Would returning to a Baron for short hops/fair weather and using the Citation for more flights make (financial) sense compared with your current pattern ?

Everytime Jason C or any of the other SP advocates says it's a hassle to have a 2 crew ship, everyone just jumps in and says it's never a problem, a non issue, makes life easier, cheap etc. Well, it seems it is an issue. Like grounding-your-plane-for-weeks-issue.

Everytime Jason C or any of the other SP advocates says it's a hassle to have a 2 crew ship, everyone just jumps in and says it's never a problem, a non issue, makes life easier, cheap etc. Well, it seems it is an issue. Like grounding-your-plane-for-weeks-issue.

People ask me "what does the FAA require" re SIC stuff. Do they have to be type rated? My response is always the same...you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is what does your insurance company require? With $25m smooth I am not surprised that they want a TR guy next to a pilot who just transitioned to jets.

I feel like the Citation is easier and safer to fly than a piston twin. Others have said that as well. Biggest issue is speed at which things happen. (And associated ramifications). Examples....suppose you are navigating around storms. When you head for that hole in busy airspace you can bet that there will be many other jets headed at the same hole. Assume it is bumpy, maybe night and bang your altitude hold lets go (for whatever reason). Suppose it does so as you are studying the nexrads on the iPad. It will take mere seconds for you to be in conflict with other traffic with an 800- 1000 knot closure rate and the other traffic is full of people most likely. Helps to have lots of experience or another person watching for that. If I am insuring a low time jet guy I want another set of eyes.

In fact, I am of the mindset that time in jets might be less important than time behind a particular panel. Easiest jet I ever flew was an Ce501SP with a similar panel to my 310. G500. G750 GDL88 etc. I had 7 hours in jets but 1000 behind that panel. Mentor pilot thought I was a prodigy! Ha. ( Truth is I was the prodigal son (but I digress)). speed and panel makes jets complicated. If you know that panel cold and it is designed with the elegance of the Garmin it is so much simpler. I actually think panel time is probably more of a predictor of risk in jets than jet time.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/9FHtPp3sTNs[/youtube]

Yep, insurer is determining SIC for me. As I said, several folks have moved on and I keep having to find someone else. They have asked the retired AA guy to fill out a questionaire which is generally a good sign. Like I said, only flying about 50 hours a year on this.
I agree with Mark, easy to fly if nothing goes wrong. I'm flying behind Garmins and know them pretty cold. It really isn't that much different than my King Air once I'm enroute. A little to get used to controls being in different places and numbers. It really is a fly by numbers plane and that's how I fly the King Air too. Just having to get the co-pilot when you need him/her, fly them home, have them come back or put them in a hotel is more complication to what may already be a complicated agenda. Sometimes, it's great to have them along: busy airspace, bad weather, etc. But it really complicates things at times. Just went to SC and back in the King Air. Would have been faster in the jet. Know that route cold and weather wasn't any challenge. Still, I'm not flying it enough to really be on top of my game and I know it.

So your cost for the Citation is air time x $1K/hour, plus fuel, plus (I presume) any fees you incur (parking, handling, landing, etc).

How do you logistically handle fuel? I would assume the plane doesn't end up with the same fuel load at the end of every trip, so do the various leasers get a fuel adjustment based on what is in the tanks? Or did you set a minimum fuel level the plane must be filled to after each flight?

Are your lease payments subject to sales/use taxes?

I'm considering setting up a situation where I form a company to be the lessor. I would rent the plane personally (where I am the PIC), and to my business (where I may be the PIC, or I may hire pilots if I am not going), and to others (who can be PIC or hire their own pilots, I can't be PIC for them).

I basically do the same thing with my MU2 in that I can fly it personally (I am PIC), fly it for my business (I am PIC), and where a third party can rent it on occasion (they are PIC, but explicitly named on my insurance).

The potential availability of qualified Citation pilots makes the airplane potentially more useful to others which could help increase the utilization. There are, of course, a lot of complexities around sales taxes, insurance, and pilot qualifications.

Mike C.

So your cost for the Citation is air time x $1K/hour, plus fuel, plus (I presume) any fees you incur (parking, handling, landing, etc).

How do you logistically handle fuel? I would assume the plane doesn't end up with the same fuel load at the end of every trip, so do the various leasers get a fuel adjustment based on what is in the tanks? Or did you set a minimum fuel level the plane must be filled to after each flight?

