Quickest & Cheapest way to get PPL in UK
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"As slow as possible" was never done during my PPL training.
It was "point us into wind, then fly as slowly as possible, then watch the ground to see if we can make it go backwards". Those were the days! (We couldn't, it wasn't windy enough.) (The instructor was a test pilot, not an hour-building kid.)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I'd just put a word in, as I've made this exact decision. However, I think its devalued by saying cheap and quick...So, here was my thinking.
1. To get to the same end game, that of a full PPL(A) (or EASA equivalent) it's more expensive if you go via the microlight route. That is definite (I have a spreadsheet!). The total number of hours is likely to be more, and the microlight training counts minimally towards it. As others have mentioned as well, this is the only option for putting stuff like IMC and night ratings on. If that's what you want, then there is no doubt that training straight away on light aircraft will be both quicker and cheaper.
2. My end game was flying. I didn't care much about being restricted to VMC, as I only want to go flying on nice days (at least, at the moment). Microlight training is definitely cheaper per hour than light aircraft, so that's good. As for time to learn, I have been strongly advised not to consider that 25 hours is less than 32 or 45 hours. I've been told (quite sensibly) that it will take however long it takes. It may be a bit shorter for microlights as some of the instrument training is less, but both microlight and light aircraft pilots have told me not to expect one to be significantly quicker than the other, to get to a competent level. However, there are fewer exams and ancillary costs, so yes, it will be cheaper.
And after I get my NPPL(M)? Well, per hour flying will be cheaper as long as I can afford to buy in to a syndicate, and at that point, if I want to go on, I can convert. Overall, it will cost more, but why not wait till then to decide. I'll have earned more money by then too!
So, cheaper and quicker, yes, as long as its to the point where you can fly by yourself and have some form of license, not to the same license.
Lastly, one other piece of advice I was given was to have another think at about the 10-20 hour point. At that stage, I should have learnt the basics, and perhaps have done my first solo. Those skills [not hours] are (I am told) transferable, whatever. If at that point, I want to move on to light aircraft, I will be starting with the experience of how to fly, and even if I have to do another 45 hours for license reasons, the overall number of hours (55-65) is probably not going to be any different.
Hope that helps.
IPZ
1. To get to the same end game, that of a full PPL(A) (or EASA equivalent) it's more expensive if you go via the microlight route. That is definite (I have a spreadsheet!). The total number of hours is likely to be more, and the microlight training counts minimally towards it. As others have mentioned as well, this is the only option for putting stuff like IMC and night ratings on. If that's what you want, then there is no doubt that training straight away on light aircraft will be both quicker and cheaper.
2. My end game was flying. I didn't care much about being restricted to VMC, as I only want to go flying on nice days (at least, at the moment). Microlight training is definitely cheaper per hour than light aircraft, so that's good. As for time to learn, I have been strongly advised not to consider that 25 hours is less than 32 or 45 hours. I've been told (quite sensibly) that it will take however long it takes. It may be a bit shorter for microlights as some of the instrument training is less, but both microlight and light aircraft pilots have told me not to expect one to be significantly quicker than the other, to get to a competent level. However, there are fewer exams and ancillary costs, so yes, it will be cheaper.
And after I get my NPPL(M)? Well, per hour flying will be cheaper as long as I can afford to buy in to a syndicate, and at that point, if I want to go on, I can convert. Overall, it will cost more, but why not wait till then to decide. I'll have earned more money by then too!
So, cheaper and quicker, yes, as long as its to the point where you can fly by yourself and have some form of license, not to the same license.
Lastly, one other piece of advice I was given was to have another think at about the 10-20 hour point. At that stage, I should have learnt the basics, and perhaps have done my first solo. Those skills [not hours] are (I am told) transferable, whatever. If at that point, I want to move on to light aircraft, I will be starting with the experience of how to fly, and even if I have to do another 45 hours for license reasons, the overall number of hours (55-65) is probably not going to be any different.
Hope that helps.
IPZ
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends how long you fly on each rating. If you have flown many hours in a 3-axis microlight, upgrading to SSEA will most likely require only the minimum 3 hours dual, a cross country flight, the GST and the only JAR-FCL PPL exam not done on the microlight course, Aircraft General and Principles of Flight.
