Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Learjet repo man

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: The Learjet repo man

#31

Post by blhack »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

An interesting point not emphasized in the article: each plane can require a significant amount of training time to be able to fly safely. Getting behind the controls of a $10 Million plane that you've never flown before and having to take it somewhere has got to have a higher pucker factor than the guys with guns, if you ask me.

I used to think the same thing.

My Brother in Law is a very seasoned pilot, so is my dad.

I asked them about this one day. Like "guys, how do you go from flying around in little Citation 5s to flying around in massive jumbo jets?"

They were confused about my question.

Why?

Because flying isn't flying, it's systems. You learn the GPS, you learn the autopilot, you learn the radio, and after that, you follow the checklist.

You're just there to press the buttons, the rest of it is planned.

They always joke that, "if you're flying IFR (instrument flight rating, meaning that every single one of your movements in controlled by the tower), you have to get clearance from control before you can scratch your balls".

I still don't believe them, but just thought I'd chime in.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#32

Post by blhack »

jrockway wrote: post #13
staunch wrote: post #9

Getting the plane doesn't seem like the scary part. You know you're safe once you're flying away. The scary part is knowing that you just made enemies with someone who owned a $100 million toy. If just one of them is the vengeful type they might have your entire family killed. Talking about it publicly seems about the dumbest possible thing to do.

someone who owned a $100 million toy No, someone who missed several payments on a leased $100 million toy. The ultra rich-and-powerful don't miss the payments. Also, if the repo man dies shortly after repossessing your property, you are probably going to be at the top of the list of suspects... so killing the guy's whole family is probably not a good idea.

Maybe you didn't read the article completely.

He isn't just repossesing airplanes from businessmen, he is repossesing them from psychotic foreign dictators, drug dealers, warlords, etc.

This is why he has ended up in South American prison.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#33

Post by DanielBMarkham »

blhack wrote: post #31
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

An interesting point not emphasized in the article: each plane can require a significant amount of training time to be able to fly safely. Getting behind the controls of a $10 Million plane that you've never flown before and having to take it somewhere has got to have a higher pucker factor than the guys with guns, if you ask me.

I used to think the same thing. My Brother in Law is a very seasoned pilot, so is my dad. I asked them about this one day. Like "guys, how do you go from flying around in little Citation 5s to flying around in massive jumbo jets?" They were confused about my question. Why? Because flying isn't flying, it's systems. You learn the GPS, you learn the autopilot, you learn the radio, and after that, you follow the checkli…

As a couple of counter-stories, an instructor I once had asked another instructor how long he'd last in a high-performance twin that he hadn't checked out in.

"About two minutes" was the answer

Another _very_ seasoned instructor I know confided in me that he was concerned that a private student with a very expensive airplane wanted highly-technical training and he didn't feel like he was up for it. Now this is coming from a guy who is in the top ten or twenty instructors worldwide.

I get the gist of what they're saying -- but I think there's a bit of malarky in there somewhere. Airlines pay big bucks to get pilots current on gear just a little different than what they've already flown. There's good reasons for this.

Flying your seventh type of airplane is sorta the same, but it's nowhere near like using your seventh version of a word processor.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#34

Post by blhack »

tptacek wrote: post #29

His firm earns in the "low-to-mid seven figures". Call me crazy, but I think starting a tech consulting firm might be a happier way to get at that kind of money than facing down shotgun-wielding militiamen and flying off in a strange jet. The numbers in this post kind of don't add up: * His first repo gig got him $145k. * Recovering a string of badly-maintained helicopters got him a "tidy six figures". * A good year…

>He employs 65 "super repos"

I doubt that he employs 65 full time pilots. It sounds like more him, his wife, and his two sons.

The other people are probably just brutes that he calls up every once in a while for doing large things like taking a fleet of helicopters.

Also, I suspect that that "tidy six figures" is a net after he has paid his employees. (I'm going to assume that they get paid per job, not per year).

Re: The Learjet repo man

#35

Post by tptacek »

blhack wrote: post #34
tptacek wrote: post #29

His firm earns in the "low-to-mid seven figures". Call me crazy, but I think starting a tech consulting firm might be a happier way to get at that kind of money than facing down shotgun-wielding militiamen and flying off in a strange jet. The numbers in this post kind of don't add up: * His first repo gig got him $145k. * Recovering a string of badly-maintained helicopters got him a "tidy six figures". * A good year…

>He employs 65 "super repos" I doubt that he employs 65 full time pilots. It sounds like more him, his wife, and his two sons. The other people are probably just brutes that he calls up every once in a while for doing large things like taking a fleet of helicopters. Also, I suspect that that "tidy six figures" is a net after he has paid his employees. (I'm going to assume that they get paid per job, not per year).

