Quickest & Cheapest way to get PPL in UK

[MR.X99]

The cheapest way to get into the air is via the Microlight & ULTRALIGHT. route.
Medical is only 25 pounds
Less hours required
Logged time is cheaper and counts towards NPPL & PPL.
It is a waste of money flying a 152 to learn flight exercises such as take off landing & the basicS in a machine that costs 150 pounds per hour.
You can get this for about 60-90 pounds then upgrade when you have the basic down.YOU CAN BUY A MACHINE FOR UNDER 10,000.

Flight Schools are likened to snake oil salesman or double glazing salesmen.

[Mickey Kaye]

You have a point. Plus the fact that the 3-axis machines are often nicer and perform better as well.

[Whirlygig]

There are three factors when considering training: quick, cheap, quality.

You can have quick quality but it won't be cheap.
You can have cheap quality but it won't be quick.
Or you can have quick and cheap but it won't be quality.

You can't get all three together.

Cheers

WHirls

[Ultranomad]

There is some truth to that, but one has to be fully aware that ultralights are often a lot more forgiving than even the most docile "full-size" aircraft. I have once observed a Skyranger-trained guy do his first takeoff in a Cessna 152. He stalled it at a few metres' height, and although he quickly corrected his error, it cost a few grey hairs to those on the ground.

[A and C]

MR.X99 has some interesting opinions and as far as the theory goes I think he is correct, but putting all this into practice might just be another thing entirely

Quote Flight Schools are likened to snake oil salesman or double glazing salesmen.

Unfortunatly the last statment in his post is only worthy of publication in The Daily Mail, it is the type of thing that only those who have digested whole the "rip off UK" culture idea would agree to. . While the sales policy of one large London based group of flying schools is questionable in the way it is structued I think that on the whole the industry is honest about the product it offers.

If Mr.X99 wants to encourage people fly the very light aircraft and powered kites that is all well and good but please do so by stressing the atributes of these aircraft but NOT with totaly incorrect statements that are the hype and rubbish that is the staple dished up to those who read the gutter press and think it is the truth!

[BackPacker]

I have once observed a Skyranger-trained guy do his first takeoff in a Cessna 152. He stalled it at a few metres' height, and although he quickly corrected his error, it cost a few grey hairs to those on the ground.
So much for quality training then.:ugh:

Your first flight in a new type, you strictly fly to the numbers listed in the POH, not by the gut feeling that was ingrained into you by flying on another type.

[bingofuel]

He stalled it at a few metres' height, and although he quickly corrected his error

I am surprised he managed to recognise, and recover from a stall in a totally unfamiliar type with a height loss of only a few metres? I would expect anyone who managed to actually stall on take off to be back on the ground before they had time to recover.

[BackPacker]

What probably happened is that the nose was raised too high, leading to a full-power stall. This is something that's not covered in the PPL syllabus (only power-off stalls are normally taught) but they're a non-event and can indeed be corrected with only minimal height loss, or even no height loss at all. After all, with the ridiculously high fuselage angle that's required for a full-power stall, the engine thrust has a very significant vertical component.

The biggest danger in such a situation is not so much hitting the ground but hitting the trees at the far end - your climb rate is effectively reduced to zero.

[Ultranomad]

What probably happened is that the nose was raised too high, leading to a full-power stall.
You are absolutely right. It was precisely this over-aggressive unsticking and excessive pitch that made us all gasp at once. He didn't really lose more than a metre or so of height, catching the plane near the top of a parabolic trajectory.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Even disregarding the closing phrase, I have my questions about the sense of the original message. If the goal is really to acquire the PPL , one must take a certain minimal hours of instruction (wasn't it 45 hours originally, and later increased?) on a plane OF THE CATEGORY and even after having learned on a microlight one will still have to fly so many hours on the C-152 or whatever, which will still cost the same.

Beginning on a microlight will not do anything to reduce the budget for the PPL, though it might be a cost-effective way of becoming a better-than-minimal PPL'er.

