New partner wants to start backcountry flying

[jhoyt]

Just bought into a nice 182. I'm new PPL for 3 mos; partner has about 400hrs. He's decided to take some back country lessons from an expert in Idaho which at the time I didn't think much about other than "cool". This is what this plane is made for doing. Now wondering about this higher risk type of flying, and potential for signficant accident that --after repair--would decrease value on selling. The partnership issues were easy to agree on and things are going nicely, other than this new situation. Hull value 110K. Any additional insurance policy to look at or revision of contract? Presently too new a pilot to consider this type of flying. Any of you out there with partners who fly at different "level" and higher risk? Wondered if you incorporate any changes in contracts?

 

[DJTorrente]

At its base, this just sounds like one of those things that you need to find out if you and your airplane partner are compatible to make a partnership between you viable. Does he want bush tires and wheel pants off? Is that going to affect your use of the plane as a cross-country traveler? These are factors that change from one owenership group to the next, and only you have the answers.

I suspect the controlling factor will be your insurer. What does your policy have to say about operations from unimproved strips? Is there a price tag for a rider that would insure those ops if not already? Consider also that a low time PP might be more of a risk factor than a 400 hr pilot fling back country -- that what the underwriters and actuaries get paid the big bucks to figure out. I'm not trying to knock you down, just advising you to approach the situation with a bit of humility.

So after your insurance policy, does your written partnership agreement have anything to say about back country operations?

If the ops are insured, and not prohibited by your partnership agreement, you may not like him doing it, but I'd wonder what you can do to stop it? Frankly, if he prangs the plane in the bush (or anywhere else for that matter, or it is you who do the pranging), that's what your insurance is there for.

Safe flights.

 

[txflyer]

I would make sure my insurance policy specifically covers off field work or that type of flying. Mine says something along the lines of anywhere I deem safe as PIC I'm covered and it specifically says off field landings are covered.

I'd tell your partner he should have got a 180 and set it up on tundra's if that's the type flying he wants to get into. Eventually, he's going to scrub the wheel pants off if he does a lot of it.

Sorry, none of this helps your dilemma much unless somebody writes a big check. :wink2:



.

 

[SkyDog58]

What type of backcountry flying is he planning on doing? Is he just wanting to fly through the mountains and land on some of the grass strips out there? My understanding is that a lot of those are pretty well manicured. Or is he planning on landing on sandbars and other rocky areas? I would have no issue with the grass strips as a partner but would have issues with the rocky stuff.

 

[sourdough44]

Yeah,, what level of 'backcountry'? Could be lightly loaded, 3000' MSL and a 4000' grass strip, our near max weight, 2200' strip at 6400' MSL, with warmer temps and varying winds.

 

[mondtster]

What type of backcountry flying is he planning on doing? Is he just wanting to fly through the mountains and land on some of the grass strips out there? My understanding is that a lot of those are pretty well manicured. Or is he planning on landing on sandbars and other rocky areas? I would have no issue with the grass strips as a partner but would have issues with the rocky stuff.

That's where I would start. Find out what he considers "backcountry" compared to what you're thinking "backcountry" is. I've seen some guys think that some pretty tame airports qualify as "backcountry". Once those terms are defined you should probably look into your insurance policy to see if what he is wanting to do is covered. Aside from that, what was your original agreement? Did you guys discuss what kind of flying you each would be doing?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Backcountry in Idaho generally means landing on one of the strips that the State or the Forest Service owns.

Some take a bit of imagination to see the "strip".

Here is Mile High:

Others are more defined and manicured, like Johnson Creek:

The book "Fly Idaho" will describe every airport, and has a ranking system from 0-28 (I think 50 is the top??) or difficulty. It considers items like runway, approach, elevation, etc. It is kind of the Bible for backcountry Idaho flying.

Some of the more "imaginative" strips are not rated.

With all that being said, to address the OP. The whole purpose of owning an airplane and flying it is to be able to enjoy it and use it. To have a partnership that tries to limit the ability of the other partner would be defeating.

And, if you ding the airplane at a large Class B, you would have the same issue on the repairs and subsequent value.

You guys have insurance, allow the insurance to take the risk, and allow the other partner to be able to enjoy the plane.

And, life has risks, you can't expect all the risks to be taken out of life for you.

Let him fly.

 

[James331]

A 182 can be a heck of a backcountry plane, heck Google CC Pocock, he does backcountry stuff with a more or less stock 172 that most of the ritch guys in carbon cubs with tundras would be scared to attempt.

I'd talk with your partners CFI, gauge what he's trying to do and his skill at doing it.

