Drop Out Rates post PPL
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2000 there were 27661 PPLs with medicals, in 2004 there were 22955. So a loss of 17%.
Andy
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of CAA regulation is a barely significant part of the cost of keeping a plane which has to be reasonably regularly serviced anyway.
There is absolutely zero prospect of the tax on avgas going away.
I speak as an aircraft owner, formerly G-reg and now N-reg, and I get all the bills.
There is nothing that can be done to reduce the cost of flying to the level where say 2x or 3x more people could hang about in it long-term.
The only way to boost GA activity is to change things so that GA attracts more people out of the huge pool of people that can afford to fly but presently choose to do other things.
There is absolutely zero prospect of the tax on avgas going away.
I speak as an aircraft owner, formerly G-reg and now N-reg, and I get all the bills.
There is nothing that can be done to reduce the cost of flying to the level where say 2x or 3x more people could hang about in it long-term.
The only way to boost GA activity is to change things so that GA attracts more people out of the huge pool of people that can afford to fly but presently choose to do other things.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, IO540, you only appear to speak as an aircraft owner.
Think outside that box. For instance, in other parts of the world an instructor can provide instruction using his own plane on a dirt strip with minimal additional hassle from the regulator. Not so in the UK, regulations don't allow that. Let people teach from their own strip and you will get people coming in for the group mentality you don't get so much at these licenced airfield places. That's what I see anyway.
The reason I don't have a share in an aircraft in the UK is I have no idea what the regulator is going to do next year. I don't really know who the regulator is going to be next year. It's nothing to do with money for me, but I know it is for others.
Think outside that box. For instance, in other parts of the world an instructor can provide instruction using his own plane on a dirt strip with minimal additional hassle from the regulator. Not so in the UK, regulations don't allow that. Let people teach from their own strip and you will get people coming in for the group mentality you don't get so much at these licenced airfield places. That's what I see anyway.
The reason I don't have a share in an aircraft in the UK is I have no idea what the regulator is going to do next year. I don't really know who the regulator is going to be next year. It's nothing to do with money for me, but I know it is for others.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are ways to reduce the costs, but these all involve investment in new technology. We as a group need to move away from the artificially high cost of AVGAS and move towards what the airlines use. i.e AVTUR, this allows economies of scale to bring the cost down and no Government is going to be daft enough to try and put tax on AVTUR. Therefore we are protected by the 'big boys.'
The problem is, what happens when we have to move away from AVTUR (this will happen eventually) will we be left behind again? I hope not, but the new machines coming onto the market need to have the ability to run on bio fuels, without major changes.
Once we have a/c that can run for £10/hr for fuel rather than £50, then we can start bringing prices back to reality and get more people through the door AND get them flying more regularily.
Unfortunately all the things that clubs such as the one I'm part of are doing just scratches the surface, they don't change the underlying problem of it all being too damn expensive.
The problem is, what happens when we have to move away from AVTUR (this will happen eventually) will we be left behind again? I hope not, but the new machines coming onto the market need to have the ability to run on bio fuels, without major changes.
Once we have a/c that can run for £10/hr for fuel rather than £50, then we can start bringing prices back to reality and get more people through the door AND get them flying more regularily.
Unfortunately all the things that clubs such as the one I'm part of are doing just scratches the surface, they don't change the underlying problem of it all being too damn expensive.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
An aircraft owner has an idea of where the money goes. A self fly hire renter has usually got zero idea, and may well think that of the £100/hr, half goes on CAA fees. The reality is that most of the stuff is stuff one can do little or nothing about.
I am trying to make a positive contribution here, and this is an area where I can.
The cost of an instructor is only a small part of the cost of doing a PPL. Most of the cost one pays is the self fly hire, and landing fees. PPL instructors work for peanuts. If they worked for free, an £8000 PPL might come down to £7500.
The only way you will reduce costs of flying and/or get access to something half decent is to buy a share. Regulation is nothing to do with it.
SAS
I would not be confident of tax free status of avtur remaining. Currently, in much of Europe, you can get tax free avgas if you produce an AOC. I try it every time, flashing my BP Air card, and evidence of a "company owned" aircraft, but without an AOC it has so far worked only in Spain
This suggests that the aviation fuel business has no difficulty in basing tax free status on an AOC. I think on balance you are right; GA is too small for anyone to bother, but this one change alone would completely undermine the case for diesels.
I also don't think that reducing £100/hr to say £70/hr (DA40) is going to make any difference to the PPL population. The much more modern aircraft certainly would, but only in conjunction with good marketing and going for the right punters.
The sort of level which people are looking for is more like £20/hr and obviously that will never be achieved.
If one could dump the whole CofA scene and do everything (including PPL training) on a Permit, that would make a difference, mainly because the planes can be bought new for so much less, new planes are far cheaper to maintain than 30 year old ones, parts can be bought by mail order, and maintenance can be done ad-hoc instead of by JAR145 firms. Especially if one could fly, and train in, the permit planes currently on the American market - one would buy the parts without any fancy paperwork off the manufacturers' websites. Look at the Aircraft Spruce catalogue for some mind blowing pricing on this stuff.
In the 2-seater market, that would halve the cost of flying. There would probably be no significant loss of safety, either. But I cannot see the CAA allowing this; their whole reason for existence would go out of the window. THAT is the real cost of regulation, not what the CAA actually charges, but that's the same the world over.
An aircraft owner has an idea of where the money goes. A self fly hire renter has usually got zero idea, and may well think that of the £100/hr, half goes on CAA fees. The reality is that most of the stuff is stuff one can do little or nothing about.
I am trying to make a positive contribution here, and this is an area where I can.