[soaringhigh650]

Flight Schools are likened to snake oil salesman or double glazing salesmen.

Some are but some ain't. Flight schools might be able offer cheaper prices per hour if their aircraft ain't just sitting there doing nothing half the time.

There's a big problem with the tax regime in Europe which adds significant costs to everything.

There's also a big problem with cancellations due to weather which can ground the fleet for many hours. The instructor's paycheck might be affected too.

Maybe a way of going around this problem is equipping for IFR flight. So operations can continue in blue skies on top.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A few points:

- I've professionally had reason to flight test both SkyRangers and Cessna 152s (former for certification, latter for research). On the whole, I'd actually say that the C152 has slightly the better sorted handling - the SKR is a lovely machine to fly and I'd be happy to own one, but the handling is pretty average, whilst the C152 is a fantastically well sorted training aeroplane which you'd be hard to improve upon for an inexperienced pilot. So, whatever reason your chap scared himself in the C152, I don't think it's because the SKR is particularly benign.

- The word Ultralight has specific legal meaning in several countries, but it has no meaning in UK regulations.

- Skill test /GFT pass standards are the same in microlights and light aeroplanes, and both classes of pilot then immediately start developing bad habits as soon as they start flying unsupervised!

- I started on microlights then went to bigger aeroplanes. I think it's a great route, and I absolutely agree that it's about the cheapest way to get you flying safely. However, there are some profound differences between microlights and large aeroplanes, which are rooted in the low weight and low stall speed of the microlight - everything changes much faster. These are at the root of why some form of training is essential going in either direction.

- There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting a microlight PPL, and flying them for years. You have a PPL, and can fly good 2-seat aeroplanes. "Upgrading" is strictly optional. You can buy better aeroplanes for less money, people have flown around the world in them - the only limitation is that of day-VMC and 2 seats: that limitation applies to most PPL(SEP) holders too.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

What probably happened is that the nose was raised too high, leading to a full-power stall. This is something that's not covered in the PPL syllabus (only power-off stalls are normally taught)
I'm sure I remember "slow flight" being on the syllabus. In my slow flight lesson I was asked to fly as slowly as possible, which is of course using full power, and was then asked to pull the nose up a little more to see what happened. Doesn't everyone get this lesson then?

[BackPacker]

"Slow flight" was 60 knots in my case (PA28) - not nearly full power required for that. "As slow as possible" was never done during my PPL training. (Maybe because it's very hard on the engine?)

I only did my first proper full-power stall as part of the "unusual attitudes" training, years later. Which, incidentally, got me hooked on aerobatics.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm sure I remember "slow flight" being on the syllabus. In my slow flight lesson I was asked to fly as slowly as possible, which is of course using full power, and was then asked to pull the nose up a little more to see what happened. Doesn't everyone get this lesson then?

The slow flight and stalling requirements on the microlight and "group A" syllabi are essentially the same.

However, the SKR has a more nose-down visual stalling attitude than the C152, so visual cues alone would have actually had the SKR pilot converting to the C152 too nose-down, not too nose up. On the other hand, pull force to stall a C152 flaps up is around 8-10lb, whilst in an SKR it's around 20lb, so the chap might have been surprised by the relatively low stick forces in the Cessna. Also it's a transition from stick to yoke, which takes a bit of getting used to.

I'd however put this down to type familiarity, rather than any generic microlight .v. SEP difference.

All solveable with training!

G

[Pilot DAR]

Mr. X99, Is the provision of a cheap and quick aviation service something you are promoting? I for one, am not interested. I have never been happy with aircraft which were obtained chaeply, and maintained quickly.

For those who have received quick and cheap training, it does not entirely surprise me that there could be trouble converting to a C 152. The 152 has to be one of the aircraft types most likely to let you feel what it is about to do, and give you the cues to correct for errors, before they become serious, if you have received appropriate training to recognize those cues.

