Finish PPL in own aircraft (complex?)

[SDB73]

Hi All,

Long time lurker, this my first post!

I had to abandon my PPL a few years ago due to time constraints (getting a new business off the ground) at about 35 hours, having completed everything apart from the skills test and about three exams.

I'm now looking to finally complete it, and get flying, and can't wait.

I would be very interested in opinions and advice with regard to :

1) how much I would need to spend on something that isn't likely to fall out of the sky, and I could move on relatively easily once I'm ready to upgrade.

2) whether it's actually possible to complete my training in a complex, enabling me to buy something now which would last me longer once I'm qualified.

Thanks for any advice or pointers.

[2high2fastagain]

I'm sure you are going to lots of answers, but to start.

1. Well maintained Cessnas or Pipers don't tend to fall out of the sky. Have a look on avbuyer, that will tell you what you can get. 2 seater C152s weigh in at about 18-30k. C172s about 10k more (3 people) and the 182s at about 50-90k (4 people plus luggage). The Piper family are similar prices. I bought a Cessna because I know I can get it maintained and also there are abundant spares. Rarer aircraft are more challenging when you want to get bits quickly. It all depends whether you want to bimble or fly I guess.

2. I finished my training in a C152 before moving onto a complex. This worked for me. Not sure whether you are allowed to go straight to a complex (wobbly prop and wheelsup), but you certainly need differences training and sign off in your log book.

[IO540]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc.

I checked this out back in 2001/2002.

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

It is done fairly widely abroad; there are / have been schools in e.g. Thailand which trained ab initio in TB20s, and fundamentally there is no reason why not. Retractable gear and a CS prop are really simple concepts; made "complex" only through an arbitrary regulatory distinction.

Well, some of the "100hr plus" perpetual students (some of whom have difficulty working a manual gearbox in a car) would perhaps be even more perpetual :)

Whopity is the expert here on the regulatory situation.

The training "wreckage" doesn't fall out of the sky; it is just a big irritation to fly a 1970 Vauxhall Viva if you have high personal standards in your normal life. Just make sure you have plenty of juice whenever you fly solo (never take anybody's word for how much is in the tank).

[BackPacker]

2) whether it's actually possible to complete my training in a complex, enabling me to buy something now which would last me longer once I'm qualified.

Why are you focused on a complex aircraft, particularly retractable gear? One of the best-selling piston single todays is the Cirrus line and they all have fixed gear.

Retractable gear is going to cost a lot. Not just in acquisition, but also in maintenance and insurance - not to mention the actual cost of forgetting to lower it some day. Fixed gear does add drag but with proper fairing that's only minimal, and simply offset by a few extra HP up front. At least, that seems to be the design philosophy of Cirrus.

[SDB73]

Wow! Thanks a lot for the extremely helpful replies.

Why a complex? It's not so much a complex for e sake of it, but that the two aeroplanes I'm most interested in are a Commander 114, and a Bonanza. Mainly for comfort and range. Still early days though, as I don't even have my license, but thought I'd ask the question to see if I could rule it out for now.

Any thoughts on this?
SOCATA TB10 (http://www.justplanetrading.com/Stock/CESSNA%20T210M%20-%20TURBO%20CENTURIAN.htm)

Thanks again for the replies.

[stickandrudderman]

There's no legal reason why you can't finish your training on a "complex" (a very strange term given that it's nothing of the sort) and if you've got an itch and the resources then you should scratch it!:ok:
Personally I find managing the flight much more of a challenge than managing the aeroplane.

[IO540]

Retractable gear is going to cost a lot. Not just in acquisition, but also in maintenance and insurance

I think you know my view on that :) The extra cost is close to negligible - on all fronts - on the scale of flying costs. Unless, that is, you buy an old wreck which has been lubed with WD40 for 30 years, generally neglected, etc. Nearly everybody who has had trouble with the gear (on any half modern plane) has inherited many years of previous lack of even the most basic maintenance.

