Principia, Inc.

Let’s suppose you are involved in a business that involved frequent trips to locations less than 1000 nm apart, typically by yourself, but sometimes with up to three colleagues. Let’s also say those destinations are often closer to smaller airports that do not have scheduled service.

You might benefit by setting up an air service for your business. If you only use your airplane(s) to transport people directly involved in your business, and do not offer the service to the general public, your operation would fall under the less stringent FAR Part 91 requirements. Even so, you would be well advised to act as if it were regulated by the more stringent rules in Part 135 or 121.

To maintain a consistently high level of safety, Part 121 and 135 operations are carefully designed and managed. Professionals specify and acquire suitable aircraft, set up thorough maintenance procedures, design appropriate operational standards, and carefully train and supervise pilots..

Preliminary 2007 aviation accident data released last week by the NTSB continue to show Part 135 and 121 operations are substantially safer than Part 91..

Scheduled Part 121 operations logged a total of 18,700,000 flight hours, with 24 accidents, no fatalities. For non-scheduled Part 121, the totals were 605,000 hours with 2 accidents, one fatality..

Part 135 commuter operations logged 302,000 hours, 3 accidents, no fatalities; for on-demand Part 135, the totals were 3,668,000 hours, 62 accidents, 43 fatalities..

Part 91 operations logged 23,835,000 hours, 1631 accidents, with 486 fatalities..

When I was a kid living in Valhalla New York, my dad often had business trips to a Lily Tulip paper cup manufacturing plant in Augusta Georgia. That meant getting to La Guardia Airport (KLGA), flying to Atlanta Georgia, and then driving a rented car from there to Augusta. Westchester Airport (KHPN) is just a few miles from where we lived, and Augusta (KAGS) is a serviceable airport too..

Making money in a scheduled Part 121 air service between airport pairs like Westchester and Augusta, about 600 nm apart, would mean setting pricing as high as that small market could bear to pay for shorter travel times due to direct routes and avoidance of the major airports where delays are increasingly common. And that would mean choosing appropriate equipment for that route. Airplanes would need relatively low capacity and efficient operating characteristics. But they would also need to be to be reasonably fast and comfortable. A Gulfstream or Falcon, with fifteen available seats, might be a good choice provided the airplanes could be kept busy. Keeping them busy would probably mean expanding service to other similar nearby markets to allow equipment to be moved easily to accommodate fluctuating passenger loads..

On-demand charter service for a small group of business travelers on a route like this could use smaller equipment like a Hawker or Citation with about six seats, gaining efficiency without significant sacrifices of speed or comfort..

But companies with enough internal demand for flights to and from less popular destinations frequently find they can justify the expense of running their own aviation operations. If Lily Tulip had stayed in business, maybe they would have hired professionals to set up a good tight Part 91 aviation department following FAA guidelines from Part 135 or 121, and then guys like my dad would have had quick safe trips to places like Augusta Georgia..

Next: a look at three single-engine turboprops, the Pilatus 12, Socata TBM 850, and Piper Meridian. We will see if any of them might be suitable for hypothetical 600 nm Lily-Tulip flights from KHPN to KAGS with up to four passengers..

Contact us to find out if an internal aviation operation would make sense for your business. Email info@principiainc.com or call 917-841-2362..

Links:
2007 NTSB Aviation Accident Table

I recommended that a client sell his airplane last week, but he has not taken that advice.

A green private pilot with an instrument rating that is barely wet, I had agreed to work with him on a transition into a single turboprop. He had already selected not only the model he wanted, but the exact bird, a 2002 Piper Meridian, PA46-500TP.

The first time he ignored my advice was when he refused professional help in the purchasing process. Had he accepted that help, he might have realized that a turboprop is vastly more airplane than required by his flying needs. Failing that, he might have been steered to a more capable model. But failing that, he would very likely have been steered away from the particular plane he bought, which was overpriced by at least ten percent.

He and I had worked together already for a long time, first on his instrument rating, then on his transition into a faster single-engine piston airplane. So I knew his penny-wise, pound-foolish weaknesses. The die was cast when a friend recently bought a turboprop, and he needed to make amends. However the friend has the flying skills and financial resources that allow him to easily handle a Socata TBM, the model in the middle of the turboprop market, between the Meridian and the Pilatus 12.

When it became clear that he was going to buy the Meridian, I told him it was an impractical decision, but agreed to train him. We took the ground and simulator training course at SimCom together. In the simulator, he proved that he needed more work before he would be competent in an essential skill for this and any other airplane — hand-flying approaches in the clouds. But I was resolved to fly with him as long as it took to reach competency. We flew the airplane home together and he began making immediate plans for long flights with passengers. I began to realize that his goal was to log the minimum hours that would permit him to solo. I became alarmed when I realized that we were rapidly approaching those mimimum hours. When I work with a candidate for an instrument rating or a transition, I can decide when a pilot can safely advance to his goal. But when the goal is defined only in terms of logged hours, I need to rely exclusively on the pilot’s agreement with my judgment of his abilities. 

On one of our flights together with passengers, an occasion arose that allowed me safely to give him a clear view of how much he had to learn. We were being vectored to an ILS approach when the glideslope indicator on his electronic HSI failed. The ceiling was high enough, and the final approach course was free enough of nearby obstacles, so I asked him to hand-fly the approach using the backup glideslope. It was a wild ride, accomplished only with much coaching. But in conversations afterward, he focused on the possible causes of the instrument failure rather than on the need for more partial panel training.

Had he been willing to concede he needed put off the goal of piloting the airplane solo for the foreseeable future, and resolve to fly it only with me or other competent co-pilot, then I would have been willing to continue training him. But with no sign of that concession, and with the time rapidly approaching when I would have no control over the operation of his airplane, I recommended he sell it.