How many PPL's are there in the UK?
 

Anybody know the answer or indeed where to find it?

Do you mean PPLs have ever been issued, or how many PPs still exercise the privileges of their licence?

After all a UK CAA PPL is issued for life, even if you decide to give up, whereas a JAA PPL is only valid for 5 years.

Good point. I suppose the first is the easiest to obtain, but I'm more interested (purely out of curiosity) how many are current in any one year.

The figures for a couple of years ago are somewhere on the CAA's website, and my (admittedly bad) memory seems to recall that it's around 30,000...not at all certain of that though.

I think you're in the right ballpark Whirlybird. I seem to remember a figure of 25,000 in the GASIL mag but whether that included Microlights and helicopters I'm not sure. What amazes me is that this relatively small number can support all the flying shops such as Transair, Pooleys, AFE and the Flying Shop. The mark-up on our kit must be substantial.

How about other stats such as sex/age bands etc?

Somewhere in the depths of the CAA website is data on annual license issue numbers. It is around 3k a year for the PPL.

Nobody knows how many are valid, let alone how many actually fly. However it is well known, and the CAA have occassionally said so, that some 75% of new PPLs expire with less than 10 hours flown after getting the PPL, and about 90% stop flying before their first renewal (i.e. within 2 years). So the attrition rate is pretty high.

Somebody who is clever with stats could work something out based on this.

My guess is that about 10k pilots are hanging in there, but whatever the number, their annual flying hours must cover a wide spectrum.

The statistics you're after are more or less available here. I say "more or less" because the information seems to be rather dated (in Canada, such statistics are updated on a quarterly basis [see here], but that doesn't seem to be the case in the UK).

It looks like Whirlybird and ozplane were essentially correct about the number of PPL(A)s. Frankly I am surprised that the number is so low; you seem to have roughly the same number as us, yet your total population is twice the size of ours (~61 million vs. ~32 million).
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the CAA doesn't consider a pilot without a current medical qualification to hold a "valid" license.

But bear in mind the cost of flying in Canada is far lower than over here...

Not only is the cost of flying in Canada about half what it is in the UK, which one might guess would lead to twice the number of pilots proportionately, but Canada is far larger and there are vast areas of it that can really only be visited by air. The UK has no areas that are essentially inaccessible without a float-equipped Beaver!

So, actually the question is: How come there are so few pilots in Canada?

Or alternatively, why there are, proportinally, so many in the UK: A legacy and inspiration of the war combined with the product of a reasonably wealthy capitalist society. Couple that with an unconquered teritory which had the need for hundereds of airfields. Just ripe for derring-do types to build the roots private aviation. This is also the reason why the UK has 1/3rd of all privately registered a/c in Europe and why the UK is also at the forefront of the motor racing industry (inspite of Silverstone!).

How sad is this? :(

Has anyone researched the reasons why PPLs give up so soon, after spending all that money and effort on getting a licence?

I assume that most Ppruners, on the Private Flying forum, are the other 10% who have carried on flying. So is there anything that we can do to encourage new PPLs to continue?

Wasn't the NPPL devised as a way of keeping newly qualified pilots flying? Are there any stats to show whether it has been successful in this part of its remit?

The NPPL has kept me flying but not for reasons of expense. Having failed a stress ECG, my CAA medical was pulled. However I can fly on an NPPL Class 1 till I get the problem sorted out. I get the feeling I'm not alone with this license-saver and there may be more flyers going down this route than actual newcomers with shiny new NPPLs.

Why do new PPLs give up?

1) They never intended to carry on; getting the PPL was a challenge, and they've done it.
2) They've spent all their dosh getting the PPL; the school convinced them they'd do it in around 45 hours, and it took them 60-70 (national average) and therefore loads more money.
3) The school/club won't let them hire an aircraft for longer than an hour at a time, and the novelty of boring holes in the sky in the local area at £100+ a time wears off quite soon.
4) The family doesn't share their enthusiasm for flying, and would like them to join in family activities on the occasional weekend - the only sunny one of course.
5) They don't like flying alone, and no-one else wants to come.
6) They'd hoped to costshare with family and friends. But for all the prospective passengers it was a one-off, and they don't want to go again.
7) The school/club isn't a particularly good place for social activity, and they can't find other pilots to fly with.
8) They can't afford a share in an aircraft, and anyway, there aren't any going at the moment, espeically as insurance rules probably preclude under-100-hour pilots.
9) They can't afford to buy an aircraft, and wouldn't know where to start looking.
10) As a result of all/some of the above, the new PPL doesn't get enough practice, and doesn't feel safe when he/she actually does get to fly. Two years go by - it's revalidation time. The no-longer-new PPL hasn't flown 12 hours, dreads flying alone, has no-one to fly with, and doesn't want to do another Skills Test for an activity that hasn't turned out to be as expected. So of course he gives up!

