PPL(A) and PPL(H) Pilots.

[KNIEVEL77]

Hi Guys,
I was just wondering if many of you hold both PPL(A) and PPL(H) licences and if so, which you one found the most enjoyable/satisfying discipline to pass. I realise most of the exams are the same but how much more difficult/different was the actual flying part of the training?
Is it much harder to fly helicopters than fixed wing or do they both possess their own difficult challenges?
Thank you in anticipation of your opinions.

[Sam Rutherford]

If this is a prelude to learning to fly, then perhaps budget is the first thing you should look at. Not to get the licence (though you need to do this as well) but to continue flying afterwards.

The differences/challenges are not the same. Arguably flying a helicopter is more difficult - but the long distance touring you can do with an aeroplane is more difficult than the (generally) short, local flights with a heli.

Fly safe, Sam.

[EddieHeli]

Definitely think about your budget, because flying rotary costs about the same as flying a twin.
But also think about the type of flying you want to do. I started on fixed wing microlights then went group A(sep), B(multi), IMC and Night, then Rotary.
Microlight great for Club atmosphere and cheap flying. Sep good for touring, although modern microlights are just as good if only 2 up.
Twin better for IMC, night and serious touring abroad.
Rotary good for sheer pleasure and ability to land at the actual destination if going to a country hotel or golf club etc. Not so good for long distance touring due to range and speed.
Flying wise, flying microlights helped me change to rotary as you have to fly them all of the time whereas with fixed wing you can trim or autopilot and get out the flask and sandwiches.
Depends what you want to do for your money, but rotary far more satisfying challenging and expensive.

[Hairyplane]

Hi K77,
I own and fly both.
The heli is the ultimate form of personal transportation. However, don't bother with a PPLH unless you plan to own your own machine and operate it from home. There's no point otherwise.
Heli's are easy to fly. However, they are less forgiving of mistakes. A bounced landing in a fixed wing will invariably be just that - no harm done. However, a badly screwed up landing in a heli, plus maybe an element of added bad luck and...well.. you've probably read the debate about fuel bladders elsewhere on this forum.
If you go the heli route, be careful to remain well inside the envelope and be especially careful whilst hours building. No pressure to go anywhere/ nice weather/ current practise - all common sense.
And..no..stepping from one to the other is just the same as stepping from a Combine onto a motorbike. If you know how to operate the machine and are in current practice - never a problem. The human brain is a remarkable thing.
Hairy

[KNIEVEL77]

Thanks for your replies.
I'm getting on a bit now and not sure i'm going to be able to master the rotary route, especially when things go wrong as Hairy says. There seems to be so much more can go wrong helicopter wise, so much more to get right.
Presumably fixed wing is a lot more forgiving. less taxing on the brain and therefore probably easier to learn?

[Whirlybird]

I found both equally easy...or maybe I mean equally difficult, to learn - but very different. Ditto when it comes to the flying. I at least partially disagree with Hairy about the safety factor, as you are very unlikely to screw up a helicopter landing. For example, in nasty weather conditions, you can land your heli in a field and wait for things to change; in a f/w you'll probably be battling with a crosswind landing!

I see absolutely no reason why you should think you can master f/w flying but not rotary. As a helicopter instructor, I can't remember meeting anyone who couldn't learn to fly one. I did meet one or two people who shouldn't be let loose on any aircraft, or probably anything more dangerous than a tricycle, but that's a different issue.

Go for whichever one you prefer. However, should you decide to do both, be careful in the early days, as when you're inexperienced you can get confused - though not later on, as Hairy says.

[Pilot DAR]

I hold both licenses, and own two FW.

I support a few of the foregoing comments;

Helicopters are much more costly. Is money a factor in training?

The PPLH will be of no use if you don't own a helicopter to fly.

Helicopters are no more dangerous, but they are often less forgiving. The perceived greater risk is that a helicopter can be foolishly flown into more situations/conditions which increase risk, than most planes can. I think that a helicopter which is flown the same as a VFR fixed wing would be, other than for the lack of an airport at each end of the route will be equally safe - though much more costly.

If you think to train in both, do the fixed wing first. Some of the principles are common to both (navigation, airspace and radio work, and diversions/precautionarys), so you may as well learn then in the less expensive aircraft.