Presenting yourself into a very well established, safety minded industry, as "quickest and cheapest" does not convey a good image from any perspective....

[WishesToFly]

I think that ultralights offer a great way of getting into the air without having to pay up to double the price for other light aircraft. I would certainly consider learning to fly ultralights before other GA aircraft, because there is quite a big chance that I might actually like flying these small sport aircraft, and not have to fork out as much as compared to flying, but still get the frill of flying, and gain a licence. For me their are heaps of benefits such as the aircraft being smaller hence cheaper on fuel. Cheaper to maintain license, cheaper tuition to obtain license and also a possibility of actually owning a small ultralight.

Ok it's not everyone's preferred route or option, but it certainly appears attractive to me...

I also have an ultralight centre 8 miles from me which makes flying more viable for me.

[kevkdg]

I did an NPPL on Self Launching/Touring Motor Gliders. Cost me £60 per clock hour take off until touch down.

To later add an SSEA rating is just a matter of differences training. No tests... this can be done with an instructor.

I'm happy flying machines likes Slingsby T61F Venture and Grob 109's etc. There are some higher performance Motor Gliders as well.

[Lister Noble]

i'm sure we did power on stalls in my PPL training.:)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm also still sure that they're called microlights.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

"As slow as possible" was never done during my PPL training.
Ah, I've remembered the rest of it now.

It was "point us into wind, then fly as slowly as possible, then watch the ground to see if we can make it go backwards". Those were the days! (We couldn't, it wasn't windy enough.) (The instructor was a test pilot, not an hour-building kid.)

[IanPZ]

Thought I'd just put a word in, as I've made this exact decision. However, I think its devalued by saying cheap and quick...So, here was my thinking.

1. To get to the same end game, that of a full PPL(A) (or EASA equivalent) it's more expensive if you go via the microlight route. That is definite (I have a spreadsheet!). The total number of hours is likely to be more, and the microlight training counts minimally towards it. As others have mentioned as well, this is the only option for putting stuff like IMC and night ratings on. If that's what you want, then there is no doubt that training straight away on light aircraft will be both quicker and cheaper.

2. My end game was flying. I didn't care much about being restricted to VMC, as I only want to go flying on nice days (at least, at the moment). Microlight training is definitely cheaper per hour than light aircraft, so that's good. As for time to learn, I have been strongly advised not to consider that 25 hours is less than 32 or 45 hours. I've been told (quite sensibly) that it will take however long it takes. It may be a bit shorter for microlights as some of the instrument training is less, but both microlight and light aircraft pilots have told me not to expect one to be significantly quicker than the other, to get to a competent level. However, there are fewer exams and ancillary costs, so yes, it will be cheaper.

And after I get my NPPL(M)? Well, per hour flying will be cheaper as long as I can afford to buy in to a syndicate, and at that point, if I want to go on, I can convert. Overall, it will cost more, but why not wait till then to decide. I'll have earned more money by then too!

So, cheaper and quicker, yes, as long as its to the point where you can fly by yourself and have some form of license, not to the same license.

Lastly, one other piece of advice I was given was to have another think at about the 10-20 hour point. At that stage, I should have learnt the basics, and perhaps have done my first solo. Those skills [not hours] are (I am told) transferable, whatever. If at that point, I want to move on to light aircraft, I will be starting with the experience of how to fly, and even if I have to do another 45 hours for license reasons, the overall number of hours (55-65) is probably not going to be any different.

Hope that helps.
IPZ

[patowalker]

It all depends how long you fly on each rating. If you have flown many hours in a 3-axis microlight, upgrading to SSEA will most likely require only the minimum 3 hours dual, a cross country flight, the GST and the only JAR-FCL PPL exam not done on the microlight course, Aircraft General and Principles of Flight.

If you then fly your homebuilt SSEA for at least 35 hours, to upgrade to a JAR-PPL you need 20 hours dual with a JAR qualified instructor, of which you have already done at least 3 on the SSEA course. You already have the exams under your belt, so if you are good, as little as 17 hours dual may be all that is necessary before the GST.

