Regarding Cambridge Aero Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Cambridge Aero Club
Dear PPRUNERS,
There have been a number of posts following the letter sent to Cambridge Aero Club members regarding the fleet changes and the impact that it may or may not have on availability of aircraft for training and private hire. I have posted this message to try and clarify the situation and dispel some of the rumours and incorrect assumptions that have come to light.
The letter in question stated that the reason for replacing most of the 152s is one of practicality mainly regarding the increasing difficulty of operating the aircraft within POH weight and balance limitations. As you are aware, these aircraft are rather long in the tooth, and following several repaints and internal refits have become significantly heavier than their original manufactured dry weights. With a useful fuel load and two 'grown adults' onboard this more often than not renders the aircraft overweight and outside permissible limitations.
It is true that many operators suffer the same predicament, and some clearly choose to operate the aircraft under these circumstances using a certain amount of 'license' when it comes to interpreting the figures. However, I'm sure that you will agree when I say that the Cambridge Aero Club is a conscientious and professionally run organisation, and under these circumstances could no longer accept the situation as it was. After much deliberation and soul searching the final decision was always going to be inevitable. Obviously, the club has a number of crucial obligations to which it is bound, the most important of which are duty of care towards it's students, and to remain within the legal framework under which it must operate. In addition to this, it is incumbent on the PIC (the Instructor when dual) to ensure that the flight is carried out safely and legally, and failure to do so could have disastrous consequences both in terms of safety and legality.
The decision to exchange 4 152s for a fairly new 172SP was not taken lightly nor was it done on the spur of the moment. The club does not have the resources to maintain the fleet of 5 152s and purchase additional aircraft for instructing purposes, so the economics of the situation determined that something would have to go. The fact is that the fleet of 152s were terribly under utilised during the week, and while they are spending time on the ground they are not paying for their keep in terms of overheads. Remember, the CAC as well as all other flying schools is facing ever increasing levels of expense, and where the priority of the organisation is to provide high quality flight instruction and aircraft for private hire wherever possible, it must be able to do so whist remaining financially viable. It is true that the aircraft are more heavily utilised during weekends but this alone is not enough to maintain such a large fleet - half of which sat mainly idle during the rest of the week. therefore, the decision to exchange 152s for a 172 was not one to simply downsize the fleet, but was taken with the aim of compromise and to enable the Aero Club to survive and therefore continue to offer an efficient and professional service.
The priority of the CAC is to train students to pass the PPL skills test and to provide them with the background skills and knowledge to become good safe pilots, and this will continue to be the case. The Club is now better equipped to carry out this remit due to the fact that it has better and more capable aircraft. In addition, improved efficiency will enable the club to remain in service and be more competitive in the long run.
The question of availability is one which has not gone un-addressed, and it is certainly premature to assume that it will be a major issue at this early stage. The CAC's ability to accommodate it's existing students will not be affected, and every effort will be made to make aircraft available for private hire as has been the case to date. There is still (1) 152 available for PPL hire, and in most cases there will also be a very new and well equipped 172. It is worth pointing out here that this fleet is comparable to in size to that of most medium sized schools in the country - and these schools like the CAC have to do the best they can to fully utilise the aircraft and service the requirements of PPL holders who wish to hire. These circumstances are not always ideal for both parties, but they are a fact of the business and therefore it takes flexibility and compromise on both sides of the fence. I have in many cases not been able to privately hire aircraft from other providers due to a lack of availability, and I'm sure that most other pilots have had the same experience.
It remains to be seen how the new situation at CAC will 'pan out', but what I do know is that we should all wait and see how it works before jumping to the conclusion that it's all over.
Further to the above, I'd like to point out that all existing students of CAC, regardless of whether they have 1 hour or 100 hours will continue their training on 172s at exactly the same rate as they were paying for the 152s dual. Under these circumstances the changes represent a very good deal as they will be flying far better aircraft for the duration of their training, and without the need for further differences training should they wish to continue flying 172s when they have completed their courses. In addition, the CAC will be lowering the private hire rates for what are two very nice 172 aircraft.
Finally, the comments made by a previous poster regarding the downsizing of the CAC as being part of a move away from general aviation and into the realms of Cambridge City Airport are rather ill-conceived and poorly informed at best. The CAC is a limited company operating at Cambridge City Airport, and it's existence there goes back in time far enough to make it the oldest flying club in the UK. It's operations are in no way a reflection of other goings on at the Airport.