They used the word "fee" in the article. That isn't ambiguous. A six-figure fee is a gross amount.

I'm leaning towards calling shenanigans on this.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#36

Post by ajross »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #33
blhack wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think the same thing. My Brother in Law is a very seasoned pilot, so is my dad. I asked them about this one day. Like "guys, how do you go from flying around in little Citation 5s to flying around in massive jumbo jets?" They were confused about my question. Why? Because flying isn't flying, it's systems. You learn the GPS, you learn the autopilot, you learn the radio, and after that, you follow the checkli…

As a couple of counter-stories, an instructor I once had asked another instructor how long he'd last in a high-performance twin that he hadn't checked out in. "About two minutes" was the answer Another _very_ seasoned instructor I know confided in me that he was concerned that a private student with a very expensive airplane wanted highly-technical training and he didn't feel like he was up for it. Now this is coming…

The distinction there is an issue of risk analysis. Airlines pay big bucks because every minor goof is a potential disaster. There are huge stakes, both personal and financial resting on every decision in the cockpit. As a result, a "culture of safety" exists in pretty much all of aviation. This is a good thing. A community of pilots trained to cross all their t's and dot all their i's as a matter of instinct is better for everyone.

But that doesn't mean that taking off solo in a plane you know only from manuals is always going to result in an accident, either. Even DUI drivers "usually" get where they're going without incident.

Reading the article (yeah, with a little salt applied), this is a guy who faces down armed resistance. So the appropriate question of risk isn't "is an accident possible?", it's "Is an accident more likely than the other risks assumed?". There, I think he's on much firmer ground.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#37

Post by uuilly »

jtuyen wrote: post #5

Someone should make a movie script about this guy!

Tom Wolfe wrote a book called "A Man in Full" that had a very similar character. He said that the formerly wealthy hang on to their private jets harder than anything else. They even went as far as creating fake airline stubs for debt collection meetings to act like they were flying commercial. Quite entertaining.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#38

Post by Dilpil »

tptacek wrote: post #29

His firm earns in the "low-to-mid seven figures". Call me crazy, but I think starting a tech consulting firm might be a happier way to get at that kind of money than facing down shotgun-wielding militiamen and flying off in a strange jet. The numbers in this post kind of don't add up: * His first repo gig got him $145k. * Recovering a string of badly-maintained helicopters got him a "tidy six figures". * A good year…

People in these lines of work generally aren't in it purely for the money. The money is an important part, as it legitimizes them as the victor, but generally there's an appetite for risk and excitement.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#39

Post by mrduncan »

jhaski wrote: post #28

As a pilot, I know that many of the airplanes are not locked when they are sitting on the tarmac. The keys are usually generic, so you can probably use a key to a similar aircraft to start the engines. I never really thought about it before, but stealing a jet would probably be easier than stealing a car (minus, of course, the crazy militia who might kill you for repossessing the airplane).

While taking control of the aircraft might be easier, I'd imagine that you'd be a lot easier to track via radar. That's not to mention that the Air Force is probably going to assume you're a terrorist and I doubt you're going to outrun any fighter jets.

Edit: I was referring to outright theft above, not repoing.

Re: The Learjet repo man

#40

Post by sokoloff »

mrduncan wrote: post #39
jhaski wrote: post #28

As a pilot, I know that many of the airplanes are not locked when they are sitting on the tarmac. The keys are usually generic, so you can probably use a key to a similar aircraft to start the engines. I never really thought about it before, but stealing a jet would probably be easier than stealing a car (minus, of course, the crazy militia who might kill you for repossessing the airplane).

While taking control of the aircraft might be easier, I'd imagine that you'd be a lot easier to track via radar. That's not to mention that the Air Force is probably going to assume you're a terrorist and I doubt you're going to outrun any fighter jets. Edit: I was referring to outright theft above, not repoing.

Nonsense. Squawk 1200, and once airborne, you're free to use the radios. The point about not using the radio on the ground was to ensure that you could actually get the craft off the ground without the current owners or FBO knowing what you were up to.
Post reply on HN