Ballpark cost for the PPL

[zetland76]

I'm sorry if this has been asked 10000 times before but I can't find what I want to know in the FAQ.
I am about to book the PPL course. I have some flying experience. On a weeks gliding course, some 10 years ago, I managed to go solo.
The flying cost is quoted at £135 per hour on a Cessna 172, but what are the approximate extra costs?
a) Medical examination
b) Books (cost and which ones)
c) Ground School (hours, cost and which courses)
d) Exam fees (costs and which ones)
e) Landing fees
f) Any other costs I might have missed

Thanks

Mike

[stickandrudderman]

Mine cost me around 6K in the UK three years ago.
I could have got it cheaper but I could only do it at the local airfield.

[deltaxray]

10k for me but thats in euros. Obviously its cheaper in the u.s but i only had access to my local airfield.

[maxdrypower]

Mine was v cheap as i did it through the RAF but 5-6 grand would be about right . To make it cheaper try and do it all in one fell swoop take three weeks off if you can and do the whole lot . And secondly I mentioned this on another forum get yourself a smaller aircraft pa38 cessna 152 or 150 its considerably cheaper than than a larger 172 after 3 hours flying youll be reducing costs . with mostb flying schools at the mo 100-110 quid per hour is about right yu shouldnt be paying for an aircraft that has two empty seats and a baggage area , your learning to fly think about pax later on , just my two penny worth

[davidatter708]

I paid £5152 unfront for the course all the rules and maops
plus 4 thom books radio exam all ground school and exams skills test.
medical £120
extra landing fees max £100
extra exams cause i failed some £10/exam
But that was on a £152 and a junior member should have been £150
ppl confuser £25
ummmmmm I think thats about it
oh it took my 6 mnths and 45hrs 15 minutes of flying

my cost per hour was £110 with insturctor £90 without in a C152
Hope this helps anything else just ask
David

[tangovictor]

zetland, I don't wish to be age'ist, but at 60, why not go the nppl route ?
1/2 the price, and a dead easy medical, your Dr signs to say your ok,
after all you won't be going on to CPL
http://www.nppl.uk.com/
I went the nppl m route as a modern 3 axis microlight can our perform most spam cans at less then 1/2 the price
worth checking out

[IO540]

£8600 in 2000/2001.

Of that, about £600 was in landing fees. But I did change a school after about 20hrs which I guess wasted about £1000 (a very different aircraft type).

Books, the stupid circular slide rule :) and other bits come to maybe £200.

Medical £150.

I don't see how the NPPL is going to be cheaper given that the pilot has to reach the same basic standard in order to be able to fly from A to B in the same airspace.

Also, the difference in the basic (price list) cost will be barely significant in the long run. Most people who have to date done the NPPL have done it for medical reasons, and actually about 2/3 of them (according to data from c. 2006) were previous PPL holders who failed their Class 2 medical.

[Whirlybird]

after all you won't be going on to CPL


Don't make assumptions without asking. I know a PPL over 60 who sold a business and was thinking of a new part time career, and considered a CPL and FI rating. It's been done before. And so long as you can pass a Class 1 medical, there's no reason why not.

[bonniejack]

The hard to allow for cost is the UK weather. I have been trying to do 4 hours or so of solo nav exercises since Feb. I have lost track of how many cancellations I have had when weather has been unsuitable. Because of this I have done about 4 hours of extra dual/ solo circuits to keep my hand in and that is about all the flying since Feb. Plenty of nice days when I was at work mind and I work under one of the EGNT VRP's so saw lots of students off to the practice area! I have presently got 43 hours so if no other delays I should be ready for final tests at about 47 hours (for NPPL). You won't do NPPL in the 32 hours they quote and you will not want to, you just will not be ready. At least I wouldn't have been, even allowing for adjusting to different aircraft. I am doing NPPL because I cannot envisage flying more than 100 hrs per year. Not enough I believe to maintain currency in IMC/R and /or night rating. I have no interest in flying abroad and yes the medical is a saving. No plans either for CPL so why go through the cost and hassle of PPL. In fact the course I am doing is almost identical to the PPL I started on in the 70's but without the spinning. I would say do not see NPPL as a sub PPL but as an equal standard that is more realistically in tune with some pilots ambitions.

