Drop Out Rates post PPL

[Bahn-Jeaux]

I read that 90% of new PPLs give up within 1 year of qualifying.

Is this statistically proven or just a guesstimate.

If it is the case, why do so many drop out having achieved it.
Is it cost?

It just seems strange to me that having gone to the trouble and expense of getting qualified that so many should drop out and if the figures are correct, then a fairly large proportion of the remaining 10% will be wannabee commercial pilots leaving the smallest amount to excercise the rights of thier PPL.

It has me wondering.

(I got the info from the headset thread but didnt want to hijack it)

[foxmoth]

A lot of people want to learn to fly, then they lose sense of direction. They either don't know what use the licence for after (always plenty of ideas asking on here), or they feel lost without an instructor to guide them along, again easily solved as there is no reason you can not still get instructional guidance after gaining the licence. :hmm:

[englishal]

I'd say that its because once you have the PPL there is no where else for the PPL to go regarding flight training, without resorting to serious amounts of money. I probably would have given up a long time ago if I hadn't turned to the dark side.....

The FAA system is very different, you can bolt on extras along the way for minimal time / jumping through hoops and continuously improve yourself. I had a PPL at 60 hours and I had an IR at about 120 hours, which would no doubt be unheard of in JAR land. To get an IR here I'd need to firstly get a JAA class 1 audiogram, then pass the JAA IR ground exams, then do the course and be tested. At least a £10,000 venture I'd guess.

There are several problems with the way the JAA system is set up if you want to progress. Firstly you have this massive hurdle of the JAA ATPL exams. You can do the CPL exams but there really is no point, because if in the future you want to upgrade, you have to do the whole damn lot again???? You're looking at least a year to complete these exams, plus a couple of weeks residential course, whereas in the US I can self study for the CPL / ATP exams from a good book, then just turn up and take them for $90.

Secondly once you have spent £2700 and a year doing the ATPL ground exams, which in all honesty are interesting, but irrelevant for a light aircraft driver (B737 FMS???) and you have done the CPL skills test, you MUST then do an IR within 3 years I think, else the exams expire or something funny along those lines.

The next hurdle (or probably the first one) is the JAA Class 1 medical which you would need to pass. Not a problem if you're healthy, but anouther £400 and a day to get it done. Then the renewal needs to be carried out annually for someone of my age. In the USA they have three classes of medical, Private, Commercial and ATP. This makes perfect sense, why should a CPL or even instructor be medically tested to the same standard as a pilot who is in command of a 600 seat A380? It is nonsense.

The content of the CPL/IR flight training in the UK is fair enough, however I notice that IR training costs are hiked up extrordinarily. Some places charge £400 per hour for ME IR training. This is surely a rip off, and what is a rip off is paying £200 per hour in a FNPTII sim which uses exactly the same software as many FAA approved Sims, which cost $50 per hour.....but are not JAA approved.

The whole JAA system is geared towards airline pilots. Ideally I'd like to be a part time flight instructor in the UK (who also flys for fun), with CPL/IR FI ratings. But for me to get to this point in JAR land, I need to spend £2700 and a year doing the ATPL exams, get a class 1 medical, convert the CPL and IR and do an FI rating.....and extrordinarily expensive and time consuming quest. (I passed my FAA instrument instructors ground exam, it cost me $90 and I self studied in my own spare time.....).

Cheers

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Thanks for that Al.
Certainly food for thought and this is the sort of stuff that should be fired at those who are formulating future policy for the UK and EU.
Time to become the 51st State methinks.
far more preferable to being a european.

[rustle]

Rather than assuming it is because of JAA, CAA or FAA rules you need to understand why people do their training in the first place.

I know some people who trained just so they could prove they had the ability. Once they passed it was mission accomplished, thanks very much, bye.

People's financial circumstances change, some quite dramatically, either through work, health, marriage/divorce.

People's priorities change, too, either through marriage/divorce, health, moving etc.

Then there's the external "motivation" -- the hard-sell of PPL training from clubs/schools right up to when the test is passed. Once you're licenced unless you own an aircraft or share, schools will hire you aircraft but only if they're not needed for PPL training that day -- planning/booking lessons is easy in comparison to planning/booking the hire of school aircraft...

IO540 talks a lot about the state of rental aircraft -- and he's right. What is acceptable to a keen student might not be seen in such a good light by a nervous passenger. Once the wife/girlfriend has said "no" (because the aircraft is so old and ropey and looks "dangerous") there's a strong incentive to stop, and spend the money flying in a brand-new Easy/Ryan B737

There's also the choice of destinations available to fly to commercially for <£50. Where it previously made economic sense to learn to fly so you could take your wife/girlfriend/kids (whatever) on holiday or off the beaten track somewhere, the likes of Easy/Ryanair etc have bought commercial flying costs down to far less than you could fly there yourself -- and Ryanair particularly will take you to off the beaten track destinations ;)

I don't believe the blame for 100% of the dropout rate can be laid at the door of the regulator. Somewhere along the way individuals have choices to make, and those choices might not include spending £100 to grab a burger from a soggy airfield in the middle of nowhere.

[wombat13]

There is a certain path a lot of ppl's will take post qualification. First solo (qualified), take the mates up, take your mum and dad up, take the g'friend / wife up, take the dog up (oh yeah, I already said that)................

What then?

I qualified back in March this year and can relate to pretty much everything suggested by foxmoth. On the flip side, I thought nothing of booking some lessons post Q. Did me the world of good.

W/x permitting, next Tuesday will be a landmark for me when I will use my little bird to take me to a meeting. Now that is something I would really like to use it for long term!

The Wombat

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Rustle,
I understand that circumstances change for many people due to work/wife/motivation etc but I cannot believe that these changes happen to most post qual PPL's within a year of achieving thier licence.

The rental issue, now thats something else.
If all you want is the odd hour then I cannot see it being too much of a problem but longer trips or a weekend away, yes, I agree.

The cost issue is a big one though and Englishal hits the nail on the head with his comparisons of FAA v CAA/JAA and the respective approaches to furthering your skills.

I wont be able to afford a share once qualified (well not for a good while) so would like to see what it is that causes this drop out rate and if I am likely to fall victim to it myself.

This is something I have wanted to do since I was 4 years old so cannot forsee myself tiring of the thrill but the figures quoted set me thinking.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The drop rate post PPL is huge, but I don't think it's as high as 90% after the first year. If I remember correctly, it's around 75% after a couple of years. To be honest though, the exact figure is irrelevant, it's ridiculously high.

It really is a travesty that the flight training industry is just that, only seemingly interested in training for initial licence issue, but some of the blame must go onto the govt. as well. With Fuel being so crazily expensive due to tax, the cost of a/c hire is still prohibitively high, most people seem to be able to justify the cost when they have a goal (licence issue) but as soon as they are flying only for pleasure, then other factors come into play (the home front if you like).

The club I help to look after was set up specifically to try and reverse this trend, by offering something for the PPL holder. Firstly we have good a/c availability and a wide range of more touring based machines as well as the more usual training orientated a/c. This allows members to have good availability as they aren't competing with the training side in any way. In fact we have more PPL members than we do students. Couple this to actively getting people to meet up and share flying, experiences etc. It gives a good base for people to try out new things and get their confidence up whilst sharing the cost and getting a good social element built in.

So far it seems to be working well and none of it is rocket science (can't be if I have anything to do with it!) if we can help even a small bit to try and reverse this crazy trend of dropping out after just a few flights post licence, then I'll feel happy.

Good well, equipped a/c help alot as well!

[tonyhalsall]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I learned to fly in 1987 and spent years in the wilderness searching for motivation and direction. £65 an hour (in 1987) and limited options made for great frustrations until I stumbled into the world of PFA & BMAA.
I never wanted to be an airline pilot and I felt uncomfortable amongst eppaulette wearers and the grass roots of aviation in the UK seemed a perfect home for me.
I would suggest that ALL new PPL's who have reached their goal and got their license take an urgent look at the Permit aircraft available with the PFA & BMAA and taste the camaraderie of those organisations.
I, for one, found a new lease of life and still love my flying and without this direction I would have no doubt just drifted off like so many others.
Tony

[TotalBeginner]

Rustle, I have to agree with your point there. I found it almost impossible to rent aircraft from my club post PPL. The only bookings I could get where for 1 hour at a time. Certainly not enough time to make good use of my license

Luckily for me there is a club not too far from where I live that only do aircraft rental. :O

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Wherabouts are you based S a Slowly.
It would be nice to think you were within a reasonable distance but I am assuming you are in the southern half of the UK.
Such a club as yours sounds ideal to keep the interest.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I'm originally from the south, but we are an awful lot further north than London. I won't say exactly here as I don't want this to be construed as advertising.

[Tango Oscar]

I think I would have been included in the drop out stastic if it wasn't for a piece of luck.

Just after passing the Skills Test, I met another bloke, who had passed 6 months previous, and had bought into a largish group. I also joined the group, and we became good friends. Over the next couple of years we flew a lot together - pushing the boundaries each time. I really don't think I had the confidence to push myself very far immeduately post PPL. Having a buddy to fly, and learn with, helps immensely.

I have now left that group, and bought a Europa with a coupe of friends. This has reduced the cost dramatically. My first flight post PPL, was a check out in a PA28. Six circuits with an instructor (at Biggin) cost £160 !!! I'm now paying £25 per hour wet, in a faster aeroplane, and don't have to pay for home landings.

So, my tips to avoid dropping out after gaining your licence ? Find a similarly experienced buddyto fly with, and fly a PFA type.

Tango.:ok:

[dublinpilot]

I agree with much of what Russel says.

I'm sure IO540 will be here soon, saying that PPL's don't get enough training to be able to do the sort of flying that they actually want to do. ie. they are afraid to venture too far from home. This I agree with too.

The simple fact is that by the time you've got your licence, you have been to pretty much everywhere that is within 1 hours flying of your home base. Anywhere that you haven't been to, will be soon covered by taking friends and family flying.

After the novelty of taking friends and family up, you'll want to go further afield. Then a number of issues arise.

