28 Mar 2024, 08:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 10 Oct 2021, 08:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/18/11 Posts: 1026 Post Likes: +584
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
|
|
Thomas, It sounds like they are basing their numbers on the existing traffic which will go away very quickly when the word gets out.
They are shooting them selves in the foot as a good GA airport is a selling point for many companies when they decide where to go.
perhaps compare LAR to CYS to get some arguing points. it is 40 miles away I think.
interesting our local city is making a lot of money off our airport as it is such a good place to locate that people are moving there in order to build hangars and the city gets the revenue off the property taxes. Also state license fees for the aircraft are very low in Wisconsin compared to Minnesota.
not a fun problem for you to deal with.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 10 Oct 2021, 20:46 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/17/14 Posts: 4891 Post Likes: +1860 Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
|
|
Those people leaving CA for TX because of the low taxes will soon drive TX to start charging taxes and destroy the business potential of TX like they did CA. I remember when CA was much more business friendly. Not many people, however, are going to be sympathetic to a bunch of rich folk.
That having been said - if you don’t like the politics of the town council, run for office.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 11:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 329 Post Likes: +269 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
Just an update on our situation. First off, with our airport and landing fees, thus far they have not been charging based aircraft. They are still trying to make up their mind if it would be legal/appropriate/enforceable etc. I often return home on workdays after the FBO closes for the evening, so I suppose the landing fees would be billed based on Flight Aware data. Maybe filing to the VOR next to the airport rather than the airport itself (when in VMC conditions) would help?
On the King Airs, for the time being, the group has decided to stay with our 4 C90A's but we have a demo presentation and flight from Cessna scheduled in the Spring. A decision was made to stay away from the Premier Jet due to our short, snow and ice contaminated runways and its lack of reverse thrust. Older Citations were considered but there was a concern about even higher maintenance costs than the King Airs. The plane Cessna is bringing is their M2. Personally, I can't make a strong argument that the cost of acquisition of any new aircraft really makes sense in our situation (much less two, which was the thought). But I guess it can't hurt to look at the plane, and as always, our corporate accountants may know something about depreciation etc. that I'm not considering when looking at raw numbers.
On King Air maintenance, we have two planes approaching TBO on the engines, one with -21's and the other with -135's. Based in part on things I've read here on Beechtalk regarding flying beyond TBO, I had recommended that we consider just doing hot sections since the engines were still making excellent power and trend monitoring showed no changes. Possibly pairing that with SOAP testing like I do with my Mits, effectively putting ourselves on a MORE program without really "doing" the program since we are just Part 91. When we queried our insurance company (Old Republic) about their thoughts on the matter, they were very circumspect (answers were not a clear "yes" or "no" on whether they would have issues covering a loss if it were found to be due in some way to an engine that was beyond TBO but still "legal" with HS inspections etc). To my surprise, when we pushed them on the issue and asked for a clear written response, they ultimately told us that while they would always cover damage to the plane or injury/death due to engine failure with planes running engines under TBO, they would NOT cover the same loss if the engines were over TBO but still current on HS and other inspections. I didn't think that was a legal thing to do, but I guess our decisions will be driven to some extent by insurance, just like many pilot's purchasing decisions are, as of late, often driven by insurance. Just one data point, with one underwriter, but there it is.
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 11:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13 Posts: 6055 Post Likes: +4628
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . To my surprise, when we pushed them on the issue and asked for a clear written response, they ultimately told us that while they would always cover damage to the plane or injury/death due to engine failure with planes running engines under TBO, they would NOT cover the same loss if the engines were over TBO but still current on HS and other inspections. I didn't think that was a legal thing to do, but I guess our decisions will be driven to some extent by insurance, just like many pilot's purchasing decisions are, as of late, often driven by insurance. Just one data point, with one underwriter, but there it is. This is how all insurance companies will respond, flying past TBO gives them an “out” to paying a claim, they’re in the business of not paying claims
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 11:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/29/09 Posts: 4181 Post Likes: +2974 Company: Craft Air Services, LLC Location: Hertford, NC
Aircraft: D50A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: . To my surprise, when we pushed them on the issue and asked for a clear written response, they ultimately told us that while they would always cover damage to the plane or injury/death due to engine failure with planes running engines under TBO, they would NOT cover the same loss if the engines were over TBO but still current on HS and other inspections. I didn't think that was a legal thing to do, but I guess our decisions will be driven to some extent by insurance, just like many pilot's purchasing decisions are, as of late, often driven by insurance. Just one data point, with one underwriter, but there it is. This is how all insurance companies will respond, flying past TBO gives them an “out” to paying a claim, they’re in the business of not paying claims
If that were true then the More program would not exist. Most policies expect the plane to be maintained to FAA defined standards which don't necessarily require overhauls.
