Quickest & Cheapest way to get PPL in UK
 

The cheapest way to get into the air is via the Microlight & ULTRALIGHT. route.
Medical is only 25 pounds
Less hours required
Logged time is cheaper and counts towards NPPL & PPL.
It is a waste of money flying a 152 to learn flight exercises such as take off landing & the basicS in a machine that costs 150 pounds per hour.
You can get this for about 60-90 pounds then upgrade when you have the basic down.YOU CAN BUY A MACHINE FOR UNDER 10,000.

Flight Schools are likened to snake oil salesman or double glazing salesmen.

You have a point. Plus the fact that the 3-axis machines are often nicer and perform better as well.

There are three factors when considering training: quick, cheap, quality.

You can have quick quality but it won't be cheap.
You can have cheap quality but it won't be quick.
Or you can have quick and cheap but it won't be quality.

You can't get all three together.

Cheers

WHirls

There is some truth to that, but one has to be fully aware that ultralights are often a lot more forgiving than even the most docile "full-size" aircraft. I have once observed a Skyranger-trained guy do his first takeoff in a Cessna 152. He stalled it at a few metres' height, and although he quickly corrected his error, it cost a few grey hairs to those on the ground.

Interesting opinions
 

MR.X99 has some interesting opinions and as far as the theory goes I think he is correct, but putting all this into practice might just be another thing entirely

Quote Flight Schools are likened to snake oil salesman or double glazing salesmen.

Unfortunatly the last statment in his post is only worthy of publication in The Daily Mail, it is the type of thing that only those who have digested whole the "rip off UK" culture idea would agree to. . While the sales policy of one large London based group of flying schools is questionable in the way it is structued I think that on the whole the industry is honest about the product it offers.

If Mr.X99 wants to encourage people fly the very light aircraft and powered kites that is all well and good but please do so by stressing the atributes of these aircraft but NOT with totaly incorrect statements that are the hype and rubbish that is the staple dished up to those who read the gutter press and think it is the truth!

So much for quality training then.:ugh:

Your first flight in a new type, you strictly fly to the numbers listed in the POH, not by the gut feeling that was ingrained into you by flying on another type.

I am surprised he managed to recognise, and recover from a stall in a totally unfamiliar type with a height loss of only a few metres? I would expect anyone who managed to actually stall on take off to be back on the ground before they had time to recover.

What probably happened is that the nose was raised too high, leading to a full-power stall. This is something that's not covered in the PPL syllabus (only power-off stalls are normally taught) but they're a non-event and can indeed be corrected with only minimal height loss, or even no height loss at all. After all, with the ridiculously high fuselage angle that's required for a full-power stall, the engine thrust has a very significant vertical component.

The biggest danger in such a situation is not so much hitting the ground but hitting the trees at the far end - your climb rate is effectively reduced to zero.

You are absolutely right. It was precisely this over-aggressive unsticking and excessive pitch that made us all gasp at once. He didn't really lose more than a metre or so of height, catching the plane near the top of a parabolic trajectory.

Even disregarding the closing phrase, I have my questions about the sense of the original message. If the goal is really to acquire the PPL , one must take a certain minimal hours of instruction (wasn't it 45 hours originally, and later increased?) on a plane OF THE CATEGORY and even after having learned on a microlight one will still have to fly so many hours on the C-152 or whatever, which will still cost the same.

Beginning on a microlight will not do anything to reduce the budget for the PPL, though it might be a cost-effective way of becoming a better-than-minimal PPL'er.

Some are but some ain't. Flight schools might be able offer cheaper prices per hour if their aircraft ain't just sitting there doing nothing half the time.

There's a big problem with the tax regime in Europe which adds significant costs to everything.

There's also a big problem with cancellations due to weather which can ground the fleet for many hours. The instructor's paycheck might be affected too.

Maybe a way of going around this problem is equipping for IFR flight. So operations can continue in blue skies on top.

