Ballpark cost for the PPL
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
People who pass in the minimum hours required by the regulator generally have unlogged time. There are whizz-kid Chuck Yeagers out there but not many. It just isn't possible to get the vast majority of people from zero to PPL in the minimum time specified.
When flying schools give a price which is for 40/45 hours you should use this only to easily compare the costs at different places. You should not use it for budgeting. The cheapest 45 hour price quoted by Leicester web site is £5332 (which does include extras but not enough to get it to just over £4k). Budget for 60 hours and keep another 10 hours in a fund hidden from the mrs to be spent on extras. Then if you keep it up, expect to spend all the rest of your money. If learning at Leicester and want to have the cash before you start, I'd ferret £7k away just to be safe, and as I said, if you have any left you will soon spend it. If you plan to take your time it will be a lot more.
When flying schools give a price which is for 40/45 hours you should use this only to easily compare the costs at different places. You should not use it for budgeting. The cheapest 45 hour price quoted by Leicester web site is £5332 (which does include extras but not enough to get it to just over £4k). Budget for 60 hours and keep another 10 hours in a fund hidden from the mrs to be spent on extras. Then if you keep it up, expect to spend all the rest of your money. If learning at Leicester and want to have the cash before you start, I'd ferret £7k away just to be safe, and as I said, if you have any left you will soon spend it. If you plan to take your time it will be a lot more.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
People who pass in the minimum hours required by the regulator generally have unlogged time
That is totally true for everybody I have ever come across who did it in anything like 45hrs.
A huge chunk of this business is the general practical and theoretical knowledge, which one picks up as one goes along. If one has a keen personal interest and has been "around the scene" for a while, they pick up a lot of the stuff that way. Even flight-simming on FSX (which is actually very good) and flying and navigating to real places on it is going to teach you about which way up the world is, etc.
That is totally true for everybody I have ever come across who did it in anything like 45hrs.
A huge chunk of this business is the general practical and theoretical knowledge, which one picks up as one goes along. If one has a keen personal interest and has been "around the scene" for a while, they pick up a lot of the stuff that way. Even flight-simming on FSX (which is actually very good) and flying and navigating to real places on it is going to teach you about which way up the world is, etc.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
I don't think anyone is arguing this! And I don't know why there is such an issue here. I merely pointed out a friend who just did it for a lot less than 8 grand and pointed out that there are places that don't take your eyeballs out in fees.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: North of South
mmmm I did it in 40 with no pre logged hours and believe me chuck yeager I am not in fact I am mediocre at best and struggling greatly with gen nav for the atpl . As I said previously the secret to my success was I believe continuity. I did two sometimes three hours per day for about a four week period or therabouts . This meant that there was no revision as such needed before the start of each flight and one gelled nicely into another , I cannot say honestly but I would imagine if you have one lesson a week wouldnt some of the flight time be used getting to grips with what you previously learnt ??? I dont know . From my point of view doing it in one fell swoop certainly worked for me and I believe was the best way to do it . I am not intelligent and have no greater dexterity than anyone else .I am probably below average if im honest.
I did the old CAA PPL which as above was 40hrs and there was no instrument flight involved ie vor adf tracking etc etc perhaps that was it
I did the old CAA PPL which as above was 40hrs and there was no instrument flight involved ie vor adf tracking etc etc perhaps that was it
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Wigan
Im with maxdrypower on this one. He is deffinatly not intelligent and is way below average
Seriously though, i do beleive that continuity is a major factor. I passed the PPL in 45 hours with no previous flying experience at all and i think that it was due to the fact that i completed it within 4 months (3 hours per week).
Seriously though, i do beleive that continuity is a major factor. I passed the PPL in 45 hours with no previous flying experience at all and i think that it was due to the fact that i completed it within 4 months (3 hours per week).
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
And a genuine 'well done' to both of you. But sorry, you are not very common.
Now a third and a fourth will come out of the woodwork
When somebody asks what a PPL will cost you need to say 60 hours and not 40/45. Some will take longer, some less. As with all things, it depends.
Now a third and a fourth will come out of the woodwork
When somebody asks what a PPL will cost you need to say 60 hours and not 40/45. Some will take longer, some less. As with all things, it depends.
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Please don't any of you Chuck Yeagers take this personally, but...
I seriously worry about people who manage to do a PPL in minimum hours. There is so much you don't know when you've just got your PPL anyway. It really is only the oft-quoted "licence to learn". If you've done it in minimum hours, there will probably be even more you don't know. You'll have had minimum experience at everything. And the rest of it you might well be learning alone, and you'll really, really need to be sure that you can manage to fill your bag of experience before your bag of luck runs out.
