Weapon of choice

[JCJ]

G'day folks, like many I am looking for advice from people who have been there done that.

I have a very strong business case to fly consultants regionally instead of them driving for many hours to reach their destinations throughout NSW, then returning to base. I have recently proven savings on a number of flown trips to date. So I am now looking to put a comprehensive proposal forward to some eager clients.

Following, are my requirements

Range up to 500nm (typically 2-300nm)
Operating from Bankstown
IFR
Stable A/C for consultants to work in - Wx permitting
Room to work in cabin for Pax (I like the club seating)
No more than 2 pax, generally 1
Occasional station strips
Private operation – my company, I will fly
Conservatively expecting 400+ hrs per year
Newly minted MECIR pilot


Questions to help choose A/C

I am taking mainly middle aged women consultants, so I don’t think an Arrow or even a 210 will sit too well.
The consultants being carried charge out @$160/hr+ so speed is a consideration.
Will I need to fly in the FL’s to minimize cancelled trips and avoid icing in winter?
Given an estimated 30% of night ops, esp in winter, is a twin a consideration?
Which A/C offer a good speed vs operating cost ratio


All the insurances, ownership vs Rental etc will be considered down the track. I guess what I am looking for is opinions (constructive that is) from people who have been involved in similar type ops to get me on the right track to start with. May I ask that if you offer some info, you also provide a reason so I can understand why.

Cheers all, looking forward to some feedback.

[Josh Cox]

A Malibu, will give you speed and FL's on a piston budget.

[chimbu warrior]

A 58 Baron will give you more peace-of-mind at night.

[The Green Goblin]

Speak to Dunza, you may be able to get a Caravan (this would be ideal for what you describe)


:p


A Van would be the weapon of choice however!

[JCJ]

Should have specified a budget..... I am thinking <$500/hr either operating or rental

[SM227]

Maybe a duchee or seminole? dont think you will get much more for $500 an hour :bored:

[Torres]

Range up to 500nm (typically 2-300nm)
Operating from Bankstown
IFR
Stable A/C for consultants to work in - Wx permitting
Room to work in cabin for Pax (I like the club seating)
No more than 2 pax, generally 1
Occasional station strips
I am taking mainly middle aged women consultants, so I don’t think an Arrow or even a 210 will sit too well.
The consultants being carried charge out @$160/hr+ so speed is a consideration.
Will I need to fly in the FL’s to minimize cancelled trips and avoid icing in winter?
Given an estimated 30% of night ops, esp in winter, is a twin a consideration?
Which A/C offer a good speed vs operating cost ratio


I am thinking <$500/hr either operating or rental.

All the above … and less than $500 per hour? :confused:

And that is a Private operation? I would have thought at minimum it was Aerial Work but more likely Air Charter?

[Howard Hughes]

At that rate and with club seating you are probably only looking at 2 options, Bonanza, or Saratoga/Lance. Josh has a great suggestion but not sure your budget will even stretch that far!

I have a couple of questions:

Are the consultants willing to fly in a single? Many are not.

How many hours are you looking at doing per year?

If it were me, I'd be looking at a Beech Duke (mainly because I like them), if money was no object then it would be a turbine Duke!:ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

At that budget you can write off half your shopping list.

[prospector]

•"The consultants being carried charge out @$160/hr+ so speed is a consideration."

Consultants fees in this Forum are likely much higher, better make a decision soon!!!

[18-Wheeler]

747-200's are getting cheap ....

[JCJ]

I guess I want to make it attractive for them to go. I can't walk into the office and dictate "get in that light A/C you're off to Coonamble". They have to agree to it. I think the club seating gives a sense of more space. It has to be economic also, and over the $500/hr things start to go south compared with driving.

OK, I think a Malibu, is out of the budget, a Duke is possible depending on operating costs. Any real world figures on running something like a A36 or Lance?

Oh, and yes they are professional consultants, but they are not in "that" profession!

FL is not essential, just not sure how much of an advantage it would be.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Will I need to fly in the FL’s to minimize cancelled trips and avoid icing in winter?
Given an estimated 30% of night ops, esp in winter, is a twin a consideration?


You won't do it, with any reasonable safety margin, for under $500/hr.

Think Baron or C310/340 - think $600/hr min.

