Business travel on a PPL?

[Ds3]

So I'm nearing completion of my PPL and considering all the potential excuses I can make up for using it! I know flying will never be an economical method of travel, and very rarely even prove quicker after pre-flights, onwards travel etc.

However, my company's HQ is based on the edge of a relatively decent grass airfield and I do travel around the UK a fair bit on business, so there is the potential for the odd journey to prove viable with a lift or hire car at the other end.

My question though is this: I don't really intend to get a CPL, and I know you cannot be paid to fly on a PPL. Where does business travel fit in to this? I will be paid 'whilst' flying rather than 'to' fly, although potentially may also carry a colleague who is also being paid whilst in the plane. I guess you could also suggest that I am being paid to carry the colleague, despite this not being the purpose of my wages.

So, can I? Can't I?

[what next]

So, can I?

If the UK is not totally different from the rest of the world in this resepect, then yes, you can. You don't hold a taxi driver's license either, yet you probably drive yourself when doing business trips by car, or not? Even when there are other people on board. It no different from that.

It only changes when the focus of your employment shifts to flying other employess around without you having any business to attend at the destination. (Which is what I am doing.)

[stickandrudderman]

Yes you can.
The taxman cannot stipulate what means of transport you can legitimately use for business travel, it's a matter for the company to decide.
AFAIUI you can also take your colleague as long as you are not obliged by your company to take him by flying him and you are not renumerated for carrrying him as a passenger.
The hire of the a/c and the fuel it uses are all tax deductable as long as it can be demonstrated that the trip was for business only.

[PilotPieces]

There is absolutly no problem with it as long as you never get paid to actually fly the aircraft. I used to go to the occasional meeting with the company aircraft on my PPL. Sure I was getting paid my normal salarly whilst flying to and from but I would have been paid the same if I had driven.

[Sensible Flyer]

So could you claim the cost of the rental and fuel back from the company? Isn't the rule that you have to pay for your "share" of the costs for it not to be considered as work?

[peterh337]

This one has come up here many times.

Take the simplest case, where you rent a plane for a day's business trip. The rental costs you £1000. You can stick all of that £1000 in your business expenses i.e. recover the lot. No need for a CPL.

If you own the plane personally, then it is a little more complicated but there is an accepted principle there too: let's say during the calendar year your total flying expenses (fuel, landing fees, Annual, etc) came to £20000. Let's say during that year you spent 20% of your airborne time (or Hobbs time, if that's what you use) on trips exclusively for the business. You can now stick £4000 in your expenses. This is legit with both HMRC and the CAA.

If 100% of the flying was on business then you can reclaim the lot. Of course this is highly unlikely (though not impossible).

Owning the plane by the business (if a Ltd Co) is best avoided because it facilitates an attack by HMRC under the BIK (benefit in kind) rules and they positively love that. I would avoid it even if 100% of your flying was on business.

The above is for both a G-reg and N-reg.

If you do a business trip and carry other company employees, that's OK too, on a PPL. Just make sure nobody is obliged to FLY (i.e. can take a train, etc). The grey area is when you carry customers, etc......

If you carry passengers (in the general case) and cost share, that is a different topic.

On a G-reg it is well defined, although there is a long standing ambiguity on whether you can share the cost of airborne-time-related costs such as 50hr checks, 150hr checks, the engine fund, etc. IMHO, these can all be shared but the Annual itself cannot.

On an N-reg, the FAA has some bizzare rules concerning a "common purpose" which are so strict they are mostly unworkable.

A lot has been written on this stuff. Try a search of the forum - in fact google may be more productive and is a much more intelligent way of searching p pr une than the search function here ;)

[bookworm]

Under current UK law (ANO Art 259,260), the default is that if any money ("valuable consideration") is paid ("given or promised") for a flight ("or the purpose of the flight") then it becomes at least aerial work, requiring a CPL. If money is paid for the carriage of passengers, then it is public transport or commercial air transport (covered by EU-OPS).

There is an exception entitled "recovery of direct costs" (Art 268) which allows the direct costs of the flight to be paid by the pilot's employer, or by a company of which the pilot is a director and for the flight to remain private. A condition is that neither the pilot nor any of the passengers may be legally obliged to be carried. A conservative interpretation of that is that you should always offer any colleagues you intend to carry an alternative means of transport.

'Direct costs' means the costs actually and necessarily incurred in connection with a flight without a view to profit but excluding any remuneration payable to the pilot for services as such;

That is generally interpreted to include the cost of rental, fuel and landing fees etc., but with no contribution towards maintenance or insurance.

On the human-factors side, I would strongly advise you not to put yourself in a position in which you must make a flight to get to a meeting. Leave sufficient time that you can take alternative transport. You may find that constraint quite limiting or inefficient.

[bookworm]

Peter highlights that there are three stakeholders you need to keep happy: the CAA, your company, and HMRC. My answer only dealt with the CAA.

[peterh337]

That is generally interpreted to include the cost of rental, fuel and landing fees etc., but with no contribution towards maintenance or insurance.I am not aware of that old chestnut ever having been clarified, bookworm. I think one needs to read the law exactly as written. If the CAA wished to exclude say 50hr checks and the engine fund, their lawyers could have drafted it thus. There is no case law AFAIK on this. Both are unquestionably "direct costs".

On the human-factors side, I would strongly advise you not to put yourself in a position in which you must make a flight to get to a meeting. Leave sufficient time that you can take alternative transport. You may find that constraint quite limiting or inefficient. Of course that's the other side of it.

Much has been written here on that too.

Doing formal customer visits is hard using GA, because

- most airports close too early so flying tends to force a hotel stay (which can actually be quite nice, but not if you then spend £200 on taxi fares which are a huge ripoff everywhere)

- most airports do not have instrument approaches, so the despatch rate is poor (cancelling due to destination out, or destination coming back, or both) and hey this opens up the fascinating topic of DIY letdowns ;)

- most British customers, being British, would be jealous of anybody doing well, i.e. of a plane, and don't want to subsidise you expensive hobby, so you have to conceal the fact, and if you cannot then you have to say "I just rented it for the day" and generally play it down (been there, done that, many times). This means you cannot fly unless arrival is assured, which it won't be unless the wx is perfect, which means you often end up driving

That said, there are some spectacular cases where it can work very well, against road transport. I used to fly to Welshpool (4-8hrs' drive) in 1hr.

Obviously visiting suppliers is better than visiting customers. You don't give a **** what the supplier thinks of your plane or your expensive hobby. Or visiting trade shows, and other events where nobody cares if you turn up or not.

One needs a structure for making clear go/no-go decisions. This is almost not at all taught in the PPL, where they instead feed you stupid proverbs like better to be down and wishing you were up than ....

[BackPacker]

If you do a business trip and carry other company employees, that's OK too, on a PPL. Just make sure nobody is obliged to FLY (i.e. can take a train, etc). The grey area is when you carry customers, etc......

