Starting a flying club

[Jim Logajan]

My info is dated, but you may want to check into this further. I believe the FARs state you only require two-way communications with ATC on the appropriate frequencies. The AC is not regulatory. While you may not be able to use every airport or service due to lack of 25 khz spacing, I don't believe having a 360 channel radio prevents you flying IFR or entering controlled airspace.

I did a quick spot check and a fair number of the ASOS/AWOS/ATIS frequencies in my area were 1xx.x25 or 1xx.x75. No problem with local Center, approach, or tower frequencies that I could see. I note that Rapid City (where the plane is now at) has ASOS on 118.525. If they couldn't tune to that they'd have to get the numbers from the tower. Not sure if they would hear anything on 118.500 or 118.550.

The other thing is that the FCC outlawed transmission from the old radios that couldn't maintain frequency stability of 0.003% (the previous threshold was 0.005%) I found this article from 1996 that discusses the FCC regulatory issues that arose back then (and lists some of the radios that couldn't meet the new transmission tolerances):

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1996/october/pilot/tuning-a-new-com

 

[rotorwrench]

The other thing is that the FCC outlawed transmission from the old radios

With those radios still installed today I doubt they're on the 1996 FCC listing that is shown in the article. That was a long time ago. Check your radios against that list. If not there the issue is moot. The way I see it if you can talk to ATC with your current radios, I don't see why you can't train IFR in it from an FAR standpoint.

 

[Jim Logajan]

With those radios still installed today I doubt they're on the 1996 FCC listing that is shown in the article. That was a long time ago. Check your radios against that list. If not there the issue is moot. The way I see it if you can talk to ATC with your current radios, I don't see why you can't train IFR in it from an FAR standpoint.

I agree that if they are using them today that would normally indicate they are OK. I've requested clarification from the owners.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I agree that if they are using them today that would normally indicate they are OK. I've requested clarification from the owners.

I definitely need clarification from them now, because the radio looks to be a Narco MK-12D which supports 25kHz frequency tuning.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Forgot to post a followup. The story so far:

On Sunday the annual was finished, they did a test flight, and we signed the lease. Two of us club members did a quick pattern test flight and dropped the plane at an FBO that will hangar it for us on a monthly basis till we find another home for it. Forecast is for snow and very low ceilings and visibilities till Friday, so will have to wait till then for more fun.

As to the radios: the radio was exactly as I suspected and perfectly fine for IFR. They did run into problems with the existing transponder so had to replace that. The VOR worked. The installed ADS-B worked. But The ILS CDI appeared to be deader than the proverbial doornail and is not being replaced anytime soon. So really can't practice precision approaches nor do an IFR practical exam in the plane.

Bottom line is the club is now up and running - finally!

 

[Jim Logajan]

The ILS CDI appeared to be deader than the proverbial doornail and is not being replaced anytime soon. So really can't practice precision approaches nor do an IFR practical exam in the plane.

It helps if the ILS receiver is turned on. Doh!

It is a Narco NAV 12 (combination Glideslope, Localizer, and VOR receivers) and as you can see in this picture the knob labeled VOL ID is also the power switch.

I assumed, incorrectly, the Narco NAV 12 powered up when the Narco MK-12D NAV/COM radio powered up. The NAV control on that radio is tied to a different VOR CDI display. However, the Narco NAV 12 is a self-contained unit - other than antenna connections it has its audio tied to the cabin speaker (for ident purposes.)
So the avionics effectively act as either two VOR receivers or one VOR receiver and a localizer/glideslope, and one COM transceiver. Wish it had a DME, but the glideslope makes precision approaches possible and the localizer and VOR make two types of nonprecision approaches possible. Sufficient to train and test for an IR.

Except it now appears the Artificial Horizon/Attitude Indicator is not healthy. If isn't one thing, it's another!

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Except it now appears the Artificial Horizon/Attitude Indicator is not healthy. If isn't one thing, it's another!

That can be fixed with a nice G5!

 

[Jim Logajan]

That can be fixed with a nice G5!

The mechanics/owners have confirmed that the Turn Coordinator isn't working either. I don't know if anyone has checked to see if the directional gyro is operating correctly. If all the gyro instruments are toast then the aerobatics that were done in the plane (and one of the previous owners allegedly did a lot of them) would be a likely cause of gyro death.

The owners aren't exactly awash with money and they don't make that much from the lease ($500/month, which includes an annual so no extra cost to us as the lease stipulates they pay to correct all airworthiness issues.)

Obviously none of the gyro instruments are required for VFR flight - the owners can placard or remove them and call it a day since they aren't needed for airworthiness, which is all the lease requires.. If they removed the gyro instruments I'd suggest they remove the vacuum system to lighten the plane a little. When they find the money they could then install digital replacements.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Opinions sought. I've attached a PDF of the postcard template I'm planning on sending out now that the club has an airplane. I wish we could cut the monthly dues down, but it is the best we can do with a max of 5 members. On the flip side of the postcard I'm planning on having a photo of the airplane. Will take some photos of it outside on Friday, when the weather looks to be nice. I've read that it is a good idea to shoot from a low angle, ideally with blue sky sprinkled with some clouds. Could use advice from any lurking photographers.

