ABCD wrote:
Why is there no charter work on this aircraft? is it because it is to old?
Old, small amd slow.
Neil wrote:
There is no significant charter work for old jets, particularly old small jets like the Citation 1
Why is there no charter work on this aircraft? is it because it is to old?
Michael wrote:
I disagree.The FARs are pretty clear on this :
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
But that doesn’t read to me like you have to send someone off to a specific type school. It reads to me that you must consult the maintenance manuals, understand them and be properly rated to do that maintenance (which is his A&P license) and have done it before.
Quote But the bigger reason is probably that the plane can be used for charter.
There is no significant charter work for old jets, particularly old small jets like the Citation 1
JasonC wrote:
I have never flown with Adam but I would point out that “being checked out” is very different from a type rating training process. 16 hours in a simulator or aircraft doing non stop emergencies is not the same as a couple of local flights.
I don’t know what it takes to fly a turboprop commander in the US, in Europe, would it require a type rating? But I know what a type rating training is like, I’ve done the SB20 at a time and most parts of the Caravelle one before that company went bust. In both cases I would have found out what it is to fly an exemplar without something massively broken afterwards, so I do get your concern 
. I also remember the advice I got from a sim instructor once never to take my wife on one of those sessions, she might think the airplane was slightly less than reliable….
JasonC wrote:
Dont think I will fill again or tell anyone it is even there.
Good thinking 
! A guy I know who owns a Winnebago has employed a very similar strategy. His guests usually used the garden instead, even though this might prove difficult on an airplane…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Of course. I thought about Adam here, who is checked out fully on the Commander, which I don’t think is much less complex than a 501 plus has very different characteristics when flown OEI.
I have never flown with Adam but I would point out that “being checked out” is very different from a type rating training process. 16 hours in a simulator or aircraft doing non stop emergencies is not the same as a couple of local flights.
Michael wrote:
Yep, I guess someone’s gotta deal with those chemical loos
I wouldn’t know. Emptied it last week so it didn’t freeze on the ground at -27C. Dont think I will fill again or tell anyone it is even there.
JasonC wrote:
Other than fluids and gases and lights, there is little on a jet that a pilot needs to be able to fiddle with.
Yep, I guess someone’s gotta deal with those chemical loos
With an engine malfunction on a prop plane, fast action (feathering) is vital,
…actually maintaining control is vital, and then methodically carrying out the engine out drill, emphasis on methodically. Kung fu artistes who speed through the drill have a good chance of feathering the wrong engine!
JasonC wrote:
Taking off and doing a couple of approaches is not the same as being able to pass the equivalent of a type rating checkride.
Of course. I thought about Adam here, who is checked out fully on the Commander, which I don’t think is much less complex than a 501 plus has very different characteristics when flown OEI. With an engine malfunction on a prop plane, fast action (feathering) is vital, whereas in the jet this is much less of an immediate issue. Add to that, that the yaw effect on a tail mounted engines vs a wing mounted possibly windmilling prop is very different. I don’t recall any Vmca accidents on a tail mounted jet but many on turboprops and MEP’s!
Anyone who wants to upgrade to something like a 501 from a SEP or MEP it is a different story, even though I hear that moving up from one of the Cessna twins is quite straightforward as they have similar systems, other than fuel fortunately.
My own experiences are highly non standard, but the comparison between the two I know best, the Caravelle and the Saab 2000, the Caravelle was much easier to fly in my opinion. Both are multi crew so it does not compare, but the flight characteristics do.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
With proper training, if you can fly the commander you can fly a Citation 501 in my humble opinion.
A 501 is older and far more complicated to fly single pilot than the later CJs. But broadly I would agree that if you can fly a twin turboprop like a King Air to ATP standards, you could fly a jet similarly with the right training. Taking off and doing a couple of approaches is not the same as being able to pass the equivalent of a type rating checkride.
Other than fluids and gases and lights, there is little on a jet that a pilot needs to be able to fiddle with. Unless you can make it your full time job and get the right training, you would not really want to start playing with engines, avionics or environmental systems. These are complex aircraft flying in the flight levels and to think that anyone other than a pro should maintan them is a little fanciful (although a fun intellectual exercise I grant you).
The biggest cost with a jet is parts. Labour is not the issue.