Hope that clarifies the situation.
W
There have been a number of posts following the letter sent to Cambridge Aero Club members regarding the fleet changes and the impact that it may or may not have on availability of aircraft for training and private hire. I have posted this message to try and clarify the situation and dispel some of the rumours and incorrect assumptions that have come to light.
The letter in question stated that the reason for replacing most of the 152s is one of practicality mainly regarding the increasing difficulty of operating the aircraft within POH weight and balance limitations. As you are aware, these aircraft are rather long in the tooth, and following several repaints and internal refits have become significantly heavier than their original manufactured dry weights. With a useful fuel load and two 'grown adults' onboard this more often than not renders the aircraft overweight and outside permissible limitations.
It is true that many operators suffer the same predicament, and some clearly choose to operate the aircraft under these circumstances using a certain amount of 'license' when it comes to interpreting the figures. However, I'm sure that you will agree when I say that the Cambridge Aero Club is a conscientious and professionally run organisation, and under these circumstances could no longer accept the situation as it was. After much deliberation and soul searching the final decision was always going to be inevitable. Obviously, the club has a number of crucial obligations to which it is bound, the most important of which are duty of care towards it's students, and to remain within the legal framework under which it must operate. In addition to this, it is incumbent on the PIC (the Instructor when dual) to ensure that the flight is carried out safely and legally, and failure to do so could have disastrous consequences both in terms of safety and legality.
The decision to exchange 4 152s for a fairly new 172SP was not taken lightly nor was it done on the spur of the moment. The club does not have the resources to maintain the fleet of 5 152s and purchase additional aircraft for instructing purposes, so the economics of the situation determined that something would have to go. The fact is that the fleet of 152s were terribly under utilised during the week, and while they are spending time on the ground they are not paying for their keep in terms of overheads. Remember, the CAC as well as all other flying schools is facing ever increasing levels of expense, and where the priority of the organisation is to provide high quality flight instruction and aircraft for private hire wherever possible, it must be able to do so whist remaining financially viable. It is true that the aircraft are more heavily utilised during weekends but this alone is not enough to maintain such a large fleet - half of which sat mainly idle during the rest of the week. therefore, the decision to exchange 152s for a 172 was not one to simply downsize the fleet, but was taken with the aim of compromise and to enable the Aero Club to survive and therefore continue to offer an efficient and professional service.
The priority of the CAC is to train students to pass the PPL skills test and to provide them with the background skills and knowledge to become good safe pilots, and this will continue to be the case. The Club is now better equipped to carry out this remit due to the fact that it has better and more capable aircraft. In addition, improved efficiency will enable the club to remain in service and be more competitive in the long run.
The question of availability is one which has not gone un-addressed, and it is certainly premature to assume that it will be a major issue at this early stage. The CAC's ability to accommodate it's existing students will not be affected, and every effort will be made to make aircraft available for private hire as has been the case to date. There is still (1) 152 available for PPL hire, and in most cases there will also be a very new and well equipped 172. It is worth pointing out here that this fleet is comparable to in size to that of most medium sized schools in the country - and these schools like the CAC have to do the best they can to fully utilise the aircraft and service the requirements of PPL holders who wish to hire. These circumstances are not always ideal for both parties, but they are a fact of the business and therefore it takes flexibility and compromise on both sides of the fence. I have in many cases not been able to privately hire aircraft from other providers due to a lack of availability, and I'm sure that most other pilots have had the same experience.
It remains to be seen how the new situation at CAC will 'pan out', but what I do know is that we should all wait and see how it works before jumping to the conclusion that it's all over.
Further to the above, I'd like to point out that all existing students of CAC, regardless of whether they have 1 hour or 100 hours will continue their training on 172s at exactly the same rate as they were paying for the 152s dual. Under these circumstances the changes represent a very good deal as they will be flying far better aircraft for the duration of their training, and without the need for further differences training should they wish to continue flying 172s when they have completed their courses. In addition, the CAC will be lowering the private hire rates for what are two very nice 172 aircraft.
Finally, the comments made by a previous poster regarding the downsizing of the CAC as being part of a move away from general aviation and into the realms of Cambridge City Airport are rather ill-conceived and poorly informed at best. The CAC is a limited company operating at Cambridge City Airport, and it's existence there goes back in time far enough to make it the oldest flying club in the UK. It's operations are in no way a reflection of other goings on at the Airport.
Hope that clarifies the situation.
W
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess that I must be one of those who made the "ill conceived" comments.