The cost of an instructor is only a small part of the cost of doing a PPL. Most of the cost one pays is the self fly hire, and landing fees. PPL instructors work for peanuts. If they worked for free, an £8000 PPL might come down to £7500.
The only way you will reduce costs of flying and/or get access to something half decent is to buy a share. Regulation is nothing to do with it.
SAS
I would not be confident of tax free status of avtur remaining. Currently, in much of Europe, you can get tax free avgas if you produce an AOC. I try it every time, flashing my BP Air card, and evidence of a "company owned" aircraft, but without an AOC it has so far worked only in Spain
This suggests that the aviation fuel business has no difficulty in basing tax free status on an AOC. I think on balance you are right; GA is too small for anyone to bother, but this one change alone would completely undermine the case for diesels.I also don't think that reducing £100/hr to say £70/hr (DA40) is going to make any difference to the PPL population. The much more modern aircraft certainly would, but only in conjunction with good marketing and going for the right punters.
The sort of level which people are looking for is more like £20/hr and obviously that will never be achieved.
If one could dump the whole CofA scene and do everything (including PPL training) on a Permit, that would make a difference, mainly because the planes can be bought new for so much less, new planes are far cheaper to maintain than 30 year old ones, parts can be bought by mail order, and maintenance can be done ad-hoc instead of by JAR145 firms. Especially if one could fly, and train in, the permit planes currently on the American market - one would buy the parts without any fancy paperwork off the manufacturers' websites. Look at the Aircraft Spruce catalogue for some mind blowing pricing on this stuff.
In the 2-seater market, that would halve the cost of flying. There would probably be no significant loss of safety, either. But I cannot see the CAA allowing this; their whole reason for existence would go out of the window. THAT is the real cost of regulation, not what the CAA actually charges, but that's the same the world over.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can well imagine the airlines fighting tooth and nail to stop any tax being levied on AVTUR. The point would be that once it starts, then they may well be next.
However, I seem to remember that when I was in Germany a while ago, we had to produce evidence of our AOC so that we wouldn't get charged tax on the AVTUR we were uplifting, something I've only just remembered and now think of as very worrying. Maybe you are right.
The fact is though that GA would be a tiny user of of AVTUR compared to the airlines, would it really be in anyone's favour to bring in a tax? I hope not and it really would be total discrimination. I wonder what a smart lawyer could make of it!
A reduction of £30 an hour would be very significant and I don't think that we will ever get the prices down to £25/hr for training a/c unless we write off the purchase costs. Not something I see happening anytime soon!
If we get rid of the need for CofA machines, then we could go a long way to reducing the costs, but I worry that with so many cowboys and crooks around the real cost may be the total death-knell for GA, with a/c falling out of the sky with more regularity.
School a/c are usually no-where near as well looked after as a privately owned machine and there are many who would take advantage of lax rules to the detriment of all of us.
However, I seem to remember that when I was in Germany a while ago, we had to produce evidence of our AOC so that we wouldn't get charged tax on the AVTUR we were uplifting, something I've only just remembered and now think of as very worrying. Maybe you are right.
The fact is though that GA would be a tiny user of of AVTUR compared to the airlines, would it really be in anyone's favour to bring in a tax? I hope not and it really would be total discrimination. I wonder what a smart lawyer could make of it!
A reduction of £30 an hour would be very significant and I don't think that we will ever get the prices down to £25/hr for training a/c unless we write off the purchase costs. Not something I see happening anytime soon!
If we get rid of the need for CofA machines, then we could go a long way to reducing the costs, but I worry that with so many cowboys and crooks around the real cost may be the total death-knell for GA, with a/c falling out of the sky with more regularity.
School a/c are usually no-where near as well looked after as a privately owned machine and there are many who would take advantage of lax rules to the detriment of all of us.
Intelligent Idiot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way to boost GA activity is to change things so that GA attracts more people out of the huge pool of people that can afford to fly but presently choose to do other things.
In several different areas of recreation there are many who can afford to do as they please and behave less than responsibly in thier attitudes to others, treating those less affluent as lesser beings who shouldnt be alllowed in the same space as them.
Is a class system, which is basically what you are suggesting, going to improve GA that much?
Is someone who has a genuine love of aviation but can really afford an hour or so a month flying less desirable than someone who can afford to fly whenever they wish but are there purely for the pose value offered.
I am not suggesting that this is what you have implied but unless these newcomers all have a strong commitment to flying there is every possibility that it could go the way of various Yacht Clubs with several armchair admirals in every club whose only regular encounter with water is at bathtime.
I am not wealthy but would hate to feel sidelined by financially superior beings who fit the above categories
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah the safety card, CAA will go for that. Any evidence that a PA28 in a UK training establishment is more dangerous than a PA28 owned by a US instructor who freelances?
Why can't a UK group use it's aircraft to train people who want to join the group? That would be cheap but regulations don't let you.
Why can't a UK group use it's aircraft to train people who want to join the group? That would be cheap but regulations don't let you.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS, not that I know of, but being the arch cynic that I am, I can well imagine many people not maintaining the a/c as they should.
Regulations that govern GA are often very poorly thought out, I'm all for lobbying Govt. for change, but it's not as if AOPA and the such like have had much success changing much.
I was reading this evening about an organisation called SIPA who represent small breweries in the UK. The y have had alot of succes in reducing tax and duty on their industry, why is it that our industry hasn't achieved similar levels of success?
Edited for some form of dupilcation!
Regulations that govern GA are often very poorly thought out, I'm all for lobbying Govt. for change, but it's not as if AOPA and the such like have had much success changing much.