To expand on this, I have seen material from the CAA that essentially says that it's OK for a PPL to take colleagues, customers and whatnot on a private flight, IF the flight is only incidental to the trip.

In other words, there has to be a viable alternative. Car, train, commercial air transport, whatnot. So if you fly to and from a business meeting it's OK. You could have driven there as well. But once you start using the aircraft for, for instance, survey work, you're in trouble. Since the survey work could not have been done by car.

The other stipulation is that your employer can't force your colleagues to fly with you. They have to provide an alternative if they don't want to fly with you.

And under these conditions it's perfectly OK to get reimbursed by the company for all the direct costs. But as Peter said, it's a bit of a grey area what to consider direct costs, if you own the plane.


Having said all that, you do need to be careful in considering this. As you know well by now, VFR flying in a light aircraft is very, very dependent on the weather. But your colleagues and the customers you are visiting might not be so understanding, as their experience is probably with commercial airlines only. So if you cancel a trip at the last moment because the weather looks iffy, they're not going to be happy. Do that too often and your performance and standing in the company suffers. (And that's not even considering the opinion of your colleagues when you show up with a clapped-out C172, instead of your shiny new company car.)

[peterh337]

Search caa.co.uk for a leaflet called "summary of public transport".

It is a bit out of date on the CofA stuff but the rest is mostly applicable.

Basically they are trying to keep a lid on illegal charters i.e. carrying paying passengers for profit.

[bookworm]

I think one needs to read the law exactly as written. If the CAA wished to exclude say 50hr checks and the engine fund, their lawyers could have drafted it thus. There is no case law AFAIK on this. Both are unquestionably "direct costs".

I'm not sure I agree. Art 269(3) talks about annual costs and direct costs, in a way that suggests they are considered mutually exclusive. In Art 255:

'Annual costs' in relation to the operation of an aircraft means the best estimate
reasonably practicable at the time of a particular flight for the year commencing on
the first day of January preceding the date of the flight, of the costs of keeping and
maintaining and the indirect costs of operating the aircraft, such costs in either case
excluding direct costs and being those actually and necessarily incurred without a
view to profit;

That suggests to me that the direct costs do not include maintenance and "keeping" the aircraft. But I agree that there may be ambiguity -- personally I wouldn't want to test it.

This will all go out of the window when EASA OPS comes in, of course, at least for EASA aircraft. Then we're up against:

‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an
aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable
consideration, which is available to the public or, when not
made available to the public, which is performed under a
contract between an operator and a customer, where the
latter has no control over the operator

What that means is anyone's guess ... oh, sorry, I mean, "for member state courts to interpret". ;)

[bookworm]

To expand on this, I have seen material from the CAA that essentially says that it's OK for a PPL to take colleagues, customers and whatnot on a private flight, IF the flight is only incidental to the trip.

I'm not disputing that as an interpretation, but it's worth being clear about what the law says the condition is:

"Neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried on the flight."

That's all.

[peterh337]

I had not realised the CAA recently changed the wording on the costs sharing, but I don't think the new wording is at all helpful. It's ambiguous as hell. It's obvious, for example, that somebody with a recent history of doing 150hrs/year can reasonably expect every hour he flies, up to around 150, to be a direct cost.

[peterh337]

I don't disagree.

With passengers, the "rules" need to be clear i.e. if you get stuck somewhere, they accept that, instead of pushing the pilot to buy them all airline tickets so they can get back to work etc.

[Talkdownman]

SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT & AERIAL WORK (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/SummaryOfCATPTAWANO2009May2010.pdf)

[mary meagher]

DS3, I am sure you are very proud of your new Private Pilots License.

But intending to use it for business travel? as I said on another thread to a new pilot, would you trust your (family) (colleague) (business success) to a low hours pilot newly qualified? Just having a read through all the silly accident reports in the Flight Safety magazine, how often it is that a low time pilot encounters WEATHER! If he is smart, he didn't go in the first place, got right forecasts.
If he is unlucky, he will encounter the weather and return to base. If he is UNDER PRESSURE OF ANY KIND - impressing a colleague, going to a meeting, keeping the family happy, he is all too likely to PRESS ON.

Which is when it all goes pear shaped.

By all means, enjoy your new flying, but don't kid yourself that it can be truly useful for business until you have 500 hours, an Instrument Rating, two engines, and a relaxed attitude.

For a reality check, how many hours have you been driving a car? compare that with your current airborne hours. I sure as hell wouldn't fly with you!

[Ds3]

Thanks all for the very comprehensive range of replies!

My situation suggests the plane in question will most likely be part of a non-equity share, although this could change to being an equity share or rented plane.

My company wouldn't reimburse the cost of the plane, aside from maybe the equivalent petrol costs for the journey, however I've no issues taking it on the chin for the extra hours in the air, pleasure, and speed of the journey on the odd occasion it works out.

Obviously very much wx dependant, and I'll always be a position where the car is on the drive should the conditions not be right, although I guess getting back on time should always be a consideration!

[Ds3]

Mary, thanks also for the reply although I feel you may be slightly tarring all new pilots with the same brush a little, with all of them not being able to make sensible decisions nor resist pressonitis... And your comments really apply to any flight, not just business travel.

I fully acknowledge that I am masssively inexperience, and wouldn't begrudge anyone that would prefer not to join me in the plane. I also fully ackowledge the potential for wx to have an impact, as it would with any flight. I have a shiney new BMW on the drive and don't pay a penny for fuel so it's no hardship at all for me if I have to drive instead.

I have to gain experience somehow, and IF the rare opportunity presents itself for me to travel in the plane and it's legal then I'll take it, assuming the conditions are 100%, otherwise I might as well have not bothered getting a PPL at all?

[peterh337]

:ok:

Gosh I better get a 2nd motor quick.... :) The paperwork would be significant though....

A good way to work this, which I used to do, is fly up the night before.

Many / most business meetings start in the morning and one cannot get there by car (unless getting up at some stupid hour) and one cannot get there by plane (because the airport(s) don't open early enough).

That way, if one cannot fly up the night before, one takes the car :) One ends up at the same hotel whichever way :)

I used to find that on journeys long enough to be worth flying, one had to do the hotel anyway.

[frontlefthamster]

Ds3,

You have a moral obligation to your passengers too. You should explain to them the risk inherent in flying in a small aircraft with a minimally-qualified pilot, especially where there is some objective (getting to and from your business).

If you liken it to riding there on the back of a motorbike you will be in roughly the right area - people often have a feeling for the risk inherent in motorcycling; if you say it's like riding on the back of a motorbike without a helmet, you will be painting a slightly pessimistic picture, but giving your passengers a good chance of making a valid judgement. (For the purists, I am bearing in mind the objective when suggesting these parallels).

[Genghis the Engineer]

For what it's worth, I've been using private aircraft for business trips for years - most of that time on a PPL.

