|
United States Pilots Association |
Well, here we are a month further down the road and the plane still has not flown since the Tunica meeting of USPA in March. All of the radios are present and accounted for, but, alas, we have a problem with the remote push to talk switch relating to the audio panel through the panel mounted intercom. Essentially, the push to talk is not functioning, and the only way the avionics are usable is through the hand held microphone and the ceiling mounted speaker. Unfortunately Odessa, Texas, does not have a functioning avionics shop. So we are relegated to the trial and error method of isolating components until the offending unit becomes apparent.
The aircraft now has a TKM MX300 radio powering a VOR instrument, an MX170 powering a King VOR/ILS indicator, A King KMA-24H audio panel, a King Marker Beacon unit with lights, a Garmin 150XL GPS, a King KN-62A DME, and an ARC ADF. There is also a panel mounted four- station intercom, and we have retained the original Cessna 300 Transponder with mode C. Final solution to these problems and numerous pictures in next month's column. This bird will be flying to OKC for the USPA annual meeting, even if I have to buy a couple of paper cups and a whole lot of string.
Aircraft insurance: For several months now I have been watching a disturbing trend permeating the industry. Here are several related facts. A Cessna 414 encountered an exhaust system malfunction in Albuquerque, NM. Upon landing at ABQ, the pilot took the plane to a well known FBO that happens to be a Beech dealer. The pilot was promptly informed that this FBO did not and does not work on any airplane over 14 years old. (Remember the statute of repose.) Obviously this was a liability exposure the FBO refused to consider.
Next, a highly qualified pilot with extensive tailwheel time bought a 1948 Cessna 195. He was unable to find an insurer to consider the plane. Reason, age of the airplane. Coincidentally there were two other aircraft of same make and model in Trade-A-Plane that were being sold because of inability to find insurance.
An insurance account of mine flying a Shrike Commander and insured with a good first line carrier, went out and bought an Aerostar 700 aircraft with all the mods. His current insurer said NO! to providing insurance on this aircraft. The pilot was a 10,000 hour pro who has been to numerous schools in his career. He was forced to go to another carrier at a punitive pricing. Anyone considering the purchase of a light twin (Baron, Cessna 340, 414, or 421) needs to check insurability of these aircraft before purchasing the bird. Most insurers are requiring annual simulator training in these twins which dramatically adds to the annual operating costs.
I am beginning to believe that the aviation insurance industry is trying to chase their customers away. Not all of us can afford brand new planes. This mentality has spread to older bizjets. I just saw a quote on a 1982 Mistubishi Diamond 1A valued at $1,200,000 of over $21,000 annually. The hull rate used was $1.75 which is four times what it was prior to 9/11. The best part about this is the Three top aviation insurers will not even offer terms on aircraft of this type over 20 years old. The same kind of thinking applies to older turboprops (Conquests, Cheyennes, and King Airs), which is forcing these planes into more expensive insurers who are requiring far more stingent training. If you are an operator flying three different kinds of turbine aircraft, your pilots will have to go to school several times a year to stay "current" in each make and model airplane. One suggestion I can offer here is when a pilot goes to training, have the certificate of completion reflect the several different aircraft he or she will fly. Be sure that the ground instruction includes all models the pilot will be PIC in. This could eliminate the need for separate schools by model.
This column is being written as the impasse between the FAA and the Controllers union has gone to the congress for action. The congress will probably be loathe to get involved in this controversy thus allowing the FAA to impose their own pay scale on the controllers. An obvious result of all of this will probably involve mass retirements of controllers and a severe diminishment of these services. One can presume the next move on the part of the FAA will be to outsource these functions, at an ultimately much higher cost than currently. Has anyone noticed that the forecast savings in dollars by outsourcing the flight service stations has already been cut in half by cost overruns?
Steve Uslan, President
United States Pilots Association