[tangovictor]

Don't make assumptions without asking. I know a PPL over 60 who sold a business and was thinking of a new part time career, and considered a CPL and FI rating. It's been done before. And so long as you can pass a Class 1 medical, there's no reason why not

not making any assumptions, however do you know any airlines taking new pilots over 60 ? or even 100000 hour pilots over 60 ?

re the nnp / ppl costings above, nppl is less hours to train, less hours means less money !

[Mad Girl]

TangoVictor
after all you won't be going on to CPL

Why Not???? You're not dead, and can still enjoy challenges in life once you've turned a certain age!!!

not making any assumptions, however do you know any airlines taking new pilots over 60 ? or even 100000 hour pilots over 60 ?


You're making more assumptions....

Whirlybird said she knew a 60 year old who "sold a business and was thinking of a new part time career, and considered a CPL and FI rating".

You're talking about being on the airlines from CPL, she's talking about being a flying instructor from CPL.

You don't see instruction as a worthwhile part time "career" then ??? And you think once you get past a certain age you should just roll over and die???

PS Tomorrow... I'm going flying with a guy. He's NPPL now (but then he is in his mid eighties) but has more multi-engine hours than everyone in the club added together :p

[Whirlybird]

Well said, MG. :ok: You got there before I could.

[stickandrudderman]

Some people (No names, no pack drill) do like to whinge on here don't they?;)

[IO540]

I am doing NPPL because I cannot envisage flying more than 100 hrs per year

100? Is that a misprint? That's about 5-10 times UK GA average, easily enough for good IFR currency, and easily enough to justify an outright purchase of a capable plane.

You would be wasting your time doing an NPPL for that... being stuck to UK airspace probably for ever.

[Paris Dakar]

even 100000 hour pilots over 60 ?

100,000 hrs :eek: I wouldn't mind seeing their log books :ooh:

[tangovictor]

You're talking about being on the airlines from CPL, she's talking about being a flying instructor from CPL.

You don't see instruction as a worthwhile part time "career" then ??? And you think once you get past a certain age you should just roll over and die???

the original poster who's 60 has yet to learn to fly, hence he's enquiry
and therefore my post, I myself am nearer 60 than 50 ( just ) and have been
informed many times, that airlines do not employ pilots over 60, ( some do for freight apparently, but high hours required )

It is possible to train and attain a ppl or nppl and after 50 / 100 hours go for instructors rating, which would be wonderful if thats the sort of flying he's into

[Crash one]

I'm going the NPPL (A) route because, 1, the medical is cheaper (£10) for Dr's autograph. 2, I "think" it is easier to maintain. 3, at the age of 67 I won't be going commercial. 4, It should be cheaper at 32 hrs instead of 45. I went for the (A) so as to be able to take the three of us if required,
However, reality is different, ref item 4. I was informed by a very competent instructor that after the age of 50 the hrs "usually" taken are about equal to the age of the student. I also did gliding in the 80s.
He can't be far out as I have taken 65hrs to reach the point of the nav flight test, (wx permitting tomorrow).
So far I have spent ~8K, & it aint finished yet. £129hr, landing fees free at three airfields in the training area, exams free, FRTOL £60.

[tangovictor]

good for you crash one, here's wishing you well with your flying, in retrospect
do you think, that the nppl m might have been a better route ? most 3 axis microlights are under £100 per hour training,

[Whirlybird]

Information for anyone who might want it...

1) You can get a CPL at any age, and people do.
2) After the age of 60, you cannot fly in single pilot commercial operations with passengers, or (and I can't remember the precise official wording) be the captain in two-pilot operations. HOWEVER, there is a court case going on at the moment challenging this, as that sort of age restriction may now be illegal. There's a thread about this on Rotorheads; I'll post the link when I have time.
3) You can instruct at any age. Students are officially members of the crew, not passengers. And recently the rules were changed so that instructors over the age of 40 now only need medicals yearly rather than 6-monthly.
4) The average number of hours taken to get a PPL is said to be around 60. While anecdotal evidence suggests younger people manage it faster, I'm not sure that there's any hard evidence for this. And as an instructor, I'd say the individual differences outweigh any general age differences.