Frankly backcountry work is just the natural evolution of good pilots, after a couple hundred hours most skilled pilots are going to start leaning towards the backcountry side

 

[jhoyt]

Backcountry in Idaho generally means landing on one of the strips that the State or the Forest Service owns.

Some take a bit of imagination to see the "strip".

Here is Mile High:

Others are more defined and manicured, like Johnson Creek:

The book "Fly Idaho" will describe every airport, and has a ranking system from 0-28 (I think 50 is the top??) or difficulty. It considers items like runway, approach, elevation, etc. It is kind of the Bible for backcountry Idaho flying.

Some of the more "imaginative" strips are not rated.

With all that being said, to address the OP. The whole purpose of owning an airplane and flying it is to be able to enjoy it and use it. To have a partnership that tries to limit the ability of the other partner would be defeating.

And, if you ding the airplane at a large Class B, you would have the same issue on the repairs and subsequent value.

You guys have insurance, allow the insurance to take the risk, and allow the other partner to be able to enjoy the plane.

And, life has risks, you can't expect all the risks to be taken out of life for you.

Let him fly.

Great comments. Prob johnsons creek type fields in Idaho. Doubt less than 2000' runways. Is taking extensive training w Idaho expert. From all of this I think main thing is checking insurance. This plane w beefed up pponk is great for mountain flying.

 

[James331]

Do you have the larger nose fork and tires?

For the manacured grass strips it's not really that important and it's not exactly super backcountry, if you guys start looking to blaze your own trails I've noticed most of those 182s have the biger nose fork and tires.

 

[jhoyt]

Do you have the larger nose fork and tires?

For the manacured grass strips it's not really that important and it's not exactly super backcountry, if you guys start looking to blaze your own trails I've noticed most of those 182s have the biger nose fork and tires.

Generic nose wheel. Grass strips about as rural as he wants to go. We have discussed upgrade as 182 tend to have wimpy nose wheels. Good idea.

 

[SkyDog58]

Generic nose wheel. Grass strips about as rural as he wants to go. We have discussed upgrade as 182 tend to have wimpy nose wheels. Good idea.

Then I would not be too concerned as long as he understands density altitude, the limits of the plane and can perform performance calculations.

 

[Dr. O]

Partnerships are marriages - and you never know what the significant other is going to come home with

 

[SkyDog58]

Partnerships are marriages - and you never know what the significant other is going to come home with

Yeah, but rashes whether it be ramp/hangar or genital are never a good thing. Going into strange narrow confined spaces surrounded by bush can be dangerous.

 

[James331]

Then I would not be too concerned as long as he understands density altitude, the limits of the plane and can perform performance calculations.

Of this is the case I wouldn't even worry about it, moreover this might be something you might want to do as well.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Agree w/most of the above.

1. Find out what type of "backcountry" flying he is doing/wants to do.
2. Make sure that type of flying is covered by insurance. If it is, carry on. If it isn't, make him cover the cost of the rider.
3. Ride along with him and see if it's something you might want to do as well. Low time doesn't equal no backcountry.

 

[steingar]

What type of backcountry flying is he planning on doing? Is he just wanting to fly through the mountains and land on some of the grass strips out there? My understanding is that a lot of those are pretty well manicured. Or is he planning on landing on sandbars and other rocky areas? I would have no issue with the grass strips as a partner but would have issues with the rocky stuff.

I would if the airplane had wheel pants. Even a well manicured strip can do a number on them. And fixing or replacing can get spendy. Moreover, removal looses knots of speed. Something I would want explicit agreement before I signed on.

If the OP is cools with the pants off then I don't see the big deal. So long as the airplane is insured for the ops the partner should be able to do what he or she wants. Skylanes are great backcountry airplanes, they can power their way out of near anything.

 

[comanche pilot]

Agree w/most of the above.

1. Find out what type of "backcountry" flying he is doing/wants to do.
2. Make sure that type of flying is covered by insurance. If it is, carry on. If it isn't, make him cover the cost of the rider.
3. Ride along with him and see if it's something you might want to do as well. Low time doesn't equal no backcountry.

+1 on line item #3!!!
Especially while he's getting some instruction in it!!

 

[James331]

I would if the airplane had wheel pants. Even a well manicured strip can do a number on them. And fixing or replacing can get spendy. Moreover, removal looses knots of speed. Something I would want explicit agreement before I signed on.

If the OP is cools with the pants off then I don't see the big deal. So long as the airplane is insured for the ops the partner should be able to do what he or she wants. Skylanes are great backcountry airplanes, they can power their way out of near anything.

