Jump to content

Gentreau

Members
  • Posts

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Gentreau

  1. .......After 4pm it was business as usual with alot of aircraft leaving with no control or coordination from ground so ctaf rules apply.....

    So the question has to be asked whether it is appropriate to revert to CTAF rules when there are a lot of aircraft wanting to get away at the same time.

     

    Also, whether it is a good idea to allow the use of multiple entry points onto the active departure runway.

     

     

  2. Non-Cash CostsOpportunity Cost (6% of $65,000)

    Depreciation (variable based on hrs)

     

    ........

    Thanks very much for sharing that, it's always good to see somebody else's list in case I've overlooked something.

     

    I guess in the case where we borrow the capital, then the interest payments replace the opportunity cost.

     

    I wonder what rate of depreciation you use, as the actual rate seems relatively low for aircraft after the initial "out of the dealership" loss.

     

    My impression is that the longer you operate an aircraft, the less the overall depreciation.

     

     

  3. We've done detailed figures on both a J170 and a Gazelle. J170 is $150/hour to hire and Gazelle is $135/hour to hire. Costings involved everything including opportunity cost of the funds invested (the calculations were used in cross-hire arrangements). Break-even hours for the Jabiru came at 3.4 hours per week and breakeven for the Gazelle came in at 3.1 hours per week. If you exclude the opportunity cost and depreciation then the break-even was about 1.6 hours for each aircraft. These figures included L2/LAME costs for all maintenance as they're used in the flying school as well as sink funds for engine and prop.

    I'd be very interested to see the calculations, if not the actual figures, to see all the items you've included and how you've calculated/estimated them.

     

    Could you share them please ?

     

     

  4. There are some statistics on this tutorial page. I'll let others decide if they provide any meaningful information. 033_scratching_head.gif.b541836ec2811b6655a8e435f4c1b53a.gif

    What is clear from that data, as is found in other accident data, is that the vast majority of accidents are attributed to pilot error of some kind.

     

    The occurences of structural failure during normal flight (overstress failure is also pilot error) are minimal. With many machines now having BRS parachutes, even that need no longer be serious.

     

    The HAWK report recently attempted to compare the different regulatory regimes in Europe for Microlights and to identify the best areas to concentrate efforts in order to reduce accidents. The major conclusion: Pilot Training !

     

     

  5. How about the other part of the information required to come up with comparative safety statistics ?

     

    We may know the number of accidents (reported) but how many safe hours/kilometres were flown in microlights in that period ?

     

    Impossible to know and hence impossible to say that microlights are less or more safe than anything else, it's all perception and feeling.

     

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...