Qwner Flown Biz Jet
Qwner Flown Biz Jet
Ok, A guy makes his millions and decides he wants his own jet to fly. So he goes to the local Cessna dealership and plonks down the readies for a shiny new CJ3.
Now given a TT of say 2000 hrs, 1000 in twins, say hes upgrading from his old Chieftain. ATPL, ME-CIR, maybe having done some charter work etc.
What hoops would he have to jump through to fly his new CJ3 single pilot.
Now given a TT of say 2000 hrs, 1000 in twins, say hes upgrading from his old Chieftain. ATPL, ME-CIR, maybe having done some charter work etc.
What hoops would he have to jump through to fly his new CJ3 single pilot.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere the job offer is!
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get an endorsement, and go fly the thing i would have thought.
It would be rise if he had millions of dollars to get an experienced guys sitting next to him/her for a while until s/he is comfortable with the speed of the machine.
It would be rise if he had millions of dollars to get an experienced guys sitting next to him/her for a while until s/he is comfortable with the speed of the machine.
For private use you would only have to do an endorsement and as many hours as the insurance company requires. The smart thing to do would be to have a flight safety course as part of the purchase agreement (which they often are anyway) and go back to the US once a year and do some recurrency training.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the CASA rules you can hold a 'command' endorsement on any size airplane. The FAA has a 'type rating' requirement above 12,500 lbs and again this can be held by a PPL.
The requirement for an ATPL seems to be only when flying for hire or reward. I don't know the ICAO position on PPL activity, but as both Australia and the USA are ICAO states, it probably is no different.
Until an owner-flown bizjet creams a lot of innocent bystanders (as opposed to the pilot's passengers - usually a girlfriend/mistress/lawyer/associate) no one will give a rat's about whether it is possible for the average amateur to drive these things safely in a busy environment. One big mid-air with a large transport jet might change the way the authorities view this activity, but until then 10 or maybe 25 hours on type and the sales people will send you on your way - legally. The saying: "he who dies with the most toys wins" is perhaps appropriate. Plenty of precedent in the USA with sports stars, movie stars, politicians etc crashing their toys.
The requirement for an ATPL seems to be only when flying for hire or reward. I don't know the ICAO position on PPL activity, but as both Australia and the USA are ICAO states, it probably is no different.
Until an owner-flown bizjet creams a lot of innocent bystanders (as opposed to the pilot's passengers - usually a girlfriend/mistress/lawyer/associate) no one will give a rat's about whether it is possible for the average amateur to drive these things safely in a busy environment. One big mid-air with a large transport jet might change the way the authorities view this activity, but until then 10 or maybe 25 hours on type and the sales people will send you on your way - legally. The saying: "he who dies with the most toys wins" is perhaps appropriate. Plenty of precedent in the USA with sports stars, movie stars, politicians etc crashing their toys.
When these VLJ's come here, I think I will dig a bunker!
Perhaps we need to be reminded of the time when companies were replacing their Navajo's with Learjets and the accident rate then. Not pretty!
Grandpa Aerotart
A single pilot endorsement on this category of aeroplane is a slightly different thing to a normal endorsement. I have time on C560s and they're VERY easy aircraft to fly...with the right experience.
In general I agree with the bunker sentiment...shades of The Forked Tail Doctor Killer on steroids.
The VLJ proponent's theories of 1000s of aircraft racing around SP is vastly overstated in my view.
In general I agree with the bunker sentiment...shades of The Forked Tail Doctor Killer on steroids.
The VLJ proponent's theories of 1000s of aircraft racing around SP is vastly overstated in my view.
In reality a CJ3 is no more difficult to fly than a 310, in fact probably easier when on one engine. Poling it around is the easy part. What is vastly different however is the operating environment that the new jet pilot will find himself in (not many 310's get around at 41,000 feet).
The CJ3 at high altitude has a much slimmer margin between cruise speed and stall speed than does a 310 at 10,000 feet, so a thorough understanding of jet upset is essential, as is knowledge of high altitude meteorology. Suffer a pressurisation problem at 41,000 and you better get that mask on quickly, because in about 15 to 20 seconds you could join the Paine Stewart club. These are just some of the challenges that 310 pilots don't normally face.
A complete knowledge of systems is essential; the "vague understanding" that some PPL's have of their aircraft's systems will simply not suffice.
Having said that, a factory course and simulator program, followed by say 50 hours of ICUS with a knowledgable mentor, and an alert and keen PPL should be able to cope with his CJ3. Those with closed minds however, need not apply...........