So well done to anyone who managed it, but please, if you're still relatively low hours, do be careful out there.
I seriously worry about people who manage to do a PPL in minimum hours. There is so much you don't know when you've just got your PPL anyway. It really is only the oft-quoted "licence to learn". If you've done it in minimum hours, there will probably be even more you don't know. You'll have had minimum experience at everything. And the rest of it you might well be learning alone, and you'll really, really need to be sure that you can manage to fill your bag of experience before your bag of luck runs out.
So well done to anyone who managed it, but please, if you're still relatively low hours, do be careful out there.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Wigan
Whirlybird, I agree with what you are saying and i almost said at the end of my post that although continuity is good, i dont like the OBA type of training where you go from zero flying knowledge to PPL in 3 weeks. I just dont think that it gives enough exposer to flying and after all, most of what we know about flying never came from a book but from personal experience and the experience of others.
I dont think that the amount of hours a person has gives a true representation of their knowledge though, so its irrelevent if a person passes the PPL with 45 hours or 145 hours, they still have to meet a minimum skill level.
I dont think that the amount of hours a person has gives a true representation of their knowledge though, so its irrelevent if a person passes the PPL with 45 hours or 145 hours, they still have to meet a minimum skill level.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some interesting points indeed. I managed (A) in minimum time, but had enough brains to know I knew sod all really, and was on a learning curve from there on in. Hence why I did the IMC soon after, to show me how much I just didn't know, and how much I had to learn. I had a bloody good instructor though, and that definately made the difference. Had it been some kid sitting in the right seat and inwardly resenting every minute of it because he is waiting for the airline job, and feeling he is better than instructing, then it might have been different. I know one of those BTW. Ask him what he does, and he tells you V. quickly 'it's because I'm building hours to get to the Airlines'. No pride in his voice that he is passing his skills along to the new guys. None at all. Thank God I didn't get a bloke like that.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: SE England
Chukka -
I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified. If somebody is an instructor and they are young, that doesn't mean that they must be resenting what they are doing. Remember that 'hour-building' instructors are of all ages, not just 'kids'.
There are many who actually set out with a desire to instruct as a career. There are also many instructors who do eventually want to move on to other areas of aviation, be they airlines, air taxi, surveying, crop spraying, aerobatic competition/instruction - this tells you very little, in my opinion, about their enthusiasm and diligence in their current role. Perhaps they actually enjoy this challenge, and want to become good at what they do despite future aspirations? I feel that the fact that aspirations exist may serve to increase the desire to constantly push oneself to improve.
And then there are career instructors. With these, there are some great guys out there - some will love every minute and give you everything, but it is not outside the realms of probability that there are 'career instructors' who have spent so long building up a resentment of the monotony of the job, poor pay and conditions that they are in fact even orse from a customer point of view than the hour builders.
My point, I suppose, is that you can't put people in a box, which I feel your comments have served to do. How good your instructor is will depend on the individual case, not on the age or career aspirations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the original question, I think you're looking at 6k to budget, all in. I feel this is a reasonable price to pay. If you end up paying for more instructional time, over and above minimum hours...that's fine! Be pragmatic in your approach to what you are trying to achieve:
Through wanting to hold a PPL you are looking at spending many thousands of pounds over the years. Paying for an extra X hours instruction on top of the minimum hours for the course is NOTHING compared to what you will be looking to spend ultimately, but the experience gained from a few extra hours with an instructor, instilling the foundations of how you will conduct the rest of your flying life, making sure that you are continuing to foster good airmanship, will be worth more to you than a nominal outlay of a few hundred pounds.
Whirly has hit the nail on the head as ever, bag of experience, licence to learn et al.
I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified. If somebody is an instructor and they are young, that doesn't mean that they must be resenting what they are doing. Remember that 'hour-building' instructors are of all ages, not just 'kids'.
There are many who actually set out with a desire to instruct as a career. There are also many instructors who do eventually want to move on to other areas of aviation, be they airlines, air taxi, surveying, crop spraying, aerobatic competition/instruction - this tells you very little, in my opinion, about their enthusiasm and diligence in their current role. Perhaps they actually enjoy this challenge, and want to become good at what they do despite future aspirations? I feel that the fact that aspirations exist may serve to increase the desire to constantly push oneself to improve.