Dr :8

[MyNameIsIs]

If you are considering a Lance/Saratoga, you may as well consider a C210.

Travelair.
IFR twin, 150kts and good range when filled up (likely with 1-2 pax!) Cheap to run.

Partenavia (probably similar to above).


If you want the FLs, your probably going to want de-icing and obviously at least crew oxy which = more $$$$

[Jamair]

Mate, don't like to burst your bubble, but at $500/hr you are not in the twin market. I have been there and done almost the exact same thing, and did very well at it, in a C182 & A36. Occasionally I would hire a PA31 or a Baron; eventually the pax started asking for the twins and the company agreed to pay the extra hourly rates.

$500/hr and 400 hr/yr should get you into a decent Bonanza or Lance which will give you the seating / space you want, and there is nothing wrong with their manners or performance for the price.

Duke? Labour intensive; unique TSIO-541 engines; avgas.....you will nearly get a Kingair for the (real) hourly cost of a Duke:eek:

Don't try to kid yourself with costs - aeroplanes - ANY aeroplanes - are BLOODY expensive.

Consultants at $160/hr? That is pretty cheap consultancy rates, in any field.:hmm:

PM me if you want more.

[slackie]

Left field.....Extra 300...get in, belt up, hang on, and shut up!! They may not get much work done, but it'll be a hell of a ride!!!:ok::}

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

estimated 30% of night ops

Much as I love Bonanzas, I would NEVER ask/expect my employees/colleagues/friends to do that in a piston single!

If I choose to do it myself - that is a different matter, but I would choose not to do 30% night in a piston single.

Operating a lightie, especially a single IFR, is all about managing risk.

Dr :8

[morno]

I think your budget is unrealistic.

Considerations:
1. You want to make a profit. Without that, how are you going to pay yourself?
2. You need to maintain the machine to a top standard. Don't do what everyone else does and charge out the machine at the bottom line and then wonder why after 10 years the machine is constantly in the hangar broken, the paint is falling off it, the interior is shot, and you're wondering why you ever bothered.
3. Presentation is everything. Don't get the cheapest, crappiest machine, because it falls under your "$500/hr bracket". Without good presentation, your clients won't be coming back.
4. Unless you work for the company in mind (ie. who all these 'clients' work for), then you will have to get an AOC, meaning you will have to classify these as Charters, also meaning if you want night and IFR, you will require a twin, or a turbine single along with the multitude of paperwork involved with ASETPA.

With those in mind, I'd say you're better off changing it to a minimum of $1,000/hr. Even something like a Baron (which I don't have the exact figures for), I personally wouldn't charge anything less than about $1,000/hr.

I'm sure there are people who will say I'm nuts and I'm dreaming, but I wouldn't be in it to make sure someone get's a cheap deal on their charter. I'd be in it, to provide the best value for money on someone's charter, and to ensure I'm not going to be going broke down the track, because I didn't plan on maintaining the machine beyond what even the best laid plans expect.

Aircraft will always cost you ****loads more than planned. Why not factor in some more cost so that you're not going into administration 2 years down the track.

morno

[The Green Goblin]

Club seating is nice, but in a Baron/Bonanza the aft facing and forward facing punters are always banging their knees.

It works well if you only have 2 in the back on opposite sides else the middle row punters are pushing there seats as far back as it will go. This bumps into your seat and as you are flying you are always being nudged forward by the punter behind you.

While I much love the beech, i'd have to say even if the punters have to squeeze up the back into a 210, it's a little more comfy for them once they are in and there is much more baggage space than the beech.

A Partenavia is a good suggestion and comparable in operating costs to a 210 however good ones are hard to find and the companies with them tend to keep them as they are a bit of a money spinner.

[Stationair8]

My choice would be in the multie-engine field a low time Piper PA-31/310( a few still around that have been privaely owned) or Kingair C-90, if is was to be a single probably a TBM-700.

Beech Duke is an awesome aeroplane but you will make local LAME a wealthy man, Cessna C340 are a good but not the greatest performer in hot weather.

[The Green Goblin]

The Navajo is even worse buddy :P

[Jabawocky]

Turbine Duke :ok:

There is a piston Duke at YCAB, might be a good buy, not used enough if at all!