_________________ Who is John Galt?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 11:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13 Posts: 6055 Post Likes: +4628
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Brian Are you sure engines past TBO are a cause to not pay a claim? I don’t believe you’ll find that is correct. Chuck, write your underwriter and ask for a response in writing on this, let’s compare notes
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 12:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2512 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Brian Are you sure engines past TBO are a cause to not pay a claim? I don’t believe you’ll find that is correct. It depends on how the policy is written. The policy is essentially a contract.
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 14:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/28/13 Posts: 6037 Post Likes: +3998 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: C195, D17S, M20TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Brian Are you sure engines past TBO are a cause to not pay a claim? I don’t believe you’ll find that is correct. Chuck, write your underwriter and ask for a response in writing on this, let’s compare notes
Brian we are both right depending on the policy and perhaps the issue/incident that occurs. I’ll go with I’m wrong. Was recommended that we check with the underwriter for their take on past TBO operation.
_________________ Chuck KEVV
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 14:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 329 Post Likes: +269 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
This was the written response to our query regarding the coverage available in the event of an engine failure leading to a loss when the engines were properly inspected, "signed off" by maintenance providers, up to date on hot section, but over TBO:
As per the attached P91 Maintenance & Inspections document: Inspections and Overalls have different elements to their respective programs. An inspection program will only capture a list of schedule inspections whereas a maintenance program will encompass many elements, to include inspections, overhaul requirements, repair schemes, corrosion prevention and control programs and the scheduled replacement of parts. Inspections focus on finding hidden problems that may impact Airworthiness. In its definition it states typically items are not replaced unless they are actually defective. The Overhaul’s primary purpose is to restore an article to a known good condition that will give a reasonable assurance of operations for a specified amount of time, referred to as the “time between overhauls (TBO). As the attached Maintenance documents states – “a mechanic may be prompted to replace a part after inspecting it, even though it is not broken and is still performing its intended function. But, the wear might be such that the manufacturer has confidence the part would not make it to the next overhaul period. These tolerances are typically identified by the manufacturer as the “overhaul limits.” Example – You are in-flight and have a birdstrike and the engine is past TBO. The birdstrike is the cause of the loss, not the engine being past TBO, so coverage should be in place. However, if the engine quits and it is determined that it is due to being past TBO, then you are looking at a different situation and it could potentially give rise to no coverage. We see too many of these situations where there is no coverage.
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 16:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It depends on how the policy is written. The policy is essentially a contract. Correct, the policy *IS* a contract and will be the basis for any legal interpretation of what is or is not covered. My policy says, under "Exclusions": if the Aircraft has not been subjected to appropriate airworthiness inspection(s) as required under current applicable Federal Air Regulations for the operation involved.Translation: if you are FAA legal, have done the inspections the FAA requires, you are covered. The word "overhaul" or "TBO" does not appear anywhere in my policy. Flying past TBO is legal for part 91 operators per the FAA because an overhaul is not an inspection. Inspections check for airworthiness, overhauls add new life. So if your policy has similar language to mine, that will not cancel your insurance. If the underwriter tries to deny a claim on the overhaul basis alone, they would lose in court, and they know that. There is a lot of FUD spread on this issue. Lots of planes are flying around with engine past TBO. For example, TBO on piston engines is often both hours that we all know, and calendar years, commonly 12 years, that we often ignore. Overhauls intervals also apply to lots of things other than the engines, and it is common to go past those on condition as well. If coverage would be denied based on ANY item being beyond overhaul time, there would be a lot of denied claims! Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 16:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: However, if the engine quits and it is determined that it is due to being past TBO, then you are looking at a different situation and it could potentially give rise to no coverage. No engine fails for being "past TBO". Engines fail for internal faults that can develop on engines at any time. I suggest that engines often fail for mistakes made during overhauls. Like, say, putting in a new part that is later determined to have been made badly. That type of AD has been extremely common for piston engines, for example cylinders and cranks. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 17:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/21 Posts: 2512 Post Likes: +1240
|
|
Username Protected wrote: No engine fails for being "past TBO".
Engines fail for internal faults that can develop on engines at any time. Mike C. Fair enough, but if the policy has "no payout if beyond TBO" language, the insurance company is going to argue that more likely than not the part in question would not have failed if it had been replaced during OH. That might work in court. In any event, the bigger problem I see here is insurance companies refusing to insure planes at all if the engine(s) is past TBO.
_________________ Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 18:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/14/13 Posts: 6055 Post Likes: +4628
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If coverage would be denied based on ANY item being beyond overhaul time, there would be a lot of denied claims!
Mike C. Great, that’s your understanding of it. Write your underwriter and ask for them to clarify coverage if you fly past TBO and have a claim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs Posted: 11 Dec 2021, 19:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23612 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Fair enough, but if the policy has "no payout if beyond TBO" language Do you have an example of such language? Quote: the insurance company is going to argue that more likely than not the part in question would not have failed if it had been replaced during OH. The vast majority of parts are NOT replaced during overhaul. It isn't a new engine after an overhaul. Quote: In any event, the bigger problem I see here is insurance companies refusing to insure planes at all if the engine(s) is past TBO. Do you have a specific example where this is the case? Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|