- not to mention the actual cost of forgetting to lower it some day.

That's true but in any half modern plane that takes some doing. Take the TB20 - there are 2 interlocks: the landing flap, and the throttle position. The 3rd warning is your brain: with the gear up, it's going to feel awfully funny to try to get the thing to descend at the customary rate. Sure, these can all be defeated; there is a generation of pilots (many in the USA) who never use landing flap, and a stiff headwind could then fool the other factors.

Fixed gear does add drag but with proper fairing that's only minimal, and simply offset by a few extra HP up front.

More than a few. About 30HP for the SR22, IMHO.

At least, that seems to be the design philosophy of Cirrus.

Actually, I think their philosophy is really to market a plane to young wealthy men, using the "simple as a car" metaphor. This is an entirely valid (and necessary) approach in today's world. But when their salesmen say the fixed gear costs them "2-3kt", they are lying through their teeth. Of course they have to say that; nobody could admit to a cynical marketing ploy like that :)

[letpmar]

I did all my ppl after something like 25 hours in a Cessna 206 so there is nothing to stop you. I can put you onto an instructor no problem. I have never bothered with retractable though I have always thought it not worth the extra expence to maintain.
But if you really want to get there in a hurry I guess you need to work that out for yourself.

Pete

[2high2fastagain]

Backpacker - everything is a trade off. My retractable gives me 15 knots, lower fuel bills and more chance of surviving if the donkey fails over rough ground or water. I love it. I wouldn't get into my home field in a Cirrus unless I wanted to make a habit of replacing the fences each time. Yes, there are downsides (I do my red/blue/greens three times to be sure but there's no universal answer or perfect airplane - you pays your money and makes your choice.

[CISTRS]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc.

I checked this out back in 2001/2002.

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

Back in the 70's, Sportair at Biggin Hill were instructing ab-initio in Fournier RF5s.

Although retractable - hardly "complex".

I remember Romeo Kilo and Romeo Mike with affection. :ok:

[englishal]

I think you SHOULD learn to fly in a complex aeroplane if you can afford it and are going to fly that aeroplane for a while afterwards, and the Commander 114 is an awesome aeroplane. There is no reason why you can't learn in a Complex, as IO points out this is very common elsewhere in the world (USA spings to mind). You'd be less likely to forget to put the gear down if you learned on a retract IMHO.

Your insurance would likely be cheaper once you have the PPL as often they require "hours on type". If at the end of the PPL you have a further say 35 hours "on type" and say 30 hrs dual then likely insurance won't be too big an issue.

Insurance can be a funny bugger though, so shop around. We put a friend of mine on the aeroplane insurance (Commander). He has 3200 hrs, 1200 tubine, 2000 ME and the rest SE, he also holds various flight instructor ratings. The requirement for him was that he is required to be checked out by "a qualified flight instructor" (no mention of the FIO having time "on type")....so the chap checking him out is a FI with 1200 hrs and no time on type !!!! The insurance also specified "10 hrs dual on type" but I (and my buddy above) had that waived due to experience, but my other buddy who has about 120 hrs is required to do the 10 hours dual (with me or a FI)....But insurance is not so expensive and only 400 quid more than our Rallye for more than double the hull value.

[Fuji Abound]

Actually, I think their philosophy is really to market a plane to young wealthy men, using the "simple as a car" metaphor. This is an entirely valid (and necessary) approach in today's world. But when their salesmen say the fixed gear costs them "2-3kt", they are lying through their teeth. Of course they have to say that; nobody could admit to a cynical marketing ploy like that


No, I dont think so, it is well rehearsed that in the US (their main market) the insurance premiums were loaded in favour of fixed gear. They are however lying through their teeth, or challenging the unchallengable laws of physics.

I am never sure why, but an aircraft doesnt look right with the u/c welded down, but, on the other hand, it is not something you notice when driving it until you look at the fuel consumption and wonder why it is not accelerating.