I'm sure there are other reasons, but the above makes sense to me. It might have happened to me - but I found another PPL who wanted to fly with me and visit new airfields, the school let us take away an aircraft for a whole day, and I don't have a family to complain about all my flying. And then I discovered helicopters...but that's another story.

Good list Whirly, to which I would add 'they scared themselves even while current and kept it quiet' (sort of like your number 10, but not quite)

Also people do get bored (flying is not all excitement) and like to collect additional ratings to keep their interest up. Some regulatory regimes make it easier to do this than others, and some regimes encourage them to do so more than others.

You also never see some people again after they have first soloed, sort of like your number 1, but without getting the PP rating. Seems fair enough to me.

Finding a good club is important, some places can put one off flying. Clubs in the UK tend to be less egalitarian than in other places.

Excellent list Whirly.

I would also add UK weather - I know many here will disagree but it's pretty hard to fly fixed wing without instrument privileges. If I couldn't I would pack it in right away; there are just too many clouds about :O Even if most flights can be done in VMC on the day, the legal need to be VMC is very restrictive.

Many people say "one can fly everywhere VFR" but most of them are people with loads of time on their hands and living close to an airfield.

A recent press report said 65% of NPPL applicants are existing PPLs who can no longer pass their CAA Class 2 medical. If accurate, I am sure this was not the intention.

If one reads between the lines of the list, doesn't most of it come down to most people entering GA not having enough money to pursue this hobby to start with? That's the REAL problem.

There are loads of people with money but most of them don't go anywhere near GA. The anorak nature of the social scene is enough to put them off.

The whole scene is in dire need of modernising, and then somebody could set up a well managed well funded well equipped (ie no Cessnas or Pipers) flying club, attracting people who can actually afford to get their training and still have some beans left to fly somewhere further than they can drive.

There is a need to recognise that there should be two groups of flyers: the vintage types and the modern types. The vintage scene is amply catered for by articles in GASIL showing how to place the tail wheel in a plastic bucket to stop mice climbing up it and eating the seat covers :O The modern scene isn't catered for much because its membership is too small. Of these two the vintage scene can hardly be expanded; the future lies in focussing on and exploiting the other one.

Sadly, even those few organisations that have got modern planes have failed to point their marketing (if one can call it that) at the more affluent bits of their local population.

There is a lot more one could do...

One thing is that a lot of schools don't like PPLs to hang around, perhaps taking students up and "giving them bad habits". This and other factors means that a new PPL is very much on his own. I was an aircraft owner by then which kept the incentive going but most people just continue to rent. The best thing is to quickly get into a syndicate; the problem is finding one with a half decent aircraft, which takes us right back to there not being enough people with beans.

I think that the desire to fly for a real purpose (as alluded by Whirly) is also the reason why so many PPLs end up going for their CPLs.

IO540
Why does manufacture by Cessan or Piper preclude an aircraft from being well equipped :confused: Please could you explain what you consider neccessary for an aircraft to be considered well equipped? (I have access to several Cessnas that I consider to have pretty well all the equipment you'd need)

Whirly

Yes I think you've pretty well covered it with your list, and IO540's point about the weather is also valid. Recently at the club I was waiting for my instructor, who was talking to someone who'd just done a trial lesson, and was very interested in doing the full PPL - he explained that it would be useful for business travel! We proceeded to enlighten him :}

Brooklands

Whirly

Excellent list, made for some interesting reading.

I'm tempted to print it off and stick it up on our notice board - might become a good talking point.

See you around

ariel

It is.....


So long as like me, most of your business is on airfields, and usually requires reasonable weather to conduct.

G :cool:

Not sure about modernising being the key, personally.

