Drop Out Rates post PPL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting down to FTO where the aircraft was booked in not-so-great weather; being told to take it up or cough up for a cancellation fee;
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlybird wrote a very good reply to a similar topic a while back. Can't remember the date or thread title, but I think she addressed the reasons that people give up in an interesting manner
ariel
ariel
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shouted at/humiliated by ATC for asking for clarification of an instruction (yes, it really happened and I actually had an instructor beside me at the time who didn't understand what we'd been told either).
More on thread how about keeping the interest up by trying different a/c types, taildraggers, aeros, STOL, trying out farm strips?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on thread how about keeping the interest up by trying different a/c types, taildraggers, aeros, STOL, trying out farm strips?
drop outs
in order to understand the dropout rate you might want to start by looking at the reasons people get a pilots licence. In my own case it all started with a trial lesson in a helicopter. I had never been in a helicopter before although I could fly a model one competently, the first lesson was awesome. I could see how easy the instructor made it look and then found out that it is nearly impossible to hover steadily. I had to have another go, I was determined to get the hang of it. One lesson lead to another and eventually I got to go solo and then went on to pass the GFT and get a licence.
I didn't set out to get a licence it just ended up that way. Keeping it up was more of a challlenge though. As someone else noted, to hire a school flying machine you need to book 10-14 days ahead. That far out the weather will be a total unknown, work commitments may have you sent abroad, domestic issues might make it difficult to get out or you might just be overworked and not have the powers of concentration to be safe in the air. Add to that the need to get a check ride if you have not flown for a while and it all gets a bit too difficult
I kept my licence for 3 years but the year of foot and mouth had too few flying events and I let my licence lapse.
I took a year out but found that I was still "walking with my eyes turned skywards" so I thought about the situation. I decided that I needed a flying machine I could get access to at short notice and that I could take away for as long as I wanted. The helicopter is the best toy in the box but way beyond my budget. In the end I bought the Rans S6 and got some conversion training. Good move.
I do know at least one person who owns an aircraft who still barely flys enough to keep his licence. He comes to all of our club meetings but just doesn't seem to get enough buzz from flying to make the treck to the field and rig his aircraft very often. I guess it just doesn't produce the same urge in everyone.
Andrew
I didn't set out to get a licence it just ended up that way. Keeping it up was more of a challlenge though. As someone else noted, to hire a school flying machine you need to book 10-14 days ahead. That far out the weather will be a total unknown, work commitments may have you sent abroad, domestic issues might make it difficult to get out or you might just be overworked and not have the powers of concentration to be safe in the air. Add to that the need to get a check ride if you have not flown for a while and it all gets a bit too difficult
I kept my licence for 3 years but the year of foot and mouth had too few flying events and I let my licence lapse.
I took a year out but found that I was still "walking with my eyes turned skywards" so I thought about the situation. I decided that I needed a flying machine I could get access to at short notice and that I could take away for as long as I wanted. The helicopter is the best toy in the box but way beyond my budget. In the end I bought the Rans S6 and got some conversion training. Good move.
I do know at least one person who owns an aircraft who still barely flys enough to keep his licence. He comes to all of our club meetings but just doesn't seem to get enough buzz from flying to make the treck to the field and rig his aircraft very often. I guess it just doesn't produce the same urge in everyone.
Andrew
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 90% figure has not to my knowledge ever been publicly stated by the CAA. Whatever it is, they obviously do have it but keep quiet. I have seen various figures around this area (e.g. 95% giving up before reaching 100hrs total time, 90% not renewing their PPLs i.e. packing up within 2 years) and nobody has ever offered any numbers to dispute them. I think it's fair to say that anyone who has done a PPL in a typical UK school scene and has gone on to hang around as an active flyer afterwards will confirm that most of his/hers fellow PPC graduates are seen a few more times at pub get-togethers and then never again. So to me a 90%-95% figure seems completely plausible, and as I say nobody has ever countered it with numbers. And somebody from the CAA easily could, anonymously but authoritatively enough.
The CAA did once state that 75% pack up with less than 10 hours flown post-PPL, if I remember it correctly from the presentation.
The CAA has a licence issue data website which shows pretty revealing (utterly damning, more like) figures but the figures stated above cannot be directly derived from it, at least not without making some (reasonable) assumptions about the total unexpired PPL population and then some statistical analysis.