The CJ3 at high altitude has a much slimmer margin between cruise speed and stall speed than does a 310 at 10,000 feet, so a thorough understanding of jet upset is essential, as is knowledge of high altitude meteorology. Suffer a pressurisation problem at 41,000 and you better get that mask on quickly, because in about 15 to 20 seconds you could join the Paine Stewart club. These are just some of the challenges that 310 pilots don't normally face.
A complete knowledge of systems is essential; the "vague understanding" that some PPL's have of their aircraft's systems will simply not suffice.
Having said that, a factory course and simulator program, followed by say 50 hours of ICUS with a knowledgable mentor, and an alert and keen PPL should be able to cope with his CJ3. Those with closed minds however, need not apply...........
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw a doco a big boy's toy jets in the USA. There are about 200 privately operated L39's in the States and they average a fatality rate of about one percent per annum. ie about 2 jets per year. NONE of these has been pilots with a military flying training background. Bit different to a Citationjet but you get an idea of the risk.
Thanks for the info. I believe that Cessna sends you to Flight Safety where they do a very comprehensive and thorough endorsement, however as is the case with the US its usually the insurnace companies that set the minimums.
Was just curious as to CASA''s viewpoint.
A couple of years ago I visited the home of an associate at Spruce Creek FL. His garage contained among other things a Mercedes E55 AMG and CJ2(oh to have that sort of money). I was interested in how he operated the aircraft, he had an ops manual, and operated each flight as if it were charter, and was overseen by a professional pilot who acted much in the way a CP would do, coupled with recurrent training and checking.
Of course you cant legislate against cowboys or ones that are inherently stupid.
Was just curious as to CASA''s viewpoint.
A couple of years ago I visited the home of an associate at Spruce Creek FL. His garage contained among other things a Mercedes E55 AMG and CJ2(oh to have that sort of money). I was interested in how he operated the aircraft, he had an ops manual, and operated each flight as if it were charter, and was overseen by a professional pilot who acted much in the way a CP would do, coupled with recurrent training and checking.
Of course you cant legislate against cowboys or ones that are inherently stupid.
I would suggest that it is a little unfair to draw parallels between the accident rate for an L39 and a Citation, for several reasons. Citations are primarily used for point-to-point travel, whereas L39's are used a lot for "air combat experience" or basically joy-riding; I doubt many L39 pilots have undertaken a factory-approved course and simulator training; L39's are comparatively cheap to purchase, suggesting that they can easily be acquired by people with big egos.
To compare a L39 and a Citation is like comparing a Pitts with a 182 - not exactly apples and apples.
To compare a L39 and a Citation is like comparing a Pitts with a 182 - not exactly apples and apples.
You also must remember, we (and I'm generallizing) fly for a living, are passionate and professional about aviating.
These multi-millionaires are passionate about making money and flying is a hobby and fun for them. As long as they get from A to B they are happy. I think of them as Mr Magoo's (ie, insular in their thoughts and aims).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ole' green eyed monster, again?
There's nothing simple in life, I reckon, and I would suggest that generalisations about wealthy pilots are likely to be about as accurate as those about less wealthy pilots, or for that matter, people in general. ie, not accurate at all. It’s true, some wealthy people are passionate about making money – but many wealthy people are not, really. Many wealthy people have followed other passions, and the money has followed, almost as a by-product. It’s true – some wealthy pilots are fools, and are indeed “insular in their thoughts and aims”. The traits required to run a successful business, for instance – drive, determination, and sometimes a willingness to “bend the rules” – can be very dangerous in aviation. But drive, determination and so on, when coupled with self-discipline and devotion to excellence (also very helpful in business) can lead to an amateur pilot having a very high standard of flying and professionalism.
That said, In New Zealand there have been several cases of high profile people doing dumb things in aviation – I can think of one famous TV presenter, for instance, who probably bought his way into too much aeroplane, as it were – but there are also many wealthy people who are very serious indeed about aviation safety. By the same token, even though there are many professional pilots who are passionate about aviation, there also, in my opinion, a large number of professional pilots who are jaded, if not even bitter and cynical, about what they do, and no longer enjoy the wonderful gift that is flight. They are in some ways fortunate to operate in a crew environment, under strict regulation, with all sorts of professional back-up, so their lack of passion for flying does not seriously impact their performance.
