State of single engine prices - Thoughts?

[Hank]

1 hour ago, DCarlton said:

Airplane …. Check -- 4 cylinders 

Fishing Boat … Check -- 6 cylinders

Sports Car … Check -- 12 cylinders

Commuting Car … Check -- 4 cylinders

Truck to tow boat … Check-- 6 cylinders

Golf cart for yard work -- 1 cylinder

Total cylinders across all platforms ….  33, plus the wife's car

Wisdom …. Questionable 

Don't feel alone. I just filled in mine above . . . .

[FlyWalt]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:34 PM, M20Doc said:

You have to remember that Mooney pilots are wrecking them at a terrific rate. 

I will never forget when I was booed out of a thread here, several years ago, when I suggested that type specific recurrent trained followed by a check ride would be a tremendous help to the accident rate and our insurance rates. I was right then and today.

Bring on the flames.

Edited January 5, 2023 by FlyWalt
Thoughts

[Guest]

1 hour ago, FlyWalt said:

I will never forget when I was booed out of a thread here, several years ago, when I suggested that type specific recurrent trained followed by a check ride would be a tremendous help to the accident rate and our insurance rates. I was right then and today.

Bring on the flames.

Some form of incentive from the insurance companies might kick start this idea.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Some form of incentive from the insurance companies might kick start this idea.

That would make it happen, long ago the FAA quit being the one who determined level of training, it really was the insurance companies. Give me an insurance break greater than the cost of the ride, I’m in.

But many, not all but many rides are pretty much a joke, makes one wonder how bad you would have to be to fail.

What you guys say is true for maintenance is also true for training.

 I don’t think they care though, I don’t think they really want to reduce accident rates but to ensure they make a profit by raising rates as necessary to make as much profit as possible.

The number of gear ups etc speaks to the quality of training that’s out there now.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, FlyWalt said:

I will never forget when I was booed out of a thread here, several years ago, when I suggested that type specific recurrent trained followed by a check ride would be a tremendous help to the accident rate and our insurance rates. I was right then and today.

Bring on the flames.

Isn’t that the BFR?

I can’t find when they started but I don’t think we used to do BFR’s

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Some form of incentive from the insurance companies might kick start this idea.

There is.  Some carriers will reduce your rate for recurrent training, like the Mooney PPP or the Beech equivalent.

And most require some hours with an instructor initially.  Mine wanted 5 hours dual to check out, then 5 hours solo before carrying passengers.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Airplane …. Check 

Ski Boat … Check 

Sports Car … Check 

Classic Car … Check 

Truck to tow boat … Check

Total cylinders across all platforms ….  34 

Wisdom …. Questionable 

 

When we got our sail boat, we initially thought trailerable.  But figured out we would need a truck to tow is, so when not just buy a bigger sailboat.   Sailboat had 1 (yes ONE) cylinder.

 

With airplane, race car, daily driver, performance car, collector car, SUV for hauling stuff, I have 34 also.

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

There is.  Some carriers will reduce your rate for recurrent training, like the Mooney PPP or the Beech equivalent.

And most require some hours with an instructor initially.  Mine wanted 5 hours dual to check out, then 5 hours solo before carrying passengers.

We got a little bit of an insurance break for the MAPA PPP clinic, but it did not cover the $800 cost of the clinic. Now I'm not trying to discourage going, I think it's a really great idea it's just that insurance companies don't value it at the amount it costs

[Mufflerbearing]

12 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Airplane …. Check 

Ski Boat … Check 

Sports Car … Check 

Classic Car … Check 

Truck to tow boat … Check

Total cylinders across all platforms ….  34 

Wisdom …. Questionable 

Between the boat, street cars, tow vehicles, and fleet of race cars and vintage cars, that's 60.  It's a sickness.  Of all these things, there is only one plane.  Hard to beat perfection.

[EricJ]

13 hours ago, hammdo said:

You forgot motorcycles and guns for some…

-Don

Guitars.   

[Guest]

Cirrus Aircraft provides free training any time a Cirrus is purchase, new or used.

[hammdo]

7 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Guitars.   

Oh yeah, I build/ buy those too.. good catch…

-Don

[DCarlton]

13 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Guitars.   

8

Got my eye on a PRS CE24 Semi now though 

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, FlyWalt said:

I will never forget when I was booed out of a thread here, several years ago, when I suggested that type specific recurrent trained followed by a check ride would be a tremendous help to the accident rate and our insurance rates. I was right then and today.

Bring on the flames.

The question is to what standard? That is, are you suggesting continual check rides to whatever certificate level the pilot has or something more demanding? Some here think today’s check rides are ineffectual. Should it be set at a level you will pass but anyone that isn’t as good a pilot as you will fail?

How often should these certificate retention check rides be mandated? Is every two years satisfactory to you or is this an every six month thing like instrument currency?

And, as long as we are at saving lives it would be FAR more effective to first implement your plan for automobiles!