While logic leads a train of thought to the conclusion that you shouldn't bother embarking on a PPL unless you have the money to sustain it, I wish this wasn't the case. I managed due to stubbornness where many would have quit, but it took me 2-3 years. Had I been paying any more at all, due to improved fleet, I simply couldn't have done it. And when you want to fly that badly, you're not too worried about the quality of the aeroplane, as long as the engine is still running and the wings are still on.

If this kind of keenness is what it really takes to fly anyway, all tarting up the GA scene will achieve is attracting more of the tiny minority who begin _because_ they can afford it but subsequently get bored.

I have kept flying, thanks in part to pprune, to friends I picked up on the way, to a supportive partner, to a pretty flexible club and also to a crazy ambition to go professional that I never did quite manage to shake off, despite the fact that I'm normally quite sensible!!

Nonetheless, I suffered a debilitating loss of confidence post-qualifying which culminated last February in me travelling 2 hours to the airfield, only to hit my head on the strut in the middle of the walk-around and burst into tears, telling my checklist that it was hopeless and I just couldn't do it! :( It was my personality that got me into that state, but luckily it was also my personality that got me out, with the help of an excellent instructor. Now, following a good summer of consolidation, I am a much happier little pilot.

There are those with the money to do it properly, and there are those who are resilient in adversity and resourceful. I suspect you need either one or the other.

Imagine how busy the skies would be in the SE on a nice summer Saturday if there were 10 times as many of us buzzing around! :eek:

HWD

I think that the desire to fly for a real purpose (as alluded by Whirly) is also the reason why so many PPLs end up going for their CPLs.

It isn't a CPL one wants for going places; it's an IMC Rating or an IR, plus of course enough money to get one's hands on a decent aircraft and stay current. A CPL is generally worthless outside an AOC context.

Brooklands

Of course you can fit modern avionics in a C172 for example. The problem is that the average present-day punter, NOT somebody who is just plain mad keen to fly in anything that will leave the ground, can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a washing machine with wings :O

But one cannot usefully discuss this from within the industry, because most insiders regard the present scene as completely normal and acceptable. Along with not using GPS and using circular slide rules.

Recently at the club I was waiting for my instructor, who was talking to someone who'd just done a trial lesson, and was very interested in doing the full PPL - he explained that it would be useful for business travel! We proceeded to enlighten him

I think a large chunk of the UK flight training business would do itself a great favour on the ethics front if they did the above with everybody that walks into their door ;) Why restrict such completely correct advice to somebody who told you they wanted to fly with a purpose?

I fly on business whenever I can. It needs an instrument qualification, plus customers who are within reach of an airfield with a usable instrument approach (or who aren't fussy whether you turn up). No different from doing a pre-planned flight for any purpose, really, especially with passengers.

I don't mean specifically flying to be somewhere, but flying for a purpose. One way to achieve that is by getting paid for it in whatever capacity. Can't do that without a CPL. Whether people decide to attach an IR to it or an FI or both or in what order is beside my point.

Good posts IO540 & Whirly.

Re the statistic of 90% of pilots not making it to their 2 year renewal - I did my PPl in the States 3 years ago, and of the 7 people I keep in touch with - all are still flying

8 people does not a scientific experiment make. But perhaps it's the much more enjoyable introduction to flying (turning on the runway lights at an unmanned airfield with your mic, doing a touch and go on an international airport's 10,00ft runway just for the hell of it) that keeps us battling through the various nerds and nazis flocking around UK aviation.

Of course it could be that people who take 10% of the time and pay half the cost of getting a PPL are just a bit more intelligent than the rest;)

It's interesting re US-trained PPLs.

I know two groups of US-trained pilots.

a) Those that did their whole PPL/IR there (nearly all people I know with a current PPL/IR did it in the USA). These all fly, and fly a lot, some do 500hrs/year.

b) Those that did just the PPL there. Most of those have stopped flying.

I would guess that in group b) one gets two sorts:

b1) Those that go to the USA because it is cheaper

b2) The remainder

I bet that b1 drop out quickly, while b2 hang in there. The cost saving (a few k at most) is insignificant in the longer term.

I'm not a microlight pilot, but....