Englishal - today, on the train, I picked up the current Pilot mag. In an article written by a young-20s aspiring JAA ATP, much p1ss is taken out of the JAA ATPL exams, how robotic the questions are, and how priceless is an unofficially circulating list of exam questions which "just happened to be remembered" by past students. It made me laugh, having read so many criticisms of the FAA IR ground school, and having done it myself recently. 85% after 6 months' revision, and almost every question was relevant to real flying.
But let's get back to the PPL; that's what most people drop out of. Very few make it to any sort of IR, and the IMCR (10% of new PPLs get one) dropout appears comparable to the PPL dropout, for I believe the same reasons.
The posts already here have covered the specifics I would list, pretty well.
Crap PPL syllabus resulting in lack of confidence for actually going somewhere is a good one. Schools don't help by discouraging experienced PPLs hanging around (they don't want their students subsidising some PPL's flying). This one would be really easy to fix.
But I'd like to mention a few basic things.
I don't think the CAA is to blame much. Their fault is omission rather than commission. What they could have done is MODERNISE the whole scene, and that I believe is the #1 problem.
30 years ago, a C172 didn't look too bad, because if you had a Vauxhall Viva you were doing really well. A lot of cars were held together with Plastic Padding. Today, standards are a lot higher. But flying has got stuck in the 1970s rut, with the same old decrepit planes and decrepit attitudes.
Much increased wealth means there are a lot more people who are financially independent yet live alone. (Much of the massive new housing requirement in the S East is due to this group). They drive £30k cars - the roads are full of them. These should be GA's #1 market. But these people don't like sitting at home alone and know they have to make an effort to get out. So, where do they go and where do they spend their dosh? They spend it where they will have some social fun, of course!
The men go where there are women, OBVIOUSLY!!. But most women find the GA scene quite unattractive (I am going to get flamed by the five women who live on this website but hey...) and anybody involved in leisure management knows that with no women there won't be many men, and with no women there won't be many women too, because women are usually quite social. Which means very little money will be spent. Familiar?? The typical UK GA airfield is falling apart. With the exception of turboprop-loaded places like Cranfield, it's obvious that very little money finds its way in.
The CAA could have forcefully modernised things, but they would have come up against the only lobby which they listen to: the flying schools. Collectively, these don't give a damn about flying; their job is to collect £5k-£10k from every punter. The last thing they want to do is spend money on nice planes, teaching navigation with nice shiny GPS units which tell the pilot exactly where he is. Anyway, the CAA GA Dept is a bunch of retired RAF navigators who wouldn't see the problem if it poked them in the eye.
GA as we know it will be dead within 30 years. Except for an ageing group of pilots flying old bits of metal from farm strips owned by an old mate of theirs. An outsider will not get in - just like at present really.
There are some great Permit planes about, but once the main web of GA airfields starts to disappear, they will have nowhere to fly from/to. Once Avgas gets rare, that's the end for certified GA anyway.
Anybody who doesn't believe me, fly a little past the local burger bar. Fly to Spain, Italy, Greece. These places, rich enough countries and with usually fantastic weather, are almost utterly devoid of GA. It shows how thin a thread the whole things hangs on. It's pretty easy to get a situation where a whole rich country contains 200 GA planes (and another 200 bizjets).
I don't see any way to change anything. One could set up a very successful training operation, in the right location, with modern planes, and paying no more than lip service to the CAA syllabus. Training people to do modern flying, with modern flight planning, and to really be able to go places.
With the right marketing one could also do a successful aerobatic school, I think.
But a successful local business isn't going to do the wider issue much good.
There is a group of IFR pilots who have successfully moved on, but they are too small to matter. Maybe 100-200 in the UK. They got through their PPLs (often done wholly in the USA, with the IR too) and quickly got into ownership or into groups, and they don't look back. But that needs an appropriate budget, and that's usually missing.
The CAA did once state that 75% pack up with less than 10 hours flown post-PPL, if I remember it correctly from the presentation.
The CAA has a licence issue data website which shows pretty revealing (utterly damning, more like) figures but the figures stated above cannot be directly derived from it, at least not without making some (reasonable) assumptions about the total unexpired PPL population and then some statistical analysis.
Englishal - today, on the train, I picked up the current Pilot mag. In an article written by a young-20s aspiring JAA ATP, much p1ss is taken out of the JAA ATPL exams, how robotic the questions are, and how priceless is an unofficially circulating list of exam questions which "just happened to be remembered" by past students. It made me laugh, having read so many criticisms of the FAA IR ground school, and having done it myself recently. 85% after 6 months' revision, and almost every question was relevant to real flying.
But let's get back to the PPL; that's what most people drop out of. Very few make it to any sort of IR, and the IMCR (10% of new PPLs get one) dropout appears comparable to the PPL dropout, for I believe the same reasons.