1. Do you feel confident enough in your navigation over longer distances? Most people supplement their training with a gps to add confidence.
2. Do you feel confident operating into large international airports (especially if required to clear customs) or grass fields (which ever you didn't train on)?
3. Will your club let you take the aircraft away for more and half day?
4. Can you justify they cost of going further than 1 hour away from base? To travel 2 hours from base, means a 4 hour return journey, which is expensive.

As much as I love flying, I could have easily dropped out of flying too because of the above. I was lucky enough to join a club based at a large international airport (having learnt at an uncontrolled field). This gave me confidence at operating into places that I would never have dreamed of going near before, and increased my confidence to a very large extent. This club also had no problems with me taking an aircraft away for 2 days, with no minimum hours, and longer durations on request. I've also been Lucky enough to form some friendships with other pilots, which halves the costs. As a result over the past year, much of my flying has involved weekends away, rather than just a 1.5 hour bimble.

If I was still renting from a school, and could only take the plane for 2 or 3 hours, and I didn't have the confidence to go further afield, I'm sure I would have much more difficulty in justifying the vast quantities of cash that I am spending on it.

Last weekend I took my father for his second flight, and we went from Dublin to Sligo for lunch. To me it was a great day out, as I got to spend a very enjoyable day with my father, doing something that I love. He really enjoyed himself too. When he noticed the rates on the notice board, he did a quick calculation and declared with shock, that for the cost of the trip we did, I could have bought an off peak return flight to the US. That sort of cost can be hard to justify if you're simply doing local bimbles over and over, in the same area. But with a club with good availablility, the confidence to travel internationally, and some flying buddies to share the flying & costs, the flying world beings much more interesting, and takes a lot longer to explore!

dp

[slim_slag]

An excellent answer from rustle. But I'm surprised he didn't refer us to one of the many previous threads on the same subject :) Eh rustle ;)

[Julian]

Have to say agree with EA and the rest on this one! The cost of progressing beyong the PPL and actually starting to improve yourself is prohibitively expensive.

/Rant mode on

I paid $200/hr for my ME(IR) training in a turbo charged Seneca II including instructor - thats about £115/hr. I have spoken to a student of a well known school in middle England that people like to get on their CV who was being charged £400/hr dual !!!!

Another problem, as previously hinted at here, is that a lot of training aircraft look like they would collapse if you washed them and the FTO still wants £170/hr for you to hire them! If you are going to charge those sums of money at least present your client with a reasonble aircraft and not one that makes them want to say a few Hail Marys before they start her up. Nothing p1sses me off more than getting in a hire aircraft to find inop stickers over half the kit! Maybe they should deduct a proportional amount from the hire rate for all non-working kit :)

The fact that you can sit a PPL with an instructor and pay £30/hr for him/her and then all of a sudden you get in an aircraft with them for CPL and they suddenly charge £70/hr is mad!!! I paid the same rate throughout my training in the US $35/hr, that was ME, CPL(SE), CPL(ME) and IR(SE) and IR(ME), funny huh? - bet there are a few people here with clenched butt cheeks thinking of all the money that the US flight schools are missing out on :)

The example given of sitting 14 exams over a year not to mention having to take 2 wks out of work to attend ground school just to even start the IR training just goes to show what a complete joke our system is!!!!!

Anyone who has read 'The Killing Zone' would know that one section it deals with how the FAA looked at accident statistics and as a result reduced the requirements needed to commence the IR course - the result was that accidents statistics fell. As quite a few people on this board bleat on about how much worse our weather is than the US then you would think people would actually take this on board and do something about it here.

The more open the IR was to PPLs the safer our skys would be.

Not everyone who wants to take an IR wants to fly commercially, we should reduce the requirements to take an IR in both terms of exams required and cost. The flight training industry can recoup its costs by making people sit the exams for the CPL and charging a fortune per hour for that instead, after all fewer people would be inclined to take a CPL unless they were serious about becoming a pilot and the overall cost could remain the same.

/Rant mode off

Apart from that - nothing wrong with UK flight training :)

Julian

[Penguina]

It was definitely confidence that nearly stopped me.

[Romeo Romeo]

Confidence was a problem for me too.

I used to book aircraft and secretly hope that the weather wouldn't be good enough so I'd have an excuse. I decided that more training was needed so I did an IMC then bought a share in an aeroplane with another like-minded chap.

That was about 8 years ago and now I can't imagine giving up!

[rustle]

I'm surprised he didn't refer us to one of the many previous threads on the same subject Eh rustle
Too many people don't like old threads - something about being nervous they might have said something foolish ;)

[EGLKFlyer]

Several things would count in my case:

- Confidence ("well you're qualified now, you make all the decisions")

- Getting down to FTO where the aircraft was booked in not-so-great weather; being told to take it up or cough up for a cancellation fee; and finding from the tech log that all the other recently-qualified PPLs have done that day is 1 circuit and brought it back again.

- Actually wanting to get to ME/IR but can't afford to spend that sort of money

- Getting bored doing the same old routes that I did during training

- Watching the regulation getting tighter and wondering whether it's worth carrying on

- Getting shouted at/humiliated by ATC for asking for clarification of an instruction (yes, it really happened and I actually had an instructor beside me at the time who didn't understand what we'd been told either).


At the moment it's lack of time that's preventing me getting back in the LH seat, but I could quite easily also count the reasons above if I'm honest. By next spring I will hopefuly change from passenger to PIC again!

[foxmoth]

Getting down to FTO where the aircraft was booked in not-so-great weather; being told to take it up or cough up for a cancellation fee;

Sounds like you need to change clubs - I don't mind cancellation fees, but these should be for people who have not bothered to turn up and have not phoned in at least an hour ahead if the wx is dodgy (OK a bit hard if you are on first slot, but most clubs these days have an answer machine!)

[ariel]

Whirlybird wrote a very good reply to a similar topic a while back. Can't remember the date or thread title, but I think she addressed the reasons that people give up in an interesting manner

ariel

[egbt]

shouted at/humiliated by ATC for asking for clarification of an instruction (yes, it really happened and I actually had an instructor beside me at the time who didn't understand what we'd been told either).

Perhaps difficult to complain if its your home base but this merits a formal complaint, not only are they forgetting who the customer is they are creating a potential flight safety hazard.

More on thread how about keeping the interest up by trying different a/c types, taildraggers, aeros, STOL, trying out farm strips?

[foxmoth]

More on thread how about keeping the interest up by trying different a/c types, taildraggers, aeros, STOL, trying out farm strips?

I would have thought that had been done to death on previous occassions but if there are new people out there that want it ......................;)

[egbt]

foxmouth, your probably right;)

[rans6andrew]

in order to understand the dropout rate you might want to start by looking at the reasons people get a pilots licence. In my own case it all started with a trial lesson in a helicopter. I had never been in a helicopter before although I could fly a model one competently, the first lesson was awesome. I could see how easy the instructor made it look and then found out that it is nearly impossible to hover steadily. I had to have another go, I was determined to get the hang of it. One lesson lead to another and eventually I got to go solo and then went on to pass the GFT and get a licence.

I didn't set out to get a licence it just ended up that way. Keeping it up was more of a challlenge though. As someone else noted, to hire a school flying machine you need to book 10-14 days ahead. That far out the weather will be a total unknown, work commitments may have you sent abroad, domestic issues might make it difficult to get out or you might just be overworked and not have the powers of concentration to be safe in the air. Add to that the need to get a check ride if you have not flown for a while and it all gets a bit too difficult

I kept my licence for 3 years but the year of foot and mouth had too few flying events and I let my licence lapse.

I took a year out but found that I was still "walking with my eyes turned skywards" so I thought about the situation. I decided that I needed a flying machine I could get access to at short notice and that I could take away for as long as I wanted. The helicopter is the best toy in the box but way beyond my budget. In the end I bought the Rans S6 and got some conversion training. Good move.

I do know at least one person who owns an aircraft who still barely flys enough to keep his licence. He comes to all of our club meetings but just doesn't seem to get enough buzz from flying to make the treck to the field and rig his aircraft very often. I guess it just doesn't produce the same urge in everyone.

Andrew

[IO540]

The 90% figure has not to my knowledge ever been publicly stated by the CAA. Whatever it is, they obviously do have it but keep quiet. I have seen various figures around this area (e.g. 95% giving up before reaching 100hrs total time, 90% not renewing their PPLs i.e. packing up within 2 years) and nobody has ever offered any numbers to dispute them. I think it's fair to say that anyone who has done a PPL in a typical UK school scene and has gone on to hang around as an active flyer afterwards will confirm that most of his/hers fellow PPC graduates are seen a few more times at pub get-togethers and then never again. So to me a 90%-95% figure seems completely plausible, and as I say nobody has ever countered it with numbers. And somebody from the CAA easily could, anonymously but authoritatively enough.

The CAA did once state that 75% pack up with less than 10 hours flown post-PPL, if I remember it correctly from the presentation.

The CAA has a licence issue data website which shows pretty revealing (utterly damning, more like) figures but the figures stated above cannot be directly derived from it, at least not without making some (reasonable) assumptions about the total unexpired PPL population and then some statistical analysis.

Englishal - today, on the train, I picked up the current Pilot mag. In an article written by a young-20s aspiring JAA ATP, much p1ss is taken out of the JAA ATPL exams, how robotic the questions are, and how priceless is an unofficially circulating list of exam questions which "just happened to be remembered" by past students. It made me laugh, having read so many criticisms of the FAA IR ground school, and having done it myself recently. 85% after 6 months' revision, and almost every question was relevant to real flying.

But let's get back to the PPL; that's what most people drop out of. Very few make it to any sort of IR, and the IMCR (10% of new PPLs get one) dropout appears comparable to the PPL dropout, for I believe the same reasons.

The posts already here have covered the specifics I would list, pretty well.

Crap PPL syllabus resulting in lack of confidence for actually going somewhere is a good one. Schools don't help by discouraging experienced PPLs hanging around (they don't want their students subsidising some PPL's flying). This one would be really easy to fix.