So good luck, all you 15 year olds and 80 year olds out there, go learn to fly, and make sure you get the CORRECT information. :ok:

[Crash one]

Tangovictor, thanks,
Yes I have thought in retrospect that the (M) might have been a good idea, though I live only 3nm from the airfield, & the nearest Microlight field is a good hour+ drive, & they are flexwing as far as I know. I did enquire of the NPPL people about floatplane differences training, "not at present but this may change". The microlight route would have allowed that. Living in Scotland the idea of a Kitfox with two aircraft carriers hanging underneath appeals to me. So although I may be going the wrong way yet, at least my relatives (non aviatic) think I am being "normal".
As a point of interest, how easy (expensive) is it to go NPPL (A) to NPPL (M) (amphib)??

[PompeyPaul]

I reckon my PPL is going to cost me around £9k->10k. That's all in, books, headset, whizz wheel, tests, tuition, hire everything.

I've not exactly bean counted it or totted up everything and it's only a gut feel. I could've done it cheaper in a cheaper aircraft but I like what I fly :ok:

This is roughly 45 hours dual @ 180 ph (yeah, it's not all dual but there's contingency for other stuff like landing fees) = £8100
Books \ tests \ RT Tuition = £600
Headset \ whizz wheel \ pilots bag \ kneeboards etc = £400 (thanks ebay)

I have yet to pay for check ride test, radio license, ppl license (if I ever get there) so I'd budget another £500 for that.

PPL all in for £6k ? You need to pass in record time and have some fairly cheap plane hire. I think I'll have my check ride done by 45 hours - but if I don't then there's probably another grand to go on there.

[maxdrypower]

Can only reiterate Paul , do not pay 180ph for a ppl unless you got money to burn , it doesnt make any sense . for the amount your willing to pay you could have 73 hours in a pa38 at 110 per hour , get your books and crp5 on ebay save money all over the place , but 180 ph for flying lessons wow! I didnt pay that at ringway

[crap pilot]

£180 per hour for PPL:ooh: Have a look at this http://www.comed.co.uk/c172sp_packages.htm All of this for less than £6.5k
45 hours flying instruction in our well equipped Cessna 172SP
All landing fees incurred during the 45 hours except touch and go fees in the circuit
Groundschool for all pre-flight and post flight briefs and de-briefs
First attempt at each of the six PPL examinations
Starter pack which includes logbook, checklist, kneeboard and book 1 of the series of books required to learn to fly
And its in a new C172SP with G1000.

[PompeyPaul]

£180 per hour for PPL:ooh: Have a look at this http://www.comed.co.uk/c172sp_packages.htm All of this for less than £6.5k
Cheap stuff is probably the only benefit to living in the frozen wastes up nawf :p Dan saf £160ph rental & £20ph instructor seems to be the going rate....

[Fly Stimulator]

Lydd, where I did my JAR PPL & IMC, is pretty far south by UK standards and they charge £140 dual for a 152 as you can see here (http://www.lyddaero.co.uk/prices.html).

There's a page here (http://www.lyddaero.co.uk/ppl_6_weeks.html) on their web site that describes their intensive course from which you can extract quite a handy list of all the individual items that any PPL student will need to budget for.

[PompeyPaul]

Yep, you can cut costs down a bit in a C152. I started down this route but just found the PA28 more comfortable and a bit more enjoyable to learn in.

[ariel]

Zetland 76

Have a look here (http://www.welshpoolairport.co.uk/breakdown.html) for a no frill 45 hour PPL price breakdown

ariel

[G_STRING]

Isn't it safe to say that most people take more, (some a lot), than the 45 hours. What happens to these 'quoted' prices then?

[S-Works]

My mate just did his PPL at Leicester for just over 4 grand.......

[maxdrypower]

I did mine in 45 hrs but this was because I took leave from work and flew two or three hours a day, was lucky with the weather and aircraft availability etc etc . IMHO you will always do it on less hours if you are flying that way whereas once per week will take you longer but maybe thats me .

[S-Works]

said friend from above did his in 45:20 including test and did 1-2 lesson a week starting at Christmas.

[maxdrypower]

but I am thick!

[IO540]

The way the block discounts work is that the quoted block, say £5000, buys you the standard 45 hrs which is the legal minimum for a JAA PPL.

If you then take 60 hours, you will pay the £5000 for the block, plus the hourly rate for the next 15 hours.

Plus landing fees, exam fees, books, bits and bobs, etc.

Block bookings may be tempting but schools go bust regularly and you invariably lose any un-flown entitlement at that point. The funds are not held in escrow but are used to keep the school afloat, and are perceived to increase student commitment to finishing the course.