It got a lot easier once I had an IMC (although in winter, you've got to be very aware of icing, so it's not that straightforward), but I've always accepted the risk of diversions, the occasional unscheduled night in a hotel, and very occasional failure to get there - or suddenly dashing halfway across the country by car when I'd hoped for a leisurely flight.

All my employers have taken pretty much the same view. Go ahead, claim motor mileage as if I'd driven, and if something goes wrong and I end up in the wrong place, or suddenly changing plans - that's entirely my own problem to sort out and fund.

It's a fair approach, and I've enjoyed my opportunities to fly in working hours. I've seldom broken even on it - but depending upon how you look at it, either I'm subsidising work travel, or they're subsidising my flying. Ultimately, we all win and it's worth doing, but the opportunities are far fewer than you'd hope.

G

[Ds3]

Flying up the night before is definitely part of the plan - I do that anyway, for instance I was in Liverpool for a meeting Thursday morning, so drove up Wednesday and slummed it in the Park Royal for the night :rolleyes:

Frontlefthamster, fully agree, althought most people whom tell I fly light aircraft look at me like I'm mad anyways, so I guess if anything they already overstate the risk!

Genghis, pretty sums up my intended philosophy :)

[stickandrudderman]

I have to gain experience somehow, and IF the rare opportunity presents itself for me to travel in the plane and it's legal then I'll take it, assuming the conditions are 100%, otherwise I might as well have not bothered getting a PPL at all?
Bravo and well said!:D:D:D:D

[peterh337]

:ok:

Also, the motorbike comparison is not valid because (I have ~100k miles on 2 wheels) most bike crashes involve another vehicle and are that other (car) driver's fault (maybe not always legally his fault but you get my drift, and often the car driver disappears).

In flying, the risk is mostly up to the pilot. You only have to read the AAIB reports.

There is a residual maintenance related element which is very hard to control if you rent from schools but is fairly easy to control if you own or part-own the plane.

And there is a residual mechanical failure risk element which will never go away (not even if you have a PT6 up front :) ) but it is very very low. IME, much lower than on a car.

[mary meagher]

DS3, I hate to say it, but you do present the classic picture of an overconfident beginner. You will be a much better pilot after you have frightened yourself a couple of times.

The "shiny new BMW on the drive" impresses me, all right. Also your claim, that "if it's legal, I'll (do) it". I presume you always keep to the speed limits?

And as for your potential passengers having a realistic picture of the risks that they would be undergoing with you as Commander of the aircraft, if they have any family or business relationship with you, and if you have impressed them with your money and success in other enterprise, they may very well believe you would be safe. Passengers have to trust us, they do not understand the true risks involved.

I look forward to further reports on your progress.

[bingofuel]

Perhaps an option to lighten the load, and avoid too many distractions is to find yourself a mentor who is happy to travel with you to 'oversee'you.

The sort of person I am thinking off, is someone with a lot of touring experience, or a retired commercial guy, (preferably with a GA background) who can keep you safe, as you gain experience and can also deal with the mundane issues like refuelling, landing fees, looking after the aircraft whilst you are at your meetings.

That way, you get to fly, can land and get on with your business, and on your return should be ready to depart.

Shouldn't be too hard to find someone happy to travel with you. Just look for someone with suitable experience who enjoys flying.

[Pilot DAR]

Ds3,

It could sound like posters here are trying to rain on the parade you'e planning. It's not a personal attack, but it is a presentation of experience - lots of it. Anyone who takes their time to post here, is an enthusiast of aviation, and therefore is trying to give advice to fly safely. None of us benefit from unhappy outcomes in aviation.

There are a number of things I choose to no longer do, or do to a much lesser degree, that I did when I was first licensed - yet I'm more experienced now. When I think of some of the flights I planned, and who I was trying to take where, how happy that for one reason or another, it did not work out! I have realized that some of my exciting ideas were simply not good ideas. Having to get somewhere on schedule, in a GA aircraft was many of them! Having a passenger was many more.

I use my aircraft as personal transport to meetings all the time. Most of the time, I tell other's who will attend: "I'll see you there". From time to time, I will carry people, if contditions are excellent, and they need the ride. I am not in the transport business. I take lots of people flying, but it's around and back, when I know the conditions, and the plan is to return anyway.

You'll hear from time to time "Swiss cheese" holes lining up. The Swiss cheese is always moving around. You control some of the pieces, but not all. Three, or at most four, holes line up, and you drop through, and have an accident. (a few more line up, and it's worse).

Enexperience itself is not a hole, but it may limit your ability to see the holes, or move around the Swiss cheese you might control, to prevent the accident.

I can tell you from lots of experience (though luckly never an accident) that an upset/scared passenger, while something else like poor weather or a rough engine is happening, just became another Swiss cheese hole for you to cover quickly. The workload demands on you can gang up quickly.

Flying up the night before is a great idea - if they'll rent you the plane overnight, and you can secure it properly, pay for parking etc. That does mean though, that the weather you left in, will likely be different than that in which you will return. Weather is always a Swiss cheese hole.

I don't think anyone here wants to completely put you off flying as a method of personal transport, but lots of caution, and readiness for a change of plans is required. Alway consider the Swiss cheese holes!

And, with that, I'm hungry... Mmmm, Swiss cheese....

[peterh337]

There is no reason why a new pilot should not be safe.

The problem we have in GA is that the training is pi55 poor. The syllabus is not set up for delivering mission-capable pilots.

But while a new PPL holder is PROB99 poorly trained to fly from A to B and make disciplined go/no-go decisions, that doesn't mean that they are all stupid. Most are not stupid. Most deal with the situation by chucking it in pretty quick (largely because the totally unchallenging flights are useless and boring) but nothing prevents somebody who is fairly smart from getting clued up, perhaps getting some mentoring, and doing it properly. For example I bought the TB20 with just 120hrs TT (about 50 post-PPL) and never had any problems going places. Never had any incidents of note, never got scared, etc. It can be done. I am sure that if I appeared on pilot forums back then, in 2002, I would have been jumped on and told to learn to walk before running :)

Mentoring is a great thing, but not so easy to sort out. The schools don't like it very much, for various reasons.

[Ds3]

PilotDAR, thank you for the comprehensive post which reflects many of my (so far theoretical) intentions, and for making me hungry! All posts in the thread are welcome and I am very to keen to learn off those that have vastly more experience than me, regardless of whether the views support my desires or not.

However, Mary, this thread has given no indication of my decision making capabilities or intentions, so I'm a little suprised you feel you can judge me (or any pilot) as 'overconfident' without proper insight into these factors.

The statement about the BMW wasn't intended to impress (or the opposite) anyone, it was made merely to press home the point that driving to a meeting would not represent a negative factor duing the decision making process.

[mary meagher]

Peterh337, you could always get one of those push me pull you Cessnas!