I was reading this evening about an organisation called SIPA who represent small breweries in the UK. The y have had alot of succes in reducing tax and duty on their industry, why is it that our industry hasn't achieved similar levels of success?
Edited for some form of dupilcation!
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 25th Nov 2005 at 22:33.
Is there an echo in here?
Edited due to the fact that the post that it refers to has been edited - I'll get my coat.
Edited due to the fact that the post that it refers to has been edited - I'll get my coat.
Last edited by J.A.F.O.; 26th Nov 2005 at 22:05.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of CAA regulation is a barely significant part of the cost of keeping a plane which has to be reasonably regularly serviced anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bahn-Jeaux
This one has done the rounds here not long ago, with the same sort of opinions expressed. Any suggestion that one should bring more money into a leisure activity is always going to be met with protest from those who can barely afford to hang in there right now, who are afraid they will be pushed out.
In reality, there will be a cross-subsidy, flowing from those who splash money about, to those that don't. Everywhere you look around yourself, you can see such subsidies. Let's say you drive 5000 miles/year. Do you think that brand new dual carriageway would be there if it wasn't for all those commercial vehicles that do 100,000 miles/year, etc? The NHS. The Post Office. Pensions. Taxation. Everywhere you look, there is a transfer of wealth from those with more to those with less. It's impossible to avoid.
If you had a school/club operating five £150,000 planes, regularly flown by the stereotype flash punters who turn up in flash cars accompanied by blonde tarts, you would be able to rent this £150,000 plane (which, honestly, will make you want to never ever climb into a Cesspit again, even a new one) for say £60/hour, wet. All the time that most participants in the GA non-owner scene are nearly skint, the planes will always be 30 year old wrecks renting for £100+/hour. It's a vicious circle from which there is no way out, short of a substantial influx of dosh.
SS/SAS
Unfortunately I have met far more crooks in a few years of owning than in 30 years of being in business (non-aviation) so I would fully expect these to jump on any relaxation. However, this is not the same thing as saying that CAA oversight is effective. It isn't. I learnt on planes which had bare wires hanging out of the engine compartment, so one had to make sure certain items such as lights were not switched on as the wires might go live and blow a fuse. These planes were operated by an AOC establishment, serviced to Transport CofA regs by a JAR145 company.
The CAA system doesn't do anything, other than providing jobs for a load of useless people at the CAA.
The reason fixed wing planes don't plummet (much) is that a plane doesn't plummet unless the wings come off, etc, and that would probably take a decade of operation without any servicing whatsoever.
So I am sure one could devise an oversight system which is informal (outside the CAA) yet which ensures that the planes are properly serviced. The trouble is that the moment you devise any mandatory-ish system for verification of something, a load of people will jump on it as a way of making a nice living. ISO9000, CE, ROHS... it's all a load of total cr*p but it's everywhere.
Foxmoth - you are confused about CAA fees for certified parts. There is the much higher cost of certified parts but this isn't specific to the CAA. Under FAA, everything is much dearer too. My autopilot is about US$40,000. The same (functionally) item for an American Experimental category plane is $3000, and can't be any less reliable. But these are certification requirements, which enable the mostly-American manufacturers to screw people, because people have no choice.
Only on permit type planes can these costs be avoided, but nobody allows permit planes to be used commercially. You could try changing this (it would be a good one) but the CAA would absolutely hate it.
Then there is installation related paperwork. The CAA makes stuff cost perhaps 30% more but that's largely because the parts come from the USA and are sold here by CAA-approved importers who have what is a sole agency (illegal in the EU) in all but name,and who make the best of their CAA approval. Even parts made in France cost 30-50% more, for the same "distribution" reason. If the manufacturers sold stuff direct to the UK end users or installers, parts would be that much cheaper. But, for people that do own servicing or can use a fully qualified but freelancing colleague (something that EASA will end soon) it's possible to obtain the same certified parts, with the same paperwork, direct from the USA.
The CAA has some stupid costs but so does the FAA. However the FAA has a much better process for approving mods; a lot of mods are just impossible under CAA which is why a lot of people are N-reg. But this doesn't affect the low-end GA scene; it affects owner pilots who want nice kit.
But parts don't cost much, until a plane starts to get old, say 15+ years. Before then, the parts required are usually cheap. Take my 50hr check. The oil is £40, the filter is £10. No "firm" does it for less than £250. It takes only 3 hours! This bears no relationship to the firm's normal hourly rate. On an N-reg I do these myself; I had to buy special tools and had an A&P teach me, then it's dead easy. The parts for an Annual come to even less as a % of the total cost, but then an Annual takes say 40 hours to do.
This one has done the rounds here not long ago, with the same sort of opinions expressed. Any suggestion that one should bring more money into a leisure activity is always going to be met with protest from those who can barely afford to hang in there right now, who are afraid they will be pushed out.
In reality, there will be a cross-subsidy, flowing from those who splash money about, to those that don't. Everywhere you look around yourself, you can see such subsidies. Let's say you drive 5000 miles/year. Do you think that brand new dual carriageway would be there if it wasn't for all those commercial vehicles that do 100,000 miles/year, etc? The NHS. The Post Office. Pensions. Taxation. Everywhere you look, there is a transfer of wealth from those with more to those with less. It's impossible to avoid.
If you had a school/club operating five £150,000 planes, regularly flown by the stereotype flash punters who turn up in flash cars accompanied by blonde tarts, you would be able to rent this £150,000 plane (which, honestly, will make you want to never ever climb into a Cesspit again, even a new one) for say £60/hour, wet. All the time that most participants in the GA non-owner scene are nearly skint, the planes will always be 30 year old wrecks renting for £100+/hour. It's a vicious circle from which there is no way out, short of a substantial influx of dosh.