It’s a lot less black & white than your simplistic  “I’m right then and now” world view, I believe.

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

And, as long as we are at saving lives it would be FAR more effective to first implement your plan for automobiles!

I kind of agree with this! Make it simple--should your one ride with a trooper at age 16 be sufficient to keep driving 60 years later? My thoughts:  ride with the trooper again every twenty years--at ages 40, 60, 80 and even 100 if you still feel up to it. Starting repeat rides at 40 will accommodate the varying driving ages across the states, which seem to vary from 15½ to 21.

As pilots, we are already required to have a Flight Review every two years. But as an instrument pilot, as long as I periodically fly enough approaches and holds, I never need another check. It is always my choice to have the CFI add some instrument stuff into the (no-longer-"BFR"-but-still-every-two-years) Flight Review, but unless they are a CFII they are not allowed to write any of the instrument work into our logbook.

In my mind, there's no need to add additional checkrides, just enforce the Flight Reviews the way they are written. Do we really want more Instrument qualification rules? As we said at a former workplace, "more thinking need."

[Yetti]

You should be improving your skills with each flight.   People gave me grief for calling out their videos for not landing on the centerline.   There is alot of flying skills needed close to the ground when landing.   Not so much up in cruise.  

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, Mufflerbearing said:

Between the boat, street cars, tow vehicles, and fleet of race cars and vintage cars, that's 60.  It's a sickness.  Of all these things, there is only one plane.  Hard to beat perfection.

I did not count all the model airplane engines.   I am sure more than 20 of them from over the years.  Including a Cox .010.  TINY little thing.

 

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Including a Cox .010.  TINY little thing.

The 0.010 is a cool little engine. I have an F4U that I need to finish building for an 0.020 with a throttle. Wish I could fit one on the little engine, it'd be too much fun!

[T. Peterson]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

I kind of agree with this! Make it simple--should your one ride with a trooper at age 16 be sufficient to keep driving 60 years later? My thoughts:  ride with the trooper again every twenty years--at ages 40, 60, 80 and even 100 if you still feel up to it. Starting repeat rides at 40 will accommodate the varying driving ages across the states, which seem to vary from 15½ to 21.

As pilots, we are already required to have a Flight Review every two years. But as an instrument pilot, as long as I periodically fly enough approaches and holds, I never need another check. It is always my choice to have the CFI add some instrument stuff into the (no-longer-"BFR"-but-still-every-two-years) Flight Review, but unless they are a CFII they are not allowed to write any of the instrument work into our logbook.

In my mind, there's no need to add additional checkrides, just enforce the Flight Reviews the way they are written. Do we really want more Instrument qualification rules? As we said at a former workplace, "more thinking need."

Your thinking is so shallow! Of course we need more check rides. Everyone knows that more government regulation makes life better for all of us. If we had more check rides the FAA could hire 87,000 more regulators just like the IRS. Oh my, life would be so good!

[hubcap]

It seems that most accidents are caused by poor decisions rather than stick and rudder skills. I don’t see additional check rides correcting poor decisions.

[jetdriven]

so do you think there's no solution for this or is there some kind of additional training that will?

[Becca]

21 hours ago, jetdriven said:

We got a little bit of an insurance break for the MAPA PPP clinic, but it did not cover the $800 cost of the clinic. Now I'm not trying to discourage going, I think it's a really great idea it's just that insurance companies don't value it at the amount it costs

Jetdriven’s wife here. I pay the insurance bills.  There was no discount applied for the MAPA Safety Clinic. (Or AOPA members, EAA membership, MAPA membership, etc) in our history of owning the plane despite regularly asking two agents (Falcon in Texas and AIR in DC).  

still I agree, getting Mooney specific training however you do it is important regardless of affect on insurance rates.

[RoundTwo]

4 hours ago, hubcap said:

It seems that most accidents are caused by poor decisions rather than stick and rudder skills. I don’t see additional check rides correcting poor decisions.

While I haven’t participated in the program, this sounds like the exact reason FAA Wings was created, to work out the mind muscle and improve decision making skills.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, Hank said:

The 0.010 is a cool little engine. I have an F4U that I need to finish building for an 0.020 with a throttle. Wish I could fit one on the little engine, it'd be too much fun!

Didn’t they have the exhaust throttle for the .020?

I know there was one for the .049/.051

[hubcap]

5 hours ago, jetdriven said:

so do you think there's no solution for this or is there some kind of additional training that will?

I believe the solution is training based, not check ride based. 

I almost think everyone should watch those crash scene videos like I was forced to watch car crash videos before I got my drivers license. I can imagine the narrator saying "This family of 4 was killed when their father/husband decided to try to pick his way through convective activity at night to get home...you can see the wings were ripped off and the smoking hole that resulted on impact."

One of my buddies told me about a safety seminar or review at a FSDO and the comment was made that there had not been a general aviation accident in their region in years where the pilot had attended training in the last 12 months.