Original email to Sky-Vu members:

Sky-Vu recently completed a survey of our membership (conducted by Joe Daniels) and reviewed the data at our March members’ meeting (Joe’s full presentation is available on our website www.sky-vu.org in the members only section). One of the main themes from this survey was that members wanted a more cross-country capable airplane and would be supportive of expanding our membership in response to the increased interest in our club and the long wait list for membership.  An Expansion Committee was formed to explore ideas and put together a proposal.  At our April members’ meeting, our club Expansion Committee gave a presentation on their work and proposals for expanding the number of club memberships and adding a fifth airplane to the fleet. The committee was chaired by John Holcombe, with Joe Daniel, Jack Morton, Bill Smith, John Oot and Ron Diamond making up the rest of the team. Attached is a copy of the presentation that was made at the meeting on April 10, 2017 (the presentation is also available on our website).

Very simply, the Expansion Committee has proposed expanding club members to an additional 15 members for a total of 75 members in the club. At the same time, the committee has proposed adding a fifth airplane to the fleet. The proposed aircraft is an earlier model (early 2000s) Cirrus SR22 which would be hangared at Indianapolis Regional Airport (MQJ), formerly known as Mt. Comfort Airport. This airport was selected for several reasons, but primarily because of multiple runways (thereby reducing crosswind landings), proximity to current and prospective members, and available and more affordable hangars. In addition, Indianapolis Regional was one of the more popular airports suggested for possible expansion in the survey. Projections are that dues would likely increase by $10 or less per month to cover the added fixed costs of the fifth airplane and that the hourly rate for the SR22 would likely be $180/hr.

Your board of directors is supportive of the proposals, but we’d like give members who were not in attendance at the meeting an opportunity to provide their inputs. This is an exciting time for our club and I’m happy to report that the momentum that has been building the past several years continues!  Interest in Sky-Vu has never been higher (as evidenced by the number of inquiries, the number of folks on the waiting list, and the price that club memberships are selling for at present). Also, attendance at monthly meetings has increased as well as overall engagement of our members.  Please take time to review the attached presentation and provide your feedback at your earliest convenience. Please let us know your thoughts on the proposed plans or if you have additional questions. Please send your comments/questions to board@sky-vu.org.

Thank you!

——————————————-

Michael Turik

President, Sky-Vu Flyers

president@sky-vu.org

Note:  For clarification, the decision on expansion of the membership, pursuing a new airplane (likely an SR-22) and locating the new airplane at MQJ was unanimously supported by the Expansion Committee and the Board.

Comment:  It’s good that those club members not in attendance at the April meeting will have a chance to see the presentation, sans the discussion.  I have a couple of thoughts I’d like to add after attending the April meeting.

One item that the committee (or John Oot) should plan for is how members can transition to the SR22 once it arrives.  I’m sure there will be a number of members who will want to start training ASAP.  Jack Vandeventer was mentioned as the only Cirrus certified flight instructor in the club.  What will it take for the other club approved instructors to get that certification?  Will it be at their own expense or will the club reimburse them for that training?

As far as members getting checked out and the requirements for the Cirrus, that it will depend upon whether it’s glass or not.  For me personally, if it’s glass, and based on the insurance requirements, I probably won’t get checked out in it as the 10 hours mandatory check out with flight instructor will be around $2,200 which is a large investment just to be able to fly it solo, not to mention MQJ is almost an hour for me one-way.  I hope the committee takes the no glass/glass type into account when deciding on an aircraft.  Granted, there are check out hours currently for the 182’s and 21D, but the price of admission is much lower, not to mention the number of hours PIC required.   I am concerned that a glass aircraft could scare off current members even though having the Cirrus could attract new members.  How fast new members would join is an unknown.

Another item is aircraft capability, especially since some of them have the TKS system making it a FIKI aircraft.  Again, John should evaluate the safety aspect of having that capability.  Most of us are not familiar with flight into known icing conditions.  It may be best to forgo that option so that a pilot isn’t tempted to push the envelope and end up in a bad situation.  I’ve flown my organization’s Piper Lance over 140 hours in the past 2 years.  It is definitely a high performance airplane with 300HP and retractable gear.  It has a much different flight envelope than the 182.  The Cirrus I expect will be the same, minus retractable gear.  It might be worth it to offer a group ground school before anyone gets in it.  I went through that with the Lance and it was very helpful.