I'm not sure what else to say on the card. I could add an email address, but I'd rather people first go to the web site and read the material there before shooting off an email. (I need to update the web site to reflect our change from a dry rate to a wet rate and the lower monthly dues and joining fee.) Opinions/advice? I thought mentioning only two openings might induce fear of missing out and induce joins, but I suppose it could backfire too.

I'm thinking of 3D printing some covers that can go over the face of the inop instruments until such time as we can get them repaired, overhauled, or replaced.

Lastly, a note on determining the wet rate, which requires knowing the fuel burn at the RPM that establishes the cruise speed. Because the tachometer knows nothing about cruise speed, just RPMs, it turns out the tach hour is established by the manufacturer of the tachometer. I found this helpful page which has a table listing the defined average cruise speed RPM for different models of tachometers:
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/mech_tachs.php
Scrolling down I see that the cruise RPM for the tachometer for a C-150 is 2566.
Looking up that RPM on the Aerobat's Owner Manual Cruise Performance table at the lowest altitude of 2500 feet (highest burn rates) I extrapolated between 2500 (5.1 g/hr) and 2600 (5.8 g/hr) to get 5.46 g.h. Call it 5.5 g/hr. Our local FBO currently charges $7.09/g. So ~$39/hr fuel tacked onto $29/hr in maintenance reserve/oil change costs yields $68/hr. But have to add on 4.5% sales tax, yielding $71/hr. Bumped to $75 after tax to account for windage.,

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

That sounds like a very good rate for a training aircraft.

You may find that people fly less than they think they will and that an expansion in membership will be appropriate. Arizona Cloudbusters has 3 planes and 40 members and feels a bit busy at times, but not bad.

If you have a wet rate, which people find convenient, you may need to be adjusting that rate every month or so as fuel prices fluctuate.

 

[Jim Logajan]

That sounds like a very good rate for a training aircraft.

You may find that people fly less than they think they will and that an expansion in membership will be appropriate. Arizona Cloudbusters has 3 planes and 40 members and feels a bit busy at times, but not bad.

If you have a wet rate, which people find convenient, you may need to be adjusting that rate every month or so as fuel prices fluctuate.

Based on my own past experience I agree that we could have 10 members and have few scheduling conflicts. Some people warn that insurance rates will double (or more) when membership goes over 5, so adding a 6th could actually cause the burden per member to actually go up rather than down.
That turns out to be a myth - at least with our costs. Because hangar rent, monthly lease payments, and misc overhead total $800/month, a doubling of insurance from ~$100/month to ~$200 still yields a reduced burden per member on adding the 6th member. (Insurance would have to increase to above $280/month for the burden per member to increase.)

I did prefer a dry rate precisely because it wouldn't need periodic adjustment (also no need to collect sales tax.) The typical dry rate way to handle fueling is to require the tanks be filled and paid for when a member returns the plane. That way a member pays only for their fuel usage. But in a plane with a useful load of just 471 lbs, 22.5g of usable fuel drops that to 336 lbs. The argument was it was better, on average, to return the plane with less full tanks so the next member had a better chance of fueling only as much as they need to accommodate a heavier passenger. (Not too many of us left who are under 170 lbs.) Offloading fuel is less likely to be needed.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Based on my own past experience I agree that we could have 10 members and have few scheduling conflicts. Some people warn that insurance rates will double (or more) when membership goes over 5, so adding a 6th could actually cause the burden per member to actually go up rather than down.
That turns out to be a myth - at least with our costs. Because hangar rent, monthly lease payments, and misc overhead total $800/month, a doubling of insurance from ~$100/month to ~$200 still yields a reduced burden per member on adding the 6th member. (Insurance would have to increase to above $280/month for the burden per member to increase.)

Ok, not a myth. I called our insurance agent to get a quote or at least an estimate of the cost if we expanded to 6 to 10 members. Our current insurance for the C-150 is $1259/year ($60k hull value.) The woman gave me a ballpark estimate of $4800 to $5200 per year. Not a mere doubling, but quadrupling. Ouch! We would need to have 8 or more members to see a savings. The cost of "commercial" insurance is more than I expected.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Would it possibly help to drop the hull coverage and offer the owners a bond instead on the airplane? There is only one airplane involved, so presumably the liability risk is limited by that fact alone.

My willingness to do that would likely depend on what I think of the flying skills of the other members. But as you note, unless you have a lot of other potential members, it may not be worth worrying about.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Would it possibly help to drop the hull coverage and offer the owners a bond instead on the airplane? There is only one airplane involved, so presumably the liability risk is limited by that fact alone.

My willingness to do that would likely depend on what I think of the flying skills of the other members. But as you note, unless you have a lot of other potential members, it may not be worth worrying about.

I did not consider surety bonds (if that is what you mean) because I knew nothing about them. It is possible the owner's have a loan, in which case they may be required to have insurance or be named as insured for hull loss (which they asked for and received on our policy.)
I'll wait to see what kind of response we get from our next mailing. I've updated our web site with the latest info: https://pactolaflying.club/
The front and back templates for the next batch of postcards are attached as PDFs.