If somebody recently did a JAA PPL for £4000 all in, I would like to see a breakdown.

[S-Works]

Lecicester Aero Club

Dual £112 per hour
Solo £92 per hour

Further discount for block payments

Exams are free. I gave him my Thom books and Whizz Wheel.

45:20 to finish. A bit over 4 grand according to my calculations and no flights or accommodation to pay for and a good old fashioned JAA PPL at the end of it.

I realise it makes a fair comparison against the FAA Holy Grail and should not be discussed. But it is easy enough for someone committed to doing a PPL in the UK

[IO540]

£112 per hour x 45hrs comes to more than £4000........

Some of it might be at £92/hour but most schools charge the full dual rate on pre-PPL solos because the student is flying on the instructor's license.

The FAA route is not relevant to this; it would not much cheaper than £4000 by the time one has counted some digs in the USA, etc etc etc.

The UK average for a PPL is no doubt over £8000.

[S-Works]

some schools may charge the full dual rate. Leicester Aero CLUB does not. I am not arguing that it could not cost £8k or even £10k at some UK SCHOOLS. But I am also pointing out that it can be done a lot cheaper.

For gods sake IO just for once accept that the UK training scene might have a shred of decency somewhere!!!!!

[IO540]

I made no accusations, bose-x, so don't suggest so.

Let's keep this forum polite.

[davidatter708]

As to my previous post I recomend Leicester nice place gd instructors and cheap pity prices have gone up £2 messes up my £1.50/min solol rate oh well. They have a 172 which is £20 more/hr than the 152.
David

[Whirlybird]

112 x 35 = 3920

92 x 10 = 920

Total for PPL = £4840...which is excellent, but nearer £5000 than £4000. Even with the figures given, I can't see how you could get it for £4000.

Most schools charge the dual rate for solo student flying since the instructor gets paid while supervising student solo flying, which seems to me perfectly fair. In fact, I've never heard of it being done any other way, though I'm not saying it isn't. But Leicester is certainly unusual in this.

[S-Works]

For gods sake I never said £4000 IO540 did. I said it was something over 4000.
And you are forgetting the club give a discount for block payment.

Either way we are arguing symantics here, it is still not £8 grand. It is POSSIBLE to do a PPL for much less than the figures being quoted here was all I was saying.

Sometimes the urge people have to argue over trivial **** on these forums amazes me.

My mate just did his PPL at Leicester for just over 4 grand.......

[stickandrudderman]

Hello, is this the room for an arguement?.....

[maxdrypower]

Ive told you once

[slim_slag]

People who pass in the minimum hours required by the regulator generally have unlogged time. There are whizz-kid Chuck Yeagers out there but not many. It just isn't possible to get the vast majority of people from zero to PPL in the minimum time specified.

When flying schools give a price which is for 40/45 hours you should use this only to easily compare the costs at different places. You should not use it for budgeting. The cheapest 45 hour price quoted by Leicester web site is £5332 (which does include extras but not enough to get it to just over £4k). Budget for 60 hours and keep another 10 hours in a fund hidden from the mrs to be spent on extras. Then if you keep it up, expect to spend all the rest of your money. If learning at Leicester and want to have the cash before you start, I'd ferret £7k away just to be safe, and as I said, if you have any left you will soon spend it. If you plan to take your time it will be a lot more.

[IO540]

People who pass in the minimum hours required by the regulator generally have unlogged time

That is totally true for everybody I have ever come across who did it in anything like 45hrs.

A huge chunk of this business is the general practical and theoretical knowledge, which one picks up as one goes along. If one has a keen personal interest and has been "around the scene" for a while, they pick up a lot of the stuff that way. Even flight-simming on FSX (which is actually very good) and flying and navigating to real places on it is going to teach you about which way up the world is, etc.

[S-Works]

I don't think anyone is arguing this! And I don't know why there is such an issue here. I merely pointed out a friend who just did it for a lot less than 8 grand and pointed out that there are places that don't take your eyeballs out in fees.