The posts already here have covered the specifics I would list, pretty well.
Crap PPL syllabus resulting in lack of confidence for actually going somewhere is a good one. Schools don't help by discouraging experienced PPLs hanging around (they don't want their students subsidising some PPL's flying). This one would be really easy to fix.
But I'd like to mention a few basic things.
I don't think the CAA is to blame much. Their fault is omission rather than commission. What they could have done is MODERNISE the whole scene, and that I believe is the #1 problem.
30 years ago, a C172 didn't look too bad, because if you had a Vauxhall Viva you were doing really well. A lot of cars were held together with Plastic Padding. Today, standards are a lot higher. But flying has got stuck in the 1970s rut, with the same old decrepit planes and decrepit attitudes.
Much increased wealth means there are a lot more people who are financially independent yet live alone. (Much of the massive new housing requirement in the S East is due to this group). They drive £30k cars - the roads are full of them. These should be GA's #1 market. But these people don't like sitting at home alone and know they have to make an effort to get out. So, where do they go and where do they spend their dosh? They spend it where they will have some social fun, of course!
The men go where there are women, OBVIOUSLY!!. But most women find the GA scene quite unattractive (I am going to get flamed by the five women who live on this website but hey...) and anybody involved in leisure management knows that with no women there won't be many men, and with no women there won't be many women too, because women are usually quite social. Which means very little money will be spent. Familiar?? The typical UK GA airfield is falling apart. With the exception of turboprop-loaded places like Cranfield, it's obvious that very little money finds its way in.
The CAA could have forcefully modernised things, but they would have come up against the only lobby which they listen to: the flying schools. Collectively, these don't give a damn about flying; their job is to collect £5k-£10k from every punter. The last thing they want to do is spend money on nice planes, teaching navigation with nice shiny GPS units which tell the pilot exactly where he is. Anyway, the CAA GA Dept is a bunch of retired RAF navigators who wouldn't see the problem if it poked them in the eye.
GA as we know it will be dead within 30 years. Except for an ageing group of pilots flying old bits of metal from farm strips owned by an old mate of theirs. An outsider will not get in - just like at present really.
There are some great Permit planes about, but once the main web of GA airfields starts to disappear, they will have nowhere to fly from/to. Once Avgas gets rare, that's the end for certified GA anyway.
Anybody who doesn't believe me, fly a little past the local burger bar. Fly to Spain, Italy, Greece. These places, rich enough countries and with usually fantastic weather, are almost utterly devoid of GA. It shows how thin a thread the whole things hangs on. It's pretty easy to get a situation where a whole rich country contains 200 GA planes (and another 200 bizjets).
I don't see any way to change anything. One could set up a very successful training operation, in the right location, with modern planes, and paying no more than lip service to the CAA syllabus. Training people to do modern flying, with modern flight planning, and to really be able to go places.
With the right marketing one could also do a successful aerobatic school, I think.
But a successful local business isn't going to do the wider issue much good.
There is a group of IFR pilots who have successfully moved on, but they are too small to matter. Maybe 100-200 in the UK. They got through their PPLs (often done wholly in the USA, with the IR too) and quickly got into ownership or into groups, and they don't look back. But that needs an appropriate budget, and that's usually missing.
Last edited by IO540; 19th Nov 2005 at 07:27.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA could have forcefully modernised things, but they would have come up against the only lobby which they listen to: the flying schools. Collectively, these don't give a damn about flying; their job is to collect £5k-£10k from every punter. The last thing they want to do is spend money on nice planes, teaching navigation with nice shiny GPS units which tell the pilot exactly where he is. Anyway, the CAA GA Dept is a bunch of retired RAF navigators who wouldn't see the problem if it poked them in the eye.
I know for a fact that most investment bods hear the word 'aviation' and run away screaming! It doesn't help that for almost 20 years there was virtually no new a/c being produced, due totally to the fact that PPL's were killing themselves and their families were trying to blame the manufacturers despite it invariably being pilot error.
We don't teach students using GPS since it rightly isn't in the syllabus. I'm quite happy to teach it after licence issue (in fact I'm just organising an evening talk all about GPS and other modern aids for all our members.) but there is no way I would let any student use GPS on nav ex's. The basic principles MUST be learnt first of all.
Your example about Spain, Greece and Italy isn't quite accurate. There are many socio-economic reasons for why there isn't much GA. Greece is not a particularily rich country nor was Spain 20 years ago, Italy does have some GA, not an enormous amount, but it isn't a barren desert, None have the long tradition of GA flying that we have in this country.