[peterh337]

The "337" in my nickname is taken from a BC337 (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/BC/BC337.pdf) - a very "inside" joke if you are an electronics engineer :)

http://lnx.boyreparaciones.com/tienda/images/165.jpg

A BMW? Surely, these days, boasting about owning a BMW is logically impossible. A Ferrari only just begins to cut the mustard, and then only if you park it on a big council estate where the main interest will be to vandalise it :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not a Rotax 337 then :)

I've flown a couple of aeroplanes powered by one of those, very much a Mk.1 product, that everything since was a clear improvement over. I am told it works really well in a Minimax, but sadly I've yet to ever fly one of those.

G

[Pilot DAR]

"inside" joke if you are an electronics engineer"inside" joke if you are an electronics engineer

Yup, simple as "E B C"....

[Grob Queen]

DS3, I hate to say it, but you do present the classic picture of an overconfident beginner. You will be a much better pilot after you have frightened yourself a couple of times.

And as for your potential passengers having a realistic picture of the risks that they would be undergoing with you as Commander of the aircraft, if they have any family or business relationship with you, and if you have impressed them with your money and success in other enterprise, they may very well believe you would be safe. Passengers have to trust us, they do not understand the true risks involved.


Mary, I have been ridiculed on this forum for making sweeping statements and not understanding the situation, so I hate to do it to anyone else, but after reading your post I have to say something!

How do you know that DS3 has not frightened him/herself during training? I certainly have frightened myself when flying solo...and i'm still training....

Are you also saying then that all new PPL pilots should wait until they are vastly experienced before taking passengers? You seem to be slating all new PPLs and their licences are not worth the paper they're written on. I of course have no idea of your background, and from other posts I see you are a vastly experienced Glider pilot, whom I am sure has to go through as much training as we powered "types" fair enough. However, speaking from my viewpoint a PPL (A) is a hard won achievement, I will be dead proud when I have mine as I know how much work I am putting into it. So I can understand that DS3 would want to use his/her licence whenever possible to keep current and the bug!

Passengers have to trust us, they do not understand the true risks involved.


Rather condescending don't you think?! Is not part of the joys of flying sharing it with someone? As our CFI once said to me, "A PPL shows that the pilot is confident enough to carry non-pilot pax" Yes, pax have to trust their pilot, but I would have thought the very fact that the PIC has their licence - be they 45hrs literally just passed or 545hrs - would indicate some sort of ability?

Yes, there are bound to be idiotic brand new as well as old and bold pilots out there...as there are car drivers, motorcyclists...young mums with push chairs....everyone in fact! But PLEASE don't tar us all with the same brush.....

[mary meagher]

Thanks, Grob Queen. If your name implies being a woman, we do have to endure a certain amount of flac from those endowed with different plumbing....

Alas, after a late start at age 50, I did manage to run up 1,800 hours in gliders and 1,200 in power, including IR and seaplane rating. Which included a hell of a lot more landings than most airline pilots. However, last week met a man who after I asked what types he had flown named quite a number of small aircraft, and confessed to 10,000 hours! which rather put my numbers into the modest category. But believe me, after 20 years or so as a gliding instructor, tug pilot, cross country PPL in UK, US, and Europe, one does realise that the little brown book that you struggle so gamely to earn only gives you a ticket to begin learning. I hate reading accident reports.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with Mary, it really is a licence to learn.

But, trying in a leisurely manner, in good conditions, with plenty of fat in the plan, to do some of that learning on some business trips? Why the heck not. I certainly learned a great deal by trying to do that.

G

[Grob Queen]

Mary, Ghengis,
I appreciate that gaining the PPL is only the start of learning...then you learn to fly! Much like driving a car, I admit I have learnt much more over the 13 years with a licence than the two I spent trying to get it!

But my point was really, if we can't then fly once we have our PPLs because ok, yourselves and other experienced pilots on here all agree that we shouldn't... then how are we going to get that experience?! I am sure that in some ways (and don't jump at me, i do say SOME) students and low hour PPLs are safer than experienced pilots due to the nature, that they KNOW they are more capable of making mistakes and thus do not push the boundaries

In fact I was chatting with our CFI today about my flying, he was very pleased with reports from my instructor and various safety decisions I had taken which shows that I will be a safe cautious pilot....i'm not trying to blow my own trumpet or improve my standing on this forum as I know thats zero anyway :p Just trying to make a point!

And Mary, well, as Ghengis "outed" me on another thread anyway, yes I am indeed female, but that is not the point...I am talking from a student pilot point of view...not a female one!! And you would have seen that I apologised for saying what I said and did of course admit your experience to quell any hackles the post may have brought ;) But I jsut wanted to put the viewpoint as I see it :)

[Pilot DAR]

students and low hour PPLs are safer than experienced pilots

In some cases, I very much agree. Skill sets aside, students and new pilots by the very nature of their "newness" are paying more attention more often - they are not complacent. Many has been the time when I have witnessed a "new" pilot make a really good observation, or decision, I actually envied that sense of caution, which sadly, I have to sometimes remind myself to have. My flight test plans contain a "hazard identification" section for this very reason. To remind me to consider it.

Yes, new pilots can, and do make "newbie" mistakes, but it takes hundreds of hours for those newbie mistakes to shift over to being complacency mistakes. That said, I have witnessed the "type A" personalities, make more mistakes, and those mistakes have been much more serious.

The newbie, not so much type A pilot, may bump a wingtip on the hanger, having misjudged or taxied too fast, and then they feel silly, and fly with great care for a while. The type A pilot has confidence - perhaps beyond their station. They spend the money they earned because they are a type A, and buy something faster, and which would carry more people. And they jump in and go - it's a type A thing to do! They are more at risk for an accident, because they are "winners", they can conquer everything. Well.... not everything - Air moves, engines quit, and the ground (and water) are very hard.

I've checked out many type A's. After seeing that attitude peek out, I can usually make the plane do something which catches them by surprize, and they step back and see the wisdom of mentoring. The non type A is generally welcoming of mentoring from the start - so they found it earlier in their flying.

Newer pilots should be encouraged to do more, and learn more - but not with their whole family, or trusted business associates all packed into a Cessna 206. Step by step pilots... let your skills build over time. You'll look back one day, and see the wisdom...

[thing]

I get a bit confused with the 'Don't try that yet, you're not experienced enough.'

Then other than by doing 'it' how does one gain the experience?

I would like to think that at my age (ancient) I have some general life common sense. I know that there are a/c specific 'common sense' items that one has to learn on the job as it were but I have a very healthy regard for my own and other's skin when flying, just as I have when driving. As an exercise in risk management I believe there's no better example than GA flying.