And then there are career instructors. With these, there are some great guys out there - some will love every minute and give you everything, but it is not outside the realms of probability that there are 'career instructors' who have spent so long building up a resentment of the monotony of the job, poor pay and conditions that they are in fact even orse from a customer point of view than the hour builders.
My point, I suppose, is that you can't put people in a box, which I feel your comments have served to do. How good your instructor is will depend on the individual case, not on the age or career aspirations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the original question, I think you're looking at 6k to budget, all in. I feel this is a reasonable price to pay. If you end up paying for more instructional time, over and above minimum hours...that's fine! Be pragmatic in your approach to what you are trying to achieve:
Through wanting to hold a PPL you are looking at spending many thousands of pounds over the years. Paying for an extra X hours instruction on top of the minimum hours for the course is NOTHING compared to what you will be looking to spend ultimately, but the experience gained from a few extra hours with an instructor, instilling the foundations of how you will conduct the rest of your flying life, making sure that you are continuing to foster good airmanship, will be worth more to you than a nominal outlay of a few hundred pounds.
Whirly has hit the nail on the head as ever, bag of experience, licence to learn et al.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: North of South
Hmmmmmmmmmm NOt sure whirls that your on key here . At the conclusion of your training you take a skills test , you either pass or fail . Now if I did mine in 40hrs and passed and someone did theres in 60 and passed , why do I not know more than them ? Why am I less skilled ? YOuve lost me a bit there . Anty sensible person , and there are many out there , knows when they pass a skills test they are not immediately steely eyed sky gods , or goddesses , if they are then best avoid them .As I have said before I was trained in just over a month at an raf base by raf instructors the raf way . I believe when I passed my skills test I did so having been trained to the required standard . That same standard that those with 60 hrs have attained . Everybody is different some take to things easier than others it is not a kudos thing here and I think its a little cruel to say the least that you insinuate that those who grasp concepts easier than others now have more to learn . At the end of the day I know quite afew people who have been to america, learned at the same time as me in the sme place who all achieved a ppl in the required time , those in the US also got a night rating .It is possible and it is done regularly
Think of it this way , a lot of commercial pilots flying airliners staretd on integrated courses from scratch and in minimum time achieved an FATPL now do they have a lot to learn ? or would someone who took say 300 hrs to get there be a better bet?
Raf are the same yo can fly a jag harrier tornado with very few hours but they seem to manage it you dont get many raf types with a huge amount of excessive hours over there training quota do you ,its laid down in stone and they manage
Think of it this way , a lot of commercial pilots flying airliners staretd on integrated courses from scratch and in minimum time achieved an FATPL now do they have a lot to learn ? or would someone who took say 300 hrs to get there be a better bet?
Raf are the same yo can fly a jag harrier tornado with very few hours but they seem to manage it you dont get many raf types with a huge amount of excessive hours over there training quota do you ,its laid down in stone and they manage
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: SE England
MDP,
Whirls is spot on. She's not saying that people who do things in minimum hours are 'better' or 'worse', but purely for everybody to be careful and accept that everything is a continuous learning process.
I guess in theory you could do a PPL in minimum hours (overseas?), hardly encounter a cloud or a lick of wind and then take your skills test. Sombody who trains in more adverse conditions and takes twice as long is more likely to have a bit more in the bag of experience than the 45 hour hotshot, despite not necessarily being as naturally talented. But I guess there will always be exceptions.
Heeding Whirly's advice would be a good thing for anybody no matter what their situation.
Just be careful.
Whirls is spot on. She's not saying that people who do things in minimum hours are 'better' or 'worse', but purely for everybody to be careful and accept that everything is a continuous learning process.
I guess in theory you could do a PPL in minimum hours (overseas?), hardly encounter a cloud or a lick of wind and then take your skills test. Sombody who trains in more adverse conditions and takes twice as long is more likely to have a bit more in the bag of experience than the 45 hour hotshot, despite not necessarily being as naturally talented. But I guess there will always be exceptions.
Heeding Whirly's advice would be a good thing for anybody no matter what their situation.
Just be careful.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
I seriously worry about people who manage to do a PPL in minimum hours
I don't intend this at you at all, Whirls, but there is a bit too much elitism in this business sometimes.
The reality is that aptitude varies massively - as you must know, being an instructor. There are people who can go solo in 5hrs, and I have met a few students (old people mostly) who are way past 100hrs and haven't gone solo yet. The older people are the longer they take. I am a good technical pilot, though probably a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, would never even think of trying aeros, and at age 43 back then I took 66hrs and spent nearly £9000.
