Finish PPL in own aircraft (complex?)

[SDB73]

Hi All,

Long time lurker, this my first post!

I had to abandon my PPL a few years ago due to time constraints (getting a new business off the ground) at about 35 hours, having completed everything apart from the skills test and about three exams.

I'm now looking to finally complete it, and get flying, and can't wait.

I would be very interested in opinions and advice with regard to :

1) how much I would need to spend on something that isn't likely to fall out of the sky, and I could move on relatively easily once I'm ready to upgrade.

2) whether it's actually possible to complete my training in a complex, enabling me to buy something now which would last me longer once I'm qualified.

Thanks for any advice or pointers.

[2high2fastagain]

I'm sure you are going to lots of answers, but to start.

1. Well maintained Cessnas or Pipers don't tend to fall out of the sky. Have a look on avbuyer, that will tell you what you can get. 2 seater C152s weigh in at about 18-30k. C172s about 10k more (3 people) and the 182s at about 50-90k (4 people plus luggage). The Piper family are similar prices. I bought a Cessna because I know I can get it maintained and also there are abundant spares. Rarer aircraft are more challenging when you want to get bits quickly. It all depends whether you want to bimble or fly I guess.

2. I finished my training in a C152 before moving onto a complex. This worked for me. Not sure whether you are allowed to go straight to a complex (wobbly prop and wheelsup), but you certainly need differences training and sign off in your log book.

[IO540]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc.

I checked this out back in 2001/2002.

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

It is done fairly widely abroad; there are / have been schools in e.g. Thailand which trained ab initio in TB20s, and fundamentally there is no reason why not. Retractable gear and a CS prop are really simple concepts; made "complex" only through an arbitrary regulatory distinction.

Well, some of the "100hr plus" perpetual students (some of whom have difficulty working a manual gearbox in a car) would perhaps be even more perpetual

Whopity is the expert here on the regulatory situation.

The training "wreckage" doesn't fall out of the sky; it is just a big irritation to fly a 1970 Vauxhall Viva if you have high personal standards in your normal life. Just make sure you have plenty of juice whenever you fly solo (never take anybody's word for how much is in the tank).

[BackPacker]

2) whether it's actually possible to complete my training in a complex, enabling me to buy something now which would last me longer once I'm qualified.

Why are you focused on a complex aircraft, particularly retractable gear? One of the best-selling piston single todays is the Cirrus line and they all have fixed gear.

Retractable gear is going to cost a lot. Not just in acquisition, but also in maintenance and insurance - not to mention the actual cost of forgetting to lower it some day. Fixed gear does add drag but with proper fairing that's only minimal, and simply offset by a few extra HP up front. At least, that seems to be the design philosophy of Cirrus.

[SDB73]

Wow! Thanks a lot for the extremely helpful replies.

Why a complex? It's not so much a complex for e sake of it, but that the two aeroplanes I'm most interested in are a Commander 114, and a Bonanza. Mainly for comfort and range. Still early days though, as I don't even have my license, but thought I'd ask the question to see if I could rule it out for now.

Any thoughts on this?
SOCATA TB10

Thanks again for the replies.

[stickandrudderman]

There's no legal reason why you can't finish your training on a "complex" (a very strange term given that it's nothing of the sort) and if you've got an itch and the resources then you should scratch it!
Personally I find managing the flight much more of a challenge than managing the aeroplane.

[IO540]

Retractable gear is going to cost a lot. Not just in acquisition, but also in maintenance and insurance

I think you know my view on that The extra cost is close to negligible - on all fronts - on the scale of flying costs. Unless, that is, you buy an old wreck which has been lubed with WD40 for 30 years, generally neglected, etc. Nearly everybody who has had trouble with the gear (on any half modern plane) has inherited many years of previous lack of even the most basic maintenance.

- not to mention the actual cost of forgetting to lower it some day.

That's true but in any half modern plane that takes some doing. Take the TB20 - there are 2 interlocks: the landing flap, and the throttle position. The 3rd warning is your brain: with the gear up, it's going to feel awfully funny to try to get the thing to descend at the customary rate. Sure, these can all be defeated; there is a generation of pilots (many in the USA) who never use landing flap, and a stiff headwind could then fool the other factors.