Forkie,
Much as I love Bonanzas, I would NEVER ask/expect my employees/colleagues/friends to do that in a piston single!...............yeah but its alright for Jaba and Chuckles! :uhoh:

We did make it of course!

On a serious note, if they are your staff and they get familiar with the concept, how about a twin Commanche or something similar. Otherwise a Bonanza or SR22 but if its new its going to be more.

J:E

[pilot2684]

what about a DA Twinstar ?

Twin piston, runs on JetA1(supposedly), IFR, And with some mods, All weather :)

Plus they look quite cool :)

[JCJ]

Some good advice and info, thank you.

Looking at how I need to make this work, and be profitable, night ops will have to be out, and if the Wx is bad, reschedule, either that or hire a good twin for that run as Jamair suggested. I guess I put down my wish list, now I need to carefully consider my need list.

I own the company, and the consultants are my employees. I am already being paid, so my "pilot wages" are not really a consideration.

The budget is good enough for a reasonable A36, or C210 with spare funds for the unforeseeable and rebuilds etc. I will have to have a look at these planes closely in terms Pax comfort. The club seating was my way of reducing costs further (note taken on 2nd row bumping). If I give them a friendly enough working environment, then they can be productive and essentially double bill for their time in the air.

Make no mistakes, I am not in business to loose money. I am also not looking at this to make buckets of cash either. If it can turn some profit, provide my clients with better service and help me build my hours, great. For me, its all about making opportunities for myself.

Thanks again, keep it coming!:ok:

[Stationair8]

Late model Seneca is another consideration.

[On eyre]

Seneca II with club seating would do the job - twin night safety - good range especially if you can get one with nacelle tanks (6 hour range plus reserves) - good short field capability - low maintenance costs - four people can work in the back on the way and easy access.

[43Inches]

Seneca II is a good cheap twin if you don't need to carry any more than 2 or 3 POB. Usually cheap to aquire and operate compared to some of the more popular light twins, some are actually quite well kitted out as they have been toys for wealthy PPLs. Research the engine options on these as the original fitted engines have a low TBO compared to later models and any turbo issues are generally operator related. Also watch the basic weight as there is quite a variation and some are next to useless with full fuel because of this.

Seneca III, IV and V tend to have costs close to that of a navajo for various reasons, the V being the worst.

[The Green Goblin]

what about a DA Twinstar ?

Twin piston, runs on JetA1(supposedly), IFR, And with some mods, All weather

Plus they look quite cool

Due to theilert going broke and the unreliability of the diesel engines most are being retrofitted with IO-360s.

Diamond aircraft look like toys and are as ugly as a town whore in a mining town with a missing leg.

[Jabawocky]

I am sure the photographer will not mind me posting this here. The Kelly gang get some use out of this in a similar way, but I bet its more than $500/hr to operate.

Nice rig though!
Photos: Piper PA-31-350 Chieftain Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Piper-PA-31-350-Chieftain/1135518/)

[The Chaser]

Have you considered a C303?

From reading the above bits and pieces, the 303 might be the fit.

Availability in Australia might be limited, there are a few for sale O/S. many are De-ice equipped. They must be OK as folks seem to hang on to them

CESSNA T303, Used CESSNA T303, CESSNA T303 For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=9&Manu=CESSNA&Mdltxt=T303&mdlx=exact&setype=1)

or

Cessna 303, Used Cessna 303, Cessna 303 For Sale Multi-Engine Airplanes at Trade-A-Plane.com (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/classified/search?atcode=B&collection=&searchtype=atcode&code=B&sid=6155bb29cc5458f95d96a1b5d18ecc28&webclass=11850&year_from=&year_to=&min_price=&max_price=&min_totime=&max_totime=&min_engtime=&max_engtime=&min_eng2time=&max_eng2time=&state=ALL&country=ALL&keyword1=&kwflag=AND&keyword2=&timelimit=0&tlvalue=2&browse=detail&maxads=100)

With the Oz at .92 to the Greenback, it is worth considering.

There are some good threads on PPRuNe regarding the import pros and cons.

Good luck with your venture :ok:

[eocvictim]

A mate of mine's boss had similar needs to you (in fact identical) but has shifted roles and is upgrading to a CJ. As such he will need to sell his Piper Meridian (To save the confusion thats the PT6 one :}).

