I suspect it is substantially down to economies of scale.

The basic infrastructure of the US is higher scale an hence cheaper (cost of services, buildings, cars, trucks), the labour force is more productive (output per unit labour) and because the people who are not 'in the labour force' receive significantly less benefits, the total cost/unit labour allows the worker to be paid more (and hence buy more stuff driving scale). This country scale advantage means that all of the inputs to running any business are cheaper.

In terms of utilization, I doubt your club aircraft have any significant night activity vs the US and even if your aircraft are busy, the amount of GA in the UK is tiny compared to somewhere like California (1/2 the population size but 80% of the GDP) so the overall scale in the economy for aviation is huge.

Of course the dead hand of over regulation (which is a general feature of the difference in productivity) is always present.

Disadvantages of flying in America
 

I can think of a some disadvantages from my own experience flying in Florida several years ago.

1. Most rental aircraft seem not to have facilities for using headsets, with many pilots preferring to use a hand held mike. Very difficult to hear loudspeaker over the engine noise.

2. Air traffic speak much too quickly for us poor Brits and tend to rush you.
3. They use a lot of non-standard (for the rest of the world) terminology.

I cant think of any other disadvantages.:{

There are certainly significant downsides to training in the USA. I did my IR there.

The radio takes anything up to a few days to get used to especially if you are bad with foreign languages :) They are also quite casual on the radio. But then the ATC in the rest of Europe, especially the more southern bits, can sound like they just crawled out of the swamp, compared to the perfect queens english of the UK IFR sectors.

Most rental aircraft seem not to have facilities for using headsets

That suprises me, not my experience at all. Most people wouldn't be able to fly like that.

I think America's biggest single gain is the utility value of GA, which is directly the result of

- lots of runways
- lots of instrument approaches (no ATC needed)
- a practical private IR

and each one of these supports the other. Take out any one of them and the whole system will fall apart. If e.g. they made tower ATC mandatory for an IAP like the UK has, loads of places would lose their IAP immediately. If they brought in a Euro-style airline-pilot IR, 99% of American private pilots would chuck it right in.

Everything else, like the $100 burger runs which GA everywhere does plenty of, lives on the back of the infrastructure. There was plenty of tail-wheel stuff where I was flying but if it wasn't for the commercial/business/training activity they wouldn't have an airport.

Here (UK) we love to complain about everything:

For example: nimbys complain about noise around a local airfield, airfield operator panics, restricts hours, restricts visitors, invokes Strict PPR by phone.. etc....By contrast in the USA should the same thing happen, they would just install a noise monitor. You bust it and you get warned, bust it again and you get fined or banned. Don't bust it and no one minds, come and go as you please.....

That is just one example, no doubt there are many more....

As a mechanic and inspector in the USA, I can tell you that maintenance standards here are as strict, if not far more strict and exacting as anywhere else. We are quite particular about our maintenance, and the standards behind it. That's from the legal stance. What an individual operator does, of course, may be another matter. Most operators tend to be held to, and to uphold, high standards of maintenance.

Plus' vs Minus'
 

UK
1) Available from many clubs, generally poor selection of overbooked, worn out aircraft with questionable old avionics.
2) Fuel at around $11.50 per gallon.
3) Landing fees at airfields and airports.
4) Mandatory 'Handling' fees at airports.
5) HUGE swathes of controlled airspace with NO ENTRY for VFR flights.
6) Lousy weather, especially between October and April.
7) VAT at 17.5% added to everything.
8) Neighbours who would rather see you without aviation.
9) Stiffling Aviation Authority with exorbitant charges. (No experimental category).
10) Overcharged parts and accessories.
11) Excellent ATC.
12) Generally high quality maintenance.
13) Very helpfull local CAA regional offices.
14) Expensive and often poor hangarage.
15) Fantastic scenery
16) Mandated, overpriced insurance.

US
1) Generally, a better selection of aircraft, both asthetically and equipment levels.
2) Fuel at lower rates (Orlando Apopka £3.86 per gallon)
3) No landing fees
4) 'Mandatory handling'???
5) Relatively small Class B and C and the 18000 ft VFR limit.
6) Much better average weather.
7) VAT???
8) Neighbours who would rather partake in aviation.
9) FAA well established without numerous name or rule changes for change's sake.
10) Parts and accessories at correct rates.
11) Excellent ATC
12) Generally high quality maintenance.
13) Very helpfull FSDO's
14) Plentiful hangarage, including individual 'T' hangars at reasonable rates.
15) Fantastic scenery
16) Non-mandated, affordable insurance
17) Unicom
18) Pilot operated landing lights

And most importantly;

Light aviation has been and is seen by the general public as a fringe hobby for the wealthy in the UK. (aka hunting with horses and hounds etc)

Light aviation has been and is seen by the general public as an accepted part of the American way of life. (aka Bud lite, Chevrolet's etc)

camlobe

Red tape and we elected a money juicing bastard of a prime minister. Sorry did I say 'elected'? :\

I've never found that people think flying is a hobby for the wealthy.

I work in education - not particularly well paid - in a very working class area. No-one seems to be surprised that I can afford to fly. They may be surprised that I want to do it or can do it, but that's all.

