Got to land a King Air 90 today...

The flight is not really a charter. A doctor donates the use of his airplane
and pilot to fly a mission for a related party. Hardly unusual and certainly
well within the limits of part 91. Now, whether the flight violated school
sports recruiting standards might be another matter. :-)

For what it's worth, one of the side notes of the OSU basketball team
King Air 200 crash in Colorado in early 2001 was that the FAA declared
it to be a part 135 flight even though the situation was very similar
to this (the owner donated the use of the aircraft to the university,
and claimed to be operating it under part 91.) In that case as well
there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the
operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20. I don't recall
whether he was multirated or not.

As these things always turn on subtleties, the two cases may well not
be comparable, but these things are seldom simple. If it walks and
quacks like a charter (on-demand ride somewhere in an aircraft not
owned or operated by the folks being transported) the FAA may well
declare it as such, even if no money changes hands. They get very
itchy about this sort of thing. The old adage about the victors
writing history comes to mind.

Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s
and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long
as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my
terror...

BTW, the NTSB ultimately decided that the cause of the OSU crash was a
failing AC inverter, which caused much of the instrumentation to die,
and a graveyard spiral resulted; as Jay now knows the plane has two
and required only a switch flip to bring the second one online, which
apparently the pilot failed to do even when faced with a whole lot of
warning lights.

Dave Katz wrote:
Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s
and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long
as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my
terror...

Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach
speed. ;-)

john smith writes:

Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach
speed. ;-)

Haven't done a single engine approach, happily, but I did have to do a
couple of no-flaps approaches (at night) after the rather odd
split-flap avoidance mechanism failed (by refusing to move the flaps
at all.) 120 over the fence was kind of fun; luckily the runways were
long (VNY and MRY) and reversable props are quite helpful. I believe
my quote of the evening was "Yee hah!" ;-)

They're just overgrown Barons, really, with better short field
performance. ;-)

In that case as well
there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the
operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20.

If a King Air 200 is a "BE20," is a King Air 90 a "BE9"?

Just want to fill out the logbook correctly, and I didn't think to ask at
12:30 AM...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

If a King Air 200 is a "BE20," is a King Air 90 a "BE9"?

The 90 and A90 to E90 designations are "BE9L". The F90 is a "BE9T".

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.