[IanPZ]

patowalker. I agree with you, but even if you add those up, its 25 minimum for microlight, and another 20 minimum to JAR, so minimums come to the same 45 hours.

I think we're saying the same thing though. You get to PPL(M) first, and then you get to fly, and if you want to go on, its no great shakes, and you don't lose out too much, but get to fly in the meantime

Yes?

[Rod1]

For those who are convinced that an instructor costing £150ph is going to give you better training than one which is “almost” free I would reminded you of Gliding. From 1984 to 1991 I few gliders and was instructed by enthusiast instructors who were mostly very good indeed.

Another example of very high quality instruction for not much money would be the LAA coaching system, which again, generally provides very experienced and knowledgeable enthusiast instructors.

There are many different ways one can take to get a “PPL” in the UK and I would not think the cost of the licence would have a significant impact on the quality of the resulting pilot, in most cases. The best way to spend money is to go to the most expensive school in the area and fly once a month, you may never pass, but boy will you pay pay pay. The lest expensive option is to shop around, learn all the different approaches, try a few trial lessons and then do the training as intensively as possible in a location and at a time of year when you are least likely to get weather interruptions. Having got the licences, then you can start learning to fly in the real world, take it nice and slow and try to find a suitable mentor.

Rod1

[patowalker]

IanPZ,

Yes, unless your are lucky enough to learn to fly an ultralight where the government doest even know they exist, so you get free lessons and are sent solo in 7 hours. Then you move to France and show an instructor you can fly and he sends you straight off to Orly to do the theory and you end up with a licence. This you bring to the UK, where you are log-book assessed and asked to do the Air Law and Human Performance and Limitations exams and satisfy a FI that you are ready for the GST. You manage to do in <2 hours and off you go to do the GST, in a Chaser, non radio. :)

[IanPZ]

You can do that?!!

Where did you first learn to fly? Sounds remarkable! Do tell more.

[patowalker]

Well, you asked for it.

I learnt in the costal desert of Peru. It never rained and with the Pacific on one side and the Andes on the other, it is no wonder that meteorology and navigation are not my strong points. :)

My instructor was Guido Fernandez, who much later investigated the crash of Aeroperu 603. There was no ultralight licence and hence no need for exams, but the ATPLs who provided the training made sure we knew what was necessary, as they did not want an incident to come to the attention of the authorities and result in regulation.

Flying was a lot of fun and the inverted Cuyuna on my American Aerolites Eagle certainly taught me how to handle engine failures. I have very fond memories of skimming along deserted beaches and teasing Dobermans guarding chickens farms by flying just out of reach of their snapping jaws.

But I really learnt to fly in Ecuador, launching in hang-gliders from 12000' up Mt Pichincha to land in Quito, 3000' below.

[GGR]

Keep pulling leads straight to the cemetery. ALL PPL's are taught this........arnt they??

[MR.X99]

Sport Aviation & General aviation for weekend pilots, who prefer flight to say fast cars or motorcycles, will be supported,in the future, primarily from Microlight & Ultralight & Advanced Ultralight industry. The Rotax engine is the engine that reflects the current price of fuel etc.Advanced Ultra lights are as advanced as a 152 but many are made of modern lighter materials ,carbon fiber & fabric combinations.

We all Love flying and innovation and the demand for it, is what keeps the "industry"thriving and providing jobs. Innovation and technological advances create new opportunities for cheaper flying to folks who otherwise could only look up and wonder.
The 152 while still in service ,houses an engine that was designed in the 1950,s when fuel was pennies a gallon, this is no longer the reality. We generally agree with a microlight, the principles of flight are taught,Air Law, meteorology,Human Factors and a 18 year old Kid can still afford to take his buddy safely up for a flight on the weekend.Its fun ,its a sport & hobby and we all support and finance it.

