Some advice needed.

[jau]

Hi all,
I need some advice from those who have been there, done that.
I am in my first year of Uni in London, I have four years to go before finishing my degree. My life long dream is to become an airline pilot, and I am really looking forward to start training. I have been saving for two years with a part time job, and I will have £4000 by June. I have already taken my JAA class 1 at Gatwick, and passed. Now, I have looked into training at NAC in Florida, and it certainly is within my reach to get a PPL out there, I get flights for next to nothing, as my mum works for BA, I have my medical, I have all the equipment (headset, books by trevor thom, nav equip, etc).

My problem is upon return to the UK, I will have to do 12 hours a year to keep my licence valid, let alone costs for club membership. Also, I won't have any money to help me through Uni if I need it, nothing 'for a rainy day' so to speak. I have my loan but if for some reason I fall short, then thats it! Of course, I will keep my part time job, but that would all have to go on keeping current, so no 'reserve money'. I want this PPL more than anything but I am not sure it's wise to do whilst I'm at Uni. What do you think? Shall I wait until graduation, or just do it? how much do you spend a year keeping current?
Thanks.

[Rupert S]

Hi Jau, you said you wanted a job as an airline pilot but you do realise that a PPL essentially counts for nothing towards a commercial licence. Are you intending to look for sponsorship after uni? You didn't mention which uni you were at but have you considered the University Air Sqadron? If you get in, they'll get you a PPL. There's also an organisation called GAPAN ( http://www.gapan.org ), a civil organisation who will sponsor you for a PPL. If you do this, you could then use that £4,000 towards at least some flying while you're still at uni. I realise that getting into a sponsorship scheme like GAPAN is very competetive but if you don't try, you don't get so at least give them a go.
Which airfield were you planning to fly from?
Regards
Rupert

[jau]

Hi Rupert,
Yes I understand that the PPL counts for nothing, but you need it to hour build and start your CPL. I cannot go to the UAS because my lectures clash with the meetings on Thursdays, and as someone else quite rightly pointed out, I would be taking the place away from someone who wanted a military career. I applied for GAPAN last year, and I will apply this year again. I was planning to fly from Wycombe air park, again, because my Mum works for BA, I would get about 10% discount on flying rates. I will apply for CTC and if it is running again, the BA scheme, but obviously I cannot rely on that (although I have the motivation to get in!!!). What happens if I don't do my 12 hours a year? Is there a revalidation proceedure? I just don't think that I will have the money to stay current!
Thanks for you help.

[Rupert S]

If you don't think you'll be able to keep up the 12 hours a year it may be worth waiting until you finish uni since among that 12 hours, you'd probably want to have some instruction since you'd only be flying once a month. A friend of mine is actually in an extremely similar situation to you (right down to his mother working for BA). I think you need to think of what the costs for keeping current will be and to see if there's any way you can meet them. If you can't, it would probably be cheaper in the long run to wait until you've finished uni. As for renewing your licence if you don't have the 12 hours: I'm still doing my ppl training so I'm not sure of the exact revalidation procedures but i beleive you can take some sort of check ride to revalidate but I'm sure someone else here will be able to answer that question far more thoroughly than me.

[FlyingForFun]

I too wouldn't recommend getting a PPL if you don't think you'll be able to afford 12 hours every two years. This might be the legal minimum to keep your license valid, but it's not enough to stay safe.

However, if money's tight, then I would suggest investigating cheaper ways of flying. Unfortunately, microlights and gliders are no good if you're working towards a commercial license. But there are some very cheap aeroplanes out there. A share in a single-seater aircraft can be bought for less than £1000 if you look around, and once you've made that initial outlay (which you can get back if you sell the share later) you can fly for around £15/hour and £15/month, or sometimes even less. Most of this type of aircraft are tail-wheel, and being single-seaters you won't be able to get instruction on them, so having some tail-wheel time before you buy is essential, but that's not a problem if you plan it well in advance.

Good luck!

FFF
-------------

[Whirlybird]

jau,

First, it's not 12 hours a year, it's twelve hours every second year . That means that legally you can get your PPL, not fly at all for a year, then do 12 hours the following year. You can even not fly for 23 months, then do the 12 hours in the last month!!! it wouldn't be safe to do that (unless you fly with an instructor), but it is legal.

So that may give you some other options. You could get your PPL, then save up and arrange a flying holiday in Florida 18 months later, getting most of your 12 hours then. For safety you'd need to do a fair proportion of those hours with an instructor, and you'd need to do an hour with an instructor when you get back (I think; check that), but it would still be fairly cheap.

Or, as FFF said , you could buy a share in something. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a single seater; some groups flying types such as the PA28 keep costs down by having about 20 people. This means availability isn't great, but flying is reasonably cheap, and a couple of hours a month will probably keep you reasonably current. I even managed to join a group with no major initial outlay; just £250 to join, though I don't actually "own" a share. There aren't many of those around, but it's worth looking.