If you then fly your homebuilt SSEA for at least 35 hours, to upgrade to a JAR-PPL you need 20 hours dual with a JAR qualified instructor, of which you have already done at least 3 on the SSEA course. You already have the exams under your belt, so if you are good, as little as 17 hours dual may be all that is necessary before the GST.
If you then fly your homebuilt SSEA for at least 35 hours, to upgrade to a JAR-PPL you need 20 hours dual with a JAR qualified instructor, of which you have already done at least 3 on the SSEA course. You already have the exams under your belt, so if you are good, as little as 17 hours dual may be all that is necessary before the GST.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
patowalker. I agree with you, but even if you add those up, its 25 minimum for microlight, and another 20 minimum to JAR, so minimums come to the same 45 hours.
I think we're saying the same thing though. You get to PPL(M) first, and then you get to fly, and if you want to go on, its no great shakes, and you don't lose out too much, but get to fly in the meantime
Yes?
I think we're saying the same thing though. You get to PPL(M) first, and then you get to fly, and if you want to go on, its no great shakes, and you don't lose out too much, but get to fly in the meantime
Yes?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who are convinced that an instructor costing £150ph is going to give you better training than one which is “almost” free I would reminded you of Gliding. From 1984 to 1991 I few gliders and was instructed by enthusiast instructors who were mostly very good indeed.
Another example of very high quality instruction for not much money would be the LAA coaching system, which again, generally provides very experienced and knowledgeable enthusiast instructors.
There are many different ways one can take to get a “PPL” in the UK and I would not think the cost of the licence would have a significant impact on the quality of the resulting pilot, in most cases. The best way to spend money is to go to the most expensive school in the area and fly once a month, you may never pass, but boy will you pay pay pay. The lest expensive option is to shop around, learn all the different approaches, try a few trial lessons and then do the training as intensively as possible in a location and at a time of year when you are least likely to get weather interruptions. Having got the licences, then you can start learning to fly in the real world, take it nice and slow and try to find a suitable mentor.
Rod1
Another example of very high quality instruction for not much money would be the LAA coaching system, which again, generally provides very experienced and knowledgeable enthusiast instructors.
There are many different ways one can take to get a “PPL” in the UK and I would not think the cost of the licence would have a significant impact on the quality of the resulting pilot, in most cases. The best way to spend money is to go to the most expensive school in the area and fly once a month, you may never pass, but boy will you pay pay pay. The lest expensive option is to shop around, learn all the different approaches, try a few trial lessons and then do the training as intensively as possible in a location and at a time of year when you are least likely to get weather interruptions. Having got the licences, then you can start learning to fly in the real world, take it nice and slow and try to find a suitable mentor.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IanPZ,
Yes, unless your are lucky enough to learn to fly an ultralight where the government doest even know they exist, so you get free lessons and are sent solo in 7 hours. Then you move to France and show an instructor you can fly and he sends you straight off to Orly to do the theory and you end up with a licence. This you bring to the UK, where you are log-book assessed and asked to do the Air Law and Human Performance and Limitations exams and satisfy a FI that you are ready for the GST. You manage to do in <2 hours and off you go to do the GST, in a Chaser, non radio.
Yes, unless your are lucky enough to learn to fly an ultralight where the government doest even know they exist, so you get free lessons and are sent solo in 7 hours. Then you move to France and show an instructor you can fly and he sends you straight off to Orly to do the theory and you end up with a licence. This you bring to the UK, where you are log-book assessed and asked to do the Air Law and Human Performance and Limitations exams and satisfy a FI that you are ready for the GST. You manage to do in <2 hours and off you go to do the GST, in a Chaser, non radio.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you asked for it.
I learnt in the costal desert of Peru. It never rained and with the Pacific on one side and the Andes on the other, it is no wonder that meteorology and navigation are not my strong points.
My instructor was Guido Fernandez, who much later investigated the crash of Aeroperu 603. There was no ultralight licence and hence no need for exams, but the ATPLs who provided the training made sure we knew what was necessary, as they did not want an incident to come to the attention of the authorities and result in regulation.
