Gordon,
I have 500 hours TT with 0 hours TT in a jet. What is required for a type rating? What fear are you talking about?
Thanks,
Ed
You need a PPL (and an instrument rating too generally) and that’s about it. You can do the rest while getting the type.
Separately I have not heard anything bad about the insurability of the Evo. People are getting insured fairly reasonably with 0 turbine time. I don’t personally know anyone who flies one without insurance (though I don’t know many people who own them period, only about 70 have been built so far). It does seem like it would be much harder to insure than it apparently is in practice.
On the other hand premiums will be a lower percentage of hull value on a jet and in a certified aircraft you will have FIKI, radar, etc. My guess is it is appealing due to its efficiency, very low maintenance costs, and at least perceived low pilot workload as compared to a jet. It is very expensive though. Experimentals may not be the answer to all of our cost problems!
One thing I would love to see in a g6 would be a Angle Of Attack indicator. Icon Aircraft have incorporated one in their new light sport a5, also Cirrus will incorporate one in the SF50. it seems like an amazing instrument!
As a side note, the Icon A5 appears to be an amazing little sport aircraft! angle of attack, spin resistant air frame, parachute option, and lots of other cool features.
A really nice contract that will rot your teeth included no charge. As cool a plane as that is, I wouldn’t buy one of those now with someone else’s money
Cecil,
Were you not well on your way to Lancair ownership not too long ago?
I kind of recall you being quite enamored of them over on one of the Light Sport forums. Even had a build started, IIRC.
Did something specific happen to change your mind about them?
Just curious.
i just recently came across the icon, so i don’t know much about it other than what’s on the website, why wouldn’t you go near one?
Good news, you don’t have to wait for an AoA indicator, standard in 2016 models and even retrofittable with the next Garmin software update
I am mobile right now and can’t post a link. But they recently released their terms and conditions you have to sign to get one. Do a search and then you’ll know. Among the requirements is all work must be done at a Icon SC, it has to go to them for OH at 10 years (not time) and its trash at 20 years. You have to pay a fee to them to resell it. It goes downhill from there. It makes Avidyne’s indemnification clause look pro consumer. They probably just cut their backlog down significantly. Not sure that matters, they haven’t been delivering airplanes.
Type rating is high on the list of reasons to choose the Evo over the Eclipse. Comparing new to new cost is huge. Fuel flow, Hanger space, only needing a 4 place with amazing useful load, an easy step up, familiarity to our current airplane, less red tape, ability work on the airplane, being able to actually see out the window, a parachute since the wife wants a way out if I become incapacitated.
The 50.1% rule is also for an LLC. If an LLC member works on the Evo then the owner wouldn’t even need to touch it if they didn’t want to.
Type rating shouldn’t be on the list for those looking to move up. If you are not willing to train like the pro’s, you shouldn’t be flying a plane that does 300 knots. My wife would definitely make me buy a parachute when she seen the comparable accident rates between the VLJs and the experimentals. [:O]
The Eclipse is pretty small so I’m not sure there’s a huge hangar space advantage there. The Evo certainly does have nice big windows. The view is quite good though the back seats are much more cramped and entry/exit much more difficult (even as compared to a Cirrus).
Luckily you won’t be doing 300 knots unless you’re below gross with freshly clean wings, no boots, and a high ITT. Mandated high quality training sure does sound like a better path to safety but not all of the decision making with airplanes is perfectly rational. Chutes are an easier to understand marketing tool than a type rating to non-pilots and I suspect many pilots see being “forced” into training as a negative unfortunately.
Something is be curious about is the deployment envelope for the Evo. We’ve discussed the issues with the SF50 envelope yet the Evolution flies at similar altitudes and speeds. Certainly it seems unlikely there is any sort of autopilot integration. How likely are you to be in envelope when you need it?