[maxdrypower]

mmmm I did it in 40 with no pre logged hours and believe me chuck yeager I am not in fact I am mediocre at best and struggling greatly with gen nav for the atpl . As I said previously the secret to my success was I believe continuity. I did two sometimes three hours per day for about a four week period or therabouts . This meant that there was no revision as such needed before the start of each flight and one gelled nicely into another , I cannot say honestly but I would imagine if you have one lesson a week wouldnt some of the flight time be used getting to grips with what you previously learnt ??? I dont know . From my point of view doing it in one fell swoop certainly worked for me and I believe was the best way to do it . I am not intelligent and have no greater dexterity than anyone else .I am probably below average if im honest.
I did the old CAA PPL which as above was 40hrs and there was no instrument flight involved ie vor adf tracking etc etc perhaps that was it

[crap pilot]

Im with maxdrypower on this one. He is deffinatly not intelligent and is way below average;)
Seriously though, i do beleive that continuity is a major factor. I passed the PPL in 45 hours with no previous flying experience at all and i think that it was due to the fact that i completed it within 4 months (3 hours per week).

[slim_slag]

And a genuine 'well done' to both of you. But sorry, you are not very common.

Now a third and a fourth will come out of the woodwork :)

When somebody asks what a PPL will cost you need to say 60 hours and not 40/45. Some will take longer, some less. As with all things, it depends.

[PompeyPaul]

How many punch ups at the pprune fly in ? I'm bringing a copy of LASORS to really get things smoking.......

[Whirlybird]

Please don't any of you Chuck Yeagers take this personally, but...

I seriously worry about people who manage to do a PPL in minimum hours. There is so much you don't know when you've just got your PPL anyway. It really is only the oft-quoted "licence to learn". If you've done it in minimum hours, there will probably be even more you don't know. You'll have had minimum experience at everything. And the rest of it you might well be learning alone, and you'll really, really need to be sure that you can manage to fill your bag of experience before your bag of luck runs out.

So well done to anyone who managed it, but please, if you're still relatively low hours, do be careful out there.

[crap pilot]

Whirlybird, I agree with what you are saying and i almost said at the end of my post that although continuity is good, i dont like the OBA type of training where you go from zero flying knowledge to PPL in 3 weeks. I just dont think that it gives enough exposer to flying and after all, most of what we know about flying never came from a book but from personal experience and the experience of others.
I dont think that the amount of hours a person has gives a true representation of their knowledge though, so its irrelevent if a person passes the PPL with 45 hours or 145 hours, they still have to meet a minimum skill level.

[Chukkablade]

Some interesting points indeed. I managed (A) in minimum time, but had enough brains to know I knew sod all really, and was on a learning curve from there on in. Hence why I did the IMC soon after, to show me how much I just didn't know, and how much I had to learn. I had a bloody good instructor though, and that definately made the difference. Had it been some kid sitting in the right seat and inwardly resenting every minute of it because he is waiting for the airline job, and feeling he is better than instructing, then it might have been different. I know one of those BTW. Ask him what he does, and he tells you V. quickly 'it's because I'm building hours to get to the Airlines'. No pride in his voice that he is passing his skills along to the new guys. None at all. Thank God I didn't get a bloke like that.

[Airbus38]

Chukka -

I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified. If somebody is an instructor and they are young, that doesn't mean that they must be resenting what they are doing. Remember that 'hour-building' instructors are of all ages, not just 'kids'.

There are many who actually set out with a desire to instruct as a career. There are also many instructors who do eventually want to move on to other areas of aviation, be they airlines, air taxi, surveying, crop spraying, aerobatic competition/instruction - this tells you very little, in my opinion, about their enthusiasm and diligence in their current role. Perhaps they actually enjoy this challenge, and want to become good at what they do despite future aspirations? I feel that the fact that aspirations exist may serve to increase the desire to constantly push oneself to improve.

And then there are career instructors. With these, there are some great guys out there - some will love every minute and give you everything, but it is not outside the realms of probability that there are 'career instructors' who have spent so long building up a resentment of the monotony of the job, poor pay and conditions that they are in fact even orse from a customer point of view than the hour builders.

My point, I suppose, is that you can't put people in a box, which I feel your comments have served to do. How good your instructor is will depend on the individual case, not on the age or career aspirations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the original question, I think you're looking at 6k to budget, all in. I feel this is a reasonable price to pay. If you end up paying for more instructional time, over and above minimum hours...that's fine! Be pragmatic in your approach to what you are trying to achieve:

Through wanting to hold a PPL you are looking at spending many thousands of pounds over the years. Paying for an extra X hours instruction on top of the minimum hours for the course is NOTHING compared to what you will be looking to spend ultimately, but the experience gained from a few extra hours with an instructor, instilling the foundations of how you will conduct the rest of your flying life, making sure that you are continuing to foster good airmanship, will be worth more to you than a nominal outlay of a few hundred pounds.