I'm imagining around the $1.0-1.5mil mark less than 2000hours. Not sure on TBO.

Useless details very well looked after, very clean, polished every second week. Something breaks and its fixed ASAP. Not flown by PPL.

Advantages
265kts TAS
short strips
relatively easy to fly,
plenty of room for 3-4 pax
uses less than 300lbs/hr
Comfortable at FL250-280
EADI EHSI EFIS (not "glass")
New avionics
cheapish on maint
De-ice for mod ice

Disadvantages
low VA
Single engine... (realistically not an issue at all on the east coast as always within glide range of a lit strip)
very light and doesn't like heavy turb (what aircraft in your range does?)

PM me if you're interested and I'll let you know which one of the 2 in aus it is. Or PM me for full numbers and planning info so you can work the costs out yourself.

Disclaimer: this is not add but an illustration that all of the needs are met by someone doing exactly the same thing in the aforementioned aircraft.

If thats too much I would do as suggested and look at a D95 travel-air. I believe one of the 4 may be for sale to free up funds for a certain macchi. Pretty sure you could expect to pay around the $250 mark for it though (good avionics well looked after).

With 1-2 pax you will get a range (with reasonable ILS/pal based alternates, ie TYA/MB-EN/AV) of around 700nm, YOLD-YMEN.
Tas of aforementioned travel-air is about 165.
FF is about 60-65lt/hour
6 seats or enough room to fit a stationwaggon of load
rear seats are forward facing (no club seating) but can be slid right back in cruise for lots of leg room (5,11 and cant touch the front seats)
maint is relatively cheap
Very stable platform and easy to fly
it will fly on one, but only just.
Can get in and out of very tight strips (use to fly into ag strips no problems)
Can be cross hired for multi training as its endorsement covers baron and is desirable.

Hope that helps :ok:

[Torres]

The club seating was my way of reducing costs further (note taken on 2nd row bumping). If I give them a friendly enough working environment, then they can be productive and essentially double bill for their time in the air.

Make no mistakes, I am not in business to loose money. I am also not looking at this to make buckets of cash either. If it can turn some profit, provide my clients with better service and help me build my hours, great. For me, its all about making opportunities for myself.

That is not a Private Operation. Possibly Aerial Work and probably Charter. Best you factor in the cost of an AOC, Chief Pilot approval and CASA compliance. If you operate commercial flights without an AOC, you may find your insurance underwriter doesn't want to know you in the event of an accident or incident. But CASA will! :=

400 hours per year at $500/hr = $200,000. Forget any twin engine aircraft, particularly a Beech Duke or Cessna 340. You can't operate SE passenger charter a night.

ecovictim

Our dude is talking 400 hrs pa at <$500/hr = $200,000 pa.

Your PT6 turbine airplane, capital cost $1.5 mill:


Interest/debt servicing $100,000 pa.
Insurance $35,000 pa.
Fuel 400 hrs at 60 lt/hr $31,200.
PT6 overhaul, plus HSI, plus starter generator provisions, 400 hrs $52,800.

Total so far $219,000. He has already blown his budget and hasn't even started on scheduled and unscheduled airframe and avionics maintenance, maintenance parts, refurbishment reserve, airways charges, landing, airport parking et al.

Get real - you can't get a Roller at Kingswood prices! About the best our dude could ever hope for on his budget may be a mid life SE Beech Bonanza. And even then he won't make a profit.

[pilot2684]

IIRC you can run Aerial work under NVFR in a single, but Charter with pax you can't.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

night ops will have to be out, and if the Wx is bad, reschedule

In that case an A36 Bonanza will do the job for you.

Dr :8

[SM227]

If this dosn't count as a private op, then im a bit confused as to how business aircraft are profitable? Every business charges for travel expenses, and typicaly, in these examples, its cheaper for you to run the aircraft than the car, but if you cant charge for the plane travel, then your loosing money by not being able to cover the expenses, which you can do with your car and then some. So whats the point!?

[Torres]

DirectAnywhere. $100,000 on $1.5 mill = 6.67% pa, about the current commercial rate with assets and non aviation securities.

Clinton.
I’m guessing JCJ’s a bloke, because very few women are this…errrm…well…hmmmm… ‘entrepreneurial’, if you know what I mean.