If you really can't manage the 12 hours in two years, it's no big deal. All it means is that you have to do as much re-training as is required, and another Skills Test. I think that's the case however long you leave it, though after a certain number of years I suspect the CAA would get involved, make recommendations etc. If you want the definitive answer to that, start another thread with a specific question as the title (vaguely titled threads tend not to be read ;) ), as there are people on here who will know the answer to that.

OTOH, as Rupert has pointed out, it might be more sensible to wait before getting your PPL. It's just that, reading between the lines, I get the feeling you're really desperate to fly. I know that feeling. And if that's the case, I don't think you've got a lot to lose if you go for your PPL, even if you can't do much flying afterwards.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There are two aspects to this...

(1) Gaining flying experience,
(2) Gaining hours valid towards a CPL and later ATPL.

I suggest that you not worry about (2) for the moment - the odds are that the goalposts will have changed in 3-4 years anyhow - and concentrate on (1).

Think seriously about a microlight PPL, or joining a gliding club. In either direction, £4k will go a long way, and get you a lot of real flying experience. £1000pa will keep you flying regularly throughout your university career in either. And when you graduate, you'd be well fitted - if that's what you still want then - to go and do a cheap PPL/CPL/hourbuilding package quickly and from a position of far greater knowledge of aviation than you'd have otherwise.

The halfway house is to get an NPPL, which is a day-VFR UK-only license. You can upgrade it later to any "higher" license, and significantly it'll also allow you to fly as resources permit hours that will ultimately count towards a CPL or ATPL.

One further point, it's an accepted fact that anybody gaining a PPL in the US without UK flying experience is going to struggle badly when they return. There are probably two ways around this; one is to be an experienced British pilot of something else (microlights and gliders again) before you start, the other is to spend money on a UK flying school when you return learning to fly in British sky - which is different in many ways from Floridan or Californian sky I'm afraid.

G

[Whirlybird]

I managed to check with an instructor examiner this afternoon - if you don't do the 12 hours in the second year after your PPL, then you need to do as much training as is required plus a test. If you leave it for longer than FIVE YEARS, then the CAA decides in each individual case what you have to do. So if you want you could do your PPL, not fly again until you finish your university course, and still renew (or is it revalidate?) your PPL fairly quickly.

However, all that Genghis says is quite true. A PPL in Florida won't really prepare you for flying in the UK. Flying anything at all over here will.

Ultimately, it's your choice.

[jau]

OK,
Well, thank you all for your help, I will seriously consider my options and try and make a sensible decision not based on an overwhelming desire to fly!
Cheers

[strafer]

Genghis says....it's an accepted fact that anybody gaining a PPL in the US without UK flying experience is going to struggle badly when they return
Whirlybird says...a PPL in Florida won't really prepare you for flying in the UK

It's not accepted by me at all! I've banged on about this on other threads so I'll try to keep it brief. The 2 most 'accepted' problems on return are R/T & Wx. You still take the JAA written & oral R/T exams and on my course I landed at 10 different airfields, from Radio/Unicom to full approach/tower/ground. There is also not a huge difference between asking for an FIS or for 'flight following'. Weather - in Florida we had CBs forming almost everyday, and the fronts move in a lot faster than in SE England. Perhaps I'm missing something here, because I seem to be in a minority on this point.:hmm:

[FlyingForFun]

Strafer,

Like many things, it's a generalisation, and there are going to be exceptions. I've done the reverse - trained here and then flown in America - and I can see why some people need a few hours of extra training when they get back home, even if it doesn't apply to everyone.

Weather in Florida is, I think, dependant on the time of year you go. But not everyone goes to Florida. I spent two whole months flying in Arizona, and every single day was flyable. On the days when the clouds obscured the mountain tops, I flew away from the mountains. I rarely saw visibility of less than 20 miles, and 100 miles was quite common.

R/T is not a big deal, but there are subtle differences in what needs to be read back at a controlled airfield, and understanding how A/G works, and how RIS/RAS works, and MATZ penetrations and so on. Most of this can be covered on the ground I'd have thought, but I wouldn't have wanted my first time at a Unicom airfield to have been without an instructor, particularly as a low-hours pilot, and I expect a US-trained pilot would feel the same about his first visit to an A/G field.

Then there's navigation. I've done a reasonable amount of flying in south-east England, and in Arizona, and a little bit in Florida and northern Europe. All four of those environements are very different to navigate in visually. The grid system which Americans use when they build their streets makes keeping track of which way you're pointing around build-up areas in America very easy. Away from built up areas, I find that towns are much harder to recognise than distinctively-shaped lakes which are so common in Florida. I found identifying mountains absolutely impossible when I first arrived in Arizona, but by the time I left I wondered how anyone navigated when there were no mountains around. All very small things, but small things can be disconcerting for a very low hours pilot - that was certainly the case for me.