There are more mechanical things that can go wrong in a helicopter than a plane, though well maintained, this does not seem to be any greater risk. The plane can suddenly demand more, and more varied pilot skill relative to the norm, than the helicopter. Once the helicopter piloting skills are mastered, they are commonly exercised, other than emergencies. Fixed wing piloting has greater potential to draw you into gusty crosswind landings, soft/short field operations, and rather differing characteristics of aircraft types. Helicopters not so much, until you're in to much larger ones.

Try both for a few hours each....

[Whirlybird]

The PPLH will be of no use if you don't own a helicopter to fly.

Either a myth...or I was very lucky with where I lived. I hired helicopters in the same way people hire club f/w aircraft, though it cost more of course. As a PPL(H), I flew hired aircraft to friends' houses, on a mountain flying course, and to Paris! And that's just what I remember after many years. But check into it first of course.

Try both for a few hours each....

Excellent advice. You may find you prefer one to such an extent (helicopters, I suspect, but I'm biased ;) ) that all other arguments go out the window.

[24Carrot]

I did both PPLs and enjoyed the Helicopter more. I did the fixed wing first, so the low-level helicopter work (e.g. downwind quickstops) was breathtaking.

But, a few years on, I only fly fixed wing now - it just seems easier.

[Private jet]

Not really useful info, but i've known 5 people over the years that did both.
One was a military helicopter pilot who got a fixed wing PPL, another was a BA 747 captain who did the PPL(H), but i think he just did it just to get the license and didnt carry on. The third was an ATPL(H) who was sick to death of the North sea and converted to fixed wing and the other two were PPL's who both went fixed wing to heli's.

[KNIEVEL77]

Thanks again for your replies but I was really wondering if learning to fly fixed wing was any easier than flying a helicopter.
Have had lessons in both, it seems as though you can get yourself into trouble much easier in a helicopter but I'm happy to be over ruled on that as it really is my prefered option even though it is going to cost double that of training in a fixed wing.

[AdamFrisch]

I never finished my PPLH (plan to sometime in the future), but I have about 25hrs on them from back in the mid 90's. All I can add to is the consensus here is that helicopter flying challenges you much more than fixed wing flying and therefore it's much more fun and rewarding. I had my PPL FW before my first heli lesson and after that it was like I lost almost all interest in FW. However, I did rediscover FW and long range touring (which I absolutely love), and here FW rules. Helicopters are useless for travel and cost a lot to operate.

Last year I took about 3hrs of instruction in a Schweizer 300 again, just to see if I any of the skills were still there or retained in my brain. I can tell you they were, but just barely. By the end of it I could just about hover, but my death grip of the cyclic was not pretty. You're kept well busy in a helicopter in almost all phases of flight.

Truth be told, if a bigger fast 150kts twin helicopter like the Sikorsky S-76 had a range of 1000nm, cost the same to operate as a light twin FW, then I wouldn't bother with FW. That would be fast enough for cross countries and it would have all the conveniences of a heli. But the fact is that a S76 will cost closer to operating a big exec jet per hour - they're absolutely ruinous.

[24Carrot]

I was tempted to say that fixed wing is easier, but checking my logbooks, I took roughly the same (long) time to solo in both.

[KNIEVEL77]

AF,

"You are kept well busy in a helicopter in almost all phases of flight".

I suppose that is what is bothering me. In every lesson i've had, i've returned to base mentally (and physically) drained and not really had time to enjoy it, every second has been FULL concentration.

I am just thinking that (maybe incorrectly) fixed wing might be a bit easier on the brain?

[007helicopter]

Knievel

I think some good advice above and I have learn't on and owned both. My personal experience is that they both initially take similar effort to learn, get safe and enjoy.

My Heli was a very basic helicopter and once you can relax after the learning phase it was very straightforward to fly VFR and not really mentally taxing and very rewarding. After selling my own Helicopter I have found it really hard to stay current and motivated via the renting route mainly due to having to travel to where I can rent, meeting renting rules and having a viable reason to fly a Helicopter other than fun.

Fixed wing I part own and fly a fast and modern Cirrus with Glass Avionics and for me personally I enjoy the utility and distance that can be travelled in comfort much more than a helicopter and have a real reason and need to travel long (ish) distances so it fits my mission better and therefore keeps me motivated to keep current and on balance I have enjoyed it much more.

So a massive factor in the decision making is

a) What flying do you hope to do post PPL?
b) What will you have good access to assuming renting?
c) What finances available? rule of thumb from my experience Helicopter means at least 2 x cost of FW

[muffin]

I own a basic helicopter and part own a modern LAA permit aircraft. i got my PPL(A) about 33 years ago so quite frankly can't remember how hard it was to learn, but I do know that the hardest part of the PPL(H) some 20 years later (and 20 years older) was learning to hover. Once I had cracked that the rest was not too difficult.