SS/SAS
Unfortunately I have met far more crooks in a few years of owning than in 30 years of being in business (non-aviation) so I would fully expect these to jump on any relaxation. However, this is not the same thing as saying that CAA oversight is effective. It isn't. I learnt on planes which had bare wires hanging out of the engine compartment, so one had to make sure certain items such as lights were not switched on as the wires might go live and blow a fuse. These planes were operated by an AOC establishment, serviced to Transport CofA regs by a JAR145 company.
The CAA system doesn't do anything, other than providing jobs for a load of useless people at the CAA.
The reason fixed wing planes don't plummet (much) is that a plane doesn't plummet unless the wings come off, etc, and that would probably take a decade of operation without any servicing whatsoever.
So I am sure one could devise an oversight system which is informal (outside the CAA) yet which ensures that the planes are properly serviced. The trouble is that the moment you devise any mandatory-ish system for verification of something, a load of people will jump on it as a way of making a nice living. ISO9000, CE, ROHS... it's all a load of total cr*p but it's everywhere.
Foxmoth - you are confused about CAA fees for certified parts. There is the much higher cost of certified parts but this isn't specific to the CAA. Under FAA, everything is much dearer too. My autopilot is about US$40,000. The same (functionally) item for an American Experimental category plane is $3000, and can't be any less reliable. But these are certification requirements, which enable the mostly-American manufacturers to screw people, because people have no choice.
Only on permit type planes can these costs be avoided, but nobody allows permit planes to be used commercially. You could try changing this (it would be a good one) but the CAA would absolutely hate it.
Then there is installation related paperwork. The CAA makes stuff cost perhaps 30% more but that's largely because the parts come from the USA and are sold here by CAA-approved importers who have what is a sole agency (illegal in the EU) in all but name,and who make the best of their CAA approval. Even parts made in France cost 30-50% more, for the same "distribution" reason. If the manufacturers sold stuff direct to the UK end users or installers, parts would be that much cheaper. But, for people that do own servicing or can use a fully qualified but freelancing colleague (something that EASA will end soon) it's possible to obtain the same certified parts, with the same paperwork, direct from the USA.
The CAA has some stupid costs but so does the FAA. However the FAA has a much better process for approving mods; a lot of mods are just impossible under CAA which is why a lot of people are N-reg. But this doesn't affect the low-end GA scene; it affects owner pilots who want nice kit.
But parts don't cost much, until a plane starts to get old, say 15+ years. Before then, the parts required are usually cheap. Take my 50hr check. The oil is £40, the filter is £10. No "firm" does it for less than £250. It takes only 3 hours! This bears no relationship to the firm's normal hourly rate. On an N-reg I do these myself; I had to buy special tools and had an A&P teach me, then it's dead easy. The parts for an Annual come to even less as a % of the total cost, but then an Annual takes say 40 hours to do.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fairly new to these excellent forums - here goes!
I'm doing a PPL finally, at age 45, because I've always loved aviation, and get a 'buzz' from it.
Why wait till 45? Well, the cost, basically. I have another career, now established, and through all that had wife/kids/motgage to pay for (ie skint most of the time). Still paying for all that, but now find that I can scrape the cash to pay for PPL training.
In fact what started me off was a gift voucher from my brother, 2 yrs ago, for a 30 min trial in a hele. Loved the flight, but not really a 'hele' person. Then my wife bought me a 1hr trial in a Cessna - really loved that - but felt that the cost of taking up training couldn't be justified against the 'family' budget, just to pay for my 'pleasure'.
Still, the wife bought me another 3 hrs (for Christmas last year) and again I was torn on commiting a lot of £k on 'learning to fly', so took the flights as 'pleasure' flights, with an instructor taking me pretty well where I wanted to go locally, with me taking control now and again; like an extended 'trial flight', if you will.
Unfortunately (for my finances) the 'bug' certainly bit after the last flight, and I knew I just had to commit to a proper course to PPL - so I did.
Since my first 4 'preliminary' hours were with proper FI's, they all count in my log book, so no great loss really.
I now have 10 hrs total, and can't wait for the next lesson - stalls and slow flight I think.
I suppose the thing is, is that I'm doing this because I really enjoy it - each and every lesson. Bearing in mind the subject of the thread - that up to 90% of first time PPL's pack in after gaining it, my first point is that, to me, even if I could never fly again after gettting PPL, the enjoyment gaining it, and the sense of fulfillment, would do.
That's not to say I don't want to carry on post PPL - I really do intend to. IMC and night rating are already factored in to my 'personal' syllabus.
I do have the great luck of knowing a 'buddy' - and I do feel that makes big difference. He's a work colleague (a 'freelance' in what I do, so we don't cross paths very often) who got PPL, IMC, and Night a few years ago. Until I told him what I was up to, I didn't even know he was a PPL. He had lapsed by about 6 years, but has now done the necessary hours, and checkrides etc, to revalidate. Our plan is to cost-share and do flights together, espec when I qualify. Endless possibilities - 'near' Europe, Scotland (Oban, Lochs, hills etc), Easyjet to Nice and then local hire (after a bit of tuition!) for entry-level Alps flying.
I've no desire to be an airline pilot. Well, I might have once, but at my age, notwithstanding the company 'final salary' pension scheme that I don't think I can afford to b*gger up (ever felt 'trapped'?), I consider that an impractical move.
At any rate, having now flown GA, my ideal 'early retirement' job to move onto would not be airlines, with all attendant pressure etc. Much more so flying turbo-prop late night mail transports (I know - dream on...), or air-taxi or something. But from what I can figure from these forums, even that would require laying down mega £k to get IR or whatever, with absolutely no job guarantee, of course.