1) A microlight licence is cheaper to get.
2) Microlights are cheaper to buy, on the whole anyway.
3) Microlights are much, much cheaper to run.
4) In my albeit limited experience (a trial lesson on a Thruster, and up to first solo on a flexwing) microlight schools are pretty friendly places.
5) You don't need to spend so much, and jump through so many hoops, to get a medical for flying microlights.
6) Microlight schools/clubs are a trifle anoraky, but no-one seems to mind a bit.

So, since shortage of money seems to be a large part of the reason why people give up, why aren't they being directed to a form of flying that they can afford?

The answer is that it must be awfully hard to pull a bird with a microlight. Have you read a book called Propellerhead? It is the story of a City exec who decided to fly a Thruster to improve his sex life. He failed, which proves it can't work :O

Regarding anoraks, of course the anoraks don't mind being with other anoraks :O

But seriously, I don't think money is much to do with it. It is no doubt true that those people that are presently attracted into UK GA often give up due to lack of money, but that's not the point. If a flying school was up front honest with everybody that walks through the door about

1. the very limited utility of a bare PPL for going anywhere
2. the cost of the options that will allow one to go somewhere
3. the inadequacy of the legal currency (12hr/2yr) requirement
4. the cost of maintaining real useful currency (say 30hrs/yr)

then a lot of people would walk out again, but those staying behind wouldn't be giving up due to lack of money. They might give up due to family/business/time commitments but people do that anyway.

At a suitable location, one could set up a really pro flight training business / flying club, with decent modern aircraft, and certain management practices that would encourage people to stay. I have not seen it done yet.

I have, quite a few in fact. But they tend to fly aircraft with whirly wings. :ok:

Helicopter schools don't have clapped out old machines, because R22s at any rate get rebuilt at 2000 hours.

And at a lot of helicopter schools, there are enough machines that you can usually hire one at short notice, and take it away for the day - or even a weekend. And I suspect this is what really makes all the difference to people.

And for those who actually care about such things, helicopter flying is considered as super-cool! :)

You are very right there Whirly.

But why?

Helicopters aren't useful for long distance touring (unless you have very serious money to burn).

They are much more useful than fixed wing for business flight but one still needs the IFR option and that comes awfully expensive in a heli, in terms of both capital cost (a twin turbine) and a heli IR.

So what does it?

I cannot help noticing that the "scenery" on the ground is a lot more interesting :O

IO540,

What does it? If you hang out in a heli school, you will find that everyone is super-enthusiastic...about helicopter flying. it's not because the machines are new or because it's cool; it's because it's real hands-on flying, with great views, you can land anywhere, and you're less likely to be scared of getting caught out by the weather because you can land if necessary. Most people aren't super-rich; they're often struggling to afford to fly, just like in f/w schools. They're just hooked on helicopter flying...and the novelty doesn't wear off.

So, thinking as I write, why do most f/w PPLs give up? Maybe it's because, after learning, f/w flying just isn't that exciting. You take off, trim it out, look at the view, then have all the skill and excitement at the end when you come to land. OK, you can go in for aerobatics. You can learn to fly tailwheel or other more interesting aircraft. You can get an IMC, you can get into long distance touring. But if you've got a plain vanilla PPL, perhaps the reason you give up is that it's actually quite boring.

Helicopter pilots don't find that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they got bored with flying helicopters. And I don't know the figures, but I suspect that less PPL(H)s give up.

IO540 and Whirly - I completely agree with your points.

My own experience has been that I returned to fying after a long layoff, where previously I had got as far as soloing but ran out of money.

Unfortunately, when I returned to it I failed a medical. After some 2 or 3 further years the NPPL turned up, and I was able to start training again and gain a licence.

Continuing to pass the (sensible) hurdles the CAA Aeromedical section placed in my way, I shortly afterwards converted to a JAR-PPL, and gained an IMCR.

The only reason for mentioning all that is to point out that I am quite motivated to fly, and wish to combine pleasure with a modicum of convenient flying to occasional business meetings where an awkward and tiring drive would otherwise be the requirement.

I'm now nearing my first JAR-PPL renewal date, and do not anticipate failing to renew.

I am, though, still hiring. The training cost put buying into a syndicate beyond me, even if I knew of any suitable ones in my locality.