Whirly has hit the nail on the head as ever, bag of experience, licence to learn et al.

[maxdrypower]

Hmmmmmmmmmm NOt sure whirls that your on key here . At the conclusion of your training you take a skills test , you either pass or fail . Now if I did mine in 40hrs and passed and someone did theres in 60 and passed , why do I not know more than them ? Why am I less skilled ? YOuve lost me a bit there . Anty sensible person , and there are many out there , knows when they pass a skills test they are not immediately steely eyed sky gods , or goddesses , if they are then best avoid them .As I have said before I was trained in just over a month at an raf base by raf instructors the raf way . I believe when I passed my skills test I did so having been trained to the required standard . That same standard that those with 60 hrs have attained . Everybody is different some take to things easier than others it is not a kudos thing here and I think its a little cruel to say the least that you insinuate that those who grasp concepts easier than others now have more to learn . At the end of the day I know quite afew people who have been to america, learned at the same time as me in the sme place who all achieved a ppl in the required time , those in the US also got a night rating .It is possible and it is done regularly
Think of it this way , a lot of commercial pilots flying airliners staretd on integrated courses from scratch and in minimum time achieved an FATPL now do they have a lot to learn ? or would someone who took say 300 hrs to get there be a better bet?
Raf are the same yo can fly a jag harrier tornado with very few hours but they seem to manage it you dont get many raf types with a huge amount of excessive hours over there training quota do you ,its laid down in stone and they manage

[Airbus38]

MDP,

Whirls is spot on. She's not saying that people who do things in minimum hours are 'better' or 'worse', but purely for everybody to be careful and accept that everything is a continuous learning process.

I guess in theory you could do a PPL in minimum hours (overseas?), hardly encounter a cloud or a lick of wind and then take your skills test. Sombody who trains in more adverse conditions and takes twice as long is more likely to have a bit more in the bag of experience than the 45 hour hotshot, despite not necessarily being as naturally talented. But I guess there will always be exceptions.

Heeding Whirly's advice would be a good thing for anybody no matter what their situation.

Just be careful.

[IO540]

I seriously worry about people who manage to do a PPL in minimum hours

I don't intend this at you at all, Whirls, but there is a bit too much elitism in this business sometimes.

The reality is that aptitude varies massively - as you must know, being an instructor. There are people who can go solo in 5hrs, and I have met a few students (old people mostly) who are way past 100hrs and haven't gone solo yet. The older people are the longer they take. I am a good technical pilot, though probably a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, would never even think of trying aeros, and at age 43 back then I took 66hrs and spent nearly £9000.

The UK average is probably about 65 hours, reflecting the fact that the average student is hardly a spring chicken or somebody from that Tom Cruise film. The CAA license issue data, IIRC, shows an average new PPL issue age of about 45.

My 11 year old son already knows most of the PPL content and can fly to nearly PPL standard. I am sure he will do his in the minimum time - unless he discovers girls in the meantime.

The basic PPL is almost useless for going anywhere, and I believe this is a major reason why most people chuck in flying pretty fast. It is just the very basics of flying. If one was to teach people to fly for real, the 45hrs would become 100hrs, the cost on the price list would double, and few people would do it.

[Chukkablade]

Not often I disagree with Whirls, but facts are, if you make the standard at 45, then you make the standard. Your no worse than someone who took 60/70/100 to get there.

I can compare that a little to my time in the Military. I was doing a job after 3 years in that it took some guys 10 years to get to, and they presented the same arguments as this. Didn't wash then, as I was good enough, and thats what mattered. Binary affair, either yes or no. It was yes. Same with this.

Airbus, you say

'I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified.'

Well, I'm not out to fuel any stereotypes, just speaking as I have found. End of really, and if you find it an uncomfortable truth, I'm not sure what to say to you. It is what it is. The funny thing about stereotypes however, is they tend to be borne from truisms.

Ah, the wonderfull world of G.A.:}

[Whirlybird]

I'm not sure if I can explain what I meant, but I'll give it a go.

There are two main parts to learning to fly and being a pilot. One is learning to handle the controls, learning to navigate, learning to use the radio. It's what is tested in the Skills Test. It's what takes some people 45 hours to master, and some a couple of hundred, and of course everyone who passes it is of a similar and good enough standard.