Sorry about the rambling post - just trying in an (extremely inflated!) way to say that this old PPL trainee intends to carry on post-PPL as much as I can.
And the well informed posts about the real costs of things (IO540 is one such contributor) are greatly appreciated by a 'newbie' like me.
One final thing. When I started training, a friend pointed out that flying schools were run 'more on love than money'.
I corroborate that one. My school may have old aircraft ('wrecks' is maybe a little unjust?) but they do the job. And, starved of investment, I'm full of admiration for the School I'm with, that maintains these to CCA regs, and teaches me to fly when the FI is clearly paid a 'cost efficient' (ie not high) salary.
Some 'crook' schools (do they exist - newbie asking?) may be different - but the one I am with I am full of praise for.
I'm doing a PPL finally, at age 45, because I've always loved aviation, and get a 'buzz' from it.
Why wait till 45? Well, the cost, basically. I have another career, now established, and through all that had wife/kids/motgage to pay for (ie skint most of the time). Still paying for all that, but now find that I can scrape the cash to pay for PPL training.
In fact what started me off was a gift voucher from my brother, 2 yrs ago, for a 30 min trial in a hele. Loved the flight, but not really a 'hele' person. Then my wife bought me a 1hr trial in a Cessna - really loved that - but felt that the cost of taking up training couldn't be justified against the 'family' budget, just to pay for my 'pleasure'.
Still, the wife bought me another 3 hrs (for Christmas last year) and again I was torn on commiting a lot of £k on 'learning to fly', so took the flights as 'pleasure' flights, with an instructor taking me pretty well where I wanted to go locally, with me taking control now and again; like an extended 'trial flight', if you will.
Unfortunately (for my finances) the 'bug' certainly bit after the last flight, and I knew I just had to commit to a proper course to PPL - so I did.
Since my first 4 'preliminary' hours were with proper FI's, they all count in my log book, so no great loss really.
I now have 10 hrs total, and can't wait for the next lesson - stalls and slow flight I think.
I suppose the thing is, is that I'm doing this because I really enjoy it - each and every lesson. Bearing in mind the subject of the thread - that up to 90% of first time PPL's pack in after gaining it, my first point is that, to me, even if I could never fly again after gettting PPL, the enjoyment gaining it, and the sense of fulfillment, would do.
That's not to say I don't want to carry on post PPL - I really do intend to. IMC and night rating are already factored in to my 'personal' syllabus.
I do have the great luck of knowing a 'buddy' - and I do feel that makes big difference. He's a work colleague (a 'freelance' in what I do, so we don't cross paths very often) who got PPL, IMC, and Night a few years ago. Until I told him what I was up to, I didn't even know he was a PPL. He had lapsed by about 6 years, but has now done the necessary hours, and checkrides etc, to revalidate. Our plan is to cost-share and do flights together, espec when I qualify. Endless possibilities - 'near' Europe, Scotland (Oban, Lochs, hills etc), Easyjet to Nice and then local hire (after a bit of tuition!) for entry-level Alps flying.
I've no desire to be an airline pilot. Well, I might have once, but at my age, notwithstanding the company 'final salary' pension scheme that I don't think I can afford to b*gger up (ever felt 'trapped'?), I consider that an impractical move.
At any rate, having now flown GA, my ideal 'early retirement' job to move onto would not be airlines, with all attendant pressure etc. Much more so flying turbo-prop late night mail transports (I know - dream on...), or air-taxi or something. But from what I can figure from these forums, even that would require laying down mega £k to get IR or whatever, with absolutely no job guarantee, of course.
Sorry about the rambling post - just trying in an (extremely inflated!) way to say that this old PPL trainee intends to carry on post-PPL as much as I can.
And the well informed posts about the real costs of things (IO540 is one such contributor) are greatly appreciated by a 'newbie' like me.
One final thing. When I started training, a friend pointed out that flying schools were run 'more on love than money'.
I corroborate that one. My school may have old aircraft ('wrecks' is maybe a little unjust?) but they do the job. And, starved of investment, I'm full of admiration for the School I'm with, that maintains these to CCA regs, and teaches me to fly when the FI is clearly paid a 'cost efficient' (ie not high) salary.
Some 'crook' schools (do they exist - newbie asking?) may be different - but the one I am with I am full of praise for.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speke2me, great post mate - good on ya, go for it! With your attitude you'll get a lot from the experience of gaining the PPL, and having a "buddy" already lined up is brilliant... I can already see the two of you meeting perhaps some of us at a fly-in somewhere, maybe Guernsey? or Le Havre? or maybe even just Wycombe!!
I'm excited for you pal!
Andy
I'm excited for you pal!
Andy
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this certainly is an interesting thread!
So what makes a fresh PPL give up so soon after gaining their licence? So far all the answers have probably all been right for a certain number of cases. The point is, the reasons can range from everything from lack of money/time, to lack of confidence or even boredom (hard to believe ... but some don't see flight as most of us here do). In my case it's mostly been about money, but also family ... or more specifically the SWMBO! I've had a licence since 1991 but have flown fewer hours than I did in gliders during the three years prior to getting a PPL! Why? I was young free and single then. More disposable income, no kids and no wife to moan at me if I'm "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield!" The only time since pre marriage that I've got a decent run of flying in, was when I flew from my own strip ... so I can't wait to get my T31 airborne and return to that way flying again.