[IO540]

The reality of insurance premiums on SR20s or SR22s versus TB20s (I recall one survey of US premiums) doesn't support the "fixed gear is cheaper" idea at all, however. It's a marketing myth, which was probably never actually true.

[dirkdj]

I think the Cirrus needs a fixed gear, in order to work as a shock absorber under the BRS chute.

[Redbird72]

It's a marketing myth, which was probably never actually true.

I agree, in the UK at least, if complexity is considered at all for insurance, it's way down the list.

[IO540]

Indeed; no difference AFAIK.

In fact one UK insurer has very recently upped the SR22 excess from £3500 to £15000, as an immediate result of what they regard as daft pilot behaviour followed by a pointless chute pull.

I don't know who the insurer is but there haven't been many Cirrus BRS chute pulls in the UK so it won't take long to dig out the incident which brought this about.

It may be an over-reaction by the insurer which is not exactly conducive to saving lives, but it does reflect what great many pilots think about the majority of the Cirrus chute pull scenarios (i.e. a totally pointless way to write off a plane through pilot stupidity).

In the USA, my vague recollection is that SR22 premiums are 2x to3x higher than TB20 premiums - though that would well be skewed by a very different pilot experience profile in the USA between these types.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

You obviously didn't ask me! I have no issue with training anyone in a complex type. It might not be the best idea for the first few hours, but that can be dealt with easily enough if the FI uses a modicum of thought.

Yes, it will take a bit longer than in something simple, but it's hardly impossible.

As mentioned by englishal, if you are going to spend time in the future flying a complex type, then why not learn in one? You'll get the knowledge and training you need over a longer period of time and get taught how to operate the machine you'll be using right from the start.

[mrmum]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc. I checked this out back in 2001/2002. The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

SAS, it was back in 2001, nearly ten years ago, were you instructing back then? I was, but he didn't ask me either, I guess we can feel left out together! :sad: We once, pre-JAA did an entire PPL(A) for a guy on a Group B (as it was then), actually a Seneca 1, as he had too much money and didn't think singles were safe, no matter what we said to him. It used to take a bit of explaining to ATC when we started sending him solo in it. So, as you say, perfectly possible and probably beneficial if that's what you're going to fly afterwards.

[englishal]

Not everybody is flying a new $300K airplane, certainly not many who are flying retractables, and not everybody has 1000 hrs TT and an IR (which I've been told by an insurer substantially lowers premiums in 'high performance' airplanes). I think making sweeping statements that really apply only to a slim fraction of retractables and maybe not to a low time pilot at all, doesn't properly answer the question.
There is a fundamental difference between insurance in the USA and insurance in the UK, as can be seen by one of the above posts ref: sending a student solo in a multi. This would NEVER happen in the USA for insurance reasons, and one reason the FAA created the phrase "performing the duties of pilot in command" rather than just "solo" when refering to ME PIC time for the Commercial.

Anyway being a retract or fixed gear doesn't seem to make that much difference in the UK - like a said before, 400 pounds between a very simple fixed gear SEP and a complex retract with more than double the hull value. Also having advanced qualifications doesn't seem to make much difference other than perhaps "time on type".

In the UK a fresh new ME rating holder could probably go out and rent a ME aeroplane from someone or get insurance with 10hr on type. Again in the USA that is EXTREMELY unlikley - I remember trying to rent a Seminole (i.e. Twin Archer!) and they wanted something like 500 hrs TT and 200 ME hours minimum! It was only when I found somewhere who would rent me a DA42 (a buddy of mine who runs a flying school) that I managed to actually get to fly Multi's properly.....

[IO540]

You obviously didn't ask me! I have no issue with training anyone in a complex type. It might not be the best idea for the first few hours, but that can be dealt with easily enough if the FI uses a modicum of thought.