But I'd like to mention a few basic things.

I don't think the CAA is to blame much. Their fault is omission rather than commission. What they could have done is MODERNISE the whole scene, and that I believe is the #1 problem.

30 years ago, a C172 didn't look too bad, because if you had a Vauxhall Viva you were doing really well. A lot of cars were held together with Plastic Padding. Today, standards are a lot higher. But flying has got stuck in the 1970s rut, with the same old decrepit planes and decrepit attitudes.

Much increased wealth means there are a lot more people who are financially independent yet live alone. (Much of the massive new housing requirement in the S East is due to this group). They drive £30k cars - the roads are full of them. These should be GA's #1 market. But these people don't like sitting at home alone and know they have to make an effort to get out. So, where do they go and where do they spend their dosh? They spend it where they will have some social fun, of course!

The men go where there are women, OBVIOUSLY!!. But most women find the GA scene quite unattractive (I am going to get flamed by the five women who live on this website but hey...) and anybody involved in leisure management knows that with no women there won't be many men, and with no women there won't be many women too, because women are usually quite social. Which means very little money will be spent. Familiar?? The typical UK GA airfield is falling apart. With the exception of turboprop-loaded places like Cranfield, it's obvious that very little money finds its way in.

The CAA could have forcefully modernised things, but they would have come up against the only lobby which they listen to: the flying schools. Collectively, these don't give a damn about flying; their job is to collect £5k-£10k from every punter. The last thing they want to do is spend money on nice planes, teaching navigation with nice shiny GPS units which tell the pilot exactly where he is. Anyway, the CAA GA Dept is a bunch of retired RAF navigators who wouldn't see the problem if it poked them in the eye.

GA as we know it will be dead within 30 years. Except for an ageing group of pilots flying old bits of metal from farm strips owned by an old mate of theirs. An outsider will not get in - just like at present really.

There are some great Permit planes about, but once the main web of GA airfields starts to disappear, they will have nowhere to fly from/to. Once Avgas gets rare, that's the end for certified GA anyway.

Anybody who doesn't believe me, fly a little past the local burger bar. Fly to Spain, Italy, Greece. These places, rich enough countries and with usually fantastic weather, are almost utterly devoid of GA. It shows how thin a thread the whole things hangs on. It's pretty easy to get a situation where a whole rich country contains 200 GA planes (and another 200 bizjets).

I don't see any way to change anything. One could set up a very successful training operation, in the right location, with modern planes, and paying no more than lip service to the CAA syllabus. Training people to do modern flying, with modern flight planning, and to really be able to go places.

With the right marketing one could also do a successful aerobatic school, I think.

But a successful local business isn't going to do the wider issue much good.

There is a group of IFR pilots who have successfully moved on, but they are too small to matter. Maybe 100-200 in the UK. They got through their PPLs (often done wholly in the USA, with the IR too) and quickly got into ownership or into groups, and they don't look back. But that needs an appropriate budget, and that's usually missing.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The CAA could have forcefully modernised things, but they would have come up against the only lobby which they listen to: the flying schools. Collectively, these don't give a damn about flying; their job is to collect £5k-£10k from every punter. The last thing they want to do is spend money on nice planes, teaching navigation with nice shiny GPS units which tell the pilot exactly where he is. Anyway, the CAA GA Dept is a bunch of retired RAF navigators who wouldn't see the problem if it poked them in the eye.

Not sure about that one! We evil and heartless flying school people really don't have as great a voice as you may think and actually for most of us, we'd absolutely love to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on new a/c. The problem is where to get the finance or backing.
I know for a fact that most investment bods hear the word 'aviation' and run away screaming! It doesn't help that for almost 20 years there was virtually no new a/c being produced, due totally to the fact that PPL's were killing themselves and their families were trying to blame the manufacturers despite it invariably being pilot error.

We don't teach students using GPS since it rightly isn't in the syllabus. I'm quite happy to teach it after licence issue (in fact I'm just organising an evening talk all about GPS and other modern aids for all our members.) but there is no way I would let any student use GPS on nav ex's. The basic principles MUST be learnt first of all.

Your example about Spain, Greece and Italy isn't quite accurate. There are many socio-economic reasons for why there isn't much GA. Greece is not a particularily rich country nor was Spain 20 years ago, Italy does have some GA, not an enormous amount, but it isn't a barren desert, None have the long tradition of GA flying that we have in this country.

Always laying the blame for the state of GA at flying schools is a tired and inaccurate argument. I know for a fact that we are actively trying to push everything forward. I certainly use some of the criticisms heard on here and try to find ways making sure that our members can't have the same thoughts.

I actually think that the potential death of AVGAS will in the long term be a good thing. We have for too long been stuck with aged and decrepit pieces of tat and only now are we starting to see some real alternatives coming onto the market. I have flown a number of AVTUR powered light a/c and hopefully will be getting one soon, finally it is starting to make economic sense to spend the money on new machines, before it would have been financial suicide and don't forget most schools aren't run for altruistic reasons, but as a business that makes money.

If you want things to change, do something about it, don't just blame flying schools many of whom are trying to make things better.

[englishal]

Englishal - today, on the train, I picked up the current Pilot mag. In an article written by a young-20s aspiring JAA ATP, much p1ss is taken out of the JAA ATPL exams, how robotic the questions are, and how priceless is an unofficially circulating list of exam questions which "just happened to be remembered" by past students. It made me laugh, having read so many criticisms of the FAA IR ground school, and having done it myself recently. 85% after 6 months' revision, and almost every question was relevant to real flying.
We laugh about this a lot. One of my mates is a JAR boy ATPL as well as FAA CPL/IR holder. He can tell us the BS number of JAR approved sunglasses......which apparently is vital to flight safety. Maybe if I ever come to grief (hope not of course!) then the AAIB could blame my non JAR approved Oakley sunglasses :cool:

[IO540]

SAS

I did use the word "collectively" ;) Also I am aware from your other posts that my comment would not have applied to your business.

You are right about the present lack of capital, of course, but if the punters were there there would be no problem with investment.

As for the decrepit sullabus, that's an example of where the CAA could have done something useful. Other little bits, like permitting training in Permit planes and off unlicensed airfields, would have helped too.

The death of avgas would indeed be a good thing if it wasn't for the fact that most of the stuff we fly is made in the USA, whose manufacturers don't give a damn about markets outside the USA.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The use of permit a/c or unlicenced fields for training would actually be a great boon to the GA world as a whole.

This year I have been fortunate to both fly and teach in a few different PFA types and overall I was very impressed with them.
Luckily each time I was flying with the owner and builder, which certainly made a difference to their knowledge of the machine. I certainly didn't have to bash them around the head repeatedly to get them to read the POH!
However, it did give rise to the utterly ludicrous situation that whilst I could teach on it and get paid, when it came time to do the test an examier whilst able to perform the test, wasn't allowed to get paid for it!! I love these idiotic rules!

The public transport category that we have to keep our a/c on is misleading in my eyes, since flight training isn't public transport. Every flight we do is for training purposes or general hire to a licenced pilot, so why must the a/c be on a PT category C of A? Maybe there is a case for changing the categories?
Mind you having seen the state of some a/c that are supposedly on PT C of A's then that may not be such a good idea......

I still don't think the syllabus is decrepit. It (should) ensure that you can fly using the most basic of principles, remember many PPL's aren't interested in traveling vast distances IFR, but are perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation. The syllabus must reflect the needs and desires of all pilots, not just the long haul brigade.

At the end of the day, the PPL is just a licence to continue learning. Just because you have the baby poo brown book doesn't mean you can't continue to recieve instruction on the more technically advanced stuff. Maybe we should offer some more add on courses for people.

[IO540]

While I would fully acknowledge that

"perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation"

is true and there is nothing whatever wrong with it, I'd suggest that only a tiny % of the participants in the aforementioned side of GA will hang in there for very long, which takes us back to the context of the thread: why do people drop out.

Of all the people who would (given the money, time, etc) like to learn to fly, the long term satisfaction of bimbling about is pretty minimal. A few flights, with one's mates, then a few more flights (without one's mates), and for most the novel way of spending £100/hour gets a bit tedious.

All the time one accepts that bimbling about on nice days, without going anywhere too far, is just fine, one will be looking at a massive attrition rate.

Which doesn't matter, provided that new punters continue to pile into the training machine at a rate of thousands a year, each one dropping £8000 or so at the local airfield as they pass through.

Understandably, that's how the training industry has always judged success - how many punters spend how much money. What they do afterwards doesn't matter.

What I am saying is that to lift GA out of the rut, one needs to reduce the attrition rate, and that can't be done unless one does something beyond just running the sausage factory.

Even a very small reduction in the attrition rate, from say 90% to say 70%, would dramatically increase the number of participants in GA. It would result in an even bigger increase in the number of people who can spend some real money because they are the ones who have deserted it in the very recent decades.

More courses are all very well but without extra privileges almost nobody will turn up. The converse also applies: look at the absolutely massive amount of work, time (years), money, hassle, and more money some people put in just to get a FAA PPL/IR and what is it all for? Basically, just the ability to fly on an IFR clearance outside the UK.

[Say again s l o w l y]

To be able to have greater privileges, in consequence you need greater training. This costs more money, therefore instead of the cost of a PPL being 6000 it becomes 10,000. Look how many PPL (H) holders there are..... Not many, mainly because of the cost.

I think we all want the same thing, more people flying. In economic terms, more people buying a/c and training, brings the costs down for all of us by economies of scale. This allows people to fly more often bringing the costs down even further etc. etc...

The comments about the FAA IR are very valid. Why is it that the Yanks can have a system that produces safe and competent IR holders, whereas we here in JAA land are hamstrung by utterly ridiculous hoops to jump through?

I think the CAA are missing a massive point here, instead of kicking up a stink about N reg a/c being used in the UK, why don't they look at the reasons why they are being used here in preference to G plates.