The UK average is probably about 65 hours, reflecting the fact that the average student is hardly a spring chicken or somebody from that Tom Cruise film. The CAA license issue data, IIRC, shows an average new PPL issue age of about 45.
My 11 year old son already knows most of the PPL content and can fly to nearly PPL standard. I am sure he will do his in the minimum time - unless he discovers girls in the meantime.
The basic PPL is almost useless for going anywhere, and I believe this is a major reason why most people chuck in flying pretty fast. It is just the very basics of flying. If one was to teach people to fly for real, the 45hrs would become 100hrs, the cost on the price list would double, and few people would do it.
I don't intend this at you at all, Whirls, but there is a bit too much elitism in this business sometimes.
The reality is that aptitude varies massively - as you must know, being an instructor. There are people who can go solo in 5hrs, and I have met a few students (old people mostly) who are way past 100hrs and haven't gone solo yet. The older people are the longer they take. I am a good technical pilot, though probably a poor "seat of the pants" pilot, would never even think of trying aeros, and at age 43 back then I took 66hrs and spent nearly £9000.
The UK average is probably about 65 hours, reflecting the fact that the average student is hardly a spring chicken or somebody from that Tom Cruise film. The CAA license issue data, IIRC, shows an average new PPL issue age of about 45.
My 11 year old son already knows most of the PPL content and can fly to nearly PPL standard. I am sure he will do his in the minimum time - unless he discovers girls in the meantime.
The basic PPL is almost useless for going anywhere, and I believe this is a major reason why most people chuck in flying pretty fast. It is just the very basics of flying. If one was to teach people to fly for real, the 45hrs would become 100hrs, the cost on the price list would double, and few people would do it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not often I disagree with Whirls, but facts are, if you make the standard at 45, then you make the standard. Your no worse than someone who took 60/70/100 to get there.
I can compare that a little to my time in the Military. I was doing a job after 3 years in that it took some guys 10 years to get to, and they presented the same arguments as this. Didn't wash then, as I was good enough, and thats what mattered. Binary affair, either yes or no. It was yes. Same with this.
Airbus, you say
'I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified.'
Well, I'm not out to fuel any stereotypes, just speaking as I have found. End of really, and if you find it an uncomfortable truth, I'm not sure what to say to you. It is what it is. The funny thing about stereotypes however, is they tend to be borne from truisms.
Ah, the wonderfull world of G.A.
I can compare that a little to my time in the Military. I was doing a job after 3 years in that it took some guys 10 years to get to, and they presented the same arguments as this. Didn't wash then, as I was good enough, and thats what mattered. Binary affair, either yes or no. It was yes. Same with this.
Airbus, you say
'I am sure that such people as you describe exist, I accept your sentiments - but you are, intentionally or otherwise, fuelling a stereotype that isn't fully justified.'
Well, I'm not out to fuel any stereotypes, just speaking as I have found. End of really, and if you find it an uncomfortable truth, I'm not sure what to say to you. It is what it is. The funny thing about stereotypes however, is they tend to be borne from truisms.
Ah, the wonderfull world of G.A.
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
I'm not sure if I can explain what I meant, but I'll give it a go.
There are two main parts to learning to fly and being a pilot. One is learning to handle the controls, learning to navigate, learning to use the radio. It's what is tested in the Skills Test. It's what takes some people 45 hours to master, and some a couple of hundred, and of course everyone who passes it is of a similar and good enough standard.
The second part is more nebulous. It comes from experience - of being in the air, of things going wrong, of different instructors, of different weather conditions. It's experience of feeling you can't cope, of struggling, of dealing with your own limitations and those of others. It's acceptance and tolerance, of people and situations. It's what you'll be learning about as a pilot for many years and thousands of hours. You'll never stop learning about it, but the more you fly, the more you'll realise how important it is. It's why flying changes you as a person, in ways that have nothing to do with handling the controls of an aircraft.
This second part obviously can't be tested or quantified. And I'm not saying that those who took 60 hours to get a PPL will necessarily have more experience of it than those who took 40. But it's likely, simply because they've had one and a half times the flying...which is a lot when you have so few hours anyway.
I took me 90 hours to get my PPL(A). At the time I thought I was the worst pilot with the least aptitude in the history of aviation. I more or less said as much to an airline pilot, who assured me I was probably better than the people who did it in 45 hours, due to the extra experience I'd had, particularly with instructors. At the time I thought he was just trying to be nice. Now I know what he meant. But he couldn't explain it, and I'm not sure I've managed very well.