Maybe you should advertise the option to train well funded PPL students in their new £300k planes :)

You would get a useful bit of business.

I am nowhere near as well funded as many but I bought a new TB20 less than a year after getting the PPL. I would have got it sooner has I not been discouraged from buying (anything) by absolutely everybody in the 2 schools I worked through. There is business at this level - even in the UK.

And as both of you say, little point in training in something you are not going to be flying afterwards... which is exactly what I've been saying here for years.

I wonder what the insurance for a Seneca for a pre-PPL solo flight would have been :)

$1000/year for 2 planes is incredibly cheap - presumably this is for very low hull values. I pay £2600/year for the TB20, based on the mandatory European + MOD cover, £190k agreed hull value. This is for a 1000+hr CPL/IR, sole pilot.

[Say again s l o w l y]

SAS, it was back in 2001, nearly ten years ago, were you instructing back then? I was, but he didn't ask me either, I guess we can feel left out together!

I certainly was. I've been an FI since I was 20... Blimey, that's 12 years... :eek:

[SDB73]

Thanks everyone, for so much info. I've been quietly soaking it all up.

I don't want to spend an arm and a leg on my first aeroplane, and would see the first one as a stepping stone (for maybe a year or two) towards the Commander or similar.

SAS, maybe you would PM me your details? Regardless of the type of aircraft I go for, you sound like you have a pretty pragmatic and sensible approach to things!

To be honest, I'm starting to think about winding everything right back and buying something for £20K - £30K, like an old 172 or similar performance Piper (I prefer the low wing), and getting some hours under my belt, then worry about clever wheels and props for my "proper" aeroplane - something to look forward to!

I have considerd just continuing to hire, I've also thought long and hard about an aircraft share - which on the face of it, seems perfect. But I would be frustrated if the aircraft wasn't available, I'd also like to take it away for a few days, a few times a year, which would be inconvenient for everyone else, and finally.. I just want my own aeroplane (regardless of how comparitively humble)! That last one being a reason for purchase, which I suspect is pretty common amongst light aircraft owners!

But the complex side can wait if it'll cause me all sorts of agro.

If I went for a cheap Piper (I quite fancy getting on dirt cheap with very few hours left on the engine, and getting a factory overhauled engine from Lycoming, so I know I'm not inheriting an engine with a history) and wanted to move it on in the next year or two, am I likely to be able to get out of it relative unscathed, and within a sensible timescale?

Thanks again to everyone.

[mrmum]

I wonder what the insurance for a Seneca for a pre-PPL solo flight would have been
Can't remember exactly, but it would have been a lot even back then in '93 or '94, but as I said money wasn't an issue for him at the time. After he got his PPL he paid for the operators to bring a P-51 and a Gnat to our airfield for a weekend so he could have a play in them. Strangely seemed to forget his aversion to SE flying for those two though. :E

[englishal]

I'm starting to think about winding everything right back and buying something for £20K - £30K,
You could buy a very nice 160HP Rallye for that. Ideal for learning to fly and fly around afterwards. Excellent vis, excellent handling characteristics, excellent STOL performance, tough undercarriage, good for rough strips, mildly aerobatic and cleared for spins, good economy, cheap to insure and very safe.

30k would buy you something really nice....I know of a beauty for sale....

[IO540]

There are several threads which keep coming through when one looks at other owner-pilots who seem happy with their lot.

They tend to

- be easily able to afford their plane and their flying

- understand the plane technically

- be able to arrange and manage the maintenance

- have somewhere to park it / hangar it, without hassle

- live not too far away from the airfield

- be happy with it meeting at least 75% of their mission profile, but 100% is not essential

So... if you have £10 and you buy a plane for £9.90, you have just 10p left for "suprises" :) That's may be OK if you bought a new plane, well built (not like some of these plastic camping caravans built in the place where I come from ;) ) and with a nice warranty, but it won't be OK with anything older.