As a hirer, I am confronted by aircraft which are generally elderly, and suffer from the 'washing machine with wheels' syndrome unless I make the effort to find (as I did for one trip this summer) a more salubrious aircraft. Actually that was prompted by range, speed, and load-carrying considerations, and I had to drive about 100 miles each way to collect it, etc.. The aircraft generally available to me are adequate in terms of maintenance and instrumentation, but do not excite a passenger to any enthusiasm!

The club to which I currently belong, and where I trained, is able to offer very good aircraft availability, and is, I gather, one of the foremost flying clubs. What does appal me, though, is the social scene or lack of it. There is a tired-looking clubhouse (though some efforts are being made to improve some facilities), which often seems to resemble a sport pavilion after a violent party, and what I regard as a very anorak-ridden atmosphere. Worst of all, in this respect, it is cliquey. I have lost count of the times I have sat having a cup of tea in the clubhouse and been spoken to by no-one, though I admit I am very shy and tend not to take the initiative. (I exclude instructors from this - they are mostly very outgoing and friendly.)

Efforts have occasionally been made to try to get new PPLs to share flights, but this seems not to have borne fruit in my experience. Events which have been going for many years, and which draw their own self-perpetuating cliques, seem to form the official social programme.

In short, despite being a very large club, with a large number of students, one meets and greets only the instructing staff and the desk staff.

I have come to realise that I feel, when visiting the club, that I am a customer rather than a member. That may perhaps make me regard the 'product' in a harsher way than I might otherwise do.

None of this will put me off flying, but I do see that it is daunting for those perhaps less motivated - who are precisely the people who need to be encouraged, so that their motiivation solidifies.

Well Whirly, like most of the others I agree with your reasoning.

I obtained my licence PPL in '66 (in 'KF no less!), but was unable to keep it going (1 hour of rent was about 1 week's wages :{ ).

Having now reached the age of more money than sense I regained it several years ago, and have been trying to do at least 30 hours/year to keep current.

However, as you listed, I can't easily hire an aircraft for the day, I can't afford to buy one (well, I could but its not justifiable). I want to get an IMC rating but can't use it outside UK. I would love to get an IR but consider it (realistically) unacheivable.

So, I am left with the occasional grab at a flight whe the wx is good enough, and no-one else has the 'plane, allowing a brief trip around the houses and back.

And I'm getting bored! :bored: :bored: I could have gone up today (just), but I went up yesterday for a bimble, and really didn't feel like repeating the same thing again.

There are few others around who share an interest in private flying, and will share a flight with me.

The 'club' isn't! Its a place to pick up the 'plane and leave after.

So yes, you're right, on about all accounts.

GB

I must say i heartily disagree with those of you who seem to be saying "helicopters good, fixed wing boring". I took my little 2-seater on a cross-country on Monday this week and it was a sheer delight. Terrific viz, smooth air and a nice welcome at the destination. It matched my, and I guess a lot of other f/w PPLs, expectations to the letter.
My own point of view, admittedly from a limited base, is that the excitement in flying Robbos is wondering whether it will have shaken itself to bits by the end of the flight. No wonder they need a rebuild at 2,200 hours. I flew in a Hughes 500 this week and that's a lot better but there are still a lot of lifed bits on what is a very expensive chopper.
I think the real reason for the drop-outs is all the legislation behind private flying...licensing, various Classes of airspace, cost of Cof As, PPR (you can't just go) daft ideas on engine life...and on and on.

Ah, Groundbound, so you knew KF in her youth!

ozplane,
I'm probably the only person who's even suggesting that helicopters are less boring than fixed wing. But I think the fact you say "my little 2-seater" is important here. Yes, it's yours, so you can have it for long enough to take on a cross-country. Many f/w hirers can't hire for longer than an hour, while helicopter hirers usually can. And even if they can't, in a helicopter you probably have quite a few landing sites within half an hour's flight - hotels, pubs, your house, friends' houses, etc etc. For most f/w pilots, it's a trip to another airfield, usually quite a way away and requiring PPR etc, or yet another local bimble. So while I'd never say "rotary good, f/w bad" - I fly both, remember - I do think for the low hours hirer, helicopters may provide interest and challenge for a lot longer, without either getting another rating or buying an aircraft. And knowing you can land if the weather changes makes it less scary too.