The second part is more nebulous. It comes from experience - of being in the air, of things going wrong, of different instructors, of different weather conditions. It's experience of feeling you can't cope, of struggling, of dealing with your own limitations and those of others. It's acceptance and tolerance, of people and situations. It's what you'll be learning about as a pilot for many years and thousands of hours. You'll never stop learning about it, but the more you fly, the more you'll realise how important it is. It's why flying changes you as a person, in ways that have nothing to do with handling the controls of an aircraft.

This second part obviously can't be tested or quantified. And I'm not saying that those who took 60 hours to get a PPL will necessarily have more experience of it than those who took 40. But it's likely, simply because they've had one and a half times the flying...which is a lot when you have so few hours anyway.

I took me 90 hours to get my PPL(A). At the time I thought I was the worst pilot with the least aptitude in the history of aviation. I more or less said as much to an airline pilot, who assured me I was probably better than the people who did it in 45 hours, due to the extra experience I'd had, particularly with instructors. At the time I thought he was just trying to be nice. Now I know what he meant. But he couldn't explain it, and I'm not sure I've managed very well.

But to repeat what I said, I in no way mean to criticise or belittle anyone, but just be careful out there.

[slim_slag]

Is 'airmanship' the word you are looking for?

[maxdrypower]

Yes , once again I think poor old Whirls was the victim of a wrongly written then wrongly interpreted statement. Its the same as those bloody silly txt messages , if they can be intrepreted the wrong way then they will.
Although "if youve done it in minimum hours then there is probably more you dont know"
There is a possibility that this could be true . However that further time you spend training is doing things over and over again in a bid to meet the required standard , a standard that can be met by others in a shorter space of time . It cannot be said that if it takes you a further 30hrs you have more experience , you will still be at the same standard and wont have learnt anymore that others .
I gave the example of the RAF you join the Raf or any of the other services as a pilot , you are given an allotted time to get up to speed , if you dont you are given more time albeit very minimal to get there if you dont your binned pure and simple . So in relation to a PPL if your given 45 hrs then that would be that . If it took you 80 then the simple fact is you would be binned a long time prior . But can it be said that raf pilots who make the grade are lacking in any knowledge . I doubt a single person here would deride the skills of armed forces aircrew .
This is not a go at you Whirls you are a CPL holder and far more knowledgable than I and I bow down to your greater experience . BUt think of it this way if you had gotten your PPL in 45 hrs would that make you any less of a pilot today . I have just over 200 hrs but as a PPL .There are people here who will have less than that and hold a CPL , IR , FI etc etc , exprience is all relative . But the point regarding licence to learn is more than valid . It is a fool who believes a PPL makes a PILOT , it makes an opportunity for someone to learn to become what one day we all aspire to be safe competent careful and experienced

[slim_slag]

Yes, but you cannot compare the training in the military with that you get in civil aviation. The air forces of the world only select people they think will get through, flying schools select anybody who can pay. Then you have to accept that air force training is far superior, and I cannot believe I said that, but to be honest the biggest hurdle of becoming a civil flight instructor is the ability to pay for your training.

[maxdrypower]

Thats correct , but the point was that those with fewer hours have possibly more to learn , the military analogy just offers a counterpoint.
In fact I recently flew with a chap who took 110 hours to get his ppl and had 40 post hours . He actually used the phrase "over and out " when talking to a nice RAF lady during a matz transit .So all that experience . Ive never said that ????? and to be fair Ive never heard another pilot say it either

[Chukkablade]

And why would you? It's not in CAP 413. And thats the bible for GA pilots.

No offence, but if thats the sort of things that are impressing you, then..well..

[maxdrypower]

There is a classic example of reading things incorrectly , try reading it again if you think I was condoning it ?

[Whirlybird]

slim_shag,
I think airmanship is a large part of it, but not all of it.

maxdrypower,
The point I'm trying to make is that every time you fly, you don't just learn the content of the lesson, you learn a lot of other things as well. By 200 hours it probably doesn't make an awful lot of difference. Earlier on I think it might.

There are some schools that don't get people through the course in 45 hours, ever. They teach more than the minimum required for the PPL, because they know that once qualified, that person might not fly with an instructor for another two years.