If changing the gears in a manual-box car is a technical challenge for you, don't buy a TBM850 and/or try to do an IR - no matter how much money you have. I guarantee perpetual misery (even if you finally manage to do it), and I have seen very rich pilots who got that far and then just gave up flying totally.

If these things are borne in mind, there is no problem with somebody (rich) buying a Rockwell Commander, a TB20, a Cessna 400 (make sure the plastic is stuck (http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=1065) on the wings properly) and doing the PPL in it, with a technically competent instructor (finding one of those is another story) and totally skipping the whole crap-spamcan scene. If I was going to get into helis, I would buy a Gazelle and rent an ex mil instructor to teach me how to fly it, and skip the Robinson sewing machine stage altogether.

Re the mission capability, it is quite hard to get beyond the ~ 80% point unless you are prepared to drill a hole straight through almost any frontal weather, in icing conditions. There are planes that will do that, not necessarily pricey (if you buy an old heap) but you need to ask yourself whether you actually want to be doing that.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Some good advice here about buying an aircraft.

You've got to treat them a bit like a well maintained, expensive toy, but not one that is going to stretch you to breaking point financially.

Nothing sucks the fun out of flying faster than worrying whether you can really afford it.

The general (if not very nice rule) is to try and buy an aircraft that someone else has spent a fortune on. Buying a wreck and then restoring it is asking for trouble! You just have to make sure that you aren't buying a polished turd though!

[IO540]

Buying a wreck and then restoring it is asking for trouble!I think it's OK if you have the technical expertise - both on the physical aspect of it, and getting the supporting paperwork to the "legal" stage.

I don't think it is worth doing unless the finished job is going to be worth over £100k - unless you can do it all yourself (and don't value your time). For fun, I've looked at some of the ~£35k TB20s and did some figures on what it would cost to bring it to the level of a late-model one (worth about £140k) and the answer was at least £100k :)

There are some real shysters about. A friend of mine was looking at a PA28-181 and it turned out it had been sitting somewhere nearly 10 years. It was not worth scrap. But some mug will buy it allright for the asking price of £45k.

[Say again s l o w l y]

How many PPL's could honestly say that they have the knowledge to deal with a shonky aircraft in need of restoration? Not many I'd wager!

If you happen to have a big hangar and are a LAME, then that's one thing, if you are like 99.99% of PPL holders, then you're better off buying something decent in the first place!

As for shysters in the GA world... IO I'm shocked! I thought that this was part of the industry where everyone was sweetness and light and honesty was guaranteed...;)

[SDB73]

This is invaluable advice, and I'm delighted I posted. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I'm now more confused than before I started! But only because some of the blindfold has been lifted!

Experience tells me that, this usually means there are many more blindfolds I'm still not aware of!!

[CISTRS]

Would the Fournier have had two position prop or something like that? Not that you're saying it's complex anyway, I'm just curious!

Silvaire:

Fixed pitch prop.

[salmabambi]

