No Solo Multi Engine Rentals

[E-Flyer]

If we have people rated to fly single engine planes, and have people rated to fly multi engine planes, then why do schools only rent out Single Engine's to students?

It seems weird.


Yes your argument will probably be, in a multi engine, there's many more things happening at the same time... blah blah... but at the end of the day, the candidate is rated to fly the multi engine plane. It's like sending a student on his first solo, there's always a factor of risk involved until he/her gets more proficient.


Your Ideas?

[righthandman]

It may be an insurance restriction in some way shape or form.
But I agree otherwise; you either demonstrated your competency or not.

[C-GGGQ]

Mostly its a money thing for most schools. A) insurance goes up, B) it doesn't make them as much money if you let students just rent it. Much more money in sending an instructor up in it with a student especially if the school has the restriction that only class 2 instructors can fly it (I have seen this at several) as a class 2 charges more

[Tim]

at mfc you can rent the twin, but its on a case by case basis appoved by the school and dual time may be required first

[Nark]

Most schools want to see at least 15 pic on type before they'll put you on the insurance. (Down here)

Not really worth it.

[Doc]

Tell ya what. Get twenty pilots together who will commit to a 25 hour block time purchase and I'll buy one you guys can take anywhere. It'll be an Apache....but it IS a twin.

[mcrit]

It'll be an Apache....but it IS a twin.

...no...it's a single with half the engine on each wing.....

[Invertago]

Funny thing people don't seem to realize is that most flight schools are actually private companies trying to make money not public service organizations. Since solo renting a multi engine aircraft tends to raise insurance a lot and isn't required for any TC inspired training minimums it isn't profitable.

Frankly, most schools barely make a buck off solo C172 rentals as it is if you actually amortize the cost of the initial aircraft purchase in the overall operating expenses.

[. ._]

Maybe because everyone forgets to put the gear down on them, the insurance is too costly.

[Hedley]

Tailwheel is the same story.

Many people - especially younger people - fail to realize that
just because they are legal (wrt the CARs) doesn't mean they
are safe.

The insurance companies suffer from no such illusions.

The whole Cirrus/Columbia high performance fixed gear
single industry was created, because low-time retractable
gear pilots can't remember to put the gear down, so the
insurance companies refuse to insure them.

FWIW I know of no CAR that says you cannot land
a retractable gear aircraft with the gear still up

[Doc]

It'll be an Apache....but it IS a twin.

...no...it's a single with half the engine on each wing.....

There is much truth in what you speak, oh wise one. But, it goes in the ME column in the old log book!

[Tango01]

Go down to US and pick up multi time for the same price you pay here for a single. They don't care down there, they are not scared either. Its complete aviation freedom as far as I can see. Totally different mindset.

[Cat Driver]

The Seguin Geronimo conversion of the Apache is one of the best training twins on the market.

And it has real impressive single engine performance.

[iflyforpie]

FWIW I know of no CAR that says you cannot land
a retractable gear aircraft with the gear still up

Reckless or Negligent Operation of Aircraft

602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

Subjective, but I'm sure they could nail you with this one. Chances are that if you haven't done anything but toast two engines, two props, and re-contoured the belly; they won't do anything as you've been punished enough.

[Hedley]

Go down to US ... complete aviation freedom ... totally different mindset

Canadian pilots who don't travel much - now there's an oxymoron! -
often suffer from quite a parochial viewpoint and don't see the contrast
between culture and how it affects aviation in Canada and the USA.

Basically, Canada is a government owned and operated enterprise,
and aviation is a sin in Canada, and if you are caught sinning, you
WILL be punished.

As you say, very different mindset down south, where individual
freedoms still exist.

P.S. I know a little about CAR 602.01

[mcrit]

There is much truth in what you speak, oh wise one. But, it goes in the ME column in the old log book!

It'll be an Apache....but it IS a twin.

...no...it's a single with half the engine on each wing.....

There is much truth in what you speak, oh wise one. But, it goes in the ME column in the old log book!

touche

[Hedley]

I have seriously thought of buying .'s Cri-Cri and
putting two tiny jet engines on it so my 16 year old kid
could log multi-engine jet PIC

[Shiny Side Up]

I always have to say for people who have to ask the question about why they can't do something rental wise is that largely they have not been on the other side of the coin. Supply and demand is a large part of the equation. Quite simply there's not enough of a customer base out there to warrant renting a twin out solo, and believe me I've done the math on it. The rates one would have to charge are simply well outside most's price range. Those in the price range probably have their own airplane which meets their needs already. Schools who don't rent their twins out solo also have good reason - they have usually more than enough demand for its dual services - which are less risky and make more money.