You can take two pilots. Pilot1 has a thousand hours, never gone anywhere or done anything of note and is a slack pilot whose cheese hasn't lined up yet. You hear them every weekend on the R/T going 'Er...um..er, request basic service and er..um..er zone transit er....' as they traipse back and forth between the same two or three burger runs. Pilot 2 uses the PPL and the ratings to their fullest extent, knows his CAP 413, uses his common sense and is a belt and braces type guy who knows where the take off and landing tables are in the POH, and wants to be the best pilot he can be and wants to continually safely improve his skill set but only has one hundred hours. Who would you rather fly with?

You have to be a certain type to fly, one of the characteristics of any pilot I would say is confidence. Not over confidence or misplaced confidence but knowing what you can and can't safely do.The last thing anyone should do IMO is to hold back a fresh PPL from wanting to improve by closing down his/her options. I think it does GA a disservice.

[Ds3]

Some very interesting comments and a cracking example of thread drift!

I'd hope I'm not a 'type A' pilot. I'm very concious of my own mortality when flying and have no desire to rush in to anything. I'm also equally as concious of things I don't feel I've learnt adequately yet and have a strong desire to learn and practice them.

For example, I've booked an extra lesson this week just to take the plane over to somewhere with a hard runway and do some circuits - not something my instructor has suggested I do but I generally fly from grass and would like to practice my approach and landings somewhere less familiar.

I'm not loaded and won't be buying a plane at any point in the forseeable future, in fact I have a group lined up that have the same plane I'm learning in (Robin HR200) and, despite them having other planes too, I'm perfectly happy to stick with what I know and build up hours and experience in the Robin.

[riverrock83]

I'm with GQ on this - a pilot should be very aware of their limits and not attempt to exceed them, but shouldn't be afraid of flying within them. As part of my training, I've been made very aware of my many limits, but with experience, mentoring, training and watching others, those limits will stretch.

So long as you are very aware of your limits - why not get some of your costs paid?

[007helicopter]

Ds3 good luck in your business trips, a great way to add experience and use the plane in a useful way.

I was lucky and had a great flying buddy who often came with me, and still sometimes does on my own business trips which are reasonably frequent. It helped build my own confidence and experience, we would share legs, decisions and he would help with the logistics of the plane.

Certainly many factors already discussed need to be taken into account but for me personally it is one of the great pleasure's of GA. To be able to travel from my home base Rochester to Newcastle in around 1hr 30min and often do the trip in a day and be home for Dinner and my own bed.

I say go for it but build in steps and always have a plan B of cancel, drive, stay over etc.

[frontlefthamster]

Oh dear...

Peterh, I didn't make any claims about cause, just probability. They were, and are, valid. See previous threads on this sort of topic. This is not a thread about motorcycle accidents.

The picture I'm building of you is making sense.

Sadly for all, especially the less experienced, you posts here do not make sense to those with the experience to spot how often and how badly you get it wrong.

I don't wish to start or continue a p###ing contest, but I reserve the right to comment when I think that someone is posting rubbish which might lead the unwary astray.

[strake]

You paid for training to become a pilot so you could enjoy flying. The training taught you to fly competently as a basic PPL and hopefully, showed you the limitations of your skills and how to improve upon them. By your very nature, it would be odd if having done all that you didn't use every opportunity to fly and learn safely.
For what its worth, this is my story...
I was in your position in the mid-Eighties and chalked up many hundreds of flying hours on business in the UK and northern Europe in a quite simple PA28-180. Small hops at first when I could and then the addition of a night rating and IMC, together with currency, gave me the ability to start using my aircraft much like a car in terms of availability - with, of course, weather limitations. I can remember my rather clammy hands as I navigated my way between Heathrow and Gatwick for the first time but also the immense sense of achievement afterwards and the confidence it built for other flights into places like Brussels - 120kts on finals with something heavy powering in behind you.
Eventually, after about three years, I stopped because my career was going in a direction that required longer abroad with more people and I had to guarantee to be in places on time. I felt that would put too much pressure on me so I decided to hang-up my business headphones and enjoy commercial flying - it was actually enjoyable then. My trips then became more of the "club-type" and remained so ever since.
The experience was fantastic, I learnt a lot and I think I became a better pilot for having done it.
So, my vote is do it.

[Grob Queen]

DS3 and Riverrock, perhaps we Studes should teach the old and bold a thing or too about safe flying ;)

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more. I am very aware of my limits. Debriefs show where I have messed up and what I need to do to counteract that...I go away and read, revise do whatever I need to do and I fly that part better. Mentoring from two great friends is a fantastic help too, it gives me a different angle, another way of thinking around the issues I have.

And yes, if I do try something different and push my personal boundaries, its with my instructor, and with his blessing. HE knows my capabilities better than anyone. For Instance, the other day I landed in a strong crosswind, port wheel first wing down- there is no way I would have attempted that solo!! :)

DS3, i'm interested in your comment about only being used to grass. I am completely the opposite. With two lovely long tarmac strips to operate from, it totally bamboozled me the couple of times ATC have wanted me to operate from our grass strip - again, not yet something I would wish to do solo....:eek:

[mary meagher]

Grob Queen and Ds3, both of you still in the process of working toward your Private Pilot License, both now happily solo pilots, capable of doing cross country flights, planning your flight and flying your plan, but not yet with that rubber stamp that implies you are ready by law to fly with passengers, please go back to Post 29, by Pilot DAR, which makes much sense.

I have no qualms whatsoever about you taking your rented Robin cross country by yourself, with no pressure of meetings to attend, or colleagues/friends/family to impress. And a short local flight in good weather with your nearest and dearest would do no harm. But anyone who thinks a light aircraft is a business tool is kidding himself. Find out the hard way, don't believe me. But please go by yourself. Frequently. In winter. In rain. To Scotland, or Wales. Or even over the sea. Then come back to us and tell us how you did it.

So much for thread drift. It is not a car.

[Grob Queen]

But anyone who thinks a light aircraft is a business tool is kidding himself. Find out the hard way, don't believe me. But please go by yourself. Frequently. In winter. In rain. To Scotland, or Wales. Or even over the sea. Then come back to us and tell us how you did it.


Mary,
I'm all for irony/sarcasm and have been known to dabble in the black art myself... I am no angel!! But really, are comments such as yours helpful?! I don't believe any well trained new PPL is going to take an aircraft up to Scotland or over to Wales in rain in the winter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours of Students and new PPLs is obviously very low. :*

I also intend, when qualified, on visiting other Stations when necessary for work via the air, for fun, for currency and to somewhere where there are no landing fees! But I would certainly ONLY do this in the summer when good wx is guaranteed ;)

Oh, and Ds3, Riverrock...good luck with your training :ok:

[riverrock83]

Mary,
Oh, and Ds3, Riverrock...good luck with your training :ok:

You too Grob Queen.

And I'm learning in Scotland - its really not that scary up here!