Landed on tons of quasi backcountry strips and beaches with my last plane, never even scratched a wheel pant.

Unless you're really doing some major backcountry (which it sounds like the OP isn't doing) it's really not that big of a deal.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I would if the airplane had wheel pants. Even a well manicured strip can do a number on them. And fixing or replacing can get spendy. Moreover, removal looses knots of speed. Something I would want explicit agreement before I signed on.

Probably depends on the airplane and type of wheel pant.

A lot of folks talk about wheel pants being a problem on grass, but I've never had so much as a single blade of grass get stuck in my pants on the Waco.

 

[Stewartb]

The big grass strips in Idaho aren't the challenge for man or machine. Afternoon density altitudes and funky drafts in the valleys are, especially when coupled with twisting valley approaches. Mountain flying instruction is important for any pilot unfamiliar with mountain flying. Maneuvering in confined spaces isn't something that comes naturally for most pilots.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Probably depends on the airplane and type of wheel pant.

A lot of folks talk about wheel pants being a problem on grass, but I've never had so much as a single blade of grass get stuck in my pants on the Waco.

Same experience.
I've had wheel pants on three taildraggers. All were operated a lot in grass. Never a problem.....none. They also keep dirt- mud off the underside of the wing if it's a bit " damp" on the strip. One time it was quite wet when I landed and some mud stuck in the pants. Simply hosed it out. Easy. ( Luscome F, 140 Cessna, champ.)

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Same experience.
I've had wheel pants on three taildraggers. All were operated a lot in grass. Never a problem.....none. They also keep dirt- mud off the underside of the wing if it's a bit " damp" on the strip. One time it was quite wet when I landed and some mud stuck in the pants. Simply hosed it out. Easy. ( Luscome F, 140 Cessna, champ.)

Let me add this if I may. I agree with prior advise that partnerships can be be big trouble. It seems odd that your partner did not mention this " backcountry obsession" before you signed on. I would go over it very carefully with the insurance agent , exactly what type of " backcountry" your partner is talking about and have a very clear understanding of what insurance additions or restrictions might apply.( He is also low time in their eyes.) Ive used Avemco for fourty five years. You might want to check with them as they are very straight forward and tell it straight. The guy I speak to is Brian. Hope this helps. Good luck.

 

[JoseCuervo]

First thing I did when I bought my 182 was remove the wheel pants. I don't like the looks of them, and didn't want them causing issues.

I almost gave them away, now have them stored somewhere. They will never go on my plane.

 

[JimNtexas]

Just bought into a nice 182. I'm new PPL for 3 mos; partner has about 400hrs. He's decided to take some back country lessons from an expert in Idaho which at the time I didn't think much about other than "cool". This is what this plane is made for doing. Now wondering about this higher risk type of flying, and potential for significant accident that ...

If your partner is flying within the FARs, insurance policy, and whatever written agreement you two signed then he's fine.

When you enter into a multiple ownership agreement you have to accept that one of your partners may wreck the airplane while flying within the rules, just because that day he or she was a bonehead.

That partner may be yourself.

That's something you have to be mentally prepared to deal with, without getting too emotional about it.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Mile High is not easy. Very steep and very scary. It and maybe one or two other public ones are probably too risky for the average pilot. But the ones like Johnson Creek, longer than 2000', are very doable by the average pilot. Taildraggers are popular, but nosewheels work pretty well. Dont go when it muddy and dont push it. Best way to do it is to hire an instructor in McCall and have him or her accompany you. Spooky to fly there though, lots of trees, not too many emergency landing meadows. Avoid the ones shorter than 2000' until you find out whats what. Great camping at some of them and great fishing too!

 

[brcase]

Might check out the Backcountry policy for one of our local Clubs and work with your partners to develop something similar for your airplane. Just seems some good guidelines to start with..

http://www.t-craft.org/Reference/BackcountryFlyingPolicy.pdf

Brian

 

[James331]

It seems odd that your partner did not mention this " backcountry obsession" before you signed on.

Perhaps he didn't think it was a issue, or anything another pilot would take issue with.

 

[oregonboy109]

A 182 can be a heck of a backcountry plane, heck Google CC Pocock, he does backcountry stuff with a more or less stock 172 that most of the ritch guys in carbon cubs with tundras would be scared to attempt.

I'd talk with your partners CFI, gauge what he's trying to do and his skill at doing it.

Frankly backcountry work is just the natural evolution of good pilots, after a couple hundred hours most skilled pilots are going to start leaning towards the backcountry side

Just watched some of his videos on youtube. Amazing that he can do that with a 172. Pretty cool