One of the biggest problems to me when I think of buying an EVO though is resell. I have heard several brokers tell me that 50-75% of buyers won’t even consider an experimental or damage history airplane. For that reason, I stay away from both. I want my investment to be liquid.
You picked a pretty great airframe for that purpose. I do like the Evolution but at the current price point can’t personally justify it vs the competition. If used ones start coming on the market substantially depreciated that might change things yet I would (perhaps irrationally) be a bit afraid to buy a heavily used experimental on the cheap. The airframe just isn’t old enough to convince me all of the problems have been sorted and I don’t want to own the highest time copy of any plane.
I agree John! Being the guinea pig doesn’t sound fun. Lucky for us Mustang owners, there is an operator running some Mustangs in Europe and he runs the crap out of them. He has a couple that have over 5000 hours already. He is definitely finding the problems well before I get there!
Ah, so you believe (or you think the market believes) that lower standards for training and proficiency is preferred over higher standards for training and proficiency? Interesting. The accident stats don’t seem to agree with this philosophy. And let’s compare the awful safety record of experimental aircraft versus the stellar record of twin turbojet aircraft. [:^)]
I saw one today at Van Nuys and it really has ramp appeal. I was focused on getting out by my void time so I didn’t stop, but the cabin did look a little cramped. But other than that it is one gorgeous plane.
Gordon I think many pilots automatically rule out any airplane that requires a type rating, and I think that’s even seen with the King Air 350. And I also think many COPANs tire of hearing about type ratings from those of us who hold them. There are 2 kinds of pilots (at least!): those who get a commercial rating for the challenge of doing so, and those who are disinterested in additional training. I fear many pilots in the second camp are convinced that all training is equal and any training they do in excess of the basic minimums is making them safer.
Honestly I can’t say I’d train the same way today if my type rating didn’t require it. Maybe not as comprehensive, maybe less often. Indeed nothing prevents me from doing additional, non-required sim time but I don’t do it. COPA offers an impressive array of training options as do vendors like Scott D. and I can’t help but wonder why GA has strict requirements at 15,000 pounds but not 3,400. Why does “any turbojet” require the high standard but not if you make the airplane harder to fly by adding a prop to the turbine? Doesn’t make sense really.
Finally, when we earn our type rating, we go a step beyond optionally and earn the single pilot type rating, demonstrating that we can run all our emergencies, etc. while alone and unassisted. But I think you’ll agree it’s every bit as challenging to face an emergency, or even an abnormality, as a single pilot in a Cirrus as in one of our jets. Indeed the Cirrus pilot will face more decision making due to WX, XM depiction, meager FIKI, limited altitude, engine issues (way too frequently), all while living with significant O2 risk.
Were GA to harmonize training anew, I suspect we’d make the ratings cut by speed and VFR flight. The current PPL requirements are likely good enough for casually flying a 172 or a Cub on a CAVU day. An SR22T as a travel machine, let alone a TBM or Meridian should already require a type rating. If a King Air 350 does, then a King Air 200 should. Pilots who make airplane choices that are driven by the type rating issue are already getting over their skis.
I’m sure most members of COPA would love to get a type rating. Who wouldn’t want to fly around all day burning fuel for fun and learning new things? I think the problem lies in a lack of financial resources, time, or both. If you have a big enough wallet for a jet, you probably have enough flexibility with work to make time for a lot of training. Consider yourself lucky!
I don’t think it’s money. A new TBM is quite a bit more expensive than a new Eclipse, but there is little doubt in my mind that a significant number of SETP buyers who would be great candidates for a jet shy away from having to do the type. Unfortunately, they may be the ones who can benefit from it the most.
I think there is an opportunity to do a type rating in a manner other than the “gauntlet” fashion that is better suited for a professional pilot, who may end up with several. Training that is done in the context of doing typical missions and over a longer period of time would be better for most of us. It should be conducted and sold for what it is - a significant enhancement to your safety and your family’s safety. It should be sought after in that context, not feared.