Flying was a lot of fun and the inverted Cuyuna on my American Aerolites Eagle certainly taught me how to handle engine failures. I have very fond memories of skimming along deserted beaches and teasing Dobermans guarding chickens farms by flying just out of reach of their snapping jaws.
But I really learnt to fly in Ecuador, launching in hang-gliders from 12000' up Mt Pichincha to land in Quito, 3000' below.
I learnt in the costal desert of Peru. It never rained and with the Pacific on one side and the Andes on the other, it is no wonder that meteorology and navigation are not my strong points.
My instructor was Guido Fernandez, who much later investigated the crash of Aeroperu 603. There was no ultralight licence and hence no need for exams, but the ATPLs who provided the training made sure we knew what was necessary, as they did not want an incident to come to the attention of the authorities and result in regulation.
Flying was a lot of fun and the inverted Cuyuna on my American Aerolites Eagle certainly taught me how to handle engine failures. I have very fond memories of skimming along deserted beaches and teasing Dobermans guarding chickens farms by flying just out of reach of their snapping jaws.
But I really learnt to fly in Ecuador, launching in hang-gliders from 12000' up Mt Pichincha to land in Quito, 3000' below.
Last edited by patowalker; 3rd Jan 2011 at 00:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LONDON E.U.
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sport Aviation & General aviation for weekend pilots, who prefer flight to say fast cars or motorcycles, will be supported,in the future, primarily from Microlight & Ultralight & Advanced Ultralight industry. The Rotax engine is the engine that reflects the current price of fuel etc.Advanced Ultra lights are as advanced as a 152 but many are made of modern lighter materials ,carbon fiber & fabric combinations.
We all Love flying and innovation and the demand for it, is what keeps the "industry"thriving and providing jobs. Innovation and technological advances create new opportunities for cheaper flying to folks who otherwise could only look up and wonder.
The 152 while still in service ,houses an engine that was designed in the 1950,s when fuel was pennies a gallon, this is no longer the reality. We generally agree with a microlight, the principles of flight are taught,Air Law, meteorology,Human Factors and a 18 year old Kid can still afford to take his buddy safely up for a flight on the weekend.Its fun ,its a sport & hobby and we all support and finance it.
If one wish,s to advance ones experience he won,t have to sell the farm to do so.
Air is free fuel , maintenance is not........
There is nothing I hate more than seeing a good young boy scout ripped of his savings at the hands of a unscrupulous instructor /flight school only concerned with time building or charging Hobbs Time.(Golden Rule all the way)
We all Love flying and innovation and the demand for it, is what keeps the "industry"thriving and providing jobs. Innovation and technological advances create new opportunities for cheaper flying to folks who otherwise could only look up and wonder.
The 152 while still in service ,houses an engine that was designed in the 1950,s when fuel was pennies a gallon, this is no longer the reality. We generally agree with a microlight, the principles of flight are taught,Air Law, meteorology,Human Factors and a 18 year old Kid can still afford to take his buddy safely up for a flight on the weekend.Its fun ,its a sport & hobby and we all support and finance it.
If one wish,s to advance ones experience he won,t have to sell the farm to do so.
Air is free fuel , maintenance is not........
There is nothing I hate more than seeing a good young boy scout ripped of his savings at the hands of a unscrupulous instructor /flight school only concerned with time building or charging Hobbs Time.(Golden Rule all the way)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Not in dreamland any more.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you work this out?
Although Ultralights are cheaper, It shouldn't be confused with being cheap however the cost. My local airfield offers a complete training solution for those wishing to gain a flying license in a CTSW Ultralight aircraft (which looks very similar to the the Cessna 162). 25 hours flying time with an instructor plus 25 hours briefing time for £3500, plus you have to pay for everything else such as exams, tests and equipment. However, I think that a student with no flight experience would benefit from 40 hours of tuition as a core package costing £5600 in total plus £140 per hour for each additional hour.
But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....
I dont understand the pricing!
But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....
I dont understand the pricing!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to say that in my research to decide what I wanted to do, I must have visited, emailed or talked to a good 10+ different flying schools near me, as well as a couple of clubs that had instructors as part of the group.