Always laying the blame for the state of GA at flying schools is a tired and inaccurate argument. I know for a fact that we are actively trying to push everything forward. I certainly use some of the criticisms heard on here and try to find ways making sure that our members can't have the same thoughts.
I actually think that the potential death of AVGAS will in the long term be a good thing. We have for too long been stuck with aged and decrepit pieces of tat and only now are we starting to see some real alternatives coming onto the market. I have flown a number of AVTUR powered light a/c and hopefully will be getting one soon, finally it is starting to make economic sense to spend the money on new machines, before it would have been financial suicide and don't forget most schools aren't run for altruistic reasons, but as a business that makes money.
If you want things to change, do something about it, don't just blame flying schools many of whom are trying to make things better.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal - today, on the train, I picked up the current Pilot mag. In an article written by a young-20s aspiring JAA ATP, much p1ss is taken out of the JAA ATPL exams, how robotic the questions are, and how priceless is an unofficially circulating list of exam questions which "just happened to be remembered" by past students. It made me laugh, having read so many criticisms of the FAA IR ground school, and having done it myself recently. 85% after 6 months' revision, and almost every question was relevant to real flying.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I did use the word "collectively" Also I am aware from your other posts that my comment would not have applied to your business.
You are right about the present lack of capital, of course, but if the punters were there there would be no problem with investment.
As for the decrepit sullabus, that's an example of where the CAA could have done something useful. Other little bits, like permitting training in Permit planes and off unlicensed airfields, would have helped too.
The death of avgas would indeed be a good thing if it wasn't for the fact that most of the stuff we fly is made in the USA, whose manufacturers don't give a damn about markets outside the USA.
I did use the word "collectively"
Also I am aware from your other posts that my comment would not have applied to your business.You are right about the present lack of capital, of course, but if the punters were there there would be no problem with investment.
As for the decrepit sullabus, that's an example of where the CAA could have done something useful. Other little bits, like permitting training in Permit planes and off unlicensed airfields, would have helped too.
The death of avgas would indeed be a good thing if it wasn't for the fact that most of the stuff we fly is made in the USA, whose manufacturers don't give a damn about markets outside the USA.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The use of permit a/c or unlicenced fields for training would actually be a great boon to the GA world as a whole.
This year I have been fortunate to both fly and teach in a few different PFA types and overall I was very impressed with them.
Luckily each time I was flying with the owner and builder, which certainly made a difference to their knowledge of the machine. I certainly didn't have to bash them around the head repeatedly to get them to read the POH!
However, it did give rise to the utterly ludicrous situation that whilst I could teach on it and get paid, when it came time to do the test an examier whilst able to perform the test, wasn't allowed to get paid for it!! I love these idiotic rules!
The public transport category that we have to keep our a/c on is misleading in my eyes, since flight training isn't public transport. Every flight we do is for training purposes or general hire to a licenced pilot, so why must the a/c be on a PT category C of A? Maybe there is a case for changing the categories?
Mind you having seen the state of some a/c that are supposedly on PT C of A's then that may not be such a good idea......
I still don't think the syllabus is decrepit. It (should) ensure that you can fly using the most basic of principles, remember many PPL's aren't interested in traveling vast distances IFR, but are perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation. The syllabus must reflect the needs and desires of all pilots, not just the long haul brigade.
At the end of the day, the PPL is just a licence to continue learning. Just because you have the baby poo brown book doesn't mean you can't continue to recieve instruction on the more technically advanced stuff. Maybe we should offer some more add on courses for people.
This year I have been fortunate to both fly and teach in a few different PFA types and overall I was very impressed with them.
Luckily each time I was flying with the owner and builder, which certainly made a difference to their knowledge of the machine. I certainly didn't have to bash them around the head repeatedly to get them to read the POH!
However, it did give rise to the utterly ludicrous situation that whilst I could teach on it and get paid, when it came time to do the test an examier whilst able to perform the test, wasn't allowed to get paid for it!! I love these idiotic rules!
The public transport category that we have to keep our a/c on is misleading in my eyes, since flight training isn't public transport. Every flight we do is for training purposes or general hire to a licenced pilot, so why must the a/c be on a PT category C of A? Maybe there is a case for changing the categories?
Mind you having seen the state of some a/c that are supposedly on PT C of A's then that may not be such a good idea......
I still don't think the syllabus is decrepit. It (should) ensure that you can fly using the most basic of principles, remember many PPL's aren't interested in traveling vast distances IFR, but are perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation. The syllabus must reflect the needs and desires of all pilots, not just the long haul brigade.