[Ds3]

GQ, the airfield I fly from is quite challenging with obstacles at both ends of the main runway, incuding having to lose height rapidly on approach over pylons. This is great experience, but I almost find myself a bit agoraphobic on large concrete strips now, approaching a little high and fast, so it's this I want to work on. Grass is also very forgiving, being a bit softer and less punishing if not immaculately straight on touch down.

Mary, I absolutely agree with and take on board everything said by Pilot DAR in post 29 which is very sage advice. I just took umbridge to what was a rather sweeping comment which, when summarised, essentially said new PPLs shouldn't fly because they aren't safe to do so.

Your last post also suggest it's our express intention to go "Frequently. In winter. In rain. To Scotland, or Wales. Or even over the sea". I really can't see what facts you are basing this assumption on, other than suggesting all new PPL will blindly set out in all weather conditions with no application of common sense, judgment or ability...

There are already a number of experienced pilots that have posted here confirming that a GA aircraft is in fact a perfectly viable, if not economical, business tool when treated with appropriate respect.

GQ, thank you and good luck with yours too :ok:

[Crash one]

Ds3
Learning from a relatively difficult grass strip will have made you a better pilot from a practical point of view in my opinion, which you may not realise.
Mary
You are coming across as a pompous arrogant ass. For a supposed instructor to say "I sure as hell wouldn't fly with you", to a pilot who has yet to get the licence is nothing short of appalling.
If I were given advice from someone such as you appear to be I would go out of my way to ignore it, do the opposite, anything to let you know that you are talking rubbish.
You assume that all PPLs are stupid incompetent accidents looking for a crash site. You have stated elsewhere that PPLs don't keep a look out. You also asked a question regarding the currency of PPLs (2yearly reval) as you appear to believe that we need more supervision. You are also making remarks regarding plumbing differences indicating that you are somewhat against those of us with external systems.
As you purport to be a glider pilot, tug pilot, PPL/CPL, instructor, I find it hard to believe that you don't know the reval rules, & to flame someone for asking a perfectly good question is disgraceful.
I am beginning to think you are a flight simming troll & not a pilot of any kind.
If you are the typical example of a gliding instructor, then please advise the location of your home base so I can avoid it.
No wonder there is a gulf between power & gliding, I was contemplating visiting my nearest but I don't think I'll bother.
May I suggest that you take your arrogant head out of wherever you have stuffed it & get a life.

[Ds3]

Learning from a relatively difficult grass strip will have made you a better pilot from a practical point of view in my opinion, which you may not realise.

Absolutely, it's excellent experience and most airfields I visit now look like vast lakes of concrete which is great, but I do feel I need to hone my technique a bit just to ensure I make a nice stable approach in to the easier airfields, rather than 'dropping in'.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that's a dangerous assumption.

Flying from a short grass strip improves your short field skills, handling on grass, and ability to land and take-off exactly where you intended.

It's of very little use in circuit discipline, doesn't encourage you to make allowances for other aircraft with different speed ranges, and doesn't help make you very punchy on RT.

I am not a particularly experienced instructor, but I am an experienced pilot, and an instructor. As such, I've tried hard with everybody I'd taught to date to make sure they get significant experience of both lightly or uncontrolled grass-strip airfields (Popham's good for that), and over-controlled busy commercial-ish airports (for which I tend to use Cranfield).

G

N.B. Grob Queen - you can hardly use the term "Queen" in your name without most of us guessing you're probably female. On the subject of grass runways - just do it, it's no big deal. Slightly softer, slightly longer ground rolls, and you have to work a bit harder on keeping the aeroplane straight if the grass is wet. Most of which any halfway well trained pilot will just take in their stride.

[Ds3]

Agreed G, it definitely improves certain skills but not others, hence why I'm off on Thursday (weather permitting) to a busier, concrete airfield to work on those that I feel need it.

[FANS]

It's an excellent idea to use your PPL for a purpose, and business use is fine in principle.

It rarely works in the UK as the Wx plays havoc, and the price of flying + landing fees/taxis from the field to city centre offices can cause problems, but GA flying is never cheap.

One thing to bear in mind is that as a new PPL holder flying a significant XC flight to an unfamiliar destination can leave you very tired, and therefore you might be next to useless at work the following day.

If you're not paid via PAYE or you own your business, then it can be a tax efficient way to get some extra hours in as well.

[peterh337]

The tiredness issue is real but

- I wonder whether it is worse to fly for 1hr than to drive for say 3hrs (e.g.); IMHO flying on autopilot for 1hr is far less tiring than driving for 3hrs

- One can sidestep it by flying the previous night (as already mentioned) and this also preserves the option to drive till the last moment, thus removing most of the pressure

- At higher altitudes (or lower ones for that matter ;) ) you can be on oxygen, and plenty of it. Might look a bit odd doing that on the M25 :E

[Crash one]

I think that's a dangerous assumption.

Flying from a short grass strip improves your short field skills, handling on grass, and ability to land and take-off exactly where you intended.

It's of very little use in circuit discipline, doesn't encourage you to make allowances for other aircraft with different speed ranges, and doesn't help make you very punchy on RT.



I hate to say this Gengis but the above statement may well be true for someone such as myself who learned at an A/G tarmac field then moved to a grass farm strip with no radio on site, very little/no traffic etc. But in the case of someone going ab-initio to PPL off grass or any other surface would imply that it was a regular Flying Training Organisation & as such all required circuit/RT/traffic awareness training will have been covered.
The fact that the strip was grass, with trees etc is only going to improve the basic, as I put it, practical skills. This in itself improves confidence & leaves more brain capacity for the rest.
I seems to me that Ds3 is attempting to become a better pilot. Why is it that instructors & would be "advisers" are constantly trying to put down anyone with a dream by ramming it down our throats that this or that is not the way to do things?
I had an instructor sit with me once (no tailwheel sig so not PIC) as I was making what I thought was a reasonable approach to my home strip, he pulled the throttle at the base leg turn & asked "are we going to make it?"---"No we're in the barley". Lesson learned.
The brown wallet is not the end for me & doubtless many others. I just wish more instructors would give us credit for that.

[thing]

The brown wallet is not the end for me & doubtless many others. I just wish more instructors would give us credit for that.

:D:D:D

Mind you, I can't complain about the guys at our place, no one has ever said 'You can't do that.' Probably because I have the sense not to take on more than I can handle in my newbie clothes.

One thing that does annoy me intensely, and I know it's meant with the best intentions is when you may be walking for a flight to a smallish strip and it's a bit blowy, you always get the 'Be careful, don't bend it'

Well thank God you said that, I was going to fly all the way there inverted and then do a knife edge through the hangar doors but now I'll be careful.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that you misunderstood me Crash1.

I was simply saying that the suggestion that learning primarily from a short grass strip will make you a better pilot is probably untrue. There are some specific skill issues associated with both that environment, and the busy "towered" environment, that are different.

My argument is that the better pilot is one who has significant experience of both environments, not just one of them.