I keep the helicopter in a shed in my back garden and the fw aircraft is about 10 mins away. As a consequence I fly the helicopter far more by a factor of about 10. In fact I struggle to keep sufficient fixed wing hours even though the cost is by comparison almost nothing.

The fw is very docile and easy to fly. As others have said, the helicopter is not difficult, but is far more intolerant of any error. If you get into an unusual corner of the flight envelope in the fw, it is normally very simple to put matters right, but try the same thing in a small dynamically unstable two bladed helicopter and you will be lucky to survive. There is very little room for error but it is great fun to emulate the flight of the bumble bee!

As I get older the helicopter is the first one that I will very reluctantly drop but at the moment it is certainly the one that I prefer.

[KNIEVEL77]

I would be wrong to say cost isn't a factor as any money is hard to come by in this current climate.

However, i've always wanted to learn to fly from a very young age. Instinctively my preference would be rotary but as Muffin says any error could be fatal and that worries me.

Maybe I should go for the 'easier' option first and take it from there although being able to land anywhere does have its merits.

One other problem is that having found the R22 particularly twitchy I tried the Schweizer 300 but my nearest one is over 200 miles away so that isn't helping matters.

[laz219]

KNIEVEL77-
I'm not sure how far into it you are, I found when I first started my training (fixed wing) I was coming home physically and mentally exhausted after a 2 hour lesson (1 hour theory, one hour flying)
Now, I don't even notice it- and for a while was doing 2 flights a day, 5 days a week, while studying theory in between.

[KNIEVEL77]

Laz219,

Thanks for your encouraging comments.

I imagine it does get easier with time as i'm hoping getting used to the environment will i.e. being up at 2,500ft in a tiny glass bubble with only half an inch of metal between you and the fresh air!!!

[laz219]

It was only about the first 6-8 lessons I was coming home completely exhausted and just got progressively better from there.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I fly both for a living, but my personal transport is two seats on an LAA permit.

I love the challenge of the helicopter and after 10,000+ hours on them I still stand in awe of what they can do, but on a cold winters night then the jet wins hands down!

As someone said earlier, there's not a lot of point in a PPL/H unless you can own and keep it at home, also FW are better on grot days.

SND

[KNIEVEL77]

Thanks for all of your replies.

Just one other question, i've not looked at any fixed wing accident statistics but is either form (helicopter v fixed wing) inherently more accident likely or are they about equal?

[b.a. Baracus]

Good question. Looking at the monthly AAIB reports it is clear to see that there are more FW incidents than RW. This is perhaps due to the fact that there are possibly more FW GA hours flown than RW GA hours, so statistically an incident is more likely.

Whether people are killed / seriously injured more often in RW accidents than in FW accidents - well I am not sure.

My flying has almost been exclusively FW, I have done a couple of hours RW and I thought it was amazing. However, I can't justify the cost and continue to get great enjoyment from my FW flying at a fraction of the cost.

In terms of learning to fly FW / RW, I can't offer much insight. Although there are no doubt a few 'gotchas' for example the stall warner goes off in a FW natural instinct is to push the nose down. Low Rotor RPM buzzer goes off in a Helicopter, the unwitting (experienced FW pilot) may be inclined to push the cyclic forward (unloading the disc and reducing RPM further) which would be a bad day for all concerned.

[JDJ]

Not sure why people think you need to own a helicopter to make it worthwhile to learn. As Whirlybird says, it's perfectly easy to rent one when you want; but obviously fewer places to do so compared to fixed-wing.

As to the training - you may well take a bit longer to solo in a heli, but overall the time would be similar to FW. I used to get very tired too after lessons, but it gets easier as you start to do more things subconsciously.

[Wirbelsturm]

I hold an ATPL(A) and an ATPL(H) and I always have more fun rotary.
B777 in the day job, A109 ad-hoc when I can.

The A109 is far more enjoyable to fly. (Probably because it can't manage 14 hours unbroken flight! :eek: )

Have fun!

[KNIEVEL77]

B A Baracus,
Yes it would be interesting to see the percentage accident rate of aircraft flown to see which sustains the most accidents.
And as your post suggests, perhaps it is unadvisable to train on both at the same time as getting out of a fix may actually get you further into a fix!