At the end of the day, the PPL is just a licence to continue learning. Just because you have the baby poo brown book doesn't mean you can't continue to recieve instruction on the more technically advanced stuff. Maybe we should offer some more add on courses for people.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I would fully acknowledge that
"perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation"
is true and there is nothing whatever wrong with it, I'd suggest that only a tiny % of the participants in the aforementioned side of GA will hang in there for very long, which takes us back to the context of the thread: why do people drop out.
Of all the people who would (given the money, time, etc) like to learn to fly, the long term satisfaction of bimbling about is pretty minimal. A few flights, with one's mates, then a few more flights (without one's mates), and for most the novel way of spending £100/hour gets a bit tedious.
All the time one accepts that bimbling about on nice days, without going anywhere too far, is just fine, one will be looking at a massive attrition rate.
Which doesn't matter, provided that new punters continue to pile into the training machine at a rate of thousands a year, each one dropping £8000 or so at the local airfield as they pass through.
Understandably, that's how the training industry has always judged success - how many punters spend how much money. What they do afterwards doesn't matter.
What I am saying is that to lift GA out of the rut, one needs to reduce the attrition rate, and that can't be done unless one does something beyond just running the sausage factory.
Even a very small reduction in the attrition rate, from say 90% to say 70%, would dramatically increase the number of participants in GA. It would result in an even bigger increase in the number of people who can spend some real money because they are the ones who have deserted it in the very recent decades.
More courses are all very well but without extra privileges almost nobody will turn up. The converse also applies: look at the absolutely massive amount of work, time (years), money, hassle, and more money some people put in just to get a FAA PPL/IR and what is it all for? Basically, just the ability to fly on an IFR clearance outside the UK.
"perfectly content with bouncing around in something like a tigermoth or cub which has minimal instrumentation"
is true and there is nothing whatever wrong with it, I'd suggest that only a tiny % of the participants in the aforementioned side of GA will hang in there for very long, which takes us back to the context of the thread: why do people drop out.
Of all the people who would (given the money, time, etc) like to learn to fly, the long term satisfaction of bimbling about is pretty minimal. A few flights, with one's mates, then a few more flights (without one's mates), and for most the novel way of spending £100/hour gets a bit tedious.
All the time one accepts that bimbling about on nice days, without going anywhere too far, is just fine, one will be looking at a massive attrition rate.
Which doesn't matter, provided that new punters continue to pile into the training machine at a rate of thousands a year, each one dropping £8000 or so at the local airfield as they pass through.
Understandably, that's how the training industry has always judged success - how many punters spend how much money. What they do afterwards doesn't matter.
What I am saying is that to lift GA out of the rut, one needs to reduce the attrition rate, and that can't be done unless one does something beyond just running the sausage factory.
Even a very small reduction in the attrition rate, from say 90% to say 70%, would dramatically increase the number of participants in GA. It would result in an even bigger increase in the number of people who can spend some real money because they are the ones who have deserted it in the very recent decades.
More courses are all very well but without extra privileges almost nobody will turn up. The converse also applies: look at the absolutely massive amount of work, time (years), money, hassle, and more money some people put in just to get a FAA PPL/IR and what is it all for? Basically, just the ability to fly on an IFR clearance outside the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be able to have greater privileges, in consequence you need greater training. This costs more money, therefore instead of the cost of a PPL being 6000 it becomes 10,000. Look how many PPL (H) holders there are..... Not many, mainly because of the cost.
I think we all want the same thing, more people flying. In economic terms, more people buying a/c and training, brings the costs down for all of us by economies of scale. This allows people to fly more often bringing the costs down even further etc. etc...
The comments about the FAA IR are very valid. Why is it that the Yanks can have a system that produces safe and competent IR holders, whereas we here in JAA land are hamstrung by utterly ridiculous hoops to jump through?
I think the CAA are missing a massive point here, instead of kicking up a stink about N reg a/c being used in the UK, why don't they look at the reasons why they are being used here in preference to G plates.
Some of our club members have an Arrow that they keep on the american register as one of the group uses the machine to travel all over Europe in. It used to be a british reg a/c, but due to the complexity of getting an IR they went through the entire rigmarole of getting it changed over. An absolutely mental situation if you ask me.
Back to the point however.....
Some people do just like to 'bimble' about and that's fine, but many folks do want to use an a/c as more of a tool rather than as a pure plaything. We have to learn how to accomodate everyone into clubs and schools, at the moment I think we personally do that pretty well, but the vast majority of schools aren't interested in PPL's since there business is flight training NOT a/c hire.