I think you mean women are often a lot more realistic? :}

[Wally Mk2]

'JCJ' for a moment 4get about what type of A/C would be suitable I think most here have covered type/s (B58 best choice for buck ) You mentioned it's also about building yr hrs, may I ask what for? What's yr long term goal/plan here with this? Ok it's a business yr trying to enhance make more efficient that's good nothing wrong with adventurous ideas BUT if there is a motive there to perhaps benefit from this venture by way of flight hrs for perhaps a gig flying full time sometime down the track then it could bite you in the ass big time I reckon. Few if any have made anything out of such a scheme other than to ask themselves down the track ..."what was I thinking"?:{ If it where easily doable they (pilot/entrepreneurs) would be lining up like at Mackers!:}

Obviously each to their own & only you know what's best for you but notions of flying around building hrs this way even at a break even cost is very difficult at the best of times but I still wish you well:ok:


P.S..............$160 bucks an hr hey? Must be female Tradies/plumbers!!!:E

P.S.S........'Roxy' are you nuts??:E
Wmk2

[PyroTek]

I hear that there is an aircraft with plenty of workspace, especially with 2 pax on board. Probably cheap to run, and would have a good glide distance with 2 pax, since it would be light. A rare find though!
It is the Cessna 209!
Apparently also good short field performance, and shouldn't be more than $500/hour!:E

[Josh Cox]

Wally,

Meow !!!!!:O.

[Grogmonster]

JCJ,

You have been bitten by the bug and you are infected with pure aviation fever. Here is what you should really do so that you can live a little happier and longer. You are a busy person. You have no place as the pilot in command. Your mind will not always be on the job at hand which is flying safely. Especially when the weather is crook. Charter an aircraft that suits your needs. Try different types until you get the right mix of speed, comfort and cost. I think a Baron or Cessna 310R may suit you. Expect to pay $800 per hour for a well maintained and professionally operated Baron 58. It is not expensive when you consider that at the end of the flight you can hop out and go home. No cleaning, no refueling, no hangar charges, no insurance, no extra cost for maintenance etc.

When business goes slow you don't have to worry about the plane parked out in that expensive hangar eating it's head off with interest payments. You just sit back and relax and use the money that you save to go flying on the weekends in a relaxed and safe manner. ARE YOU GETTING MY POINT>?

Groggy

[eocvictim]

Can i ask why is everyone so scared of operating a piston single at night?

Isnt that what night ratings are for?

No, the rating is to give pilots the ability to depart before first light and arrive after last light. Which is to help them maximise their day.

[The Green Goblin]

That may be the spirit of the rating EOC however you are entitled to depart and fly across the dessert at what ever time of the night you like........

Thats why the NZ NVFR rating is not accepted under the trans tasman agreement due to the fact they do a few bog laps up and down the coast in a 150 and never see a black hole approach or night cross country time.

[VH-XXX]

This is a private operation, no AOC needed. You could even use an experimental RV10 for this operation and at night !!

This is not a loophole and plenty of aircraft are used for similar private operations. Use the traffic watch choppers for example, no AOC there and they fly at night in a single.

An SR22 is not as bad as it sounds, IFR and modern, fast etc plus is has the BRS/CAPS for your SE night ops. It would probably be the obvious choice for a single if safety is a consideration.

Can your pax wear a headset and do work in the back of the aircraft? Would you expect that? Would it be realistic in terms of passenger comfort to expect them to work productively in the back of a Seneca or PN68? (just wondering)

[rutan around]

JCJ, I've been running a similar operation to yours for 15 years. You'd go a long way to better a C210 (L, M, or N model). Find one fitted with Flint long-range tanks and a I0 550 P engine. With 4 p.o.b. and limited luggage it will give you almost 10 hours endurance @ FL 115. It allows you to go out and back without wasting time trying to find fuel or buying expensive fuel in the sticks. The bigger wing improves the climb rate and speed especially above 8K. It also improves short-fielders. The bigger engine (10 extra hp plus no restriction on full throttle time) gives you 170K+ TAS and a very good climb rate to the low FLs. The P model runs very well lean of peak, giving 45-46 litres ph @ FL115. It is not turbo charged so is relatively trouble free and economical to maintain. I fly approx 300 hrs per year and my average hourly cost is $250. I don't have an expensive glass cockpit or IFR rating. I find it cheaper and safer to motel it occassionally when the weather is crook. Your passengers will love the shade afforded by the high wing, and also the shelter while embarking in rain. If you want to know the workhorse of choice out in the country check out a few remote airports. You'll find them full of C210s.
Cheers, RA

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The bigger wing improves .......... speed especially above 8K

How does that work?