If one wish,s to advance ones experience he won,t have to sell the farm to do so.

Air is free fuel , maintenance is not........:ok: There is nothing I hate more than seeing a good young boy scout ripped of his savings at the hands of a unscrupulous instructor /flight school only concerned with time building or charging Hobbs Time.(Golden Rule all the way)

[WishesToFly]

Although Ultralights are cheaper, It shouldn't be confused with being cheap however the cost. My local airfield offers a complete training solution for those wishing to gain a flying license in a CTSW Ultralight aircraft (which looks very similar to the the Cessna 162). 25 hours flying time with an instructor plus 25 hours briefing time for £3500, plus you have to pay for everything else such as exams, tests and equipment. However, I think that a student with no flight experience would benefit from 40 hours of tuition as a core package costing £5600 in total plus £140 per hour for each additional hour.

But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....

I dont understand the pricing!

[IanPZ]

I've got to say that in my research to decide what I wanted to do, I must have visited, emailed or talked to a good 10+ different flying schools near me, as well as a couple of clubs that had instructors as part of the group.

Every single one of them were helpful, friendly, and keen to give advice. When I was close to making the decision about going down the microlight route, I visited one of the flying schools and the CFI took time to listen, understand what I was thinking, and tell me any pitfalls and what I needed to do to make sure I plugged the gaps (such as doing a full RT course, which isn't covered in the microlight training).

The one thing I didn't meet were "unscrupulous instructors only after my money". Now, I am sure there are some people like that out there, and I am also sure that all the usual care needs to be taken when committing to an expense like flying, but surely people who choose to set up and run flying schools do so because they love flying, and want to share it with others whilst making ends meet. It isn't exactly going to make you a millionaire, after all.

It's a small pool of clients (apart from the commercial training) and word gets round very quickly if someone is unscrupulous, and that is just bad for business.

So, whilst I agree with the initial discussion, I simply can't accept this view of CFIs and flight school owners. I know my experience is anecdotal, but I would say 10+ schools, all helpful means they are not "out to get me", and I think it doesn't help others to promote that view. By all means go in with your eyes open, but I think its wrong to spread these kind of negative feelings. It's just not true, in my experience to date.

IPZ

[MR.X99]

You wouldn't advise a young person to go into the jungle without advising him/her about the scorpions and the snakes.
There is professional advise and friendly advise.My friend you might just find a friend on a small microlight airfield that will put a little lift under your wings.In a professional environment the only thing that will add lift is cash.Get on the inside track ya? But by all means now you have the view of both sides. Aviation training in the UK is the most expensive in the world. Fuel is amongst the most expensive in the world.Vat is amongst the highest in the world. Lean your mixture my friend ,lean your mixture;-) Your the navigator now.Please report back your "final"cost.

MR.X99
MOT.CPL/IR/ME/CFI.1000TT

[Genghis the Engineer]

Although Ultralights are cheaper, It shouldn't be confused with being cheap however the cost. My local airfield offers a complete training solution for those wishing to gain a flying license in a CTSW Ultralight aircraft (which looks very similar to the the Cessna 162). 25 hours flying time with an instructor plus 25 hours briefing time for £3500, plus you have to pay for everything else such as exams, tests and equipment. However, I think that a student with no flight experience would benefit from 40 hours of tuition as a core package costing £5600 in total plus £140 per hour for each additional hour.

But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....

I dont understand the pricing!

The CT is actually probably a better sorted, higher performance aeroplane than the C162, and certainly higher performance than the C152.

There is a further difference, light aeroplane instructors are paid slave labour rates, because they can hour-build for their airline licences. Microlight instructors are usually a bit better paid because they actually have to live off their pay and aren't marking time until they get an airline job.

After that, it's all down to market economics. But you can't really expect to pay much different, for an instructor + airfield + similar performance aeroplane. The real savings in microlighting is where you fly a true microlight - something that costs less to buy and run, not a hot ship that is only barely a microlight and outperforms most light aeroplanes.