This will not change, so the only other option is for other facilities to start up. We are one of those and are seeing real progress at the moment with members from every other flying club/school joining us. It's great for us and if you haven't got a set up like that in your area, why don't others look at setting something similar up. All you really need is some decent a/c and a couple of enthusiatic FI's to help keep everything going.
I've seen how the cirrus group down south are operating and that is exactly the sort of model we are trying to emulate (albeit with our own differences).
If we can get the costs down far enough (certainly with some of our plans you'll be able to get something like a DA40 for around £60 an hour wet) and give people some back up and expand their horizons all in a social atmosphere, then hopefully we can start to turn around this trend of people leaving GA in droves.
We're doing our bit, how about everyone else?
I think we all want the same thing, more people flying. In economic terms, more people buying a/c and training, brings the costs down for all of us by economies of scale. This allows people to fly more often bringing the costs down even further etc. etc...
The comments about the FAA IR are very valid. Why is it that the Yanks can have a system that produces safe and competent IR holders, whereas we here in JAA land are hamstrung by utterly ridiculous hoops to jump through?
I think the CAA are missing a massive point here, instead of kicking up a stink about N reg a/c being used in the UK, why don't they look at the reasons why they are being used here in preference to G plates.
Some of our club members have an Arrow that they keep on the american register as one of the group uses the machine to travel all over Europe in. It used to be a british reg a/c, but due to the complexity of getting an IR they went through the entire rigmarole of getting it changed over. An absolutely mental situation if you ask me.
Back to the point however.....
Some people do just like to 'bimble' about and that's fine, but many folks do want to use an a/c as more of a tool rather than as a pure plaything. We have to learn how to accomodate everyone into clubs and schools, at the moment I think we personally do that pretty well, but the vast majority of schools aren't interested in PPL's since there business is flight training NOT a/c hire.
This will not change, so the only other option is for other facilities to start up. We are one of those and are seeing real progress at the moment with members from every other flying club/school joining us. It's great for us and if you haven't got a set up like that in your area, why don't others look at setting something similar up. All you really need is some decent a/c and a couple of enthusiatic FI's to help keep everything going.
I've seen how the cirrus group down south are operating and that is exactly the sort of model we are trying to emulate (albeit with our own differences).
If we can get the costs down far enough (certainly with some of our plans you'll be able to get something like a DA40 for around £60 an hour wet) and give people some back up and expand their horizons all in a social atmosphere, then hopefully we can start to turn around this trend of people leaving GA in droves.
We're doing our bit, how about everyone else?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think that the way to set up a successful operation is to go upmarket, in both aircraft and punters, and teach people to go places.
Except for a few aero operations, nobody has done it, to my knowledge.
It will cost more than a bog standard PPL, but money is not scarce in the West.
I have flown quite a long way with passengers and without the slightest doubt the thing which would induce somebody with the required liquidity, say £5000/year budget (but usually not a huge amount of time!) into training is the ability to do an easy 4hr flight to some place which would be barely driveable - even if you actually like driving which today very few do.
This doesn't mean IFR/airways. Unless one lives in Scotland, "decent distances" means going south of the UK, which in turn means the full IR and suddenly the whole thing becomes very very hard; far too time consuming for most people with any money (and the corresponding shortage of leisure time). Plus N-reg planes which are of no use to a school.
It's taken me 5yrs to (nearly) get there, between running a business etc.
One can fly VFR to Europe pretty well. One just needs to navigate as if one was doing it IFR and that is the key.
This means teaching the content of a PPL+IMCR as the basic unit. (which would give the pilot really useful UK privileges, and VMC on top privileges elsewhere) Plus serious planning methods, internet based weather, internet flight plan filing, flight planning on a laptop. With modern planes one could not avoid teaching the 3-letter navigation method
So, yes, more than 45hrs... But a LOT MORE FUN than the silly stupid useless CRAP-1 circular slide rule. Most people with more than 2 braincells, on seeing the slide rule promimently displayed for sale in the flying school reception glass cabinet, walk out politely smiling....
I do disagree with you on one point, SAS, and that is whether the PPL syllabus is adequate. A fresh PPL holder is left high and dry. It takes a LOT of determination to push oneself through to the next stage, and most never make it, keeping to short local flights on nice days, and giving up soon. I compare it to a windsurfing course on a little flat lake; very easy but the unavoidable next stage (the sea and having to do carve gybes) is awfully hard.
Except for a few aero operations, nobody has done it, to my knowledge.