Remember as well the purpose with which any twin rentals will be, that is to go somewhere. Given that the twin needs to be making money for the school, schools often can't risk the loss of business that would come with even the twin getting weathered in somewhere away from home - its hard enough to bear that when it happens to one of their singles.

It should be noted that light twins are also hard to replace, though not quite as hard as biplanes and taildraggers, and once again rental/school organizations limit risking the loss of a resource. Loss of that resourse is a heavy hit - it might mean the complete loss of say a whole years worth of commercial students, wo would start lookign elsewhere, even for their single training, if sudden't the promise of getting their multi-IFR disappeared.


If you can figure out a profitable way to have a twin on the line and let it go solo, then let me know.

[Strega]

SSU,,

So what you are saying is that flight schools dont make any $$$ on the rental of the twin, only the instructor riding in it? for lets say 50$ per hour?

It seems to me that letting qualified people rent a twin would be benificial to general wear and tear on the airplane, no hard landings or low cycle times.

[iflyforpie]

Add to that an offset for fixed costs. Insurance, hangarage, and calendar maintenance items could be amortized over more hours.

[Cat Driver]

I would rather rent a twin to a well trained rental pilot to fly from A to B than have some hamfisted throttle jockey instructing on it.

Far less wear and tear on it renting versus training.

[Shiny Side Up]

So what you are saying is that flight schools dont make any $$$ on the rental of the twin, only the instructor riding in it? for lets say 50$ per hour?

It seems to me that letting qualified people rent a twin would be benificial to general wear and tear on the airplane, no hard landings or low cycle times.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying for it to be worth it to rent solo, it would have to make up for the lost potential dual time it flies. In all honesty, renting airplanes in itself for a busy school is lost revenue - especially if those planes could be making more money. Renters I might add are also an unknown in terms of generating revenue, and usually represent less chargeable time per booked time on an airplane. With a student booked in an airplane its usually a known quantity that can be planned around for the airplane's booking. With twins particularly renters are looking to do one of two things: 1) Go somewhere, in otherwords there's a significant not-flying time involved in the airplane's booking at their planned destination, or 2) Show off to their friends, which usually ends up in the same thing. Its all about guaranteeing airplane usuage - which to be honest is hard enough to do at the best of times with renters, I don't now how many two hour bookings renters flew only a small fraction of for whatever reason. IF you were to charge what the airplane is worth for its down time, it would generally prompt people to do stupid stuff to save a few extra bucks.

Renters also present a greater risk to the loss of the airplane as well, even if it is temporary. I know for us, we've had to restrict rental activity a lot, and unfortunately have been forced to do so even more. You should see people cringe when I tell them about the daily charge for the airplane if they get stuck somewhere, but even that doesn't account for the lost revenue, and other inconviniences (like angry customers, which can be damage really tough to repair) that might be incurred. Nevermind if its lost how hard it is to replace. Currently there are only two choices for new ones, and they ain't cheap.

[vrrotate]

The only flight school twins I've seen land gear up had instructors on board. Does that mean anything? Maybe, maybe not, after-all I've only seen a handful... Wait, maybe it has taught me that the average instructor teaching ME ratings is far too inexperienced.

[E-Flyer]

Or not far too inexperienced, but far too sloppy. Oh what ever, I've flown this play for the past 500 hours so they just start trusting the students cause "nothing can go wrong in an airplane."

[Doc]

Back when dinosaurs ruled the world, I used to have two airplanes that I was able to rent on a fairly regular basis. Make that three. An Aztec and 310 owned by a kosher gentleman in YYZ. He was a great chap to deal with. All the renters had their own keys to both airplanes. You would phone, book a date and time, and the airplane was always ready and waiting, full of fuel and oil! Didi many a fun trip in both! At......wait for it.....60$ an hour....wet!
The other was a privately owned Aztec from an FBO in YYZ. Pretty much the same deal.
Times have changed (not always for the better) and insurance companies and company bottom lines now rule. Aviation is now simply business. The days of flying a couple hundred miles for lunch are long gone.
Private pilots who own their own twins are really rare. There are many singles today that make so much more sense.
But, as Cat pointed out.....way less wear and tear on a nice tow hour cross country than some low time (on twins) instructor pulling more MP than necessary five or ten times an hour when the student calls "max power, gear and flaps up......"