I live in a fairly well off area and it is just accepted, though seen as a bit of a novelty.

PS slight thread creep - The British Prime Minister is the MP who can 'command a majority in the House of Commons'; he or she, rightly or wrongly, has never been elected as PM.

That is not correct. Most airfields are owned by the local communities.

OFBSLF is correct, but they are heavily or completely subsidized by the FAA. I understand, that if a local community wishes to close a local airfield that has received FAA subsidies, then that money must be paid back to the FAA. In some cases it is this 'debt' that prevents airfields, built years ago in the country but now surrounded by housing, from being taken over for or by developers.:D
Regards,
White Bear.

In some cases yes. Heavily or completely...no.

During WW II the US went through a massive increase in airport construction and flight training, especially in states like Arizona and Florida.
Airports that were transferred to municipal control or simply sold to the county for the token $1.
So the infrastructure was simply there for people to use.
The state of Florida has 80+(!) public airports and an additional 70-80 private strips airports and air parks where people live with an airplane in the garage.

Flying is so much more "normal" in the US the it is in Europe, virtually everybody that you meet has a relative that either holds a license or even owns an airplane.

As a new poster to this site fron OZ I would also guess much of the different attitude between the UK and USA is the fact that most of the GA makes of aircraft are American therefore it has a much bigger lobby to govt re employment, overseas trade/ earnings etc. Also the USA like here is a continent made for air travel with travel times slashed compared to surface travel. The UK on the other hand is made for railways. Short distances between heavily populated centres. No doubt why the rail network is so popular over there.

MT,

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. In a country the size of the US, aviation is a way of life. It takes me 2 days to drive to see my sister in Ontario, or 5 hours in my aeroplane. Drive, or fly that long in the UK and you'd fall off the edge, or run out of landing options. As a hobby it is not the cheapest, but it doesn't have the bank-balanace-busting capability that flying does in the UK.

As for the red tape issue - there's less in aviation here than there is in the UK, but still plenty to go around. And red tape in other parts of life here, there's no shortage :bored:

I think the FAA attitude to homebuilding is more of a "if you design something that will kill you, well, thats your problem", whereas the CAA's attitude "We can't let you design or fly something incase it might kill you", which is surprising in a country where litigation, insurance and suing controls virtually everthing.

[QUOTE]It takes me 2 days to drive to see my sister in Ontario, or 5 hours in my aeroplane. Drive, .. .. .. that long in the UK and you'd fall off the edge, .. .. ..[QUOTE]

I dont know about that - it is said there have been some people who have spent two days on the M25 and never got to where they were going.

I don't think there are any disadvantages in USA. We had a student come to Canada to finish his CPL opposed to doing it in Germany. He finished it in 9 weeks. 0 hours to 200 hours with his CPL in hand. The only difference I think there is compared to Canada and USA (yes, they're both better than doing it in the UK) is that you learn spins in Canada. And if you're above 4000 ft with an engine failure in USA, odds are you'll find an airport to land at within gliding distance.
Though if you come just north of Washington into British Columbia and to Victoria International Airport at night, you can watch it light up for free! No landing fees either. Its so bright its blinding.

However, coming from the UK doesn't seem like it would be that much cheaper.
I have a friend that came from UK to Canada to get his CPL from PPL. He came atleast 3 times, but he worked for an airline so it wasn't too expensive. But I was told that his conversion to JAA costed $1200 per exam and there was more than 10 exams. Doesn't seem like it pays off in the end.

I have a question tough, what with pilots who get their IR or CPL in the USA like in Arizona, and have never fly in a cloud... ?

Does that makes them practical capable of flying into heavy IMC ?

I have a question tough, what with pilots who get their IR or CPL in the USA like in Arizona, and have never fly in a cloud... ?
Does that makes them practical capable of flying into heavy IMC ?

Yes.

IR training, whether FAA or JAA, is almost entirely done in VMC, with the LH pilot's vision being obscured with some device. So he can't see out anyway.

Another thing is that IR training is very very hard. Most of mine (FAA IR) was on partial panel (AI & DI covered up so only the TC, airspeed & doing timed turns with the compass), flying approach after approach down to minima, no enroute segment to have a rest, weeks of utter exhaustion. In practice, one would be flying a well equipped plane, with an autopilot, and if one got a real emergency (and a loss of most of your instrument is an emergency) one would not create extra work for oneself. A well equipped plane makes a huge difference and all serious IFR pilots have one.

Another thing is that when IFR one rarely flies in cloud. The enroute section is VMC on top. If it wasn't, you will generally collect ice because Eurocontrol airway MEAs usually place you above the 0C isotherm. One spends a lot more time in cloud flying "VFR" ;) around the UK than when flying airways. On my last long trip, about 30hrs IFR, I logged less than 5 mins instrument time.

In the long run, your original training fades into the distance and you are only as good as your last flight :) That's why the FAA IR rolling currency is a good thing - you have to do 6 approaches in the last 6 months. The US safety record is good.

USA
 

No disadvantages in US! Just keep an eye open for traffic.

I can think of one major disadvantage of flying in the US.

It can be very boring, the same landscape for hours.
And some small airfields can be a little unwelcoming, I was even asked if I'm a terrorist once when I was looking for the FBO.