Some of our club members have an Arrow that they keep on the american register as one of the group uses the machine to travel all over Europe in. It used to be a british reg a/c, but due to the complexity of getting an IR they went through the entire rigmarole of getting it changed over. An absolutely mental situation if you ask me.

Back to the point however.....
Some people do just like to 'bimble' about and that's fine, but many folks do want to use an a/c as more of a tool rather than as a pure plaything. We have to learn how to accomodate everyone into clubs and schools, at the moment I think we personally do that pretty well, but the vast majority of schools aren't interested in PPL's since there business is flight training NOT a/c hire.

This will not change, so the only other option is for other facilities to start up. We are one of those and are seeing real progress at the moment with members from every other flying club/school joining us. It's great for us and if you haven't got a set up like that in your area, why don't others look at setting something similar up. All you really need is some decent a/c and a couple of enthusiatic FI's to help keep everything going.

I've seen how the cirrus group down south are operating and that is exactly the sort of model we are trying to emulate (albeit with our own differences).

If we can get the costs down far enough (certainly with some of our plans you'll be able to get something like a DA40 for around £60 an hour wet) and give people some back up and expand their horizons all in a social atmosphere, then hopefully we can start to turn around this trend of people leaving GA in droves.

We're doing our bit, how about everyone else?

[IO540]

I still think that the way to set up a successful operation is to go upmarket, in both aircraft and punters, and teach people to go places.

Except for a few aero operations, nobody has done it, to my knowledge.

It will cost more than a bog standard PPL, but money is not scarce in the West.

I have flown quite a long way with passengers and without the slightest doubt the thing which would induce somebody with the required liquidity, say £5000/year budget (but usually not a huge amount of time!) into training is the ability to do an easy 4hr flight to some place which would be barely driveable - even if you actually like driving which today very few do.

This doesn't mean IFR/airways. Unless one lives in Scotland, "decent distances" means going south of the UK, which in turn means the full IR and suddenly the whole thing becomes very very hard; far too time consuming for most people with any money (and the corresponding shortage of leisure time). Plus N-reg planes which are of no use to a school.

It's taken me 5yrs to (nearly) get there, between running a business etc.

One can fly VFR to Europe pretty well. One just needs to navigate as if one was doing it IFR and that is the key.

This means teaching the content of a PPL+IMCR as the basic unit. (which would give the pilot really useful UK privileges, and VMC on top privileges elsewhere) Plus serious planning methods, internet based weather, internet flight plan filing, flight planning on a laptop. With modern planes one could not avoid teaching the 3-letter navigation method :O

So, yes, more than 45hrs... But a LOT MORE FUN than the silly stupid useless CRAP-1 circular slide rule. Most people with more than 2 braincells, on seeing the slide rule promimently displayed for sale in the flying school reception glass cabinet, walk out politely smiling....

I do disagree with you on one point, SAS, and that is whether the PPL syllabus is adequate. A fresh PPL holder is left high and dry. It takes a LOT of determination to push oneself through to the next stage, and most never make it, keeping to short local flights on nice days, and giving up soon. I compare it to a windsurfing course on a little flat lake; very easy but the unavoidable next stage (the sea and having to do carve gybes) is awfully hard.

[sennadog]

As one of the freshly minted PPLs from a few years ago I can add some perspective to what is already an interesting debate, having just taken my first flight today in two and a half years.

What put me off two years ago was primarily the cost together with the weather combined with a lack of confidence which only comes with more hours which is expensive - catch 22. The other issue is the aircraft and at the risk of offending some people on here, a C-172 doesn't cut it for me as it looks like something out of the 1960s and to be frank doesn't look that safe. I know that last statement is irrational but that is how many people will look at it...

I've been bimbling round this week enjoying the fantastic weather so I booked to go up with an instructor today - result, I can still fly albeit a bit rusty but after 2.5 years I can still land an aircraft and I loved every minute of it until the invoice hit me at the end. Over £200.00 for less than two hours! At least the aircraft is modern, being a Katana which helps on one front but it is still a costly business.

Until modern aircraft are available en masse at reasonable rates then there will always be this wash out and although you cannot do anything about the weather, once rates are reasonable and hours can be accumulated then the confidence will increase and so on and so forth.

[IO540]

sennadog

IMHO nobody trying to attract quality business would operate Cessnas. Or Pipers.

To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson, to the newcomer to aviation, the only difference between a Cessna and a washing machine is that the Cessna goes a lot faster.

Unfortunately there isn't a huge choice, in certified planes and preferably 4-seaters, if you want proven reliability.

[rans6andrew]

No wonder microlighting is flourishing.

Train at an unlicenced airfield.

Fly for 20 to 25 pounds per hour once qualified.

Fewer hours to get licence.

Lower training hourly rate.

Cheaper medical (free in some cases).

Cheaper aircraft even during training.

Plenty of places to go, many farm strips don't charge for landings.

No need to buy epaulettes or backless gloves.

The comradery has to be experienced to be believed.


In answer to a point made by a previous poster, I found that the skills I was taught during my training for PPL(H) have been entirely adequate for actually getting into a flying machine and going places.

Andrew

[kms901]

I got my PPL about a year ago (To be more accurate I was up to 200 hours over a decade ago, but practical considerations got in the way and I had to start again.)

After a long break it was still the same aeroplanes, but older and tattier. No-one should be forced to use a machine that has magneto ignition and uses a proportion of its expensive fuel to cool the antiquated engine. Sensible people would not bother in the first place.

I am now living in Italy which, surprisingly, has an enlightened and lightly regulated attitude to microlight sport flying. My local aviosuperficie is 5km away, and I will be flying from there.

Acheiving the PPL was great, but the thought of being restricted to short flights in worn out old clunkers would put most people off. And most flying clubs are still unfriendly places to outsiders. If you were to spend the same amount of money on any other leisure actively the welcome would be far warmer.

[Dr Jekyll]

I think IO540 has spotted the main problem. The real PPL is the PPL/IMC, the basic PPL is effectively a recreational pilots licence for sunny sunday afternoons rather than for using an aircraft as serious transport.

If you only use your licence for its own sake rather than to fly yourself on journeys you would otherwise have driven or flown commercially, it starts to look pointless and ultimately too expensive. Spending thousands of pounds to have gained the experience of your first solo or your first cross country, is for many people just about justifiable. But a hundred pounds plus for a hour or so in a cramped noisy aircraft without achieving anything specific soon gets downright depressing.

I recently went for my first flight after a long layoff, I thoroughly enjoyed it and landed fully intending to book some more flights. But all the aircraft were booked as far ahead as it's possible to book so I couldn't book for another week, and by then I had decided that fun though it was the flight hadn't really been worth the money. Since then fuel prices have risen and frankly I doubt if I'll ever take up flying again. The pleasure per pound ratio just doesn't make it worthwhile.

[slim_slag]

The real PPL is the PPL/IMC, the basic PPL is effectively a recreational pilots licence for sunny sunday afternoons rather than for using an aircraft as serious transport.

Some would say the real PPL never leaves the traffic pattern as he is still trying to master landing a Pitts. Horses for courses, I find flying more than 100 miles to be exceedingly boring, telling people they aren't a real PPL because they don't fly cross country is a good way to alienate them and make them spend their money elsewhere.

[IO540]

S/S

This forum, like any other, will never be representative of the GA population.

It will be even less representative of the potential GA population; those that would like to fly but walk away.

Lots of people can have fun flying like you are. It's just a dead end for keeping GA afloat. About as useful as all those extra rebuilt Spitfires that are coming onto the market now. Microlighting between farm strips also serves a large number of pilots very well, but if that's all there was (and this IS a distinctly possible scenario in years to come, due to the knife-edge finances of a "proper" airfield) then GA will become all but useless to those like me who want to at least sometimes fly for a purpose.

I think Permit planes, with their 130kt speeds on say 4GPH in a reasonable 2-seater with room for all the avionics plus room in the back for junk, will gradually squeeze out most of certified GA. They won't be able to do overt IFR (departures/arrivals) but it's unenforceable when en-route. The question is who will be flying them. If PPL training collapses (as it has been busy trying to do the last few years) because the training scene is operating crappy old junk and teaching a largely dead-end syllabus, there won't be any pilots. I bet that most microlight pilots are doing that because that represents the limit of their budget, so this will never keep the main GA airfields open.

And instrument navigation and control capability is essential for going anywhere, regardless of the flight rules one has to fly under.

[hollywood285]

I think the cost of flying is very high, the 152 I fly is £79 an hour!! , breaking it down:

fuel= £25
Engine= £10
Fixed costs= £35
in the kitty= £9

To hirer a da40 from Gamston is 135 an hour!! that burns less than £5 an hour!!

£130 on keeping the aircraft airworthey!! :{ :{

[Cron]

The very first post in this thread struck a chord with me - particularly the now unavailability of intermediate stages between Private and Commercial.

I'm 60 hrs PPL(H) but when I started (5 years ago) the PPL Instructor option was still available. It became unavailable just as I got my PPL(H).

I am in a position to give my flying school more money for self fly hire, and I have the time available to cope with weather setbacks, but are reluctant to do so because I always intended my PPL(H) to be dual purpose. a) for pleasure flying and b) a step towards Instructor rating.

I have spoken to others (middle aged like me) who also would 'pursue' their flying with more vigour (thus more schools trade and perhaps less drop out) if the paid PPL instructor step was still available.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It's not £130 an hour keeping it airworthy, but the cost of the finance for buying an aircraft worth £150,000.

When we did the figures for a DA40 there is a trade off between the finance and fuel costs, that allows you to put the a/c out for around the same as a 'normal' hire machine since the fuel cost is so much smaller.

If you went out and bought something that cost the same, but still had such a ridiculous fuel burn, you would not only be paying for the finance, but the fuel aswell.

£120-130/hr isn't too bad for a machine that cruises at 140kts and is fully IFR equipped. That is only a comparison to similar capability machines however, it is still far too much overall.

[J.A.F.O.]

This has to be one of the most interesting threads for a very long time. I believe that the figures that I've seen quoted are 70% of new PPLs never make it to the first re-validation and after six years 95% aren’t flying anymore.