From his response, I think that Ds3 got my point.

IMHO flying on autopilot for 1hr is far less tiring than driving for 3hrs

For me personally, flying manually in IMC for an hour is still less tiring than driving for 3 !


G

[peterh337]

On a wider topic, I cannot help wondering whether some of the instructors working in the PPL field are real or fakes.

Time and time again (and I am really not referring to anything currently on p p r u n e) one sees posts like "how do I fly to Bournemouth; it's in controlled airspace". One should not jump on the poster, obviously, but how do the instructors manage to hang in there? The ones responsible for this kind of inability to go anywhere evidently don't give a flying **** about what value for money the punter gets for his £10000 or whatever :ugh:

If you do a PPL in the USA, you can fly from A to B in the USA. OK, I know they have a more unified airspace and ATS system than the mess we have here, but the difference is no more than a day's ground briefing. Why can't UK instructors train to the same standard? A UK PPL holder should be able to plan and execute a flight from A to B anywhere in the UK, and if he can't then he shouldn't have a PPL - or his instructor should have his FI pulled.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree it's a problem Peter. I'll offer a couple of opinions.

(1) Too many instructors have never done any real A-B flying. They have probably spent years flying around the same small patch, and given how very badly they are paid, they certainly don't have the spare cash to go off on the sort of long trip you and I regularly enjoy.

(2) Flying schools are not teaching people to fly. They are teaching people to pass the test. The difference is marked and important - if they know that examiner X prefers route Y, then the school will simply not spend a students money how to fly to Z.

Not satisfactory, and probably best solved by moving away from the school model to a truer club environment where people help each other out and students or instructors actually use aeroplanes as god intended - do to fun stuff over long distances, rather than short fixed routes flyable within an hour and coming back to your start point.

G

[Crash one]

I would also agree with that.
My experience of my nav training 2006/7 was 29 hrs of 1hr navex's, never got lost, never gotten lost by the instructors. Being mathematically inclined, plogs were never a problem, very seldom (twice I recall) routed through controlled airspace.
Sent solo without having stalled the a/c, had to ask if I could stall the thing just to "see" it's characteristics, did them on gliders years ago so not a problem, but PPL training???
I much prefered the tailwheel differences at an FTO, "There's a PA28 just left the airfield, he is heading this way, find him, get on his tail & stay there!". Good exercise in handling, lookout, sit awareness & such but not a lot of use in landing the tailwheel! (Yes we could have shot him down).

[peterh337]

I agree with 1) but 2) is more of a mystery to me.

I know IR training is done virtually absolutely on the "examiner routes" only, but there is a reason for that: a lack of choice of destinations while keeping the IRT down to something like 2hrs, beyond which the pilot (hand flying mostly with the screens up) will be too knackered.

But is that the case in the PPL? There is usually a lot of "slack" in the 45hrs (which very few people do anyway; most take 50-70) and some bigger trips could be done. After all, it does not require any extra flying skills. Flying is the same everywhere.

Perhaps the bigger reason is the lack of any formal ground school, so what there is gets blown on the circular slide rule, and some exam preparation. Not on operational stuff like how to plan a trip somewhere.

[FANS]

There is a real issue with people being wary of actually using their PPL, especially to actually go anywhere for a real purpose, like business/visiting friends.

The fixation is on getting students through their PPL course, which is completely understandable given the number of students trying to get through in lowish hours.

Is there a small gap in the market for the points being questioned here.

Lastly, I wouldn't underestimate the tiredness factor. It's fine once you've been doing it a while but for a new PPL, the first few trips will be hard work.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is an FAA syllabus I've seen which proposes long interesting trips as a way to teach a PPL, and it makes perfect sense to me. They call it "Scenario Based Training" - a bit of googling will show some discussions on it, although I can't seem to find the original FAA document any more.

I know of only one UK school doing that - London Airsports centre offer a big chunk of the NPPL(M) touring Europe in the course of a week under the brand "Tour and Train". A lot more fun, and arguably better learning as you say.

But seems to be rather out of the comfort zone of most GA schools - and more's the pity.

G

[Crash one]

Is there a small gap in the market for the points being questioned here.


:ok:

The LAA run courses by instructors for pretty much anything you may ask for. Probably not for the club rented spam can driver however.
Perhaps an idea for disgruntled flying instructors to investigate.

[peterh337]

There is an FAA syllabus I've seen which proposes long interesting trips as a way to teach a PPL, and it makes perfect sense to me. They call it "Scenario Based Training" - a bit of googling will show some discussions on it, although I can't seem to find the original FAA document any more.

The FAA was playing with that several years ago, IIRC. They found they could teach a complete PPL/IR, 100% dual (no solo), in something like 50hrs.

Some people in the business were unhappy about it (e.g. the DPE I had for the FAA CPL) but didn't give any good reasons. One problem I could see is that the total times were below ICAO requirements, which are something like 80-90hrs for the PPL+IR.

I certainly think the PPL should be taught (after the initial basic flying exercises) as scenario based, so you are doing actual trips.

It would make it more expensive though.

[dont overfil]

I suppose I was lucky as my instructor was an experienced pilot who instructed for fun. He was also a friend so we did quite a few cross country trips where I soon learnt that if I really wanted to go places, doing it with a chart and stopwatch was going to be too much hard work.

As soon as possible I added an IMC and night rating which I consider essential to get any kind of dispatch reliability.

However I must agree with Peter and others on here that the real issue then was fatigue. I regularly do 3-4 hour flights and I find them surprisingly tiring even with an autopilot. The thought of then then doing any work never mind the possibility of returning the same day does not appeal.

It may work for you if your commute is 1-1.5 hours.

D.O.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The FAA was playing with that several years ago, IIRC. They found they could teach a complete PPL/IR, 100% dual (no solo), in something like 50hrs.

Some people in the business were unhappy about it (e.g. the DPE I had for the FAA CPL) but didn't give any good reasons. One problem I could see is that the total times were below ICAO requirements, which are something like 80-90hrs for the PPL+IR.

I certainly think the PPL should be taught (after the initial basic flying exercises) as scenario based, so you are doing actual trips.

It would make it more expensive though.

So add in the solo, and a bit of consolidation, and everybody's had a whole lot more fun, and ICAO minima are met.

I really can't see the issue. I'd quite enjoy a chance to try teaching like that myself. Maybe I should - no reaon I can't deliver an NPPL(M)-->NPPL(SSEA) upgrade that way if I have a student interested. [Actually, to a large extent I already have, I just didn't call it that.]

G

[Grob Queen]

Sorry, I know the conversation has moved on! But to back track to the grass (pun unintentional!) strip issue.

Ds3 - It sounds like you do have a very challenging airfield. BUt at least it should mean that you are much more at ease with obstacles on the approach/take off than someone like me who is learning with a flat, clear approach off all runways...and an airfield landmark which sticks out a mile accross the flat lands of Lincolnshire!