A few points:

- I've professionally had reason to flight test both SkyRangers and Cessna 152s (former for certification, latter for research). On the whole, I'd actually say that the C152 has slightly the better sorted handling - the SKR is a lovely machine to fly and I'd be happy to own one, but the handling is pretty average, whilst the C152 is a fantastically well sorted training aeroplane which you'd be hard to improve upon for an inexperienced pilot. So, whatever reason your chap scared himself in the C152, I don't think it's because the SKR is particularly benign.

- The word Ultralight has specific legal meaning in several countries, but it has no meaning in UK regulations.

- Skill test /GFT pass standards are the same in microlights and light aeroplanes, and both classes of pilot then immediately start developing bad habits as soon as they start flying unsupervised!

- I started on microlights then went to bigger aeroplanes. I think it's a great route, and I absolutely agree that it's about the cheapest way to get you flying safely. However, there are some profound differences between microlights and large aeroplanes, which are rooted in the low weight and low stall speed of the microlight - everything changes much faster. These are at the root of why some form of training is essential going in either direction.

- There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting a microlight PPL, and flying them for years. You have a PPL, and can fly good 2-seat aeroplanes. "Upgrading" is strictly optional. You can buy better aeroplanes for less money, people have flown around the world in them - the only limitation is that of day-VMC and 2 seats: that limitation applies to most PPL(SEP) holders too.

G

I'm sure I remember "slow flight" being on the syllabus. In my slow flight lesson I was asked to fly as slowly as possible, which is of course using full power, and was then asked to pull the nose up a little more to see what happened. Doesn't everyone get this lesson then?

"Slow flight" was 60 knots in my case (PA28) - not nearly full power required for that. "As slow as possible" was never done during my PPL training. (Maybe because it's very hard on the engine?)

I only did my first proper full-power stall as part of the "unusual attitudes" training, years later. Which, incidentally, got me hooked on aerobatics.

The slow flight and stalling requirements on the microlight and "group A" syllabi are essentially the same.

However, the SKR has a more nose-down visual stalling attitude than the C152, so visual cues alone would have actually had the SKR pilot converting to the C152 too nose-down, not too nose up. On the other hand, pull force to stall a C152 flaps up is around 8-10lb, whilst in an SKR it's around 20lb, so the chap might have been surprised by the relatively low stick forces in the Cessna. Also it's a transition from stick to yoke, which takes a bit of getting used to.

I'd however put this down to type familiarity, rather than any generic microlight .v. SEP difference.

All solveable with training!

G

Mr. X99, Is the provision of a cheap and quick aviation service something you are promoting? I for one, am not interested. I have never been happy with aircraft which were obtained chaeply, and maintained quickly.

For those who have received quick and cheap training, it does not entirely surprise me that there could be trouble converting to a C 152. The 152 has to be one of the aircraft types most likely to let you feel what it is about to do, and give you the cues to correct for errors, before they become serious, if you have received appropriate training to recognize those cues.

Presenting yourself into a very well established, safety minded industry, as "quickest and cheapest" does not convey a good image from any perspective....

I think that ultralights offer a great way of getting into the air without having to pay up to double the price for other light aircraft. I would certainly consider learning to fly ultralights before other GA aircraft, because there is quite a big chance that I might actually like flying these small sport aircraft, and not have to fork out as much as compared to flying, but still get the frill of flying, and gain a licence. For me their are heaps of benefits such as the aircraft being smaller hence cheaper on fuel. Cheaper to maintain license, cheaper tuition to obtain license and also a possibility of actually owning a small ultralight.

Ok it's not everyone's preferred route or option, but it certainly appears attractive to me...

I also have an ultralight centre 8 miles from me which makes flying more viable for me.

I did an NPPL on Self Launching/Touring Motor Gliders. Cost me £60 per clock hour take off until touch down.

To later add an SSEA rating is just a matter of differences training. No tests... this can be done with an instructor.

I'm happy flying machines likes Slingsby T61F Venture and Grob 109's etc. There are some higher performance Motor Gliders as well.

i'm sure we did power on stalls in my PPL training.:)

I'm also still sure that they're called microlights.

G