Dr :8

[j3pipercub]

Roxy, a piston, when not in unison with another one, makes all sorts of horrible sounds at night that you never hear during the day. Hell, even single engine turbine's oil pressure gauges flicker more, true story!

[blueloo]

Anyone know what a tbm 850 is worth new? And its annual running costs?

(suspect it may exceed the $500/hr......by alot :} but it does look nice n flas eh)

[eocvictim]

Roxy chick, as reliable as pistons are they still have a habit of going quiet. Even if you were to always cruise at A100 your glide range in a typical piston single is at most 18nm. The airframes are strong enough and providing you see the ground, survivable... bit hard at night.

[PyroTek]

1. PyroTek, It doesnt matter whether you have 2 pax or 50 pax, Glide distance is UNAFFECTED by WEIGHT.

2. j3, thanks for the sarcasm, can anyone sensible tell me why single engine pistons cant fly at night?Woah, woah there, no need to get antsy! My post was merely aimed at being humorous. Anyway, my mistake, duly noted, settle down!

Also, flying piston singles at night only leaves you with one option when an engine fails, that's down, and keeping in mind MOST of the time, what's below you looks awfully dark, not something you want to be below you, when it is your only option. A possible limping to an alternate in a twin - on one engine would be a FAR better option in my opinion. There is nothing saying you can't, heck, most night ratings from what I see are done on singles, but from a common sense/risk perspective, single piston engine is really something (as said above) to be used for night work - as a way of extending 'daylight'.

Anyway, shall we continue back to the topic at hand?
Also, from what I hear, J3pipercub is quite sensible.

[rutan around]

Dr 'How does the bigger wing make it faster above 8 K'
It reduces the wing angle of attack required to maintain altitude. The reduction in drag produced by the reduced a-o-a is greater than the drag increase from the increased surface area and frontal area of the bigger wing. Below 5,000ft there is a couple of knots decrease in cruise speed in the more dense air. At moderate flight levels the larger wing area is of no benefit to a turbo charged aircraft because they can still produce enough power to make the speed to keep the wing at a low drag a-o-a.
High altitude low power -use big wings.eg The U2 spy plane Rutan's White Knight Spaceship launch plane. Low altitude high power use small wings. eg Pylon racers like Rare Bear and Dago Red
Cheers RA

[VH-XXX]

Dr 'How does the bigger wing make it faster above 8 K'
It reduces the wing angle of attack required to maintain altitude.

Technically the Dr. is right.... a longer wing doesn't result in increased speed, however reducing the AOA with it will.

Jabiru did that with their J170 over their J160 model, they added 5ft more wing-span to reduce the stall speed, but to compensate for the increased drag, they decreased the AOA to get the speed back. It must be a fine balance in any aircraft as to speed, climb, AOA and stall.

[j3pipercub]

Roxy,

I assume you are pulling Pyro up in nil wind conditions? Because a heavier aircraft will glide further than a lighter aircraft in a headwind.

No worries about the sarcasm, anytime. But seriously, if it is part of a business, it may be considered duty of care to his employees. The mines only barely allow single engine turbine, even then its only a handful of them. If you are talking about single engine piston (I can only assume, seeing as the target price is 500 per hour) then there WILL be places where you will not be able to glide to a suitable airport in the event of an engine failure. That's a pretty good reason for me... But hey, what would I know, I haven't just come back into the industry with an attitude and something to prove....

j3

[The Green Goblin]

Beat me to it J3 :ok:

[rutan around]

xxx Jabiru may have changed the angle of incidence of the new wing to prevent a nose down fuselage in cruise. The wing finds it's required angle of attack when the pilot trims for straight and level. It changes every time there is a change in speed ,weight,air density and probably several other things I can't think of just now. A good understanding of the relationship between angle of attack and drag goes a long way to explain why aircraft perform so differently when there are changes in temperarature, or weight, or power. Sometimes a very small increase in power will bring the wing out of the high drag zone and back to the angle of attack for which the aircraft was designed to perform best.
Cheers, RA

[pilot2684]

rutan i think xxx was talking about the angle of incidence, rather than the angle of attack. Angle of incidence = the angle between the aircraft's centreline and the Chord line of the aerofoil.