On the face of it - after all that time, effort and money – that seems absolutely crazy. Though, perhaps it’s understandable – lives move on, flying moves down the priority list; I’ve been part of the 95%, so I know. However, I am now determined not to let that happen again.

At the age of seventeen, I was lucky enough to get a flying scholarship and learn to fly with the Cambrian Aero Club under their great CFI, Cliff Hubbard on the PA-38.

In those days nobody had yet found out that if you spin a Tomahawk you’ll die so we spun it all day long and didn’t. I’ve read a lot since about what a horrible aeroplane it is, an ogre of the skies – dull and cumbersome but ready to snap your neck given half a chance. I hadn’t read any of that at the time and I loved it, we were seventeen and completely free; we threw the Tomahawks around the Welsh skies with all the skill and finesse of the John Prescott Ballet Troupe; dog-fighting rather than practicing PFLs and swooping down low along the coast instead of perfecting our steep turns. I was hooked and I’d never give this up, ever.

Honest.

I then begged and borrowed the money required to do the extra hours needed for the licence which I completed at Air Navigation and Trading at Blackpool on the PA-28. A few extra hours of instrument practice and a couple of cross-countries and there we were – 38 hours all I needed for a PPL.

Then, guess what I did, not a damn thing for three and a half years until I borrowed some more and handed it over to COMED at Blackpool for a few hours in the T-67, I had wanted to fly the Cherokee but the instructor had a new toy that he wanted to play with and I was going to be the one to pay for it – it was fun, though.

Having done that I then took a fifteen year break, yes, that’s right, fifteen years, before scraping together enough to visit a flying club nearer to my new home and meet the C152 for the first time in my life. I was amazed how much I remembered – I could take-off, climb, descend, turn in balance, fly a circuit, get onto final and… Oh my God, all that green stuff is getting very big and quick… ‘You have control.’ Well, I couldn’t remember how to land but even that came back to me, after a fashion and I did most of what I needed for the licence before swapping schools, again.

I eventually completed my licence a year ago.

I went for the NPPL, the reason pure and simple was to keep it all pure and simple. I had no wish to go through clouds, at night, to Ulan Bator with eight on board; so why spend more than I need to? The amount that I’d spend on a medical pays for my hour with an instructor. I might change my mind, but that’s allowed. For now the NPPL suits me down to the ground – and up again; so, why not?

In the last year I’ve managed to fit in - around work, family, finances and the weather – about a dozen hours, far less than I'd hoped and for all of the reasons given by the posts above.

I’ve sampled the C172 and got to know the Cherokee, again, I even scrounged a little bit of time in a little Jodel which was lovely but didn’t really fit a 6’1” ex-rugby playing type. I’ve dipped my toe in the water of farmstrip flying and I’ve flown with my wife, my kids and a couple of friends.

But what of the future?

When I was in training each flight was carefully planned for me, I knew the purpose of the flight, what I wanted to achieve and where it would lead but now that I have the most expensive piece of paper that I’ve ever owned, I don’t have the faintest idea what to do with it.

I want to fly, I want to fly as much as I can, I want to feel that I'm getting somewhere (in terms of improving my skills) but I do have to fit this around family and work and I don't have unlimited funds.

I'm thinking about getting back into motor-floating or buying into a group but I'd like to find a club like SAS's.

It's very easy to fall into the trap of no time, no money, poor weather, poor availabilty, lack of currency, lack of confidence, make excuses, give up. I'm determined to do all that I can to stop that happening, I just don't quite know how to achieve it, yet.

[ChrisVJ]

What is clear from this thread is that there are plenty of reasons for failing to keep up a licence. The problem is that as far as we can see at the moment no one has enough interest to work out a way of keeping the 90% in the club.

If you look at the flying scene between the wars it was roaring hot. Firstly, flying was exciting, it made the news all the time. Second, it was all about clubs. It was a scene and people were happy to be there. Thirdly, there were people around who were happy to just to be involved (and of course there still are.) To be fair there were less distractions, but then there were less people with spendable money.

If we are lucky someone will soon recognize a new paradigm. Maybe a combination of modern aircraft, flying as a group to interesting places, a progression of skills and qualifications and a club atmosphere.

[kookabat]

My $0.02:
I got my PPL earlier this year. Working towards it, I had a goal (the licence issue, of course). Once I got it, I moved so I had to find and get checked out at a new club. This gave me another goal to work towards... new airfield was a controlled field (I was used to uncontrolled), so something to get used to.
Got checked out (which took a while cos I forgot how to land, long story that one), good, another goal achieved.
Now I'm taking friends up for a spin every now and then... yep, the novelty of that will wear off shortly so I've set myself another goal: taildragger!
After that, aerobatics
After that, NVFR.
After that..... who knows?? ;)

So I have various goals to work towards for a while yet - which will give me the motivation to stick with it.

I reckon it's the lack of any clear goals that does so many people in - as soon as you have something to work towards, an end result to achieve, that's all the motivation you need.

[IO540]

I am only pushing 50 so wasn't around between the wars :O but I bet that flying cost as much then as it does now, relative to wages. Very possibly it costs less today; most material things cost less today than back then.

It's the social factors that have changed. People (certainly those with the budget to fly) are much more focussed on what they do in their rather more limited leisure time.

By ignoring this, today's training industry is attracting mainly (MAINLY) those that don't have the above constraint. And who are they? Those without the budget!!

[DC10RealMan]

This is an intersting thread simply because I am thinking of packing in and yet I am at the other end of the scale. I have been flying for nearly 30 years and have hundreds of hours of experience in "relatively sophisticated types". I tend to use the aeroplane as a means of transport to get from A to B instead of using a car or the airlines. I have lost the interest in the "joy of flying" and I feel guilty because many people would kill to have that experiance. I can afford to fly often, but cannot afford the time and be able to justify the expenditure of flying. I am an "Air Trafficker" so flying in my spare time seems like doing work related issues. I do not like the poseurs associated with some of the flying club scenes and do my best to avoid them and their social activities. In short I am bored with the whole thing. Ironically in the past few years I have taking up angling and I am never happier when I am spending hours by the river or lake doing nothing.

[turniphead]

J.A.F.O and others bored and looking for new thrills and skills.

Have any of you been to a Precision Flying event where you do accurate navigation and spot landings? Improves skills and gives confidence in navigation and ability to handle forced landings.

All good fun and a cheap way of maintaing skills .
Check out their web-site for details and calendar of events

www.bppa.info

[IO540]

Obviously different people find different things that "float their boat" as they say; however it seems to me that a common denominator is that flying somewhere "useful" is going to keep more people in the activity than just bimbling about.

(Please, those that like to just bimble, don't get angry at me, read what I said carefully)

Personally, I never do landaway flights shorter than about 100nm - one can usually drive there quicker, all the hassle considered. Most of my serious flying is abroad, usually well south of the UK. Then, one ends up in exciting interesting places which would be pretty well impossible to drive to (unless one likes to arrive like a zombie, after 2 days' solid driving) and Ryanair/etc isn't much better by the time one has spent half a day getting to Luton/Stansted, parking, dragging the bags around... So, there is a lot of airfields close to where I am based which I've never been to, and some of the really popular ones I don't even know where they are... People find this a bit hilarious but I know for sure that if I was flying locally I would get sick of it really fast.

I DO lots of local flights, just for currency and to make sure I fly at least once a week even if the weather is poor, but on those I don't bother to land away. I like to take a passenger, someone who either can't afford to go up much, or someone I can learn good safety procedures from (an airline pilot if poss).

Flying does involve considerable hassle on the ground, and the objective is to maximise the reward/hassle ratio.

But this is all very well for the owner-pilot, or for someone in a small group with good access. The trick is how to make flying interesting for people who rent. That's a real challenge. Schools make it very hard by insisting (unsuprisingly, for economic reasons) on minimum daily billing, and this makes say a 1 week takeaway trip massively expensive.

[dublinpilot]

I'm in the process at the moment, of trying to organise a club trip to Spain next year.

The basic plan is to fill the airplane(s) as full as we can with club pilots, and slowly hop our way down to Spain, changing pilots for each hop. We will be met in Spain by some more club pilots who will have taken the RyanAir flight.

Once there we will have a couple of days to in the area, where people can stay on the ground and explore, or explore by air if they wish. Then the pilots who fly the airplane(s) over will get the RyanAir flight home, and those who got the RyanAir flight over, will take the club aircraft home. As a result this trip will involve only about 3 & 1/2 hours flying time per pilot, helping to ensure the costs aren't prohibitive.

My motivation for organising this is to simply show some of the other club members what they can do with a club airplane, and actually how easy it is.

I would consider myself a pilot of relatively little experience. I have less than 200 hours, and just a just a 'plain vanilla PPL'. But having done a trip well down into France last year, I couldn't believe how easy it all was, and want to share it with my club members.

So why don't some of you who feel they need more challenges, try something similar? By only flying one direction, and sharing that direction with fellow club pilots you seriously cut down your costs, and get a lot further, to much more interesting places.

I suppose we could organise a Pprune trip next summer, and if some of the more experienced pilots here got involved, we could use their experience to be more adventurous about where we went. But I suspect that trying to do it through pprune would result in too many people not being able to band together. ie. their club will naturally only let pilots who have been checked out by that club fly their airplane.

Or am I being too pesimestic about pprune? Would you guys be able to fill your club aircraft with two sets of crew, and take the airplane for a week?