It will cost more than a bog standard PPL, but money is not scarce in the West.
I have flown quite a long way with passengers and without the slightest doubt the thing which would induce somebody with the required liquidity, say £5000/year budget (but usually not a huge amount of time!) into training is the ability to do an easy 4hr flight to some place which would be barely driveable - even if you actually like driving which today very few do.
This doesn't mean IFR/airways. Unless one lives in Scotland, "decent distances" means going south of the UK, which in turn means the full IR and suddenly the whole thing becomes very very hard; far too time consuming for most people with any money (and the corresponding shortage of leisure time). Plus N-reg planes which are of no use to a school.
It's taken me 5yrs to (nearly) get there, between running a business etc.
One can fly VFR to Europe pretty well. One just needs to navigate as if one was doing it IFR and that is the key.
This means teaching the content of a PPL+IMCR as the basic unit. (which would give the pilot really useful UK privileges, and VMC on top privileges elsewhere) Plus serious planning methods, internet based weather, internet flight plan filing, flight planning on a laptop. With modern planes one could not avoid teaching the 3-letter navigation method
So, yes, more than 45hrs... But a LOT MORE FUN than the silly stupid useless CRAP-1 circular slide rule. Most people with more than 2 braincells, on seeing the slide rule promimently displayed for sale in the flying school reception glass cabinet, walk out politely smiling....
I do disagree with you on one point, SAS, and that is whether the PPL syllabus is adequate. A fresh PPL holder is left high and dry. It takes a LOT of determination to push oneself through to the next stage, and most never make it, keeping to short local flights on nice days, and giving up soon. I compare it to a windsurfing course on a little flat lake; very easy but the unavoidable next stage (the sea and having to do carve gybes) is awfully hard.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the freshly minted PPLs from a few years ago I can add some perspective to what is already an interesting debate, having just taken my first flight today in two and a half years.
What put me off two years ago was primarily the cost together with the weather combined with a lack of confidence which only comes with more hours which is expensive - catch 22. The other issue is the aircraft and at the risk of offending some people on here, a C-172 doesn't cut it for me as it looks like something out of the 1960s and to be frank doesn't look that safe. I know that last statement is irrational but that is how many people will look at it...
I've been bimbling round this week enjoying the fantastic weather so I booked to go up with an instructor today - result, I can still fly albeit a bit rusty but after 2.5 years I can still land an aircraft and I loved every minute of it until the invoice hit me at the end. Over £200.00 for less than two hours! At least the aircraft is modern, being a Katana which helps on one front but it is still a costly business.
Until modern aircraft are available en masse at reasonable rates then there will always be this wash out and although you cannot do anything about the weather, once rates are reasonable and hours can be accumulated then the confidence will increase and so on and so forth.
What put me off two years ago was primarily the cost together with the weather combined with a lack of confidence which only comes with more hours which is expensive - catch 22. The other issue is the aircraft and at the risk of offending some people on here, a C-172 doesn't cut it for me as it looks like something out of the 1960s and to be frank doesn't look that safe. I know that last statement is irrational but that is how many people will look at it...
I've been bimbling round this week enjoying the fantastic weather so I booked to go up with an instructor today - result, I can still fly albeit a bit rusty but after 2.5 years I can still land an aircraft and I loved every minute of it until the invoice hit me at the end. Over £200.00 for less than two hours! At least the aircraft is modern, being a Katana which helps on one front but it is still a costly business.
Until modern aircraft are available en masse at reasonable rates then there will always be this wash out and although you cannot do anything about the weather, once rates are reasonable and hours can be accumulated then the confidence will increase and so on and so forth.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sennadog
IMHO nobody trying to attract quality business would operate Cessnas. Or Pipers.
To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson, to the newcomer to aviation, the only difference between a Cessna and a washing machine is that the Cessna goes a lot faster.
Unfortunately there isn't a huge choice, in certified planes and preferably 4-seaters, if you want proven reliability.
IMHO nobody trying to attract quality business would operate Cessnas. Or Pipers.
To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson, to the newcomer to aviation, the only difference between a Cessna and a washing machine is that the Cessna goes a lot faster.
Unfortunately there isn't a huge choice, in certified planes and preferably 4-seaters, if you want proven reliability.
No wonder microlighting is flourishing.
Train at an unlicenced airfield.
Fly for 20 to 25 pounds per hour once qualified.
Fewer hours to get licence.
Lower training hourly rate.
Cheaper medical (free in some cases).
Cheaper aircraft even during training.
Plenty of places to go, many farm strips don't charge for landings.
