it was no problem at all (they didn't require he have any dual or solo once he was named).  Some insurance companies, though, limit you to naming 3 or 4 pilots and then after that you become a "club" and are insured differently, and that was annoying.   The insurance will price your insurance based on the least qualified named pilot. 

[FLYFST]

Thanks Becca, I have been asking all the questions that I can think off and have found no surprises yet, except for my initial quote from AOPA being followed up by a lower quote, also from AOPA (U.S. AIG is the undewriter) that was -- surprise -- lower and with what I consider to be the very reasonable minimums (included in my earlier post).  They do include the 10 hrs in the make and model, which means a CFI with thousands of M20F (as an example) would not qualify if they have less than 10 hrs in the M20J-201.

[N601RX]

I asked this question when I was getting a quote from falcon last year and they told me the Make was a M20 and the letter really did not matter on a vintage mooney as for as the CFI insurance requirement was concerned.

[KSMooniac]

My initial insurance company also lumped all M20 time into the same bucket, so my ~75 hours of C/E/F time many years ago meant I could get right into my J with zero J time.  I still grabbed a CFI friend (that did some instruction in that very plane with the previous owner) for a mini-checkout before I set out on my own.  If in doubt, get a letter in writing from the broker or agent, just in case...

If I were king, I think I'd lump all short- and intermediate-body Mooneys in one bucket, and all the long-bodies in another.

[jetdriven]

Quote: N601RX

I asked this question when I was getting a quote from falcon last year and they told me the Make was a M20 and the letter really did not matter on a vintage mooney as for as the CFI insurance requirement was concerned.

[FLYFST]

I asked the make & model question, specifically comparing the M20F vs M20J as being the same model or not, and the answer I got was two part: 1) it usually depends on the horsepower difference; and 2) best to give us the pilot's specifics (name, ratings, DOB, Hours total/retract/make&model).  I'm waiting to hear...

[M016576]

Quote: KSMooniac

My initial insurance company also lumped all M20 time into the same bucket, so my ~75 hours of C/E/F time many years ago meant I could get right into my J with zero J time.  I still grabbed a CFI friend (that did some instruction in that very plane with the previous owner) for a mini-checkout before I set out on my own.  If in doubt, get a letter in writing from the broker or agent, just in case...

If I were king, I think I'd lump all short- and intermediate-body Mooneys in one bucket, and all the long-bodies in another.

[KSMooniac]

I wouldn't flame for that opinion, but I'll expand on my rationale a bit...

Most Mooney accidents are runway loss of control (RLOC) ie takeoff and landing, or some weather-related XC accident since most of us use Mooneys for XC travel.  Therefore insurance companies concentrate on experience in the model (to gauge how likely you are to safely takeoff and land) and whether you have an instrument rating or not and can keep the shiny side up in IMC.

Since most Moonies are typically used for XC travel and thus should see equivalent risk in that arena, I would break them out into the short/intermediate-bodies that are lighter weight (2500-2900 lbs) and the long-bodies that are noticeably heavier (3200-3368 lbs) with much heavier noses and much more power to "control" on takeoff and go-around situations.

Turbo or not doesn't really have much to do with aircraft control, except perhaps the early K's that need the pilot to keep an eye on MP and not overboost.  I agree that engine management with a turbo should require more knowledge/understanding on the part of the pilot, but I don't feel that has much of a influence on the risk that insurers are covering.  (For example they won't pay for your engine if you ham-fist the mixture and simply burn it up)

[M016576]

Quote: KSMooniac

I wouldn't flame for that opinion, but I'll expand on my rationale a bit...

Most Mooney accidents are runway loss of control (RLOC) ie takeoff and landing, or some weather-related XC accident since most of us use Mooneys for XC travel.  Therefore insurance companies concentrate on experience in the model (to gauge how likely you are to safely takeoff and land) and whether you have an instrument rating or not and can keep the shiny side up in IMC.

Since most Moonies are typically used for XC travel and thus should see equivalent risk in that arena, I would break them out into the short/intermediate-bodies that are lighter weight (2500-2900 lbs) and the long-bodies that are noticeably heavier (3200-3368 lbs) with much heavier noses and much more power to "control" on takeoff and go-around situations.

Turbo or not doesn't really have much to do with aircraft control, except perhaps the early K's that need thepilot to keep an eye on MP and not overboost.  I agree that engine management with a turbo should require more knowledge/understanding on the part of the pilot, but I don't feel that has much of a influence on the risk that insurers are covering.  (For example they won't pay for your engine if you ham-fist the mixture and simply burn it up)

[M016576]

duplicate post

[M016576]

duplicate post

[M016576]

duplicate

[Tom_Veatch]

Quote: Aviator4Life

... 10 hrs minimum in make and model over the past 12 months, before the candidate share owner's checkout can begin, seems more appropriate.  ...