ATPL/CPL Training: Ground School topics
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I figured but forgot to include. The "Gubament" has their fingers in the Pie. Same in the states, but not as much. In Aviation, its much much less at least financially....
Where would we be without government involvement......well, Im not going there.
Enough already, it was a wonderful day and a nice ride out in the Grand Canyon with a load of non-tipping Brits. How come every time I come to the UK, everybody has a hand out.. Guarantee, it will be empty on my next visit.
Its almost 1900 hours now and its still about 35 of your degrees, wait till summer arrives.... We all can say the word "Transient Torque"....
Rotor in the Green
Where would we be without government involvement......well, Im not going there.
Enough already, it was a wonderful day and a nice ride out in the Grand Canyon with a load of non-tipping Brits. How come every time I come to the UK, everybody has a hand out.. Guarantee, it will be empty on my next visit.
Its almost 1900 hours now and its still about 35 of your degrees, wait till summer arrives.... We all can say the word "Transient Torque"....
Rotor in the Green
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bert, it is not just high fuel costs, but the EU has very high landing fees, Eurocontrol fees, parking fees, etc. etc.
Eurocontrol charges us approximately $400 in fees for a flight from S. Italy to the U.K.
Wasn't there a tax revolt back in the 1700s? I could be wrong. Maybe throw some tea in the Thames??
Cheers
Eurocontrol charges us approximately $400 in fees for a flight from S. Italy to the U.K.
Wasn't there a tax revolt back in the 1700s? I could be wrong. Maybe throw some tea in the Thames??
Cheers
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I m missing something here but would the Eurocontrol fee really affect flight training?
Think it's probably just a case of Rip Off Britain again - fuel tax, landing fees, etc.
Think it's probably just a case of Rip Off Britain again - fuel tax, landing fees, etc.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotwolf, you are correct, there are no Eurocontrol fees for flight training. If a flight plan is filed, indicate "flight training" in the remarks section of block 18 to avoid the fees.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Some corner of a foreign field.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to take my hat off to you people paying enormous sums of hard earned money for a CPL(H).
I have always loved flying and still get the same joy from it 25 years after my first solo, but I am not sure that I would have the dedication to spend so much money in today's economic climate.
I sincerely wish you all every success - you surely deserve it.
I have always loved flying and still get the same joy from it 25 years after my first solo, but I am not sure that I would have the dedication to spend so much money in today's economic climate.
I sincerely wish you all every success - you surely deserve it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you thought about traveling to Australia to do your license, our dollar is pretty low at the moment which you could probable take advantage of?
Email me if you want details of a good flying school.
Email me if you want details of a good flying school.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info on fuel prices, try this. Dont forget our Gallons are a bit different and so is the Dollar.......
http://www.airbase1.com/avgfuel.htm
http://www.airbase1.com/avgfuel.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
I flew helicopters around a bunch of times in Britain, and was always impressed with the number of people with Government jobs who are employed at tiny airports.
There was a guard at the gate, blue uniform, reading a newspaper. He was needed to keep the general public away from the 20 aircraft parked on the field. He lifted the tilt gate by hand to let me in. Of course, each of those aircraft paid 5% of his salary, one way or another.
There were three people in the tower (the tower!! Most US airports have a coke machine and a payphone). They operated a full set of radios and a radar. Everybody enjoyed their day, especially the several times they had to pick up the mike and talk to someone - sort of a special event, if you know what I mean. They had great reparte and good coffee, and helped with the flight plan (needed for VFR flight) and called someone on the telephone to read the entire plan verbally. That other person was Somewhere Else, but I'll be he was not a volunteer. I'll bet he was not alone, either.
There were some odd types at the airport, too, but thet were just regular working people actually doing something productive, like maintaining airplanes or pumping gas. They weren't as important, their salaries were probably paid by the service they provided.
As I flew across the country, I had to contact each airport along the way, about every 5 to 10 miles. They all said cool things like QNH and stuff, so I know they were needed. I'll bet the altimeter setting changes every 10 miles, so we need people to read it to us very often. They tracked me on the radar that some other guy with a government ID bought, and someone else maintained. They told me about traffic that would pass within 10 minutes, if I stuck around to create a conflict.