Why is everyone knocking the CAA? Except for recreational licences such as the NPPL, the CAA is now redundant as far as full PPL's are concerned. It's EASA (or whatever EU body it is now? "I loose track"). The NPPL may not be to everyone’s liking, but at least it has gone some way to addressing at least some of the issues that cause drop out, ie medical. So the CAA has taken some positive steps over our EU cousins. Same thing historically, as the IMCR shows by being the only non full IR rating in Europe (I think). It could do more, but I think any fundamental change (especially in terms of IFR flight) needs to come from Euroland.
IO540
I'm not sure how "your" kind of flying is more likely to benefit the UK GA scene over say "my" type of flying? What does long distance touring in a fast aircraft contribute that bimbling in a slow or vintage plaything doesn't? In fact clubby types or aerobatic aircraft probably pay more in landing fees per hour flown and probably require more maintenance (helps the maint unit that helps subsidise many schools budget as they are often linked). I'm not trying to knock what you say as much of it is very pertinent, but you fall into the same trap we all do, of seeing things far too much from our own perspective. I'm just as guilty as I'm always pushing people to look at the cheaper end of aviation and often forget that the idea of flying single seat homebuilts just does not appeal to some people .... why, I just don't know?
As for all this "what constitutes a proper PPL" rubbish, then I can tell you ... a PPL! Be it NPPL, PPL/IR or balloon PPL, they all count! Once you can venture up there on your own, under your own authority, and make decisions yourself, you then have a PROPER PPL! In fact, who needs a PPL? The same thing applies to gliders, but you don't need a piece of paper to prove it!
SS
So what makes a fresh PPL give up so soon after gaining their licence? So far all the answers have probably all been right for a certain number of cases. The point is, the reasons can range from everything from lack of money/time, to lack of confidence or even boredom (hard to believe ... but some don't see flight as most of us here do). In my case it's mostly been about money, but also family ... or more specifically the SWMBO! I've had a licence since 1991 but have flown fewer hours than I did in gliders during the three years prior to getting a PPL! Why? I was young free and single then. More disposable income, no kids and no wife to moan at me if I'm "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield!" The only time since pre marriage that I've got a decent run of flying in, was when I flew from my own strip ... so I can't wait to get my T31 airborne and return to that way flying again.
Why is everyone knocking the CAA? Except for recreational licences such as the NPPL, the CAA is now redundant as far as full PPL's are concerned. It's EASA (or whatever EU body it is now? "I loose track"). The NPPL may not be to everyone’s liking, but at least it has gone some way to addressing at least some of the issues that cause drop out, ie medical. So the CAA has taken some positive steps over our EU cousins. Same thing historically, as the IMCR shows by being the only non full IR rating in Europe (I think). It could do more, but I think any fundamental change (especially in terms of IFR flight) needs to come from Euroland.
IO540
I'm not sure how "your" kind of flying is more likely to benefit the UK GA scene over say "my" type of flying? What does long distance touring in a fast aircraft contribute that bimbling in a slow or vintage plaything doesn't? In fact clubby types or aerobatic aircraft probably pay more in landing fees per hour flown and probably require more maintenance (helps the maint unit that helps subsidise many schools budget as they are often linked). I'm not trying to knock what you say as much of it is very pertinent, but you fall into the same trap we all do, of seeing things far too much from our own perspective. I'm just as guilty as I'm always pushing people to look at the cheaper end of aviation and often forget that the idea of flying single seat homebuilts just does not appeal to some people .... why, I just don't know?
As for all this "what constitutes a proper PPL" rubbish, then I can tell you ... a PPL! Be it NPPL, PPL/IR or balloon PPL, they all count! Once you can venture up there on your own, under your own authority, and make decisions yourself, you then have a PROPER PPL! In fact, who needs a PPL? The same thing applies to gliders, but you don't need a piece of paper to prove it!
SS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
To repeat myself, I didn't say that "touring" or whatever is the only thing that will interest everybody.
What I would stand behind absolutely is that for people to hang about long-term they need to be doing something interesting. Surely that's obvious.
If you picked say 100 fresh PPL holders, all selected from the majority group of students who did NOT learn to fly for any particular purpose, and you got 50 to bimble locally, 50 to do more challenging longer flights (with an overnight stay somewhere fun), which of them do you think will hang about longer?
Neither is "wrong" as such, but bimbling carries the most factors which make people give up. It's got the lowest hassle/reward ratio for the pilot. It's got the least interest for passengers - unless you can find different ones each time.
Yet, local bimbling is just about all one can do in the UK self fly hire scene, because of the minimum daily billing requirement.
As has been described above, one can get beyond it by organising a fly-out comprising of say 4 pilots going away in a 4-seater and each flying different legs; then you can get 4 times as far and it's a lot more fun. It just takes more organising, and where I trained you'd be pushed to find 3 others who are around for long enough; people dropped out so fast. Nobody who trained with me a few years back is still visibly flying.
This has been done to death here, but perhaps the #1 (and really really easy) thing which a school/club could do is to encourage experienced PPLs to stick around, and fly with both PPL students and with fresh PPLs. This seems obvious, but schools don't like it because so many students have only just enough money for the next lesson, and the school wants that money to be spent at the school, not contributing to somebody's PPL cost sharing scheme. Cynical? Yes, but accurate in most cases and I've been told so very directly. Once you get your PPL, unless you are clearly spending money on the NQ or IMCR, they want you OUT. School fly-outs are often quite cynically organised to put a student in the LH seat and an instructor in the RH seat on every possible leg, and PPL holders are not welcome unless they rent a plane and then they may carry only passengers who aren't paying anyway. Also a lot of schools don't like it because they would need to provide decent flight planning facilities for groups of people: internet, big tables to spread out on. Also there is a great deal of paranoia about the instructors' authority being usurped by PPLs having different views, for example on navigation
As for the Mrs complaining "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield", well there are several solutions to that Most girlz do like flying; what they don't like is all the anoraks. Time to duck again....