[Aussie Andy]

I think people need three things post-PPL: confidence, information and ideas! All of these work together to generate the motivation to make the time (versus the pressures of business, family, etc) and money available to keep on flying:[list=a] Confidence - partly comes with experience in the air, and in go/no-go decision making
Information - all those little things about air-law weather, bureaucracy / filing for foreign flights, etc. - many of which have been touched-upon during the PPL but now that you're really planning and flying can find that you are generating more questions than answers, and this can make the whole thing seem such a palaver! Ideas - where to go, what to do: I am bored in the local area; should I do try more touring, if so where to? Should I try aeros? etc. New challenges means new excitement and new learning.[/list=a]I have three suggestions that I think help with all of these:[list=1] Find a "flying-buddy" - find some bloke (or sheila!) who lives nearby and/or flies from the same club and is similarly qualified and expereinced, e.g. got his PPL around the same time as you / has similar hours... Then plan trips together; safely extend each others envelopes beyond your default comfort-zones; enjoy twice the flying at half the price; and do some trips away overnight which are otherwise lonely on your own, etc.
Attend one of Irv Lee's excellent PPL Masterclass Seminars - see http://www.higherplane.flyer.co.uk/seminars.htm - these are an excellent way to go over and clear up confusion which will have arisen re- air-law, met, bureaucracy, going foreign etc - ideal for say 6~12mths or so post-PPL... and you may even meet that flying buddy on the seminar!
Socialise through PPRuNe, Flyer Forums, Fly-Ins etc - the enthusiasm of others is infectious and will generate new ideas, and reasons to fly-in to new airfields![/list=1]

What do others think of this "recipe"?

Andy :ok:

[J.A.F.O.]

AA

Sounds great, in fact perhaps we could have a FLYING BUDDY thread, along the lines of the spare seats sticky; get people in touch with their flying friend.

[Aussie Andy]

FLYING BUDDY thread like a dating service!?

[J.A.F.O.]

Steady :uhoh:

Low hour PPL, interests include tailwheel flying, GSOH, WLTM similar for mutual flying.

[Julian]

As long as she has her own aircraft and hanger ....

(Old ones still the best :} )

Julian

[eharding]

The real PPL is the PPL/IMC, the basic PPL is effectively a recreational pilots licence for sunny sunday afternoons rather than for using an aircraft as serious transport.

Some would say the real PPL never leaves the traffic pattern as he is still trying to master landing a Pitts. Horses for courses, I find flying more than 100 miles to be exceedingly boring, telling people they aren't a real PPL because they don't fly cross country is a good way to alienate them and make them spend their money elsewhere.


Maybe you get to master landing a Pitts after a thousand hours - all I know is that every Pitts landing is different, and the important part is to get out of the circuit and do what the Pitts was built for.

Alan Cassidy sums it all up, really....

"The air is a three dimensional environment. Flying is to aerobatics as swimming is to scuba diving. To explore the latter, you need first to learn the former. Expand this analogy to develop a scale of involvement and passion. The progression is exponential.

Flying a circuit is a length of an indoor pool. A cross-country flight to Spain is swimming a kilometer out to sea. Aerobatics is diving the coral reef and cavorting with dolphins"

Last Sunday was almost spiritual - flying aerobatics in gin-clear air, the fog stretching out to the horizon to the west, just the towers at Didcot showing, then slow-rolling back home to the club - log fires burning in the bar, the club dog ambling around, a beer, good company. It just doesn't get any better than that.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A buddy system is a very useful tool, again we have one through our club website and forum. It has been a bit slow in taking off, but is now starting to really become well used.

Again not rocket science, it just takes a bit of thought.

[slim_slag]

Quite right eharding, which sort of proves the point. What one person gets out of private flying is different from another. So to say that you are not a real ppl unless you fly cross country, or you are not a real ppl if you only want to land a pitts (which isn't my opinion, just what others say) shows a basic misunderstanding.

People should be able to do what they want, and in the UK that means reducing the level of burden on the private flyer, both regulatory and tax. If you then make it easier for joe bloggs to fly light aircraft it will change the whole culture of flying in the UK, which is another issue I see here. It's shown on this thread too, a sort of 'you aren't a real PPL', that would drive me away pretty quick.

A post on the instructor's forum led to CAA stats (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=175&pagetype=68&groupid=559). In 2000 there were 27661 PPLs with medicals, in 2004 there were 22955. So a loss of 17%. There are figures for PPL issuances and IMC issuances in each year in between, but I don't have the time to make sense of them.

[Aussie Andy]

In 2000 there were 27661 PPLs with medicals, in 2004 there were 22955. So a loss of 17%. These stats seem pretty good to me considering the economic cycle from 2000 to 2004 during which (I am sure we will all remember!) there was a massive downturn in 2002/2003. This especially impaced IT and the City, and there seems to be a reasonably high correlation between these jobs and aviation! So maybe things aren't as bad as people think?

Andy :ok:

[IO540]

The cost of CAA regulation is a barely significant part of the cost of keeping a plane which has to be reasonably regularly serviced anyway.

There is absolutely zero prospect of the tax on avgas going away.

I speak as an aircraft owner, formerly G-reg and now N-reg, and I get all the bills.

There is nothing that can be done to reduce the cost of flying to the level where say 2x or 3x more people could hang about in it long-term.

The only way to boost GA activity is to change things so that GA attracts more people out of the huge pool of people that can afford to fly but presently choose to do other things.

[slim_slag]

Yes, IO540, you only appear to speak as an aircraft owner.

Think outside that box. For instance, in other parts of the world an instructor can provide instruction using his own plane on a dirt strip with minimal additional hassle from the regulator. Not so in the UK, regulations don't allow that. Let people teach from their own strip and you will get people coming in for the group mentality you don't get so much at these licenced airfield places. That's what I see anyway.

The reason I don't have a share in an aircraft in the UK is I have no idea what the regulator is going to do next year. I don't really know who the regulator is going to be next year. It's nothing to do with money for me, but I know it is for others.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are ways to reduce the costs, but these all involve investment in new technology. We as a group need to move away from the artificially high cost of AVGAS and move towards what the airlines use. i.e AVTUR, this allows economies of scale to bring the cost down and no Government is going to be daft enough to try and put tax on AVTUR. Therefore we are protected by the 'big boys.'

The problem is, what happens when we have to move away from AVTUR (this will happen eventually) will we be left behind again? I hope not, but the new machines coming onto the market need to have the ability to run on bio fuels, without major changes.

Once we have a/c that can run for £10/hr for fuel rather than £50, then we can start bringing prices back to reality and get more people through the door AND get them flying more regularily.

Unfortunately all the things that clubs such as the one I'm part of are doing just scratches the surface, they don't change the underlying problem of it all being too damn expensive.

[IO540]

SS

An aircraft owner has an idea of where the money goes. A self fly hire renter has usually got zero idea, and may well think that of the £100/hr, half goes on CAA fees. The reality is that most of the stuff is stuff one can do little or nothing about.

I am trying to make a positive contribution here, and this is an area where I can.

The cost of an instructor is only a small part of the cost of doing a PPL. Most of the cost one pays is the self fly hire, and landing fees. PPL instructors work for peanuts. If they worked for free, an £8000 PPL might come down to £7500.

The only way you will reduce costs of flying and/or get access to something half decent is to buy a share. Regulation is nothing to do with it.

SAS

I would not be confident of tax free status of avtur remaining. Currently, in much of Europe, you can get tax free avgas if you produce an AOC. I try it every time, flashing my BP Air card, and evidence of a "company owned" aircraft, but without an AOC it has so far worked only in Spain :O This suggests that the aviation fuel business has no difficulty in basing tax free status on an AOC. I think on balance you are right; GA is too small for anyone to bother, but this one change alone would completely undermine the case for diesels.

I also don't think that reducing £100/hr to say £70/hr (DA40) is going to make any difference to the PPL population. The much more modern aircraft certainly would, but only in conjunction with good marketing and going for the right punters.

The sort of level which people are looking for is more like £20/hr and obviously that will never be achieved.

If one could dump the whole CofA scene and do everything (including PPL training) on a Permit, that would make a difference, mainly because the planes can be bought new for so much less, new planes are far cheaper to maintain than 30 year old ones, parts can be bought by mail order, and maintenance can be done ad-hoc instead of by JAR145 firms. Especially if one could fly, and train in, the permit planes currently on the American market - one would buy the parts without any fancy paperwork off the manufacturers' websites. Look at the Aircraft Spruce catalogue for some mind blowing pricing on this stuff.

In the 2-seater market, that would halve the cost of flying. There would probably be no significant loss of safety, either. But I cannot see the CAA allowing this; their whole reason for existence would go out of the window. THAT is the real cost of regulation, not what the CAA actually charges, but that's the same the world over.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I can well imagine the airlines fighting tooth and nail to stop any tax being levied on AVTUR. The point would be that once it starts, then they may well be next.

However, I seem to remember that when I was in Germany a while ago, we had to produce evidence of our AOC so that we wouldn't get charged tax on the AVTUR we were uplifting, something I've only just remembered and now think of as very worrying. Maybe you are right.

The fact is though that GA would be a tiny user of of AVTUR compared to the airlines, would it really be in anyone's favour to bring in a tax? I hope not and it really would be total discrimination. I wonder what a smart lawyer could make of it!

A reduction of £30 an hour would be very significant and I don't think that we will ever get the prices down to £25/hr for training a/c unless we write off the purchase costs. Not something I see happening anytime soon!
If we get rid of the need for CofA machines, then we could go a long way to reducing the costs, but I worry that with so many cowboys and crooks around the real cost may be the total death-knell for GA, with a/c falling out of the sky with more regularity.

School a/c are usually no-where near as well looked after as a privately owned machine and there are many who would take advantage of lax rules to the detriment of all of us.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

The only way to boost GA activity is to change things so that GA attracts more people out of the huge pool of people that can afford to fly but presently choose to do other things.

Is that really an answer?

In several different areas of recreation there are many who can afford to do as they please and behave less than responsibly in thier attitudes to others, treating those less affluent as lesser beings who shouldnt be alllowed in the same space as them.

Is a class system, which is basically what you are suggesting, going to improve GA that much?

Is someone who has a genuine love of aviation but can really afford an hour or so a month flying less desirable than someone who can afford to fly whenever they wish but are there purely for the pose value offered.

I am not suggesting that this is what you have implied but unless these newcomers all have a strong commitment to flying there is every possibility that it could go the way of various Yacht Clubs with several armchair admirals in every club whose only regular encounter with water is at bathtime.