Are your lease payments subject to sales/use taxes?

I'm considering setting up a situation where I form a company to be the lessor. I would rent the plane personally (where I am the PIC), and to my business (where I may be the PIC, or I may hire pilots if I am not going), and to others (who can be PIC or hire their own pilots, I can't be PIC for them).

I basically do the same thing with my MU2 in that I can fly it personally (I am PIC), fly it for my business (I am PIC), and where a third party can rent it on occasion (they are PIC, but explicitly named on my insurance).

The potential availability of qualified Citation pilots makes the airplane potentially more useful to others which could help increase the utilization. There are, of course, a lot of complexities around sales taxes, insurance, and pilot qualifications.

Mike C.

NBAA had a sample dry lease. We submitted to FSDO for approval along with RVSM and MEL. They said two week approval. Took about six weeks. I return the plane with 1,000 pounds or whatever it was when I got it. Owner tries to leave around 1,000. We don't sweat small differences.

You have the FAA and the IRS who have different views and interests in how you manage your plane. Structuring the way you describe may satisfy the IRS for separating personal use from corporate use and handling depreciation and other tax matters. However it can run afoul of FAA PT 91 vs. 135 and the FAA's requirement for them to know who has operational control.

A company providing aircraft and crew for a fee gets up to the line or across the line and becomes a 135 operation. You have to get advice from an aviation attorney on how to structure it to stay Part 91.

"Renting" it to others will need to be done through a dry lease like Dave and Mark do. Especially if the aircraft is over 12,500 MGW where 91.23 applies. You can read http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-37B.pdf to understand the FAA's concerns and requirements with dry leases. Also https://blog.globalair.com/post/Answers-To-Aircraft-Dry-Lease-Questions.aspx

And who will insure the aircraft when it is being flown by "others"? Your insurance will not allow that type of rental. Even for your own corporate operation your insurance will likely want named approval of every PIC and maybe SIC flying the aircraft.

This is a highly complex area to satisfy both the FAA and IRS with an aircraft ownership, operation, and tax structure. Experienced professional advice is needed.

As long as I only provide the aircraft, then it isn't a 135 operation. My use cases carefully recognize that issue.

For the IRS, it is a matter of accounting the expenses and revenue.


The aircraft would be insured by insurance bought by the lessor.

This is the way it currently works on my aircraft. The insurance company had no issue with it and it resulted in no premium increase. The leasee is a named pilot on the policy.


That may be the case. Even if the crew met the OPW, I'd seek to have each pilot named explicitly on the policy.

Mike C.

P91 leasing in turbine aircraft is very common as most of you know - I seem to answer questions related to this several times a week from owners and prospective owners. Where the insurance policy comes into play is that the insurer of the aircraft has to recognize that the lessor is leasing time to other entities/parties and generally requires to approve said leases (oftentimes they will require a copy of the lease agreement). Being a named pilot on an insurance policy carries with it no insurance impact other than validating that coverages are in place for the named insured should a loss occur when said named pilot is at the controls. If a named pilot is leasing the aircraft from a lessor - then ideally that named pilot should also be listed additionally insured and the insurer of said aircraft would need to recognize and approve the lease between the named pilot and the lessor of the aircraft. if a named pilot is leasing time in an aircraft and suffers a loss - there is no insurance coverages afforded to that named pilot unless he/she is also additionally insured on the policy.

Any leasing of the aircraft outside of those boundaries and the insurance contract could potentially be compromised when you need it most - after a loss has occurred. It is a good idea that ANY lease activity is disclosed to your insurer - even if it is 'internally' leased to your company (for instance if you own the aircraft in an LLC but lease it back to your company under P91). All lessors and lessees should be protected on the primary insurance policy as named or additional insured - that way there is full disclosure to your insurer and no questions which could be raised at the wrong time.

That was part of the complexity of my lease and why it's better to work with someone for a longer period. I'm a named insured and the open pilot coverage for copilot is tough to include annual recurrent training, but we can submit qualifications and get someone specifically approved.

Are you planning to be PIC on business trips which involve others flying with you or when bringing anything along that's not personal property (e.g. company property)? If so, I'd love to understand how this can be done as part 91.

Are you planning to be PIC on business trips which involve others flying with you or when bringing anything along that's not personal property (e.g. company property)? If so, I'd love to understand how this can be done as part 91.