Fixed gear does add drag but with proper fairing that's only minimal, and simply offset by a few extra HP up front.

More than a few. About 30HP for the SR22, IMHO.

At least, that seems to be the design philosophy of Cirrus.

Actually, I think their philosophy is really to market a plane to young wealthy men, using the "simple as a car" metaphor. This is an entirely valid (and necessary) approach in today's world. But when their salesmen say the fixed gear costs them "2-3kt", they are lying through their teeth. Of course they have to say that; nobody could admit to a cynical marketing ploy like that

[letpmar]

complex

I did all my ppl after something like 25 hours in a Cessna 206 so there is nothing to stop you. I can put you onto an instructor no problem. I have never bothered with retractable though I have always thought it not worth the extra expence to maintain.
But if you really want to get there in a hurry I guess you need to work that out for yourself.

Pete

[2high2fastagain]

Backpacker - everything is a trade off. My retractable gives me 15 knots, lower fuel bills and more chance of surviving if the donkey fails over rough ground or water. I love it. I wouldn't get into my home field in a Cirrus unless I wanted to make a habit of replacing the fences each time. Yes, there are downsides (I do my red/blue/greens three times to be sure but there's no universal answer or perfect airplane - you pays your money and makes your choice.

[CISTRS]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc.

I checked this out back in 2001/2002.

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

Back in the 70's, Sportair at Biggin Hill were instructing ab-initio in Fournier RF5s.

Although retractable - hardly "complex".

I remember Romeo Kilo and Romeo Mike with affection.

[englishal]

I think you SHOULD learn to fly in a complex aeroplane if you can afford it and are going to fly that aeroplane for a while afterwards, and the Commander 114 is an awesome aeroplane. There is no reason why you can't learn in a Complex, as IO points out this is very common elsewhere in the world (USA spings to mind). You'd be less likely to forget to put the gear down if you learned on a retract IMHO.

Your insurance would likely be cheaper once you have the PPL as often they require "hours on type". If at the end of the PPL you have a further say 35 hours "on type" and say 30 hrs dual then likely insurance won't be too big an issue.

Insurance can be a funny bugger though, so shop around. We put a friend of mine on the aeroplane insurance (Commander). He has 3200 hrs, 1200 tubine, 2000 ME and the rest SE, he also holds various flight instructor ratings. The requirement for him was that he is required to be checked out by "a qualified flight instructor" (no mention of the FIO having time "on type")....so the chap checking him out is a FI with 1200 hrs and no time on type !!!! The insurance also specified "10 hrs dual on type" but I (and my buddy above) had that waived due to experience, but my other buddy who has about 120 hrs is required to do the 10 hours dual (with me or a FI)....But insurance is not so expensive and only 400 quid more than our Rallye for more than double the hull value.

[Fuji Abound]

Actually, I think their philosophy is really to market a plane to young wealthy men, using the "simple as a car" metaphor. This is an entirely valid (and necessary) approach in today's world. But when their salesmen say the fixed gear costs them "2-3kt", they are lying through their teeth. Of course they have to say that; nobody could admit to a cynical marketing ploy like that

No, I dont think so, it is well rehearsed that in the US (their main market) the insurance premiums were loaded in favour of fixed gear. They are however lying through their teeth, or challenging the unchallengable laws of physics.

I am never sure why, but an aircraft doesnt look right with the u/c welded down, but, on the other hand, it is not something you notice when driving it until you look at the fuel consumption and wonder why it is not accelerating.

[IO540]

The reality of insurance premiums on SR20s or SR22s versus TB20s (I recall one survey of US premiums) doesn't support the "fixed gear is cheaper" idea at all, however. It's a marketing myth, which was probably never actually true.

[dirkdj]

I think the Cirrus needs a fixed gear, in order to work as a shock absorber under the BRS chute.

[Redbird72]

It's a marketing myth, which was probably never actually true.

I agree, in the UK at least, if complexity is considered at all for insurance, it's way down the list.

[IO540]

Indeed; no difference AFAIK.