The recent rather cack-handed attempts to increase hangarage and parking costs for GA residents, the reduction in the number of AVGAS fuelers and the apparent planned change in use of Hangar 1 appear to paint a consistent picture that is not to the benefit of light aviation at Cambridge
I am delighted that this picture is incorrect.
Charlie.
The recent rather cack-handed attempts to increase hangarage and parking costs for GA residents, the reduction in the number of AVGAS fuelers and the apparent planned change in use of Hangar 1 appear to paint a consistent picture that is not to the benefit of light aviation at Cambridge
I am delighted that this picture is incorrect.
Charlie.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it related? I have no idea. I have not made the link in any of my postings, although I did ask the question.
It is diffiicult to escape the impression that Cambridge is not so warm towards resident light aircraft as it used to be, and I am delighted to be told that CAC has no link whatsoever to Marshalls and is not suffering as a result of any of the changes that I indicated above.
Charlie.
It is diffiicult to escape the impression that Cambridge is not so warm towards resident light aircraft as it used to be, and I am delighted to be told that CAC has no link whatsoever to Marshalls and is not suffering as a result of any of the changes that I indicated above.
Charlie.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm
That shared ownership was certainly the inference that I drew. Not least because the Aeroclub's webpage is part of the main Marshall's Website.
We are obviously mistaken though, because Walalla wouldn't otherwise have been so keen to separate Marshall's apparent running down of light aviation, from CAC's apparent fleet reduction - events which are obviously totally unrelated.
Charlie.
That shared ownership was certainly the inference that I drew. Not least because the Aeroclub's webpage is part of the main Marshall's Website.
We are obviously mistaken though, because Walalla wouldn't otherwise have been so keen to separate Marshall's apparent running down of light aviation, from CAC's apparent fleet reduction - events which are obviously totally unrelated.
Charlie.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wiltshire, UK.
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a shame to note an element of discontent amongst the light aviation fraternity at Cambridge. Twopence worth from an ex instructor at the CAC:
The 152 weight issue has been a legitimate source of concern and discussion for some while amongst the instructor cadre at Cambridge, it certainly was during my tenure between 1999 and 2001, so people can be assured that the decision to change the constitution of the fleet can not have been precipitate.
Cambridge Aero Club is an integral part of Marshal Aerospace, but operates as an independant and self sufficient comercial entity, paying market rates for the services it receives from Cambide Airport; to the extent that when the Aztec needed its refit in 2000, it had to be done at Southend, because the Marshal quote was too expensive. The C.A.C. certainly had no control over Hangar 1 or the employment of refuelers whilst I was in their employ.
Unless the personalities have changed drastically over the past couple of years ( I regret I have been poor at keeping in touch!), instruction at the CAC represents extremely good value for money given the experience/ qualification bracket of the instructors there. If it gets slightly more difficult booking a slot at the weekend - stick with it. I would recommend the school to anybody.
Best wishes to all that remember me and no - I'm not trying to get my old job back!
The 152 weight issue has been a legitimate source of concern and discussion for some while amongst the instructor cadre at Cambridge, it certainly was during my tenure between 1999 and 2001, so people can be assured that the decision to change the constitution of the fleet can not have been precipitate.
Cambridge Aero Club is an integral part of Marshal Aerospace, but operates as an independant and self sufficient comercial entity, paying market rates for the services it receives from Cambide Airport; to the extent that when the Aztec needed its refit in 2000, it had to be done at Southend, because the Marshal quote was too expensive. The C.A.C. certainly had no control over Hangar 1 or the employment of refuelers whilst I was in their employ.
Unless the personalities have changed drastically over the past couple of years ( I regret I have been poor at keeping in touch!), instruction at the CAC represents extremely good value for money given the experience/ qualification bracket of the instructors there. If it gets slightly more difficult booking a slot at the weekend - stick with it. I would recommend the school to anybody.
Best wishes to all that remember me and no - I'm not trying to get my old job back!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pickers
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have said nothing against CAC or its excellent instructors.
However on the field amongst the owners, there is the view that there has been de-prioritisation of light aircraft at Cambridge as manifested by the somewhat incomplete list of recent changes I listed above. Many attribute this to the arrival of a new airport Director who they think is looking to squeeze more money out of that side of the operation.
It has also been commented to me on more than one occasion that these changes are being wrought without consideration to their impact on the Light Aircraft Engineering side of the business - a different profit centre, it is said.