Every single one of them were helpful, friendly, and keen to give advice. When I was close to making the decision about going down the microlight route, I visited one of the flying schools and the CFI took time to listen, understand what I was thinking, and tell me any pitfalls and what I needed to do to make sure I plugged the gaps (such as doing a full RT course, which isn't covered in the microlight training).
The one thing I didn't meet were "unscrupulous instructors only after my money". Now, I am sure there are some people like that out there, and I am also sure that all the usual care needs to be taken when committing to an expense like flying, but surely people who choose to set up and run flying schools do so because they love flying, and want to share it with others whilst making ends meet. It isn't exactly going to make you a millionaire, after all.
It's a small pool of clients (apart from the commercial training) and word gets round very quickly if someone is unscrupulous, and that is just bad for business.
So, whilst I agree with the initial discussion, I simply can't accept this view of CFIs and flight school owners. I know my experience is anecdotal, but I would say 10+ schools, all helpful means they are not "out to get me", and I think it doesn't help others to promote that view. By all means go in with your eyes open, but I think its wrong to spread these kind of negative feelings. It's just not true, in my experience to date.
IPZ
Every single one of them were helpful, friendly, and keen to give advice. When I was close to making the decision about going down the microlight route, I visited one of the flying schools and the CFI took time to listen, understand what I was thinking, and tell me any pitfalls and what I needed to do to make sure I plugged the gaps (such as doing a full RT course, which isn't covered in the microlight training).
The one thing I didn't meet were "unscrupulous instructors only after my money". Now, I am sure there are some people like that out there, and I am also sure that all the usual care needs to be taken when committing to an expense like flying, but surely people who choose to set up and run flying schools do so because they love flying, and want to share it with others whilst making ends meet. It isn't exactly going to make you a millionaire, after all.
It's a small pool of clients (apart from the commercial training) and word gets round very quickly if someone is unscrupulous, and that is just bad for business.
So, whilst I agree with the initial discussion, I simply can't accept this view of CFIs and flight school owners. I know my experience is anecdotal, but I would say 10+ schools, all helpful means they are not "out to get me", and I think it doesn't help others to promote that view. By all means go in with your eyes open, but I think its wrong to spread these kind of negative feelings. It's just not true, in my experience to date.
IPZ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LONDON E.U.
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't advise a young person to go into the jungle without advising him/her about the scorpions and the snakes.
There is professional advise and friendly advise.My friend you might just find a friend on a small microlight airfield that will put a little lift under your wings.In a professional environment the only thing that will add lift is cash.Get on the inside track ya? But by all means now you have the view of both sides. Aviation training in the UK is the most expensive in the world. Fuel is amongst the most expensive in the world.Vat is amongst the highest in the world. Lean your mixture my friend ,lean your mixture;-) Your the navigator now.Please report back your "final"cost.
MR.X99
MOT.CPL/IR/ME/CFI.1000TT
There is professional advise and friendly advise.My friend you might just find a friend on a small microlight airfield that will put a little lift under your wings.In a professional environment the only thing that will add lift is cash.Get on the inside track ya? But by all means now you have the view of both sides. Aviation training in the UK is the most expensive in the world. Fuel is amongst the most expensive in the world.Vat is amongst the highest in the world. Lean your mixture my friend ,lean your mixture;-) Your the navigator now.Please report back your "final"cost.
MR.X99
MOT.CPL/IR/ME/CFI.1000TT
Although Ultralights are cheaper, It shouldn't be confused with being cheap however the cost. My local airfield offers a complete training solution for those wishing to gain a flying license in a CTSW Ultralight aircraft (which looks very similar to the the Cessna 162). 25 hours flying time with an instructor plus 25 hours briefing time for £3500, plus you have to pay for everything else such as exams, tests and equipment. However, I think that a student with no flight experience would benefit from 40 hours of tuition as a core package costing £5600 in total plus £140 per hour for each additional hour.
But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....
I dont understand the pricing!
But at the same time another local airfield charges £150 cheaper for a 40 hour package but in a Cessna 152. Studying a for a PPL in a C152 is cheaper than Ultralight flying where I live (Essex)....
I dont understand the pricing!