Finally, looking at our last newsletter, there are 13 pilots with suspended privileges.  I would like to suggest that we contact them specifically and ask if they will continue as members of Sky-Vu.  If they chose to leave, we could end up in a situation where we have 5 aircraft and less than 60 members, at least until new members could come on board.  It would also increase the financial burden of the current active membership.

There are a lot of moving parts to this expansion plan.  I just want to be sure that the club has and will put itself in the best position for the future.

Reply: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I can definitely tell you we are not looking at a glass cockpit. I don’t think we’re necessarily looking for a TKS system either (i.e., wouldn’t make a selection based on needing to have that).  FIKI is a “whole ‘nother level” that I think as a club we should not get into (pardon the pun).  We don’t have any plans to reimburse Club instructors to be CSIP certified.  Also, we don’t have any plans to contact members with suspended scheduling privileges.

Comment:  Overall I think adding 15 members and an SR22 is a great plan.  I worry a bit about the continual creep up of our dues and how that impacts some members.  For me it still makes sense and is worth the added cost, especially in adding a high performer to the fleet.

One suggestion I have is to base the SR22 at UMP, which is geographically very central to a larger number of current and prospective members, and re-position one of our existing aircraft to MQJ. For example, as to perspective members, there’s not a Cirrus for rent at UMP or MQJ, but there is a Cessna 172RG for rent at UMP but not at MQJ, so maybe move the 172RG to MQJ.  BTW, those two airfields are equal travel time for me, so I’m not advocating a personal preference.

A few questions.  For Avemco pilot requirements, must the CFIs be Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilots (rated/signed-off by Cirrus) in order to provide instruction that meets Avemco’s requirements?  If so, do we have CFIs planning to go that expense?   Ten hours make & model is likely justified for all of us stepping to a slippery glass aircraft with 300HP, but that will likely provide a bit of a log jam in the beginning.  Has the committee talked to local SR22 owners to get their thoughts and advice about transition and on-going operations?

I’ll try to make the next meeting, so please don’t feel obligated to answer by email.

Thank you to the members who have worked so hard on this detailed analysis and recommendation.

Reply:  Thank you for taking the time to send your comments for the board’s review! I certainly share your concern about keeping dues reasonable and that some members may find another dues increase less than desirable, but like you I think the plan is a good one. I also think now is a good time to make this happen as we have a growing number of people on a waiting list to get into the club. Your suggestion to base the SR22 at Metro is worth some more discussion as you raise some points we haven’t heard yet. I do know that historically, we’ve tried to maintain a balance of “rates” at each airport. For example, at EYE we’ve got N721ZA (highest hourly rate in the fleet) matched up with the lowest hourly rate of N5168V. At Metro, N182SV (second highest hourly rate) is matched up with our 21D, next to lowest rate. Placing the new airplane at Metro could potentially upset the “balance” but probably should be discussed. Other reasons to put the airplane at MQJ include that they have larger, 44’ hangars available (Metro does not), and with two runways, the opportunities for a landing mishap related to cross-wind landings is reduced. Incidentally, in a recent meeting with Avemco, their Senior VP of underwriting stated the biggest areas of loss for their business was landing mishaps, so this is something I think we should take seriously.With respect to CSIPs, we will be discussing this further. Jack Vandeventer, one of our Club-Approved instructors, is already a CSIP and would be qualified on day one. Avemco does not require CSIPs for checkouts in a non-glass version of the aircraft, which is what we’re focused on. Avemco is open to the idea on non-CSIPs instructing for us in a non-glass version of the airplane, based on total instructor time and time in make and model.

We’ve lost several members who bought into Cirrus aircraft with a few other partners. I know Bill Smith talked with a former member who left the club to get into an SR22 with some other guys. My understanding from Bill is that he reinforced the idea that 10 hours is needed to make a good transition from the Cessnas we have to the SR22. I think the other board members and I agree this airplane will need more than the typical 1-hour checkride. According to the Avemco VP, appropriate time is needed to learn how to fly the Cirrus “airframe” in comparison to a Cessna – flatter approaches and takeoffs, greater attention to precision on approach airspeeds, handling with the side stick, etc. With this in mind, I expect the board will be discussing not only the minimum pilot requirements that Avemco mandates, but likely some additional requirements to help increase the level of proficiency of members who want to fly this airplane. Basically, I don’t think any of us like the idea of someone climbing into this airplane and taking off if they haven’t flown for a year or more.