I believe you make an error in confusing "f/w flying" with "flying airplanes". I respectfully point out that "f/w flying" includes sailplanes, and that cross-country soaring is much more challenging than the "set cruise power and trim it out" experience of cross-country flying in airplanes.

Yes, I agree. It is rather a shame that most people don't go beyond the basic PPL, and restrict their flying to boring holes in the sky in spam cans (evidence of the lack of personal initiative in contemporary society?). The opportunities are there, if one only looks for them. In addition to the examples you listed, other that come to mind include float flying; precision flying; instructing; multi-engine flying; formation flying; air racing; ski-flying; and jet flying. No one person can ever become proficient at all aspects of f/w flying (show me a f/w pilot who's bored, and I'll show you someone who is not flying at their full potential).

This is a very interesting discussion, but I'm still sure it's basically down to money.

(There can't be enough rich people to support a significant move upmarket of the entire training industry, and all the people who can just about scrape together enough to learn in an ancient spamcan would be lost. So for the industry to offer the punter a choice of a brand new spamcan or an ancient but cheaper spamcan, as it does at the moment, seems about right to me.)

In my case I did get the first renewal after the PPL, but then things like marriage and children came along, and my wife wasn't desperately keen on me flying again until we could actually afford it. So I've taken it up again, but some years later.

I fly with a club that will let you take the aircraft away for a whole day if you like, or overnight, provided that you put enough hours on the thing to make it commercially viable. Money again. (But I've got some rich mates who are interested in doing a cost-sharing trip, with me doing all the flying, so things could be looking up :D )

Yes:) :) :) Pity about the limited opportunities round here. I still want one of these:

<===

Probably not to fill every flying school at every airfield with eager customers able to spend £200k on a plane, or £50k on a share, the moment they get their PPL.

But anyone doubting how much money there is needs only to stand next to the M25 and count the £40k+ cars driven by under-40 year olds. Just 1% of that money would transform GA.

The money is there OK, the punters just choose to spend it elsewhere.

Some people think that attracting better-off people to GA would make it more expensive. That's wrong, because operating a new plane doesn't cost any more than operating an old one. The old one costs less in financing but one spends the "saved" money on a constant stream of "little suprises" and the occassional big one.

Presently, GA receives a massive subsidy from all those students who spend £5k-£10k on a PPL and then give up. For the schools this is just as well, because - short of having a large self fly hire operation - they wouldn't be able to capture the customer's ongoing spending. I am sure they know this, which is why most don't exactly encourage PPLs to hang around when they have done their PPL and possibly the NQ.

People with as much money as you are talking about are a tiny, tiny minority. Probably a disproportionate number have a reason to drive around the M25 of a weekday: people in high-paid sales jobs, people on their way to Heathrow to fly away for business, people who live in the Home Counties and work in central London. (etc.)

Such people (and I'll wager IO540 is one, and many others on this forum) tend to associate with one another and forget they form a tiny microcosm, mainly in the SE.

But wanting to fly and having the financial ability to fly are still mutually exclusive in essence (though there are reasons to do with personality that link them a bit I suppose).

I remember someone on this forum last year marvelling that anyone on the national average wage (£511 p/w for men, £382 p/w for women as of April) can fly. Needless to say, this depressed me! :ugh: :{

But if you can't afford the new one in the first place, what choice do you have? To put up with it, or to quit.

FWIW, I think more people embark upon a PPL with the idea of going pro eventually than we might think. They then give up at some stage on all that. If this wasn't the case, maybe we'd have a greater number of (and more high-profile) microlight and gliding clubs?? There's no microlight Cabair, after all!

Dunno. :confused:

Penguina

High income people (however one defines that) are a pretty substantial minority today. There are about 3M people that pay tax at 40% i.e. earn over £35k p.a.

Whether one can do a lot, or indeed any, flying on that income depends on one's outgoings. One could earn twice that, but if divorced and paying maintenance and school fees for example, one could still be skint. But it's safe to assume that somebody young and driving a £50k Merc isn't driving a company car, so they have plenty of spare loot. It would be great if one could attract some of that money into GA. A fair bit of it is going into helicopters at seven figures a go - there's never a shortage of customers for turbine helis.

Most people in GA think that the only way to provide affordable flying is to operate decrepit plane. My example about new planes not being more expensive overall was meant to illustrate that this isn't the case. One just needs to get the capital from somewhere :O