There is a further difference, light aeroplane instructors are paid slave labour rates, because they can hour-build for their airline licences. Microlight instructors are usually a bit better paid because they actually have to live off their pay and aren't marking time until they get an airline job.
After that, it's all down to market economics. But you can't really expect to pay much different, for an instructor + airfield + similar performance aeroplane. The real savings in microlighting is where you fly a true microlight - something that costs less to buy and run, not a hot ship that is only barely a microlight and outperforms most light aeroplanes.
Yesterday I had a very pleasant (if chilly) hour's flying in a Thruster TST which in total will have cost me about £40 including my month's syndicate payment. The real cost of a CT, or a C152, (or my share in a 4-seat light aeroplane that I was flying on new year's eve) would have been around double that.
At the end of the day, looking for short cuts isn't going to help. Learn on what you want to fly. If that's going to be light aeroplanes, learn on something like a C152. If that's going to be on high performance microlights, learn on a CT or a Dynamic. If that's going to be on basic inexpensive microlights, learn on an AX or a Thruster.
If you want to waste money, learn on something other than what you'll eventually fly the rest of the time, because the extra money will either come on conversion training, or your first minor accident.
Oh yes, and we are not in Australia, so they are still called microlights.
G
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Not in dreamland any more.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Genghis you said that in very understandable terms. I was a die hard C152 fan until I started seeing these very cool CTSW aircraft on the field, when I was told they were microlights I did nothing but research. Personally, I have had lessons in the C152 and couldn't resist a trial in the CTSW. I prefer the CTSW over the C152 due to the small glass garmin panel installed, if felt very nippy and was incredibly responsive to the smallest of movements on the stick. However I still very much admire analogue gauges and the Cessna fits the bill nicely in that respect. They both have some great advantages.
Thanks Genghis you said that in very understandable terms. I was a die hard C152 fan until I started seeing these very cool CTSW aircraft on the field, when I was told they were microlights I did nothing but research. Personally, I have had lessons in the C152 and couldn't resist a trial in the CTSW. I prefer the CTSW over the C152 due to the small glass garmin panel installed, if felt very nippy and was incredibly responsive to the smallest of movements on the stick. However I still very much admire analogue gauges and the Cessna fits the bill nicely in that respect. They both have some great advantages.
Glad to help - I've flown most of the common light and microlight aeroplanes, so am in a reasonable position to offer an opinion I hope.
You could do worse also than try some of the older generation microlights and see what you think of those. Particularly if you are (like many of us) looking to an affordable aeroplane / share after you've got your licence, this may be the closest thing to what you can eventually afford. If you are in Essex, you could do worse than try Saxon Microlights at North Weald: Saxon Microlights - microlight flying lessons for Essex and London . That would pave the way to owning something like an AX3 / 2000, X'Air, Rans S6 or Thruster T600 which are very nice (if slow) little aeroplanes that you can do just about anything with, and can be bought for under £6k (Under £3k some of them). Of that lot, I think I'd most happily buy an original model X'Air as the best of a good bunch - especially if I could get a 4-stroke engine (or 582 + C-type gearbox) for the money.
G
Aviation training in the UK is the most expensive in the world.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Not in dreamland any more.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't knock Saxon Microlights, they do indeed fly an old Thruster aircraft but that is purely what they do. I don't think they would even take a CTSW if they had the means to. Also at £102ph hour for flying training this is a snippet off the price tag of the normal PPL hour in the Cessna. The Thruster is £38 cheaper than learning to fly a CTSW at my field. This is definitely a cheaper option for getting in the air, but you are flying much less of an aircraft (almost like a powered kite)...
But they do look fun, I give them that. Isn't fun what flying is supposed to be about? I'd say!
But they do look fun, I give them that. Isn't fun what flying is supposed to be about? I'd say!
I've flown microlights that really are like powered kites - compared to those the Thruster T600 is very much a normal aeroplane from the pilots seat, just lighter and slower, and without flaps. Somebody should go from one of those to a CT or C152 without many hours training and the concept of "less of an aeroplane" is about snob value, not flying enjoyment.
But as I said before, train in what you're going to fly.
G
But as I said before, train in what you're going to fly.
G
