Carl,
While I don't have the regs in front of me, a RTG to put more passengers on would definitely require a call to the dispatcher and departing without it could lead to FAA action against you. Think about it. You put more bodies and weight on the airplane. Your takeoff data is now voided and you would be taking off with invalid numbers. Think the FAA doesn't care about that? We used to have the 1000# slop to cover this, but no more. In the end though, why would you need to know the actual regs wording? Common sense dictates the call. You changed the condition of the original release by returning. CYA at a minimum.

 

http://www.openairplane.com/

Not sure what the cost is, but one universal checkout gets you access to their "network" of fbo's.

 

During my tenure at an airline that merged with NWA, I was flying the last flight of the night from ATL-MEI-PIB with the layover in PIB (Pine Belt Regional serving Hattiesburg/Laurel, MS). After departure, the F/O was calling the "on/in/out/off" times to OPS and they informed us a passenger mistakenly got off in MEI and would be kind enough to return to get her? She was an older woman traveling alone and seemed somewhat disoriented.

This was long before the days of ACARS, cell phones or constant communication with Dispatch. I agreed to return and was on the ground less than 5 minutes while only shutting down the left engine to board the grandmotherly passenger. We arrived in PIB early and all was happy until....

About 3 weeks later, I get a call from the Chief Pilot asking me to stop by for a visit. He was in possession of a nicely written letter from the son of the lady commenting how accommodating our crew was to recover his mother. During our visit, the Chief Pilot who was a "true pilot's pilot" was glad we did what we did, but then asked if I got "redispatched" after returning.

Whoopsie... I guess no good deed goes unpunished. The Chief Pilot was supportive of our decision but recommended we contact Dispatch the next time.

I guess what I am trying to say, is use common sense. I will do what is in the best interest of my crew, my passengers and my company. (in that order). If the need dictates a new "in time" then so be it. I will handle the details to start again.

Fly safe,

OC

 

I have a lot of Cirrus time. Great airplane...when everything works. Lots of small MX issues, IE cht and egt probes, Autopilot issues, pfd and mfd issues. Pa28 is bulletproof, and you can get a good one for half the cost of a Cirrus.

 

I always tried to keep things simple. If we generated an "out time " and then an "in time" without an "off time", I would get a new release. Most dispatchers would be sending me a acars msg asking for FOB before I could contact them.

 

Consider a Vans RV if you are thinking 2 seats. Much faster with better ability to carry weight and use short fields. You can also perform all maintenance legally yourself except sign off the conditional. They are going up in price for a reason but initial purchase price is a small part of overall ownership costs.

 

I believe the all maintenance yourself legality is if you are the original builder. If you bought a completed one, the original builder probably had you sign a hold harmless agreement for his work, but then, technically you are supposed to have an a&p do your work and sign offs.

 

I know everybody loves those things. Slick looking. And I do like tandems. I kind of like Husky despite their faults compared to the Carbon Cubs.


But can you legally teach a kid to fly in an experimental? That's my goal.

 

You can do everything except the "condition inspection" as the owner. The Condition Inspection is similar to an Annual Inspection. The exception is that the builder or an A&P can perform a Condition Inspection. The Annual Inspection must be performed by an A&P with IA privileges.

Condition Inspections are for experimental only. Annual Inspections are for non-experimentals.

 

You can, there's nothing that prohibits giving primary instruction in an experimental, you just can't get paid for it. The bigger issues are: 1) most though not all experimentals are unsuitable as primary trainers...even RVs, though they're well-mannered for high performance airplanes, are still high performance airplanes I wouldn't turn a 10-hour student loose in 2) finding an examiner qualified and willing to give a PPL checkride in your type can be difficult.

Sailingfun is 1000% correct that the initial purchase price is a relatively small portion of aircraft ownership...however, most other costs go up with speed, capability, and complexity. It's worthwhile to really hone in on your ideal mission. If it's really training and knocking around in the local area, a two-seater will save significant money in gas, insurance, and maintenance over a typical four-seater (which is really a three-seater unless both rear-seaters are kids). Fixed gear saves a lot of insurance and maintenance money over a retractable gear airplane, at the cost of x/c speed and fuel economy. Taildraggers are more fun than trikes but cost more to insure, especially once you throw a student pilot on your insurance. Etc.

For an economical but relatively fast and fun two-seat trainer, I'd suggest looking at the Grumman AA1A Traveler series. Same fuel burn as a C152 but about 20 knots faster, not much higher purchase price, and rather RV4-like handling.