No need to buy epaulettes or backless gloves.
The comradery has to be experienced to be believed.
In answer to a point made by a previous poster, I found that the skills I was taught during my training for PPL(H) have been entirely adequate for actually getting into a flying machine and going places.
Andrew
Train at an unlicenced airfield.
Fly for 20 to 25 pounds per hour once qualified.
Fewer hours to get licence.
Lower training hourly rate.
Cheaper medical (free in some cases).
Cheaper aircraft even during training.
Plenty of places to go, many farm strips don't charge for landings.
No need to buy epaulettes or backless gloves.
The comradery has to be experienced to be believed.
In answer to a point made by a previous poster, I found that the skills I was taught during my training for PPL(H) have been entirely adequate for actually getting into a flying machine and going places.
Andrew
I got my PPL about a year ago (To be more accurate I was up to 200 hours over a decade ago, but practical considerations got in the way and I had to start again.)
After a long break it was still the same aeroplanes, but older and tattier. No-one should be forced to use a machine that has magneto ignition and uses a proportion of its expensive fuel to cool the antiquated engine. Sensible people would not bother in the first place.
I am now living in Italy which, surprisingly, has an enlightened and lightly regulated attitude to microlight sport flying. My local aviosuperficie is 5km away, and I will be flying from there.
Acheiving the PPL was great, but the thought of being restricted to short flights in worn out old clunkers would put most people off. And most flying clubs are still unfriendly places to outsiders. If you were to spend the same amount of money on any other leisure actively the welcome would be far warmer.
After a long break it was still the same aeroplanes, but older and tattier. No-one should be forced to use a machine that has magneto ignition and uses a proportion of its expensive fuel to cool the antiquated engine. Sensible people would not bother in the first place.
I am now living in Italy which, surprisingly, has an enlightened and lightly regulated attitude to microlight sport flying. My local aviosuperficie is 5km away, and I will be flying from there.
Acheiving the PPL was great, but the thought of being restricted to short flights in worn out old clunkers would put most people off. And most flying clubs are still unfriendly places to outsiders. If you were to spend the same amount of money on any other leisure actively the welcome would be far warmer.
I think IO540 has spotted the main problem. The real PPL is the PPL/IMC, the basic PPL is effectively a recreational pilots licence for sunny sunday afternoons rather than for using an aircraft as serious transport.
If you only use your licence for its own sake rather than to fly yourself on journeys you would otherwise have driven or flown commercially, it starts to look pointless and ultimately too expensive. Spending thousands of pounds to have gained the experience of your first solo or your first cross country, is for many people just about justifiable. But a hundred pounds plus for a hour or so in a cramped noisy aircraft without achieving anything specific soon gets downright depressing.
I recently went for my first flight after a long layoff, I thoroughly enjoyed it and landed fully intending to book some more flights. But all the aircraft were booked as far ahead as it's possible to book so I couldn't book for another week, and by then I had decided that fun though it was the flight hadn't really been worth the money. Since then fuel prices have risen and frankly I doubt if I'll ever take up flying again. The pleasure per pound ratio just doesn't make it worthwhile.
If you only use your licence for its own sake rather than to fly yourself on journeys you would otherwise have driven or flown commercially, it starts to look pointless and ultimately too expensive. Spending thousands of pounds to have gained the experience of your first solo or your first cross country, is for many people just about justifiable. But a hundred pounds plus for a hour or so in a cramped noisy aircraft without achieving anything specific soon gets downright depressing.
I recently went for my first flight after a long layoff, I thoroughly enjoyed it and landed fully intending to book some more flights. But all the aircraft were booked as far ahead as it's possible to book so I couldn't book for another week, and by then I had decided that fun though it was the flight hadn't really been worth the money. Since then fuel prices have risen and frankly I doubt if I'll ever take up flying again. The pleasure per pound ratio just doesn't make it worthwhile.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real PPL is the PPL/IMC, the basic PPL is effectively a recreational pilots licence for sunny sunday afternoons rather than for using an aircraft as serious transport.
Some would say the real PPL never leaves the traffic pattern as he is still trying to master landing a Pitts. Horses for courses, I find flying more than 100 miles to be exceedingly boring, telling people they aren't a real PPL because they don't fly cross country is a good way to alienate them and make them spend their money elsewhere.
Some would say the real PPL never leaves the traffic pattern as he is still trying to master landing a Pitts. Horses for courses, I find flying more than 100 miles to be exceedingly boring, telling people they aren't a real PPL because they don't fly cross country is a good way to alienate them and make them spend their money elsewhere.