To repeat myself, I didn't say that "touring" or whatever is the only thing that will interest everybody.
What I would stand behind absolutely is that for people to hang about long-term they need to be doing something interesting. Surely that's obvious.
If you picked say 100 fresh PPL holders, all selected from the majority group of students who did NOT learn to fly for any particular purpose, and you got 50 to bimble locally, 50 to do more challenging longer flights (with an overnight stay somewhere fun), which of them do you think will hang about longer?
Neither is "wrong" as such, but bimbling carries the most factors which make people give up. It's got the lowest hassle/reward ratio for the pilot. It's got the least interest for passengers - unless you can find different ones each time.
Yet, local bimbling is just about all one can do in the UK self fly hire scene, because of the minimum daily billing requirement.
As has been described above, one can get beyond it by organising a fly-out comprising of say 4 pilots going away in a 4-seater and each flying different legs; then you can get 4 times as far and it's a lot more fun. It just takes more organising, and where I trained you'd be pushed to find 3 others who are around for long enough; people dropped out so fast. Nobody who trained with me a few years back is still visibly flying.
This has been done to death here, but perhaps the #1 (and really really easy) thing which a school/club could do is to encourage experienced PPLs to stick around, and fly with both PPL students and with fresh PPLs. This seems obvious, but schools don't like it because so many students have only just enough money for the next lesson, and the school wants that money to be spent at the school, not contributing to somebody's PPL cost sharing scheme. Cynical? Yes, but accurate in most cases and I've been told so very directly. Once you get your PPL, unless you are clearly spending money on the NQ or IMCR, they want you OUT. School fly-outs are often quite cynically organised to put a student in the LH seat and an instructor in the RH seat on every possible leg, and PPL holders are not welcome unless they rent a plane and then they may carry only passengers who aren't paying anyway. Also a lot of schools don't like it because they would need to provide decent flight planning facilities for groups of people: internet, big tables to spread out on. Also there is a great deal of paranoia about the instructors' authority being usurped by PPLs having different views, for example on navigation
As for the Mrs complaining "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield", well there are several solutions to that
Most girlz do like flying; what they don't like is all the anoraks. Time to duck again....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, most of what you say is pertinent ... but still heavily influenced by your own bias, not that there's anything wrong with that.
You could take the same 100 fresh PPL holders and introduce 50 of them to PFA types, vintage or aerobatics and they will similarly be more likely to stay. So I do see you point, but just from a different slant.
SS
Edited to include PS.
Well mine is the jealous sort, so perhaps the idea that other "girlz do like flying" might be the problem? 
If you picked say 100 fresh PPL holders, all selected from the majority group of students who did NOT learn to fly for any particular purpose, and you got 50 to bimble locally, 50 to do more challenging longer flights (with an overnight stay somewhere fun), which of them do you think will hang about longer?
SS
Edited to include PS.
As for the Mrs complaining "spending all my time at that bl@@dy airfield", well there are several solutions to that Most girlz do like flying;
Guest
Posts: n/a
This thread is indeed a feast for throught. I have maitained a very strong sense of the one personal demand needed to stay aloft and, from what I have read, it has only be touched upon in this thread so maybe I'm unique (but I doubt it).
I actually believe that if schools had newer aircraft and if flying was cheaper (we're talking realistically cheaper here) then, perversely, the dropout rate would increase. Cost and shiney aircraft would do more to attract people into the training scene and perhaps a few more would stick around long-term, but that does not generate and enduring will and motivation to remain in aviation for fun.
The confidence issue is a more interesting point. But people think that more training will change this. Unfortunately, I think more training will do little in this regard, except of course relieve people or more money.
My personal take on post the PPL conundrum is that it is confidence that is a big issue, but in a different way to that described here before. It wasn't until about 150 hours(ish) that I could arrive and fly without butterflies, where I wouldn't seeminlgy endlessly prevaricate over the state of the weather. I'm not sure I can put my finger on the problem as I found training straight forward and have never had any difficulty flying very well, but there is something about the personal responsibility and psychological/mental commitment needed to leave the gound alone during one's early hours.
I suspect that the most of the difference between between the statistics lies in personality. I suspect that most PPLs have a tenacious will to see things through, not to let themselves be intimidated by demanding situations, but reason them out; to find a way to make things work for them. I think that it is this personality type that constitues the required motivation to push through the post PPL training wildernes rather relenting and choosing the easy option.
Therefore and ufortunately, any idea of expanding active public involvement in GA will be severely limited.
I actually believe that if schools had newer aircraft and if flying was cheaper (we're talking realistically cheaper here) then, perversely, the dropout rate would increase. Cost and shiney aircraft would do more to attract people into the training scene and perhaps a few more would stick around long-term, but that does not generate and enduring will and motivation to remain in aviation for fun.
The confidence issue is a more interesting point. But people think that more training will change this. Unfortunately, I think more training will do little in this regard, except of course relieve people or more money.
My personal take on post the PPL conundrum is that it is confidence that is a big issue, but in a different way to that described here before. It wasn't until about 150 hours(ish) that I could arrive and fly without butterflies, where I wouldn't seeminlgy endlessly prevaricate over the state of the weather. I'm not sure I can put my finger on the problem as I found training straight forward and have never had any difficulty flying very well, but there is something about the personal responsibility and psychological/mental commitment needed to leave the gound alone during one's early hours.