Yesterday I had a very pleasant (if chilly) hour's flying in a Thruster TST which in total will have cost me about £40 including my month's syndicate payment. The real cost of a CT, or a C152, (or my share in a 4-seat light aeroplane that I was flying on new year's eve) would have been around double that.


At the end of the day, looking for short cuts isn't going to help. Learn on what you want to fly. If that's going to be light aeroplanes, learn on something like a C152. If that's going to be on high performance microlights, learn on a CT or a Dynamic. If that's going to be on basic inexpensive microlights, learn on an AX or a Thruster.

If you want to waste money, learn on something other than what you'll eventually fly the rest of the time, because the extra money will either come on conversion training, or your first minor accident.

Oh yes, and we are not in Australia, so they are still called microlights.

G

[WishesToFly]

Thanks Genghis you said that in very understandable terms. I was a die hard C152 fan until I started seeing these very cool CTSW aircraft on the field, when I was told they were microlights I did nothing but research. Personally, I have had lessons in the C152 and couldn't resist a trial in the CTSW. I prefer the CTSW over the C152 due to the small glass garmin panel installed, if felt very nippy and was incredibly responsive to the smallest of movements on the stick. However I still very much admire analogue gauges and the Cessna fits the bill nicely in that respect. They both have some great advantages.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks Genghis you said that in very understandable terms. I was a die hard C152 fan until I started seeing these very cool CTSW aircraft on the field, when I was told they were microlights I did nothing but research. Personally, I have had lessons in the C152 and couldn't resist a trial in the CTSW. I prefer the CTSW over the C152 due to the small glass garmin panel installed, if felt very nippy and was incredibly responsive to the smallest of movements on the stick. However I still very much admire analogue gauges and the Cessna fits the bill nicely in that respect. They both have some great advantages.


Glad to help - I've flown most of the common light and microlight aeroplanes, so am in a reasonable position to offer an opinion I hope.

You could do worse also than try some of the older generation microlights and see what you think of those. Particularly if you are (like many of us) looking to an affordable aeroplane / share after you've got your licence, this may be the closest thing to what you can eventually afford. If you are in Essex, you could do worse than try Saxon Microlights at North Weald: Saxon Microlights - microlight flying lessons for Essex and London (http://www.saxonmicro.co.uk/) . That would pave the way to owning something like an AX3 / 2000, X'Air, Rans S6 or Thruster T600 which are very nice (if slow) little aeroplanes that you can do just about anything with, and can be bought for under £6k (Under £3k some of them). Of that lot, I think I'd most happily buy an original model X'Air as the best of a good bunch - especially if I could get a 4-stroke engine (or 582 + C-type gearbox) for the money.

G

[Katamarino]

Aviation training in the UK is the most expensive in the world.

You have obviously never been to Holland. An hour's lesson in a PA28 at my club will set you back about 300 Euro! That's not the club being unreasonable, that's the crazy costs that are imposed on flying over here by the bureaucracy and fuel costs...

[WishesToFly]

You can't knock Saxon Microlights, they do indeed fly an old Thruster aircraft but that is purely what they do. I don't think they would even take a CTSW if they had the means to. Also at £102ph hour for flying training this is a snippet off the price tag of the normal PPL hour in the Cessna. The Thruster is £38 cheaper than learning to fly a CTSW at my field. This is definitely a cheaper option for getting in the air, but you are flying much less of an aircraft (almost like a powered kite)...

But they do look fun, I give them that. Isn't fun what flying is supposed to be about? I'd say!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've flown microlights that really are like powered kites - compared to those the Thruster T600 is very much a normal aeroplane from the pilots seat, just lighter and slower, and without flaps. Somebody should go from one of those to a CT or C152 without many hours training and the concept of "less of an aeroplane" is about snob value, not flying enjoyment.

But as I said before, train in what you're going to fly.

G