My issues with the grass strip are that

A) its shorter than the tarmac (but I accept this is good for the short field take off)
b) its sure bumpy! so speeds are quciker
c) it has a nightmare threshold indicator which I nearly landed on top of :\

Our grass strip is within the circuit and if anything, the RT has to be even sharper as you need to sometimes cut accross traffic using 26 tarmac to use 26 grass. but that having been said, woe betide anyone who doesn't have crisp RT at our airfield anyway ;)


you always get the 'Be careful, don't bend it'


I get that comment too...but from our club's pint of view...they speak from experience and my track record :ouch:

Ref INstructors and teaching.
I read this part of the thread with interest. We have a number of extremely experienced RAF instructors who are rewarded for their endeavours through SCT, and are really doing it for the fun and satisfaction of taking someone (like me) from compete novice to (hopefully!) pilot. Our club is exactly as Ghengis states:

a truer club environment where people help each other out and students or instructors actually use aeroplanes as god intended - do to fun stuff over long distances, rather than short fixed routes flyable within an hour and coming back to your start point.

Everyone has more fun and enjoys the thrill of flying rather than maybe the commercial sausage factory of a perhaps more usual Flying School (although I have no experience of the flying school environment, only what I read here)

We also do not ahev any formal ground school, but what we do have are instructors who will sit down and go over anything which the student wants. from my point of view we have so far discussed Met, Nav and flight planning (and Tech over a drink ;) )that is not the end, we will undoubtedly discuss all these and more in the future.

I guess I am very lucky in having an instructor who is a very experienced pilot and also which I think is just as important, a friend. We have fun in the cockpit and after flying, yet still of course take matters seriously when necessary and when briefing/debriefing. My very first Chipmunk instructor is a very good friend of mine and incredibly experienced so I guess I have been fortunate in having the best chaps teach me who enjoy instructing more as a hobby than work or hours building. Surely we cannot be the only club with great instructors?!

Oh, and Ghengis...point taken about the PPrune name!! As old Capt Mainwaring would say "I wondered how long it would take you to spot that" ;)

[peterh337]

Unless you live near Brighton (http://www.realbrighton.com/company/Brighton-Pride/photos), in which case matters are, shall we say, less than deterministic ;)

[Crash one]

My very first Chipmunk instructor

Grob Queen?
I am impressed, I tried one of those for tailwheel differences after C152. My landings were, I would say, sub optimal & mostly a commitee decision. Must try again soon.
Sounds like a good club.
Change your name to Chipmunk chick??

[Grob Queen]

Crash...

EXCELLENT club! The RAF's first flying club formed in 1960, and one of the first Club aircraft was a Tiger Moth!

Chippies...ahhh if only, I have suggested we swap our two Grobs for Chipmunks...my instructor totally agrees....:)

My very first trip in a light aircraft was not at my current club. It was said friend taking me up in one of his units Chippies for his currency and a bit of fun for me. BUT he did let me loop, roll and land it a couple of times (smoother than I land a Grob, and on tarmac as it happens) ...then I was totally smitten...!! :D :)

[thing]

I remember the Moth at Cranwell, bright yellow at the time. Had my first flight from there in a Rollason Condor a loooong time ago.

[Crash one]

GQ
Curiously my first flight in anything at all was at the time a fully operational RAF trainer. Chipmunk. Forget where, but somewhere near you, Safron Walden rings a bell, it was ~1954/5.
My first solo was a T21, RAF Hawkinge -56. All with the ATC. Happy days. Gliding Instructors were all ex wartime jockeys looking for something to fly.
Watching one of them "borrow" a visiting Chipmunk, screamed across the grass, pulled up into a loop & touched down at the bottom of it. The visiting pilot went white.:D

[BobD]

DS3, I have been following this thread with interest. I tend to be more of a 'lurker' than a poster, but you might be interested in my experience. I gained my PPL this time last year from a school in Florida, in just above the minimum hours possible. I had done 5 hours training in the UK to familiarise myself with the PA-28 before I went. Once I got the brown book, I have looked on it as a license to learn.

When I got back to the UK, I had a couple more lessons to familiarise myself with the UK RT. I then had a flight with an Instructor to a short grass strip (the runways in the USA are long and hard). I then found an outfit that would let me hire an aircraft when I visit Spain and Portugal (in Portimao), and have done a few trips from there. Following this, I did a few local trips in hired aircraft, but wanted more, so I explored the possibility of flying on business trips. Since then I have flown from Gamston to Haverfordwest, and from Gamston to Bristol Filton, both times on business (the first in a hired C-152, the second in my shared C-172). I was in the fortunate position both times of not having a deadline to meet, so I could pick the days when the WX Forecast was good. One day was last September, the second was last month. Both trips stretched my capabilities, but life is boring without challenges to rise to, and experiences to savour.

For some, a few local circuits every now and then is sufficient, but I want more from my flying than this. I am currently training for an IMC (whilst I still can), and after that - well I don't know yet, but it will be more than one hour jollies in the local area ( and I am not knocking those who get their satisfaction from this).

So my advice is go for it. Once you have your PPL, the world is your lobster (to quote Mr. Daley). Let us know how you get on.

[Ds3]

GQ, it's good fun indeed, the IAIP states the following info:

06/Approach 24/Take-off Tree 188
24/Approach 06/Take-off Bush 102, Pylon 246
33/Approach 15/Take-off Tree 140

Remarks: Line of HT cables 130-160 ft aal 230-261 ft amsl running north-northwest/south-southeast 0.49 nm

Remarks: Runway 06 threshold displaced by 467 m. Runway 24 threshold displaced by 259 m. Runway 33 threshold displaced by 127 m.



BobD, thank you for sharing your experiences, it's very useful hearing from other people who have gone throught the same thought process as me. I'm not completely sure how far I intend to take my piloting yet - for now it's just PPL and enjoy some nice summer days in the local area, taking trips to more scenic parts fo the country, and possibly the odd business trip. There are so many options over and above this, so I'm just taking it easy and seeing how things develop for now!

[MichaelJP59]

I also use my aircraft for the occasional business trip, though, like BobD, they tend to be non-critical trips.

I don't think I'd use it for an important meeting though unless the weather was guaranteed as I find it's difficult not to have the return trip on your mind if there's any doubt about rain timings and so on.

Unfortunately most of my meetings currently are in central London, which is highly inconvenient by GA given that I live next to a mainline station.

[Grob Queen]

Thing -ahhh, the Condor that was with the Club '70-'74 G-ASTW? I'm writing a history of our club at the mo - hence my knowledge of silly facts!

Crash1...NICE.....and a great introduction to flying! I think if I ahd landed off my loop, I think that it would not only have given m friend kittens...but also the goodly villagers of Barney somthring to think about too! :)

DS3, sounds like you have some interesting obstacles there... sounds like excellent training!