But to repeat what I said, I in no way mean to criticise or belittle anyone, but just be careful out there.
There are two main parts to learning to fly and being a pilot. One is learning to handle the controls, learning to navigate, learning to use the radio. It's what is tested in the Skills Test. It's what takes some people 45 hours to master, and some a couple of hundred, and of course everyone who passes it is of a similar and good enough standard.
The second part is more nebulous. It comes from experience - of being in the air, of things going wrong, of different instructors, of different weather conditions. It's experience of feeling you can't cope, of struggling, of dealing with your own limitations and those of others. It's acceptance and tolerance, of people and situations. It's what you'll be learning about as a pilot for many years and thousands of hours. You'll never stop learning about it, but the more you fly, the more you'll realise how important it is. It's why flying changes you as a person, in ways that have nothing to do with handling the controls of an aircraft.
This second part obviously can't be tested or quantified. And I'm not saying that those who took 60 hours to get a PPL will necessarily have more experience of it than those who took 40. But it's likely, simply because they've had one and a half times the flying...which is a lot when you have so few hours anyway.
I took me 90 hours to get my PPL(A). At the time I thought I was the worst pilot with the least aptitude in the history of aviation. I more or less said as much to an airline pilot, who assured me I was probably better than the people who did it in 45 hours, due to the extra experience I'd had, particularly with instructors. At the time I thought he was just trying to be nice. Now I know what he meant. But he couldn't explain it, and I'm not sure I've managed very well.
But to repeat what I said, I in no way mean to criticise or belittle anyone, but just be careful out there.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: North of South
Yes , once again I think poor old Whirls was the victim of a wrongly written then wrongly interpreted statement. Its the same as those bloody silly txt messages , if they can be intrepreted the wrong way then they will.
Although "if youve done it in minimum hours then there is probably more you dont know"
There is a possibility that this could be true . However that further time you spend training is doing things over and over again in a bid to meet the required standard , a standard that can be met by others in a shorter space of time . It cannot be said that if it takes you a further 30hrs you have more experience , you will still be at the same standard and wont have learnt anymore that others .
I gave the example of the RAF you join the Raf or any of the other services as a pilot , you are given an allotted time to get up to speed , if you dont you are given more time albeit very minimal to get there if you dont your binned pure and simple . So in relation to a PPL if your given 45 hrs then that would be that . If it took you 80 then the simple fact is you would be binned a long time prior . But can it be said that raf pilots who make the grade are lacking in any knowledge . I doubt a single person here would deride the skills of armed forces aircrew .
This is not a go at you Whirls you are a CPL holder and far more knowledgable than I and I bow down to your greater experience . BUt think of it this way if you had gotten your PPL in 45 hrs would that make you any less of a pilot today . I have just over 200 hrs but as a PPL .There are people here who will have less than that and hold a CPL , IR , FI etc etc , exprience is all relative . But the point regarding licence to learn is more than valid . It is a fool who believes a PPL makes a PILOT , it makes an opportunity for someone to learn to become what one day we all aspire to be safe competent careful and experienced
Although "if youve done it in minimum hours then there is probably more you dont know"
There is a possibility that this could be true . However that further time you spend training is doing things over and over again in a bid to meet the required standard , a standard that can be met by others in a shorter space of time . It cannot be said that if it takes you a further 30hrs you have more experience , you will still be at the same standard and wont have learnt anymore that others .
I gave the example of the RAF you join the Raf or any of the other services as a pilot , you are given an allotted time to get up to speed , if you dont you are given more time albeit very minimal to get there if you dont your binned pure and simple . So in relation to a PPL if your given 45 hrs then that would be that . If it took you 80 then the simple fact is you would be binned a long time prior . But can it be said that raf pilots who make the grade are lacking in any knowledge . I doubt a single person here would deride the skills of armed forces aircrew .
This is not a go at you Whirls you are a CPL holder and far more knowledgable than I and I bow down to your greater experience . BUt think of it this way if you had gotten your PPL in 45 hrs would that make you any less of a pilot today . I have just over 200 hrs but as a PPL .There are people here who will have less than that and hold a CPL , IR , FI etc etc , exprience is all relative . But the point regarding licence to learn is more than valid . It is a fool who believes a PPL makes a PILOT , it makes an opportunity for someone to learn to become what one day we all aspire to be safe competent careful and experienced