A quick NTSB search reveals 6 US L-39 fatal accidents since 1985, although most of those have been in the last 6 years, so a back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that a 1% per annum fatality rate is not a wildly inaccurate estimate. Maybe a little on the high side, but OK, let's accept that for now. But what are we comparing that to? Normal GA? The NTSB stats for 2005 show 6 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours in GA. Let’s say each L39 is flown for 25 hours a year (only a one hour flight every fortnight) – so 25 x 200 = 5000 L-39 flight hours a year. Which means the L-39 per-flight-hour fatal accident rate is, say, 1 in 5000, or .002% per flight hour, and the GA fatal accident rate is 3 times better, at .0006% per flight hour. Given that GA includes a great deal of single engine certified light aircraft, which stall slower, can do survivable forced landings and so on, and L-39s weigh several tons, are very fast, and are ex-military – ie non certified – aircraft, I don’t think the L-39 accident rate is actually too outrageous. I certainly don’t think it proves that “multi-millionaire” pilots are by definition unprofessional in their flying.
Personally, I think the best way to maintain one’s passion for any activity is by NOT doing it for a living. Who enjoys their music the most – the amateur musician, or the professional pub-gigger, for instance? Which isn’t to say that all amateur pilots are highly professional either – but, like I said at the top, I think the phenomenon defies easy categorisation. I’m quite sure there are many wealthy pilots who are extremely passionate about their aviation, and whose professional approach is in precisely the same league as those who fly for a living.
No offence to anyone, by the way. These Prune forums sometimes seem to get nasty very quickly. Just making an observation, and don’t mean to start a ****fight. I certainly DO believe it’s easy to buy your way into too much aeroplane, if you have the money, as has been seen in the past with Bonanzas. Which is why we all have to be very, very careful.
That said, In New Zealand there have been several cases of high profile people doing dumb things in aviation – I can think of one famous TV presenter, for instance, who probably bought his way into too much aeroplane, as it were – but there are also many wealthy people who are very serious indeed about aviation safety. By the same token, even though there are many professional pilots who are passionate about aviation, there also, in my opinion, a large number of professional pilots who are jaded, if not even bitter and cynical, about what they do, and no longer enjoy the wonderful gift that is flight. They are in some ways fortunate to operate in a crew environment, under strict regulation, with all sorts of professional back-up, so their lack of passion for flying does not seriously impact their performance.
A quick NTSB search reveals 6 US L-39 fatal accidents since 1985, although most of those have been in the last 6 years, so a back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that a 1% per annum fatality rate is not a wildly inaccurate estimate. Maybe a little on the high side, but OK, let's accept that for now. But what are we comparing that to? Normal GA? The NTSB stats for 2005 show 6 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours in GA. Let’s say each L39 is flown for 25 hours a year (only a one hour flight every fortnight) – so 25 x 200 = 5000 L-39 flight hours a year. Which means the L-39 per-flight-hour fatal accident rate is, say, 1 in 5000, or .002% per flight hour, and the GA fatal accident rate is 3 times better, at .0006% per flight hour. Given that GA includes a great deal of single engine certified light aircraft, which stall slower, can do survivable forced landings and so on, and L-39s weigh several tons, are very fast, and are ex-military – ie non certified – aircraft, I don’t think the L-39 accident rate is actually too outrageous. I certainly don’t think it proves that “multi-millionaire” pilots are by definition unprofessional in their flying.
Personally, I think the best way to maintain one’s passion for any activity is by NOT doing it for a living. Who enjoys their music the most – the amateur musician, or the professional pub-gigger, for instance? Which isn’t to say that all amateur pilots are highly professional either – but, like I said at the top, I think the phenomenon defies easy categorisation. I’m quite sure there are many wealthy pilots who are extremely passionate about their aviation, and whose professional approach is in precisely the same league as those who fly for a living.
No offence to anyone, by the way. These Prune forums sometimes seem to get nasty very quickly. Just making an observation, and don’t mean to start a ****fight. I certainly DO believe it’s easy to buy your way into too much aeroplane, if you have the money, as has been seen in the past with Bonanzas. Which is why we all have to be very, very careful.
i think the V8 Supercar racing series is a good example, many of the racing teams are run by amaters, in that the drivers are not professional racing drivers and they may only do enugh roundsin a season to qualify for Bathurst, but the mentoring and stewardship by CAMS results in a very professiional turnout.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick NTSB search reveals 6 US L-39 fatal accidents since 1985, although most of those have been in the last 6 years, so a back-of-the-envelope calculation reveals that a 1% per annum fatality rate is not a wildly inaccurate estimate. Maybe a little on the high side
Interesting!
Dr R