I am not in a position to know how much truth there is behind any of this speculation, but it is a persistent and commonly held viewpoint amongst many owners on the field.
Now that the CAC has reduced the size of its fleet in a manner which has caused comment inside and outside Marshalls, it is to be expected that this will cause the odd raised eyebrow, whether or not, the decision is in any way linked to a "bigger picture".
If nothing else, Marshall might want to consider something of a charm offensive on its GA tenants if as we are being told, these perceptions are indeed all incorrect.
Charlie.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have said nothing against CAC or its excellent instructors.
However on the field amongst the owners, there is the view that there has been de-prioritisation of light aircraft at Cambridge as manifested by the somewhat incomplete list of recent changes I listed above. Many attribute this to the arrival of a new airport Director who they think is looking to squeeze more money out of that side of the operation.
It has also been commented to me on more than one occasion that these changes are being wrought without consideration to their impact on the Light Aircraft Engineering side of the business - a different profit centre, it is said.
I am not in a position to know how much truth there is behind any of this speculation, but it is a persistent and commonly held viewpoint amongst many owners on the field.
Now that the CAC has reduced the size of its fleet in a manner which has caused comment inside and outside Marshalls, it is to be expected that this will cause the odd raised eyebrow, whether or not, the decision is in any way linked to a "bigger picture".
If nothing else, Marshall might want to consider something of a charm offensive on its GA tenants if as we are being told, these perceptions are indeed all incorrect.
Charlie.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CSX001
Interesting thread. I owned two aircraft based at Cambridge until quite recently. I sold one, and chose to move the other from Hangar 1 when a price hike was suggested to me early in the New Year.
Having been forced by the proposed increase, into doing the research, it transpired that the Cambridge price both before the rise and after was considerably higher than the alternative offers I received, making the decision to move something of a no-brainer.
I am not convinced that this all adds up to a campaign against light aircraft at Cambridge but I would certainly agree that there was a need for the decision maker(s) concerned to reach out and make friends with some of their clients...
I wish Cambridge well, and but for what I saw as the excessive prices, I would be back there in a heartbeat.
2Donkeys
Interesting thread. I owned two aircraft based at Cambridge until quite recently. I sold one, and chose to move the other from Hangar 1 when a price hike was suggested to me early in the New Year.
Having been forced by the proposed increase, into doing the research, it transpired that the Cambridge price both before the rise and after was considerably higher than the alternative offers I received, making the decision to move something of a no-brainer.
I am not convinced that this all adds up to a campaign against light aircraft at Cambridge but I would certainly agree that there was a need for the decision maker(s) concerned to reach out and make friends with some of their clients...
I wish Cambridge well, and but for what I saw as the excessive prices, I would be back there in a heartbeat.
2Donkeys
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Look, just for the benefit of anyone who really doesn't know what the issue is, the basic fact of life is that the land on which Cambridge Airport stands is worth vastly more if sold for housing than the airport business is worth.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude
Perhaps you could show us an airport in the UK where that is not the case.
I would imagine that Marshall's plans are based on a somewhat more subtle analysis of the situation.
2Donkeys
Perhaps you could show us an airport in the UK where that is not the case.
I would imagine that Marshall's plans are based on a somewhat more subtle analysis of the situation.
2Donkeys
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Assuming planning consent is granted. Has it been zoned for housing in the Local Plan?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: EGLL mostly
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and Silence was the reply.
Walalla, was delivering your message the only reason you had for registering on PPRUNE? It would be nice to see some sort of answer to the follow-up questions put by people like Bookworm.
Charlie.
Walalla, was delivering your message the only reason you had for registering on PPRUNE? It would be nice to see some sort of answer to the follow-up questions put by people like Bookworm.
Charlie.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So far so good.
I've had no trouble booking the one remaining 152 solo at weekends when I want it, and no more trouble booking a 172 dual than was previously the case with the 152s (ie the limit here is still the (apparently unchanged) number of instructors on at the weekend, which is fair enough).
G-HERC is a much nicer aircraft ... but VT is lots cheaper, so you pays your money and takes your choice, just like anything else.
I've had no trouble booking the one remaining 152 solo at weekends when I want it, and no more trouble booking a 172 dual than was previously the case with the 152s (ie the limit here is still the (apparently unchanged) number of instructors on at the weekend, which is fair enough).
G-HERC is a much nicer aircraft ... but VT is lots cheaper, so you pays your money and takes your choice, just like anything else.
Press to Reset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts