Mike,

We represent all types of owners, guys who are very involved like you, guys who just ride in the back and companies that have flight departments, and in house maintenance.

You are convinced that small shops are good and big shops are bad. My experience has been the exact opposite.

You’re basing all of your Citation experience on one aircraft and a limited amount of experience, yet you constantly criticize me in regards to something me and my team does every day.

If I have a client who wants to buy a Citation based on price we buy it, they understand that typically means a limited prebuy and that there will likely be some catching up to do. What you consider the holy grail of aviation we do once or twice a year.

I could take a page from your playbook, which by the way is actually a well known script from the aircraft broker community, and disparage all large shops, tell my clients that if they take the airplane there, they’ll get screwed. Instead, I tell them if you take the airplane to X it will likely cost this much and if you take it to Y it will probably be this.

I’m in a unique position because I am not selling an airplane, I’m not representing it. When Tarver sells an airplane, he may have to set expectations about where they should and shouldn’t take it, depending of course on the aircraft. I know this because I did it for years.

In a recent example, we helped a group of doctors, very hands off operators, but with a strong pilot / manager buy a King Air 350, it was a DEAL price wise, but maintenance wise it was pretty weak. The seller would not allow us to take it off the field for prebuy, and he only agreed to pay for a certain amount of squawks, based on the price it was worth the risk. I did a visual inspection of the aircraft, went through the records, and told my clients what it was and what it wasn’t. They elected to move forward, so I had Marty fly up and do a thorough records review, we contracted with a small shop on the field that actually did an excellent prebuy, had Dallas Airmotive borescope the engines, and the small shop repaired what needed to be done immediately, we closed and took the airplane to Stevens Nashville for a week to address a few things that the small shop couldn’t fix, and it’s now in service.

I’ve given them a range of options, from doing just a Phase 5 that’s due in November and working through small items, spreading the cost of the catch up maintenance over the next couple of years, using a small shop to do so, all the way up to doing a complete inspection at Stevens, spending six figures and getting everything caught up, again even doing this they’ll easily be in the airplane well below market.

You have a history of taking my counter points and trying to paint me as being a certain way with them, and that’s fine. What I really care about is giving an aircraft owner of prospective buyer a complete picture of what their options are. By challenging me at every step, you assist with that. You’ve also helped me see different perspectives.

The fact that I got accused of being biased is funny! I’m probably the least biased person in aviation! We do limited models of aircraft because there’s only so many models our team can be proficient in, but I don’t disparage an airplane we don’t do, I just explain to a potential client that we don’t have the expertise to do that model, want a Conquest, awesome, we don’t do those but here’s a guy who can help you. I barely know enough about Conquest to be dangerous.

I dislike the strong biases in aviation, I grow weary of this airplane or that airplane being the one to have because it happens to be what so-and-so owns, flies, sells, works on, etc. I have little bias because I don’t care what aircraft my client buys as long as it’s a good airplane, and it’s the best option for them. Because I am not biased, I can give them fair and balanced advice.

The reality is that all of these turbine aircraft are good airplanes, they have strengths and weaknesses, some have negative attributes that a potential buyer needs to be aware of, parts availability being the latest real problem we encounter, but they were all designed by really smart people, sold be really smart people and bought by really smart people. If it was a bad airplane, the manufacturer couldn’t have sold it, everything else is bias.

One more thing that I’d like to address, my clients determine what type of aircraft we buy, primarily by the established budget, if I have a client who’s on the lower end of the V market, we’ll help them buy a V that is high time, has high time engines, whatever makes it cheap. If they have a budget for a high pedigree airplane, we’ll buy them the best airplane we can find in that budget. If Mike Tarver has an airplane my client is interested in, we’d gladly buy it from him, I have no reason not to, I haven’t done a deal with him, but as many Citations as he sells, logic says I will.

You must have a little more risk tolerance than the 90+% of jet pilots I see (don't see) flying on these days. Even the airlines don't roll at this airport when the conditions are like that. I am usually one of the first planes in at some of these airports since I have to be at work by 8AM, and on all ice days, and many snow days the only planes taking off and landing are the working turboprops, with the airlines and the biz jet people holding off on flying until the sun comes out and ops gets urea out on everything. I did come in one morning and found a Mustang abandoned just off the taxiway about 1000 feet from the FBO. I am guessing had no ability to slow or turn while taxiing so shut down. I would not be comfortable taking that much energy into poor or nil ground conditions, but to each is own. Seems like runway over-runs even on minimally slippery runways in the biz jet world is pretty epidemic.

No TRs. Makes a difference when you can turn off that residual thrust.


Yes, it does. And many times the runway is dry and long and they still do it, which tells you it isn't the conditions as much as the pilot.

If you aren't on speed at the runway threshold, go around, don't force it. That would stop the vast majority of these cases.

I've not found it difficult to be on speed when landing, but I try to be vigilant about it on every landing. The slower I land, the longer my tires last, so there is some economic incentive to do it right, too.

I did one experiment where I hit the FAF at 250 KIAS just to see how you deal with excess speed on the approach. I had to add power to make it to the runway as gear and speedbrakes slows the plane down REALLY quickly. I lost 100+ knots in about 45 seconds.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/6zJRo73Vyps[/youtube]

There is no excuse for these jet overruns but yet they do happen.

Mike C.

But Mike, isn't it almost always the pilot that is responsible for accidents in any turbine? These planes whether turboprop or jet rarely fail to an unflyable condition. I like to think about flying as a Venn diagram of aircraft capability, pilot capability, and environmental conditions. Every one of those circles has a safe border, and a buffer border. On Monday at 8AM, in my aircraft, on a clear VFR day, there is so much overlap in those circles, that the chance of a bad outcome are probably 1 in millions. On a Friday after a long week of work, in my plane recently out of maintenance, on a dark weathery evening, those circles are now very small, the buffer zones are smaller, and in the right circumstance they might just not overlap. So I don't need as much buffer between my A-pilot day, A weather day, and A-plane day, as I do on my B (lets be honest maybe C+ pilot day), C plane day, and C weather day. A modern turboprop just helps with the buffer. I am usually +5/-0 Vref on my approaches. I typically fly to ATP standards, or I hear my ATP instructors voice in my head. But If I crossed the numbers at Vref -15, or Vref +50, I could still safely land on a 5000 ft. runway. That is a big buffer for who I want to be Chuck (Chuck Yeager) Ivester, and Chuck (What the heck is he doing now) Ivester. Maybe that doesn't make sense. But I think a lot of people are trying to get too much utility out of jets, flying in conditions and high/hot/contaminated airports placing them and their passengers at more risk than they realize. How many planes have we lost just at Aspen? Of course they area all pilot error, but pilots are pilots and they err. Jet pilots are even trained better, and still err. When they do, the jet is less forgiving. You don't see Aspen littered with turboprops. Although I am sure a determined pilot can do amazing things to bend metal.

Special case of ridiculous steep approach, downwind landings, lack of viable go around after a certain point, and customer pressure.

I'm not flying my plane to Aspen, be it jet or turboprop. Too risky. Besides, not my kind of town, anyway.

Mike C.

That is a bad habit to develop.


Majority of overruns have none of those risk factors. The pilots are complacent.

When the risk factors do appear, they pay more attention.

Mike C.

Again, I think the corporate and owner-operator worlds are different. I operate my airplane on a pay-as-I-go basis. When something needs to be fixed, inspected, etc I pay for it. I have no need or benefit to escrowing money for a future event like a corporation would do. Mike is not giving inaccurate info. He is literally giving the data of what he has spent thus far which is the most accurate data possible. He may end up w/ a $100k engine bill next month or he may not. Accounting for that as an owner-operator is pointless because by definition it is an estimate and is therefore inaccurate.

At the end of the day, it's a machine. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. Of course there's alway accidents or unforeseen things that could happen. An imperfection in a turbine blade or wing rib, an act of god like a lightning strike, etc. You do need to be ready for those but also admit that they are rare. Some of that can be mitigated with insurance (at least the acts of god part) and some of it can't.

Hi Chuck,

Isn't that the whole point of ADM? We are constantly making decisions to manage risk. Those risks and the corresponding decisions will change based on equipment, weather, pilot skills, etc.

Also, what we consider as a buffer can vary between people. I like having an extra engine, a surplus of thrust, and high(er) altitude capability. Also, there is a massive range of performance and flying behaviors in jets. My 501SP is incredibly easy to fly. Every year during recurrent we do full break stalls in all configurations and in a turn. It stalls as benignly as my SR22. Not all jets do that. Further, my systems are incredibly simple. I have no TRs, I have mechanical brakes, electric flaps, no prop governor, etc. Some jets have very complex systems that can fail.

As for Aspen, I agree with Mike. I'm not flying there. It's dangerous and in IMO a huge waste of money. For skiing I prefer places like Angel Fire, NM. Nice long runway in a wide valley with relatively benign terrain. Plus the people are super nice. The resort will send a shuttle right up to the plane to collect you and your luggage. The airport staff will plow the entire 9,000' runway just for us to depart at the end of a day of skiing. I do plan to go to Utah when the kids are older but that has several nice flat airports just to the west of the mountains. I've also flown into Salida, CO this past Spring to ski at Monarch but that's another airport with a decently long runway in a wide valley.

At the end of the day, we should all be happy with our choices and passionate about our pursuits. I think in this thread we have definitely checked the passionate box!

Again, I think the corporate and owner-operator worlds are different. I operate my airplane on a pay-as-I-go basis. When something needs to be fixed, inspected, etc I pay for it. I have no need or benefit to escrowing money for a future event like a corporation would do. Mike is not giving inaccurate info. He is literally giving the data of what he has spent thus far which is the most accurate data possible. He may end up w/ a $100k engine bill next month or he may not. Accounting for that as an owner-operator is pointless because by definition it is an estimate and is therefore inaccurate.

At the end of the day, it's a machine. If you take care of it, it will take care of you. Of course there's alway accidents or unforeseen things that could happen. An imperfection in a turbine blade or wing rib, an act of god like a lightning strike, etc. You do need to be ready for those but also admit that they are rare. Some of that can be mitigated with insurance (at least the acts of god part) and some of it can't.

The only comparison that makes any sense is capability on the Y axis and total cost on the X axis.

It is irrelevant when the airplane was manufactured.

It is highly relevant what the cost of capital is.

Comparisons should be drawn between aircraft available today with a given capability, regardless of their date of manufacture, incorporating all relevant costs (not omitting hangar, insurance, and capital cost). Anything less is clear as mud.

-J

That's not at all true. The age of the airplane effects everything from the availability of financing to the cost of insurance.

But... Chip the expert said you cant operate a Citation for less than a Meridian. So it must be true.

Maybe Chip is ignoring capital cost when he makes this statement, maybe because he has not paid a aircraft loan payment.

I do agree that it cost more per hour in variable cost to fly a Citation than a Meridian. But all in over many years including capital cost and depreciation it's possible to fly a Citation for less than a Meridian. Lots of guys have proven that.

My point is even if the citation cost more it's worth it. If you can afford a Meridian you can afford a legacy citation. I can not afford to own a M600. But I am sure Chuck can afford to own and fly my citation.

Mike

That's not at all true. The age of the airplane effects everything from the availability of financing to the cost of insurance.

Ah yes, two of the many "relevant costs" that I happened to delineate.

In my perfect world, these discussions go like this:

DIRECT FIXED COSTS = X/yr
CAPITAL COST = Y/yr
VARIABLE COST = Z/hr
DESCRIBE CAPABILITY and OWNERSHIP EXPERIENCE [LOREM IPSUM]

And that, simply, is that.
This format enables the average pilot to draw their own conclusions on hourly cost by modeling their mission profiles.

I do not care, nor do 99% of the owner/pilots, whether a plane was built in 1996 or 2006. I care how much it costs to run, how much it costs to sit there, what fields it can get me into, what weather it can get me through, how fast it goes, how long it goes, and what it's like to live with mx-wise. Period, end of story.

There are plenty of new planes that are a nightmare to own, there are plenty of old planes that are a relative pleasure to live with. Only data on capability and real ownership experience over time tells this story meaningfully.

-J

Chip needs to maintain the impression that expensive maintenance is the only good maintenance. That is what he has been telling his clients and he needs to be "right" about this.

My plane was exclusively maintained by Textron service centers until I bought it. The number of marginal and outright wrong things I have found on my plane is staggering. The plane is in way better shape than when I bought it due to that.

One example: right engine had the wrong ignitor leads. Just plain the wrong parts. They were the pin style leads on button style ignitors. The ones I had were put on by Textron. My engines were starting only because the spark jumped the connector inside the ignitor until one day it didn't. $2K of new ignitor leads and my plane is fixed. It took a solid 10 minutes after we discovered this for my mechanic to accept that Textron had put the wrong parts on the plane.

The fresh air duct was globbed with RTV to try and seal it up instead of just replacing it. I bought a new one. This did NOT happen by accident or age, someone spent time globbing on RTV to try and fix it and it happened during service.

I could go on for pages.

Chris is right, we pay attention to how our planes work, detect when things are not right, and we fix them promptly. Do that with owner involvement, and especially where you procure parts and repair services, you can save a TON of money.

The quality of maintenance has very little to do with the price and has everything to do with the attitude and knowledge of the operator. I try to help others do the same.

Just today someone asked me about where to get fire bottles recertified. You can order an exchange from Textron for $3600 list price, or you can send you own bottles to O'Brien Enterprises where they remove the contents, test, and restore the contents for about $450 because they don't need new contents. I believe Textron sends their bottles for exchange to O'Brien, so you are getting the same quality!

If you are the "here are the keys, blank check, call me when done" owner, you are going to pay enormously more money than someone like me or Chris.

We are not "poor boys", we are "involved boys".

Mike C.