In fact one UK insurer has very recently upped the SR22 excess from £3500 to £15000, as an immediate result of what they regard as daft pilot behaviour followed by a pointless chute pull.

I don't know who the insurer is but there haven't been many Cirrus BRS chute pulls in the UK so it won't take long to dig out the incident which brought this about.

It may be an over-reaction by the insurer which is not exactly conducive to saving lives, but it does reflect what great many pilots think about the majority of the Cirrus chute pull scenarios (i.e. a totally pointless way to write off a plane through pilot stupidity).

In the USA, my vague recollection is that SR22 premiums are 2x to3x higher than TB20 premiums - though that would well be skewed by a very different pilot experience profile in the USA between these types.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Originally Posted by IO540

The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

You obviously didn't ask me! I have no issue with training anyone in a complex type. It might not be the best idea for the first few hours, but that can be dealt with easily enough if the FI uses a modicum of thought.

Yes, it will take a bit longer than in something simple, but it's hardly impossible.

As mentioned by englishal, if you are going to spend time in the future flying a complex type, then why not learn in one? You'll get the knowledge and training you need over a longer period of time and get taught how to operate the machine you'll be using right from the start.

[mrmum]

It is certainly possible to do a PPL in a complex aircraft i.e. retractable etc. I checked this out back in 2001/2002. The catch was that, apparently, no instructor in the UK was willing to consider it.

SAS, it was back in 2001, nearly ten years ago, were you instructing back then? I was, but he didn't ask me either, I guess we can feel left out together! We once, pre-JAA did an entire PPL(A) for a guy on a Group B (as it was then), actually a Seneca 1, as he had too much money and didn't think singles were safe, no matter what we said to him. It used to take a bit of explaining to ATC when we started sending him solo in it. So, as you say, perfectly possible and probably beneficial if that's what you're going to fly afterwards.

[englishal]

slightly off topic I know, but....

Not everybody is flying a new $300K airplane, certainly not many who are flying retractables, and not everybody has 1000 hrs TT and an IR (which I've been told by an insurer substantially lowers premiums in 'high performance' airplanes). I think making sweeping statements that really apply only to a slim fraction of retractables and maybe not to a low time pilot at all, doesn't properly answer the question.

There is a fundamental difference between insurance in the USA and insurance in the UK, as can be seen by one of the above posts ref: sending a student solo in a multi. This would NEVER happen in the USA for insurance reasons, and one reason the FAA created the phrase "performing the duties of pilot in command" rather than just "solo" when refering to ME PIC time for the Commercial.

Anyway being a retract or fixed gear doesn't seem to make that much difference in the UK - like a said before, 400 pounds between a very simple fixed gear SEP and a complex retract with more than double the hull value. Also having advanced qualifications doesn't seem to make much difference other than perhaps "time on type".

In the UK a fresh new ME rating holder could probably go out and rent a ME aeroplane from someone or get insurance with 10hr on type. Again in the USA that is EXTREMELY unlikley - I remember trying to rent a Seminole (i.e. Twin Archer!) and they wanted something like 500 hrs TT and 200 ME hours minimum! It was only when I found somewhere who would rent me a DA42 (a buddy of mine who runs a flying school) that I managed to actually get to fly Multi's properly.....

[IO540]

You obviously didn't ask me! I have no issue with training anyone in a complex type. It might not be the best idea for the first few hours, but that can be dealt with easily enough if the FI uses a modicum of thought.

Maybe you should advertise the option to train well funded PPL students in their new £300k planes

You would get a useful bit of business.

I am nowhere near as well funded as many but I bought a new TB20 less than a year after getting the PPL. I would have got it sooner has I not been discouraged from buying (anything) by absolutely everybody in the 2 schools I worked through. There is business at this level - even in the UK.

And as both of you say, little point in training in something you are not going to be flying afterwards... which is exactly what I've been saying here for years.

I wonder what the insurance for a Seneca for a pre-PPL solo flight would have been

$1000/year for 2 planes is incredibly cheap - presumably this is for very low hull values. I pay £2600/year for the TB20, based on the mandatory European + MOD cover, £190k agreed hull value. This is for a 1000+hr CPL/IR, sole pilot.