I seriously doubt that UK operators are rolling in money, the prices reflect the army is being carried on the backs of the users, because someone has to pay. I can picture the number of folks in the background, checking certificates, stamping papers and getting more coffee. They are all nice folks (seriously, I am always struck with the simple courtesy displayed by officials in the UK, That is worth something!) but someone has to pay them.
There was a guard at the gate, blue uniform, reading a newspaper. He was needed to keep the general public away from the 20 aircraft parked on the field. He lifted the tilt gate by hand to let me in. Of course, each of those aircraft paid 5% of his salary, one way or another.
There were three people in the tower (the tower!! Most US airports have a coke machine and a payphone). They operated a full set of radios and a radar. Everybody enjoyed their day, especially the several times they had to pick up the mike and talk to someone - sort of a special event, if you know what I mean. They had great reparte and good coffee, and helped with the flight plan (needed for VFR flight) and called someone on the telephone to read the entire plan verbally. That other person was Somewhere Else, but I'll be he was not a volunteer. I'll bet he was not alone, either.
There were some odd types at the airport, too, but thet were just regular working people actually doing something productive, like maintaining airplanes or pumping gas. They weren't as important, their salaries were probably paid by the service they provided.
As I flew across the country, I had to contact each airport along the way, about every 5 to 10 miles. They all said cool things like QNH and stuff, so I know they were needed. I'll bet the altimeter setting changes every 10 miles, so we need people to read it to us very often. They tracked me on the radar that some other guy with a government ID bought, and someone else maintained. They told me about traffic that would pass within 10 minutes, if I stuck around to create a conflict.
I seriously doubt that UK operators are rolling in money, the prices reflect the army is being carried on the backs of the users, because someone has to pay. I can picture the number of folks in the background, checking certificates, stamping papers and getting more coffee. They are all nice folks (seriously, I am always struck with the simple courtesy displayed by officials in the UK, That is worth something!) but someone has to pay them.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the basis of the chart kindly furnished by B Sousa I figure my R22 costs £16 (about $23) more per hour to fly in the UK than it would in the USA on fuel costs alone. The remainder of the differential is down to the situation so vividly set out by Nick Lappos above; it certainly isn't in margins for operators.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Nick, did you fly in the same Britain that I live in? Where most of the time I fly around without talking to anyone? Where when I want to land at an airfield, I can't raise anyone on the radio because the one person there is making coffee and trying to answer the phone at the same time? Where in huge areas of the country radar hasn't been heard of?
Nah, can't be. Must be some other place.
Nah, can't be. Must be some other place.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is a quote from a senior individual in the CAA - I realise it is about fixed wing PPL tuition, but it does make me wonder about the standard of training in the US. This is unfortunately borne out only to frequently by the standard of US-trained PPLs that turn up at the school where I work wanting to hire aircraft. As the RT examiner who has to do their RT practical exams, I will not even begin to comment.
'I find the statistics curious, a PPL in the UK takes about 55-60 hours, a FAA PPL takes 70 - 75 hours on average yet a JAA PPL in the US with FAA instructors only takes 45 hours, something is clearly missing.'
It is difficult to avoid the impression that these individuals are not being taught to fly, they are being sold PPLs.
'I find the statistics curious, a PPL in the UK takes about 55-60 hours, a FAA PPL takes 70 - 75 hours on average yet a JAA PPL in the US with FAA instructors only takes 45 hours, something is clearly missing.'
It is difficult to avoid the impression that these individuals are not being taught to fly, they are being sold PPLs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
nickp,
I can't weigh the value of the two similar courses in the two different shores of the Atlantic, except to note that the typical flight school in the states takes about 35 to 50 hours when the course is done as a continuoum.
Many students in the states are trained in a flying club, or at an FBO in a less formal course, so they tend to treat the excercise as a once a week thing, stretched over as much as two years. This causes lost training effect and thus the longer average student takes much longer to complete the course. The cost for a club PPL is quite a bit lower than at an FBO, as well.
A while back, we bashed around the relative excellence of pilots from each system, and it is a very subjective evaluation at best.