Thanks again for sending your thoughtful comments. Hope to see you at our next meeting, Monday, May 8 at Tom Wood Aviation.

Comment:  100% agree with everything.  Great work.  Appreciate the detailed analyses of location and aircraft type.  I’d bet demand on the cirrus could be quite high first few years, with everyone working to get hours and certified.  Could likely review logs for when the G1000 came in to guesstimate the demand.  I vote yea.

Reply:  Thank you for taking time to response to our request for input! Thanks also for your supporting comments. Yes, the committee did a great job of pulling all the data together and hashing it out amongst themselves to come up with their proposals. I talked briefly with Diamond and he said N721ZA was a source of anxiety when the club first bought it. I wasn’t a member then, but he said it was the most money the club had ever spent on an airplane, it would have (and still has) the highest hourly rate in the fleet, insurance required specialized training for the G1000, and there was less flying going on at the time. Everybody held their breath, but members ended up flying the wheel pants off the thing since day one. I anticipate we’ll see something similar when we add our fifth airplane to the fleet!

Comment:  TYQ has self-service fuel and Cirrus Authorized Service center becoming a Platinum service center and a Platinum CSIP instructor and a second CSIP instructor on the field. The entire TYQ maintenance staff has changed (with major improvement in skills and communication skills) over the past 18 months. Come visit and interview the staff.

MQJ is not a Cirrus maintenance facility or have CSIP instructors on the field.

Get WAAS equipped aircraft as 80% will be going to better approaches in next 5 years or factor in upgrade costs.

Reply:  Thank you for taking time to send your comments! The committee did take into consideration that TYQ is a Cirrus Service center and has CSIP instructors, including you. Both TYQ and MQJ were at the top of the list, but MQJ became the leader because they have available 44′ hangars whereas TYQ is currently has no hangars available. Also, the hangars are less costly at MQJ when compared to TYQ. While it’s nice to know we have a Cirrus Service Center close by, our expectation is most any shop like the one at MQJ should be able to service with little or no problem. Then, there are the multiple runways which should reduce some of the risk on those days when the wind isn’t blowing the right way. Finally, the committee did an analysis on current and prospective membership and ease of accessibility and determined that MQJ was the better choice. Admittedly, not everyone will find MQJ as close as TYQ, but being 2 miles from I-70 is a major plus from an accessibility standpoint. Again, thank you for providing your inputs!

Comment:  Thanks for the update – sounds like there was good discussion.

I would like to know more about the insurance currency requirements for a glass SR22?

What is the Cirrus currency training program consist of and what would it take to get an initial check out.

Personally – I am a little concerned that this would require 3 hours / 180 days for 21d and the new sr22. I sometimes struggle to keep up with 21d and may have trouble keeping current for both.

Reply:  Thank you for providing your feedback to the board! With respect to the insurance requirements, please see slide #25 in the Expansion Committee presentation (found on our website) regarding minimum pilot requirements that Avemco will require for glass and non-glass cockpits. I can tell you that we are focusing on a non-glass version of the airplane because of overall cost and minimum pilot requirement considerations. With everything that we’ve heard though, an SR22 is not an airplane like our current Cessna fleet, where you can get checked out in 1-1/2 hours and you’re ready to go. We’ve checked with former members who now fly their own Cirrus aircraft and they have said it took them a number of flights and hours to get comfortable in the plane. For this reason, in addition to the minimum pilot requirements mandated by Avemco, we will discuss potential additional requirements to fly as PIC in a club SR-22 (e.g., a club rule to require 3 hours within the previous 180 days to fly as a PIC) just like 21D as you mention. I can certainly appreciate and understand your concern about staying current in both airplanes. Each member will need to review his own strategy for maintaining currency for a particular airplane.

Thank you again for taking time to comment!