I am not wealthy but would hate to feel sidelined by financially superior beings who fit the above categories

[slim_slag]

Ah the safety card, CAA will go for that. Any evidence that a PA28 in a UK training establishment is more dangerous than a PA28 owned by a US instructor who freelances?

Why can't a UK group use it's aircraft to train people who want to join the group? That would be cheap but regulations don't let you.

[Say again s l o w l y]

SS, not that I know of, but being the arch cynic that I am, I can well imagine many people not maintaining the a/c as they should.

Regulations that govern GA are often very poorly thought out, I'm all for lobbying Govt. for change, but it's not as if AOPA and the such like have had much success changing much.
I was reading this evening about an organisation called SIPA who represent small breweries in the UK. The y have had alot of succes in reducing tax and duty on their industry, why is it that our industry hasn't achieved similar levels of success?

Edited for some form of dupilcation!

[J.A.F.O.]

Is there an echo in here?

Edited due to the fact that the post that it refers to has been edited - I'll get my coat.

[foxmoth]

The cost of CAA regulation is a barely significant part of the cost of keeping a plane which has to be reasonably regularly serviced anyway.

The fees that the CAA charge for certified parts alone constitute a major part of the cost of aviation in the UK - I know the same part cost about 10X the cost of the identical non certified part of a freinds aircraft!! £600 instead of £60 makes a significant difference even without the hourly charge by engineering which is again higher because of CAA regulation!:uhoh:

[IO540]

Bahn-Jeaux

This one has done the rounds here not long ago, with the same sort of opinions expressed. Any suggestion that one should bring more money into a leisure activity is always going to be met with protest from those who can barely afford to hang in there right now, who are afraid they will be pushed out.

In reality, there will be a cross-subsidy, flowing from those who splash money about, to those that don't. Everywhere you look around yourself, you can see such subsidies. Let's say you drive 5000 miles/year. Do you think that brand new dual carriageway would be there if it wasn't for all those commercial vehicles that do 100,000 miles/year, etc? The NHS. The Post Office. Pensions. Taxation. Everywhere you look, there is a transfer of wealth from those with more to those with less. It's impossible to avoid.

If you had a school/club operating five £150,000 planes, regularly flown by the stereotype flash punters who turn up in flash cars accompanied by blonde tarts, you would be able to rent this £150,000 plane (which, honestly, will make you want to never ever climb into a Cesspit again, even a new one) for say £60/hour, wet. All the time that most participants in the GA non-owner scene are nearly skint, the planes will always be 30 year old wrecks renting for £100+/hour. It's a vicious circle from which there is no way out, short of a substantial influx of dosh.

SS/SAS

Unfortunately I have met far more crooks in a few years of owning than in 30 years of being in business (non-aviation) so I would fully expect these to jump on any relaxation. However, this is not the same thing as saying that CAA oversight is effective. It isn't. I learnt on planes which had bare wires hanging out of the engine compartment, so one had to make sure certain items such as lights were not switched on as the wires might go live and blow a fuse. These planes were operated by an AOC establishment, serviced to Transport CofA regs by a JAR145 company.

The CAA system doesn't do anything, other than providing jobs for a load of useless people at the CAA.

The reason fixed wing planes don't plummet (much) is that a plane doesn't plummet unless the wings come off, etc, and that would probably take a decade of operation without any servicing whatsoever.

So I am sure one could devise an oversight system which is informal (outside the CAA) yet which ensures that the planes are properly serviced. The trouble is that the moment you devise any mandatory-ish system for verification of something, a load of people will jump on it as a way of making a nice living. ISO9000, CE, ROHS... it's all a load of total cr*p but it's everywhere.

Foxmoth - you are confused about CAA fees for certified parts. There is the much higher cost of certified parts but this isn't specific to the CAA. Under FAA, everything is much dearer too. My autopilot is about US$40,000. The same (functionally) item for an American Experimental category plane is $3000, and can't be any less reliable. But these are certification requirements, which enable the mostly-American manufacturers to screw people, because people have no choice.

Only on permit type planes can these costs be avoided, but nobody allows permit planes to be used commercially. You could try changing this (it would be a good one) but the CAA would absolutely hate it.

Then there is installation related paperwork. The CAA makes stuff cost perhaps 30% more but that's largely because the parts come from the USA and are sold here by CAA-approved importers who have what is a sole agency (illegal in the EU) in all but name,and who make the best of their CAA approval. Even parts made in France cost 30-50% more, for the same "distribution" reason. If the manufacturers sold stuff direct to the UK end users or installers, parts would be that much cheaper. But, for people that do own servicing or can use a fully qualified but freelancing colleague (something that EASA will end soon) it's possible to obtain the same certified parts, with the same paperwork, direct from the USA.

The CAA has some stupid costs but so does the FAA. However the FAA has a much better process for approving mods; a lot of mods are just impossible under CAA which is why a lot of people are N-reg. But this doesn't affect the low-end GA scene; it affects owner pilots who want nice kit.

But parts don't cost much, until a plane starts to get old, say 15+ years. Before then, the parts required are usually cheap. Take my 50hr check. The oil is £40, the filter is £10. No "firm" does it for less than £250. It takes only 3 hours! This bears no relationship to the firm's normal hourly rate. On an N-reg I do these myself; I had to buy special tools and had an A&P teach me, then it's dead easy. The parts for an Annual come to even less as a % of the total cost, but then an Annual takes say 40 hours to do.

[speke2me]

I'm fairly new to these excellent forums - here goes!

I'm doing a PPL finally, at age 45, because I've always loved aviation, and get a 'buzz' from it.

Why wait till 45? Well, the cost, basically. I have another career, now established, and through all that had wife/kids/motgage to pay for (ie skint most of the time). Still paying for all that, but now find that I can scrape the cash to pay for PPL training.

In fact what started me off was a gift voucher from my brother, 2 yrs ago, for a 30 min trial in a hele. Loved the flight, but not really a 'hele' person. Then my wife bought me a 1hr trial in a Cessna - really loved that - but felt that the cost of taking up training couldn't be justified against the 'family' budget, just to pay for my 'pleasure'.

Still, the wife bought me another 3 hrs (for Christmas last year) and again I was torn on commiting a lot of £k on 'learning to fly', so took the flights as 'pleasure' flights, with an instructor taking me pretty well where I wanted to go locally, with me taking control now and again; like an extended 'trial flight', if you will.

Unfortunately (for my finances) the 'bug' certainly bit after the last flight, and I knew I just had to commit to a proper course to PPL - so I did.

Since my first 4 'preliminary' hours were with proper FI's, they all count in my log book, so no great loss really.

I now have 10 hrs total, and can't wait for the next lesson - stalls and slow flight I think.

I suppose the thing is, is that I'm doing this because I really enjoy it - each and every lesson. Bearing in mind the subject of the thread - that up to 90% of first time PPL's pack in after gaining it, my first point is that, to me, even if I could never fly again after gettting PPL, the enjoyment gaining it, and the sense of fulfillment, would do.

That's not to say I don't want to carry on post PPL - I really do intend to. IMC and night rating are already factored in to my 'personal' syllabus.

I do have the great luck of knowing a 'buddy' - and I do feel that makes big difference. He's a work colleague (a 'freelance' in what I do, so we don't cross paths very often) who got PPL, IMC, and Night a few years ago. Until I told him what I was up to, I didn't even know he was a PPL. He had lapsed by about 6 years, but has now done the necessary hours, and checkrides etc, to revalidate. Our plan is to cost-share and do flights together, espec when I qualify. Endless possibilities - 'near' Europe, Scotland (Oban, Lochs, hills etc), Easyjet to Nice and then local hire (after a bit of tuition!) for entry-level Alps flying.

I've no desire to be an airline pilot. Well, I might have once, but at my age, notwithstanding the company 'final salary' pension scheme that I don't think I can afford to b*gger up (ever felt 'trapped'?), I consider that an impractical move.

At any rate, having now flown GA, my ideal 'early retirement' job to move onto would not be airlines, with all attendant pressure etc. Much more so flying turbo-prop late night mail transports (I know - dream on...), or air-taxi or something. But from what I can figure from these forums, even that would require laying down mega £k to get IR or whatever, with absolutely no job guarantee, of course.

Sorry about the rambling post - just trying in an (extremely inflated!) way to say that this old PPL trainee intends to carry on post-PPL as much as I can.

And the well informed posts about the real costs of things (IO540 is one such contributor) are greatly appreciated by a 'newbie' like me.

One final thing. When I started training, a friend pointed out that flying schools were run 'more on love than money'.

I corroborate that one. My school may have old aircraft ('wrecks' is maybe a little unjust?) but they do the job. And, starved of investment, I'm full of admiration for the School I'm with, that maintains these to CCA regs, and teaches me to fly when the FI is clearly paid a 'cost efficient' (ie not high) salary.

Some 'crook' schools (do they exist - newbie asking?) may be different - but the one I am with I am full of praise for.

[Aussie Andy]

speke2me, great post mate - good on ya, go for it! With your attitude you'll get a lot from the experience of gaining the PPL, and having a "buddy" already lined up is brilliant... I can already see the two of you meeting perhaps some of us at a fly-in somewhere, maybe Guernsey? or Le Havre? or maybe even just Wycombe!!

I'm excited for you pal!

Andy :)

[shortstripper]

Well this certainly is an interesting thread!

So what makes a fresh PPL give up so soon after gaining their licence? So far all the answers have probably all been right for a certain number of cases. The point is, the reasons can range from everything from lack of money/time, to lack of confidence or even boredom (hard to believe ... but some don't see flight as most of us here do). In my case it's mostly been about money, but also family ... or more specifically the SWMBO! I've had a licence since 1991 but have flown fewer hours than I did in gliders during the three years prior to getting a PPL! Why? I was young free and single then. More disposable income, no kids and no wife to moan at me if I'm "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield!" The only time since pre marriage that I've got a decent run of flying in, was when I flew from my own strip ... so I can't wait to get my T31 airborne and return to that way flying again.