I suspect that the most of the difference between between the statistics lies in personality. I suspect that most PPLs have a tenacious will to see things through, not to let themselves be intimidated by demanding situations, but reason them out; to find a way to make things work for them. I think that it is this personality type that constitues the required motivation to push through the post PPL training wildernes rather relenting and choosing the easy option.
Therefore and ufortunately, any idea of expanding active public involvement in GA will be severely limited.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
I meant to add aeros as another obviously good candidate for post-PPL flying, absolutely right, and also a perfect activity for better-off punters.
But how many PPL schools are going to introduce a fresh PPL to PFA types? It's not at all in their interest. Getting into a permit type (ownership or sharing) IS definitely a good way to get flying seriously, but it was years post-PPL before I even heard of them. It's usually not until one learns more about operating costs that one discovers this stuff. As I've said, there are some amazing permit types about, and if it wasn't for me wanting the legit-IFR option I would have gone for one of those.
HWD
This will never be possible to establish one way or the other. I am sure one could not draw 10x more people into GA. But 2x is a perfectly reasonable objective, and would only be returning things to where they were say 20-30 years ago. One could achieve a 2x increase just by reducing the immediate attrition rate from say 90% to say 80%.
As for training, well, the bottom line is that we have the PPL training establishment. At most airfields the "firm" runs the show financially (accounting for most movements and most landings and most fuel sales) and if they don't like something then IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. So any discussion of different training is going to be theoretical, or "mental masturbation" as someone here once described something
I think training could be improved to the point where people could do interesting things (assuming we can agree on what that means), but the school has no commercial incentive to provide that.
If I wanted to get people into aeros, I would put together a self contained add-on module. I am sure these exist, don't they??
If I wanted to get people into going places, I would put together a "going places" module. BUT....... isn't the PPL supposed to teach you all you need to know to fly from A to B??? Of course it is. So this would just show up the basic PPL as a big con (which I believe it is).
"Well, Sir, this car is £8000, excellent value, and you can drive it anywhere in the world. The petrol tank holds 5 litres. For an extra £4000 you can have a 50 litre petrol tank. Not essential of course, your driving license is a license to learn, after all".
There's your problem!
I meant to add aeros as another obviously good candidate for post-PPL flying, absolutely right, and also a perfect activity for better-off punters.
But how many PPL schools are going to introduce a fresh PPL to PFA types? It's not at all in their interest. Getting into a permit type (ownership or sharing) IS definitely a good way to get flying seriously, but it was years post-PPL before I even heard of them. It's usually not until one learns more about operating costs that one discovers this stuff. As I've said, there are some amazing permit types about, and if it wasn't for me wanting the legit-IFR option I would have gone for one of those.
HWD
This will never be possible to establish one way or the other. I am sure one could not draw 10x more people into GA. But 2x is a perfectly reasonable objective, and would only be returning things to where they were say 20-30 years ago. One could achieve a 2x increase just by reducing the immediate attrition rate from say 90% to say 80%.
As for training, well, the bottom line is that we have the PPL training establishment. At most airfields the "firm" runs the show financially (accounting for most movements and most landings and most fuel sales) and if they don't like something then IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. So any discussion of different training is going to be theoretical, or "mental masturbation" as someone here once described something
I think training could be improved to the point where people could do interesting things (assuming we can agree on what that means), but the school has no commercial incentive to provide that.
If I wanted to get people into aeros, I would put together a self contained add-on module. I am sure these exist, don't they??
If I wanted to get people into going places, I would put together a "going places" module. BUT....... isn't the PPL supposed to teach you all you need to know to fly from A to B??? Of course it is. So this would just show up the basic PPL as a big con (which I believe it is).
"Well, Sir, this car is £8000, excellent value, and you can drive it anywhere in the world. The petrol tank holds 5 litres. For an extra £4000 you can have a 50 litre petrol tank. Not essential of course, your driving license is a license to learn, after all".
There's your problem!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HWD,
There is a significant difference between UK and UK cost/regulatory burden, so just for grins let's compare US pilot figures with UK pilot figures.
In 2004 there were roughly 23000 UK PPLs with medicals. An excel spreadsheet on the FAA site has an estimated 235000 US PPLs with medicals, and approx 125,000 US CPLs. A US CPL is very attainable and doesn't have this 'professional' label you find in the UK.
That's roughly 1 in 2500 Brits has a PPL, roughly 1 in 1250 Yanks with PPL, and roughly 1 in 2500 Yanks with a CPL. So there is some evidence that less cost and less regulation means more pilots. Do you have any figures which could be used to show otherwise?
Re regulatory costs. There's an airfield in the midlands with some very nice Taylorcraft. Some have managed to get onto a permit, some didn't. Essentially same plane, equally loved and equally safe, but significantly different costs to fly, and from what I have been told purely due to regulatory burden.
There is a significant difference between UK and UK cost/regulatory burden, so just for grins let's compare US pilot figures with UK pilot figures.
In 2004 there were roughly 23000 UK PPLs with medicals. An excel spreadsheet on the FAA site has an estimated 235000 US PPLs with medicals, and approx 125,000 US CPLs. A US CPL is very attainable and doesn't have this 'professional' label you find in the UK.
That's roughly 1 in 2500 Brits has a PPL, roughly 1 in 1250 Yanks with PPL, and roughly 1 in 2500 Yanks with a CPL. So there is some evidence that less cost and less regulation means more pilots. Do you have any figures which could be used to show otherwise?
Re regulatory costs. There's an airfield in the midlands with some very nice Taylorcraft. Some have managed to get onto a permit, some didn't. Essentially same plane, equally loved and equally safe, but significantly different costs to fly, and from what I have been told purely due to regulatory burden.