And then there's the things that are so small they're almost embarassing. My firs time a big un-controlled airfield in the US, I didn't know where to park my aircraft. I didn't want to park in someone's "reserved" space, but there was no one on frequency to ask. I wonder if an American-trained pilot would feel similarly confused by such embarassingly small issues as the protocol for paying landing fees, having never had to do so during his training?

I wouldn't want to talk anyone out of learning in America based on this, because all of these issues are so insignificant that they really shouldn't be a factor when you're talking about spending thousands of pounds doing something which can kill you if you don't learn to do it right. But it would be foolish to go to America without expecing to spend a couple of hours with an instructor when you get back. And if you're lucky enough not to need to do so, then that's a bonus.

FFF
----------------

[Whirlybird]

strafer,

Perhaps you're not missing anything; what you say makes a lot of sense.

I think it may be a question of degree here. When I went to California to hourbuild, with around 350 hours total time (f/w and rotary; I needed more rotary hours), I was quite unprepared for the difficulties. I had to learn new radio procedures, new weather patterns, read different charts. I hadn't expected to find it difficult - and it threw me a bit. But only for a short while; it wasn't a major problem.

US trained PPLs returning to the UK are, I suspect, going to find the same thing, if they expect to fly with no further training . They will need to adapt to the fact that things are different. You know better than I do how long that takes, and it may not be very long - but you can't ignore it. Can you?

So Genghis and I may be over-emphasising this, but I think it still needs pointing out, expecially to someone who may be counting the pennies for every flight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Off the top of my head...

Flight following is a radar service, requiring mandatory height maintenance, that takes you through (some) controlled airspace automatically. FIS is a non-radar service that offers no airspace penetration rights at-all but doesn't restrict your VFR heights. For a radar service in the UK you need to use RIS, which still doesn't offer any airspace penetration rights.

Circuit joins are different, overhead joins (manadatory at many UK fields) are very rare in the US, and a downwind join is flown differently in the two countries. Oh yes, and some of the circuit terminology is different - nobody calls "base" in the UK, and we don't use the term "upwind", it's "deadside".

Many UK airfields are grass, most US trained pilots have never seen a grass runway.

Florida weather is about CBs and winds. UK weather is about precip, cloudbases, fog, mist. UK weather also changes far more en-route, whilst US weather systems tend to cover the whole route.

Getting met, NOTAMS, filing flightplans are all totally different procedures different in the two countries.

Runways are generally much shorter in the UK, and as a consequence take-off and landing distance calculations are essential at many fields, not just an academic nicety. So is the practice of landing on the numbers.

PPR procedures are often essential in the UK, and rarely needed in the US.

Rules on use of transponders are different (1200 - VFR conspicuity in the US is "autonomous fighter operations" in the UK). Not knowing the difference could cause embarrassement.

US has no equivalent to Royal Flights.

UK doesn't use Unicom frequencies.

Regulations on UK "permit" aircraft are totally different to those for US "ultralight" or "experimental" aircraft. (Neither is mind you covered in the respective country's air-law exams).

You have to pay landing fees in the UK, and usually sign-in and sign-out from airfields.

UK uses QFE, the US doesn't. UK uses regional QNH within defined regions, the US doesn't.

Definitions of classes A and C airspace are subtly different, UK doesn't use class B.

UK has MATZ, US doesn't. So a US trained pilot will never have flown a MATZ penetration.

UK chart symbology is different (unless like me you've wimped out and switched to Jeppesen charts anyhow).

UK low-flying rules are different. So are the maximum altitude rules.


Apart from that, unless Whirly would care to add anything, the two countries are, as you say, pretty much the same to fly in.

G

[strafer]

I should have made myself clearer...my point wasn't that US -> UK (or vice versa) pilots won't need any further training - for me it took 4 hours to get checked out. My point was that it shouldn't take significantly longer than that, therefore, even including those hours in your calculations will still make for a much cheaper PPL. (And if you do do your course in SW USA, or even a very balmy Florida, of course you won't be prepared for the UK weather on your return).

Wherever you train, at 45 hours you're still at the very start of your learning curve. If you remember that, you'll probably be OK.

(Edited to reply to Genghis...) Ghenghis, you forgot to mention that sarcasm is much more prevelant in the UK than the US.:rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yep. :p

Should also have mentioned that in the UK we never, ever, call air trafficers "sir" !

G

[Whirlybird]

And I suppose not strictly relevant here, but...

I can't think of anywhere in the UK where you'd be cleared through controlled airspace "not above 150 ft". This is the standard "shoreline transition" through LAX (Los Angeles International) for helicopters. I so enjoyed flying over the waves at 100 ft, avoiding the birds and kites and waving at people on the pier, that I kept finding excuses to do it again..and again...and again. :)

[Pilotage]

Culdrose did that for me once through their class D, not above 200ft. I was flying a microlight at the time, and suspect that they'd decided since I was flying at helicopters speeds, to just treat me like one.

P