[VH-XXX]

Sorry, angle of incidence, yes. AOA is of course fluid with what is going on elsewhere.

Back to topic sorry.

[JCJ]

Some very valid points and suggestions. My intention was never to own first. Even rental may be difficult it seems, unless I sacrifice speed and comfort.

I certainly do have a duty of care to my employees, and it is a big factor for me. We are a large family, and I won't put them at any significant risk. I will certainly make it voluntary and consider the risks carefully.

Before going too much further, I need to look deeper into private vs AW vs charter and obtain some firm advice, as I don't want to be the person to test the case. Those of you with experience who say AW or Charter have a reason. I need to clarify this for myself. Any further input would be appreciated.

Thanks again for the contributions.

[Torres]

JCJ. That can't be too hard. Your proposed operation is obviously commercial by nature. Read either CAR206(1)(a)(ix) or CAR206(1)(b)(i):

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206
Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1) For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):

(i) aerial surveying;

(ii) aerial spotting;

(iii) agricultural operations;

(iv) aerial photography;

(v) advertising;

(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);

(vii) ambulance functions;

(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);

(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:

(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);

(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;

(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:

(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or

(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).

(2) In this regulation:

"aircraft endorsement" has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.

"conversion training" means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.

Ask Clinton, he has some experience and opinions on these matters! :E

[The Green Goblin]

If they are your staff and your company is using the aeroplane in which it owns to transport them, it IMO is still a private operation.

How about all the station aeroplanes flying into town to pick up freight and staff, or companies like paspaley with the Mallards flying the pearlers to the pearl farms or CSG etc etc.

My understanding is hire or reward, so if you are making a profit operating the aeroplane then it's hire and reward. If it's costing you money then it is private.

Half the business aviation community would be classed as commercial ops if that were the case flying execs around to close business deals and make money!

[Jabawocky]

I certainly do have a duty of care to my employees, and it is a big factor for me. We are a large family, and I won't put them at any significant risk.

It could be argued that having them drive those miles in all sorts of crappy weather is actually more risky than s/e flight.

And Torres, unless I missed something previously posted, it sounds like private transport not for charter/reward, or did I miss something earlier? :confused:

J:ok:

[JCJ]

There in lies the difference. Torres is correct. In a previous post I mentioned making a small profit. I should have been clearer. If the organization profits additional coin from the overall operation, then great. My intention is not to start a business with an aircraft, but to enhance what I already have by way of customer service and quality, saving some direct employee costs (time), plus build some hours.

I relation to safety Jabawocky, it could also be argued that sending a second person to accompany a female employee into the bush might be worthwhile!

[Torres]

JCJ. I suggested in earlier posts that on the face of the detail you provided, the proposed operation had a "commercial" content, thus appeared to be Aerial Work.

As Green Goblin stated "Half the business aviation community would be classed as commercial ops" in truth, they probably should be operated as Aerial Work.

Unfortunately, many of our Civil Aviation Regulations are both ambiguous and lack definitions to facilitate interpretation. CASA has not assisted with guidance, possibly because they are just as confused.

Some years ago, CASA took successful action against a photographer in FNQ, who was photographing houses from an aircraft and selling the photos. The Courts deemed that to be Aerial Work.

The present CAR206 is predicated on and similar in wording to the pre 1988 ANR 197 to 203. In the DCA era, they required stock and station agents who owned and operated aircraft in the course of their business, to hold an Aerial Work AOC. Similarly, flying vets and flying mechanics were deemed to be Aerial Work operations.

My guess is that if you use the aircraft in such a manner that it contributes positively to your business income, it is probably an Aerial Work operation. Conversely, if the aircraft is merely a cost effective convenience factor and does not contribute to your income - as is the case with many large corporation business jets - it is probably a private operation.

But please - don't take my word for it. Obtain your own advice and make your own decision.