Some of my hours were spent doing stuff I wanted to do - instrument flying, high wind flying, etc - with my instructor protesting that I didn't need to, and it wasn't in the syllabus, but it was my money, so OK then. I felt I wanted to learn that stuff with someone else there, not alone.

I can teach people who learn the effects of controls in half an hour. I can teach others who take much longer. But while they're struggling with the helicopter, they learn all sorts of other useful stuff.

One of my best students had held a PPL(A) for 15 years. He refused to go on to another exercise until he felt he'd got all he could out of the one he was learning; he simply didn't want to be rushed. He felt that more hours equated to better knowledge. We'd go up, come down because the weather wasn't suitable. I'd apologise for the wasted time; he'd say he'd learned a lot. That's just one example.

I don't know how else to put it. :(

[maxdrypower]

In that case will you give me a discount and teach me to fly helis

[Airbus38]

And why would you? It's not in CAP 413

Not wishing to be pedantic, but both terms are in CAP413, OK their meanings are contradictory and hence are nonsense when used together, and it specifies that they are not normally used in U/VHF Comms....but they are there nonetheless!

[maxdrypower]

Must stand by this I have never heard anyone in the air say "Over and Out" , and would you have got an RT licence if youd used it in your test , perhaps not . I have heard "over" a few times but this is generally by mistake and by people who use radios at work a lot when the term is used , ie my chosen waste of space occupation . The point was that this chap had been training for 110 hrs but still wasnt au fait with radio , but it doesnt matter now I think we have done the point to death and its all rosy and fun whohooo

[stickandrudderman]

As has been said a brazillion times before, a PPL is a licence to learn.
For those of us who fit into the "Chuck Yeager" bracket, we hit the learning curve a little sooner is all.
I doubt very much that any one of us who has completed the course in the min required time has then sat back and waited for the plaudits. I would counter that we are MORE likely to press on with further learning, (IMC, aeros, taildragging etc.), and therefore more likely to sustain our interest.
As I've said before on other posts, it's important for any newly qualified pilot to seek out opportunities to consolidate by flying with more experienced pilots to new and further destinations.
Any assertion that one is any better than the other will only serve to propogate the aforementioned elitsm.

Anyway, No you didn't!

[maxdrypower]

Absolutely point made satis methinks , I wish I could do an IMC but its elluding me financially at the moment
And I think youll find I did

[stickandrudderman]

That'll be ten pounds please!

[maxdrypower]

is that for ten minutes or the full half hour ?
This could go on for some time :}:}:}

[stickandrudderman]

Alright, don't labour the point!

[maxdrypower]

Just pointing out that aside from health , public order , roads , aquaduct , heating , what have the romans done for us

[stickandrudderman]

This could develop into a really anal "How much Python do you know" thread drift!

Anyway, get on with the story.....

[Whirlybird]

In that case will you give me a discount and teach me to fly helis

What did I say to cause this sudden interest in rotary aviation?

I can teach you to fly helicopters, but I'm afraid I can't wangle the discount. Nice try though.

[maxdrypower]

Ive always wanted to fly helis , this isnt a spur of the moment thingy , I just cant afford to , a friend took me up recently in his turbine enstrom mmmmmmmm sexy although Im more used to flying as an observer in ec135 and squirrels , oh to have money

[maxdrypower]

Ive always wanted to fly helis , this isnt a spur of the moment thingy , I just cant afford to , a friend took me up recently in his turbine enstrom mmmmmmmm sexy although Im more used to flying as an observer in ec135 and squirrels , oh to have money
and yeh SARM , this could develop into the said python thread , I stared by making a valid point on some sunject of which Ive now forgotten I didnt then expect some sort of spanish inquisition

[crap pilot]

I didnt then expect some sort of spanish inquisition
Nobody does.

[maxdrypower]

thats because their chief weapon is surprise , surprise and fear , surprise fear ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope,

NO stop it now

[davidatter708]

Do you think we have answered the orignal question yet:}
David

[maxdrypower]

what was it ?

[davidatter708]

That just about sums it up doesnt it. :}

[maxdrypower]

absolutely but we managed to reach five pages . From my experience on here I dont think questions ever get answered ever.

[davidatter708]

Gd point. I think we did answer the question before the fighting ensued I think this thread should be put to bed.

[maxdrypower]

Never long live the killer thread
equal rights for over subscribed threads
we shall not be moved