Why is everyone knocking the CAA? Except for recreational licences such as the NPPL, the CAA is now redundant as far as full PPL's are concerned. It's EASA (or whatever EU body it is now? "I loose track"). The NPPL may not be to everyone’s liking, but at least it has gone some way to addressing at least some of the issues that cause drop out, ie medical. So the CAA has taken some positive steps over our EU cousins. Same thing historically, as the IMCR shows by being the only non full IR rating in Europe (I think). It could do more, but I think any fundamental change (especially in terms of IFR flight) needs to come from Euroland.

IO540

I'm not sure how "your" kind of flying is more likely to benefit the UK GA scene over say "my" type of flying? What does long distance touring in a fast aircraft contribute that bimbling in a slow or vintage plaything doesn't? In fact clubby types or aerobatic aircraft probably pay more in landing fees per hour flown and probably require more maintenance (helps the maint unit that helps subsidise many schools budget as they are often linked). I'm not trying to knock what you say as much of it is very pertinent, but you fall into the same trap we all do, of seeing things far too much from our own perspective. I'm just as guilty as I'm always pushing people to look at the cheaper end of aviation and often forget that the idea of flying single seat homebuilts just does not appeal to some people .... why, I just don't know? :E

As for all this "what constitutes a proper PPL" rubbish, then I can tell you ... a PPL! Be it NPPL, PPL/IR or balloon PPL, they all count! Once you can venture up there on your own, under your own authority, and make decisions yourself, you then have a PROPER PPL! In fact, who needs a PPL? The same thing applies to gliders, but you don't need a piece of paper to prove it!

SS

[IO540]

SS

To repeat myself, I didn't say that "touring" or whatever is the only thing that will interest everybody.

What I would stand behind absolutely is that for people to hang about long-term they need to be doing something interesting. Surely that's obvious.

If you picked say 100 fresh PPL holders, all selected from the majority group of students who did NOT learn to fly for any particular purpose, and you got 50 to bimble locally, 50 to do more challenging longer flights (with an overnight stay somewhere fun), which of them do you think will hang about longer?

Neither is "wrong" as such, but bimbling carries the most factors which make people give up. It's got the lowest hassle/reward ratio for the pilot. It's got the least interest for passengers - unless you can find different ones each time.

Yet, local bimbling is just about all one can do in the UK self fly hire scene, because of the minimum daily billing requirement.

As has been described above, one can get beyond it by organising a fly-out comprising of say 4 pilots going away in a 4-seater and each flying different legs; then you can get 4 times as far and it's a lot more fun. It just takes more organising, and where I trained you'd be pushed to find 3 others who are around for long enough; people dropped out so fast. Nobody who trained with me a few years back is still visibly flying.

This has been done to death here, but perhaps the #1 (and really really easy) thing which a school/club could do is to encourage experienced PPLs to stick around, and fly with both PPL students and with fresh PPLs. This seems obvious, but schools don't like it because so many students have only just enough money for the next lesson, and the school wants that money to be spent at the school, not contributing to somebody's PPL cost sharing scheme. Cynical? Yes, but accurate in most cases and I've been told so very directly. Once you get your PPL, unless you are clearly spending money on the NQ or IMCR, they want you OUT. School fly-outs are often quite cynically organised to put a student in the LH seat and an instructor in the RH seat on every possible leg, and PPL holders are not welcome unless they rent a plane and then they may carry only passengers who aren't paying anyway. Also a lot of schools don't like it because they would need to provide decent flight planning facilities for groups of people: internet, big tables to spread out on. Also there is a great deal of paranoia about the instructors' authority being usurped by PPLs having different views, for example on navigation :O

As for the Mrs complaining "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield", well there are several solutions to that :O Most girlz do like flying; what they don't like is all the anoraks. Time to duck again....

[shortstripper]

Like I said, most of what you say is pertinent ... but still heavily influenced by your own bias, not that there's anything wrong with that.

If you picked say 100 fresh PPL holders, all selected from the majority group of students who did NOT learn to fly for any particular purpose, and you got 50 to bimble locally, 50 to do more challenging longer flights (with an overnight stay somewhere fun), which of them do you think will hang about longer?

You could take the same 100 fresh PPL holders and introduce 50 of them to PFA types, vintage or aerobatics and they will similarly be more likely to stay. So I do see you point, but just from a different slant. :ok:

SS

Edited to include PS.
As for the Mrs complaining "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield", well there are several solutions to that Most girlz do like flying; Well mine is the jealous sort, so perhaps the idea that other "girlz do like flying" might be the problem? :\

[High Wing Drifter]

This thread is indeed a feast for throught. I have maitained a very strong sense of the one personal demand needed to stay aloft and, from what I have read, it has only be touched upon in this thread so maybe I'm unique (but I doubt it).

I actually believe that if schools had newer aircraft and if flying was cheaper (we're talking realistically cheaper here) then, perversely, the dropout rate would increase. Cost and shiney aircraft would do more to attract people into the training scene and perhaps a few more would stick around long-term, but that does not generate and enduring will and motivation to remain in aviation for fun.

The confidence issue is a more interesting point. But people think that more training will change this. Unfortunately, I think more training will do little in this regard, except of course relieve people or more money.

My personal take on post the PPL conundrum is that it is confidence that is a big issue, but in a different way to that described here before. It wasn't until about 150 hours(ish) that I could arrive and fly without butterflies, where I wouldn't seeminlgy endlessly prevaricate over the state of the weather. I'm not sure I can put my finger on the problem as I found training straight forward and have never had any difficulty flying very well, but there is something about the personal responsibility and psychological/mental commitment needed to leave the gound alone during one's early hours.

I suspect that the most of the difference between between the statistics lies in personality. I suspect that most PPLs have a tenacious will to see things through, not to let themselves be intimidated by demanding situations, but reason them out; to find a way to make things work for them. I think that it is this personality type that constitues the required motivation to push through the post PPL training wildernes rather relenting and choosing the easy option.

Therefore and ufortunately, any idea of expanding active public involvement in GA will be severely limited.

[IO540]

SS

I meant to add aeros as another obviously good candidate for post-PPL flying, absolutely right, and also a perfect activity for better-off punters.

But how many PPL schools are going to introduce a fresh PPL to PFA types? It's not at all in their interest. Getting into a permit type (ownership or sharing) IS definitely a good way to get flying seriously, but it was years post-PPL before I even heard of them. It's usually not until one learns more about operating costs that one discovers this stuff. As I've said, there are some amazing permit types about, and if it wasn't for me wanting the legit-IFR option I would have gone for one of those.

HWD

This will never be possible to establish one way or the other. I am sure one could not draw 10x more people into GA. But 2x is a perfectly reasonable objective, and would only be returning things to where they were say 20-30 years ago. One could achieve a 2x increase just by reducing the immediate attrition rate from say 90% to say 80%.

As for training, well, the bottom line is that we have the PPL training establishment. At most airfields the "firm" runs the show financially (accounting for most movements and most landings and most fuel sales) and if they don't like something then IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. So any discussion of different training is going to be theoretical, or "mental masturbation" as someone here once described something :O

I think training could be improved to the point where people could do interesting things (assuming we can agree on what that means), but the school has no commercial incentive to provide that.

If I wanted to get people into aeros, I would put together a self contained add-on module. I am sure these exist, don't they??

If I wanted to get people into going places, I would put together a "going places" module. BUT....... isn't the PPL supposed to teach you all you need to know to fly from A to B??? Of course it is. So this would just show up the basic PPL as a big con (which I believe it is).

"Well, Sir, this car is £8000, excellent value, and you can drive it anywhere in the world. The petrol tank holds 5 litres. For an extra £4000 you can have a 50 litre petrol tank. Not essential of course, your driving license is a license to learn, after all".

There's your problem!

[slim_slag]

HWD,

There is a significant difference between UK and UK cost/regulatory burden, so just for grins let's compare US pilot figures with UK pilot figures.

In 2004 there were roughly 23000 UK PPLs with medicals. An excel spreadsheet (http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2004/media/air1-04.xls) on the FAA site has an estimated 235000 US PPLs with medicals, and approx 125,000 US CPLs. A US CPL is very attainable and doesn't have this 'professional' label you find in the UK.

That's roughly 1 in 2500 Brits has a PPL, roughly 1 in 1250 Yanks with PPL, and roughly 1 in 2500 Yanks with a CPL. So there is some evidence that less cost and less regulation means more pilots. Do you have any figures which could be used to show otherwise?

Re regulatory costs. There's an airfield in the midlands with some very nice Taylorcraft. Some have managed to get onto a permit, some didn't. Essentially same plane, equally loved and equally safe, but significantly different costs to fly, and from what I have been told purely due to regulatory burden.

[IO540]

SS

There is a significant difference between UK and UK cost/regulatory burden

Can you offer actual figures to support this, as a percentage of the cost of flying?

The prices of certified hardware are not much lower on the U.S. market than they are here. Not enough to account for the huge diff in the # of people flying.

The USA is also much richer, has a long history of personal freedom (flying is very much wrapped up in that), has much cheaper fuel, has a uniform airspace (imagine a place bigger than all of Europe, one airspace structure, one language), loads of hard runways so flying A-B is much more feasible and an IR is actually useful whereas here in the UK you are stuck with varyingly dodgy DIY approaches into most smaller places, VFR up to 17999ft (Class A starts at 18000ft), much better ground facilities for aircraft support, etc.

And some fantastic Experimental category planes; I know someone who has just screwed an ex target drone jet engine into his plane. Couldn't do that here.

[J.A.F.O.]

I think that HWD has a good point. Confidence plays a huge part.

If you don't have much free time (for whatever reason) then when you do you um and ah about weather or whatever today's excuse is so you don't fly, so you're less current, so you're less confident, so you um and ah some more. Then, before you know it, you're in the 95%.

The solution?

Throw money at it? Probably not.

More training? Yes, but not necessarily.

The buddy system? Yes, probably.

If you've set a date to fly with someone else then you might be less likely to prevaricate, if they're aware of things (be it PFA types, touring, fly-ins, aerobatics, whatever) then you'll share knowledge and experience.

It can only be a good thing.