Upside Ok i will get straight to the point . . DONT DO IT IN A COMPLEX you will only land up in one of those publications that the CAA send to flying clubs explaining how some inexperienced pilot stuffs his pride and joy into ground . . . if he is lucky he might get out of it . . if hes not . . he wont. Im you fight sorry you have a load of blokes telling you to buy a Cirrus . . I think for insurance purposes you need 100 hours P1 followed by 6 hours with an instructor learning how to land the bloody thing because of its slippery wing . . before an insurance company will let you solo it. Im not sure how this fits in with a training program or indeed how it fits in with your budget as there are not many newly qualified pilot can afford a 130k aircraft !. Look there many dreamers on this type of forum . . some may even have a pilots licence ! ! !. I passed with very high results and thought i knew everything . . .purchased my own TB9 ,. . and off i went. There followed mag failures, panel melt downs, lowering cloud bases, nasty unexpected cross winds, reducing vis, sunday pilots who spend hours describing their aircraft while you are on short finals without landing clearence. I even had a lost microlite pilot attempting to land on a desinated taxiway that i was holding on. So look there is a reason most clubs insist on 100 hours before considering you for complex training and no it is not just remembering to put the gear down. Most complex aircraft have far more complicated avionics, which for a green pilot can get you well out of your depth . . real quick. One other thing complex aircraft have is the ability to lift weight. So naturally you will be tempted to bring along a lot more people on your trips. People, avionics, navigation, aircraft management will soon add up to a very high work load for a novice pilot. You only have to make one minor mistake . . . and you will . . to scare the of willies out of your passengers. Please . . .get your licence, fly a crappy rental for awhile . . . you will have fun because you can cope. As for me . . i got some hours, got scared, had some real fun and moved up to a complex, twin, night and IMC. bought a Cessna 310 twin and have flown so called complex Arrows, TB20 's, Dutchess's , Cessna310 and 320's all over europe and now fly the wonderful 6 seater Piper Lance and Im still here 2500 PPL hours later and Im still learning.

[IO540]

A charitable interpretation of the above is to dig out a half decent instructor.

If you can do that, you are 75% of the way there.

Your attitude (to develop a good understanding of the systems, etc) will be the other 25%.

But I would never advise a pilot with a half decent brain to fly 1000000 hours in a C150 before moving to something that's actually usable for going somewhere.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Nor would I. There is some benefit in using something simple for the initial parts of the course, simply on a basis of cost, but if that isn't an issue, then as long as you get a decent instructor, then things should be fine.

A "complex" single really isn't all that complex. You just have to learn how to use it that's all. As long as you aren't denser than my mother's idea of Christmas cake, then it can be done. I was bouncing around on my own in a complex single with little more than a PPL and at least if you are getting trained on the thing from day one, then you'll have a minimum of 45 hours with an FI to get used to it, rather than scraping through a PPL in something basic and then jumping into something complex for a 5 hr "conversion" course that doesn't equip you properly at all.

With good training and some effort it's amazing what can be achieved. Just because it's the norm for people to have rubbish training in an exam factory in something with less complexity than the average hairdryer, doesn;t mean that's the ideal way to go about things.

Wobbly props, retractable gear or even a taildragger are hardly beyond the realms of possibility for most people. We're not talking about throwing someone with 10 hours into a Cessna 421 and make them then operate in heavy icing & IMC conditions.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I know, you'd think that flying a taildragger was akin to base jumping without a parachute if you listened to some people!

Unfortunately I think this is a testament to training on aircraft that are too easy to fly and instrcutors who are only just competent to fly themselves, let alone teach people properly...*



*Hark at me, I'm turing into a right old miserable git!

[IO540]

As I've said before, the "complex" definition is mostly a historical artefact and barely relates to complexity in any real sense.

Modern avionics are a lot more difficult to grasp than a CS prop etc. - and far fewer instructors (in the UK, for sure) understand avionics. When I got my TB20 I never found an instructor who even know how to use an HSI. I worked it all out myself, zooming around at 5000ft over Kent :)

It is however true that anybody not totally dense can learn to fly a C152 on nice days, but IMHO only a fairly small % of people can fully grasp a complex panel and use it fully for IFR. I know my plane pretty well but there are still a few little nooks and crannies in the GPS which I have never used (and I avoid them in the air; they are not operationally relevant).

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think that is more of a testament to the over complexity of some modern avionics than necessarily the fault of the FI community. With so many various systems out there, it's actually very difficult to become and to remain an expert on something as daftly complex as something like a G1000.

The little gotcha's on that such as the range rings that change with no real annuciation aren't obvious and to me defy logic.

I'm far more comfortable with FMS's in Boeings, they might have more buttons, but they are eminently easier to use.

As for an FI not knowing how to use an HSI, you must have met FI's who were trained in the 20's and never flown anything more modern than that!