I cruised the web sites to see what we might glean from the data relative to the popularity of flying in each country.
see: http://api.hq.faa.gov/clientfiles/CONTENT.htm
and: http://www.caa.co.uk/sitemap/sitemap.asp
For example, in year 2000, there were 217,000 airplanes registered in the US to General Aviation owners (149,000 single engine piston alone!) They flew 30,900,000 hours in 2002. There were 93,000 student pilots, 251,000 private pilots that year. The total of all types of certified pilots was 625,583 for 275 million population (2274 pilots per million). There are 789 aircraft per million population.
In the UK that year there were 31,885 total private pilots of all types, and 16,500 commercial and ATP's. Total was 48,385 for 59.1 million population (813 pilots per million). There were 16,000 currently registered aircraft in the UK in 2001. That is
270 aircraft per million population.
So, based on population, the US has 2.79 times the number of pilots and 2.9 times the number of aircraft. I do believe that economics are the biggest difference between the two sets of numbers.
Can you tell me again what we in the US are doing wrong?
I can't weigh the value of the two similar courses in the two different shores of the Atlantic, except to note that the typical flight school in the states takes about 35 to 50 hours when the course is done as a continuoum.
Many students in the states are trained in a flying club, or at an FBO in a less formal course, so they tend to treat the excercise as a once a week thing, stretched over as much as two years. This causes lost training effect and thus the longer average student takes much longer to complete the course. The cost for a club PPL is quite a bit lower than at an FBO, as well.
A while back, we bashed around the relative excellence of pilots from each system, and it is a very subjective evaluation at best.
I cruised the web sites to see what we might glean from the data relative to the popularity of flying in each country.
see: http://api.hq.faa.gov/clientfiles/CONTENT.htm
and: http://www.caa.co.uk/sitemap/sitemap.asp
For example, in year 2000, there were 217,000 airplanes registered in the US to General Aviation owners (149,000 single engine piston alone!) They flew 30,900,000 hours in 2002. There were 93,000 student pilots, 251,000 private pilots that year. The total of all types of certified pilots was 625,583 for 275 million population (2274 pilots per million). There are 789 aircraft per million population.
In the UK that year there were 31,885 total private pilots of all types, and 16,500 commercial and ATP's. Total was 48,385 for 59.1 million population (813 pilots per million). There were 16,000 currently registered aircraft in the UK in 2001. That is
270 aircraft per million population.
So, based on population, the US has 2.79 times the number of pilots and 2.9 times the number of aircraft. I do believe that economics are the biggest difference between the two sets of numbers.
Can you tell me again what we in the US are doing wrong?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, you are not doing anything wrong. JAR-PPL students trained in the US are, for all I know, perfectly capable of flying in the US. Unfortunately, they seem to have little idea of the different conditions in the UK. There is an enormous difference between reading about airspace restrictions in a foreign country and being told by the man sitting beside you that you will be prosecuted if you go another mile on your present heading.
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst being biased towards USA training, (although with a dual FAA/CAA-JAR instructor who teaches in both countries) I have to say it is definately the better. Its a lot more hands on and about pratical flying. It is also a know fact that a relaxed student learns better - I would find it difficult to relax in any of the UK teaching enviropments where CFI are in uniform with varing numbers of bars on their epaulettes.
I have flown with PPLs trained on both sides of the pond and I know who I'd rather have fly my family.
EG: A newly qualified PPL, with 65 hrs in which he just managed to scrap through the GFT(Checkride), didn't know have to workout a weight and balance nor did he know what purpose the Density Altitude chart was for! Guess you don't really need that page here in the UK!
Another UK trained PPL with a couple of hundred hours - theory OK, hands on flying a bit shaky, radio procedure even by USA standards was awful.
Yet another PPL with fast approaching 1000hrs failed the CPL oral exam miserably....
And I find it rather worrying that with the UK weather causing difficulties with continous training on part time basis how much knowledge is retained, as said Nick Lappos above when training is interrupted.
On a similar thread how much of the CFI knowledge base goes rusty through lack of student turnover? And yes I know a lot of CFIs, especially in the USA, are lowtime anyway but which side of the pond is their knowledge base going to improve and be maintained the best.
Also I would be more conserned that the UK schools are selling PPLs when training costs here are that much higher. A few extra hours training in the states hurts the bank balance a lot less.
Whirly as for no radio or radar you do live in Wales after all...
I have flown with PPLs trained on both sides of the pond and I know who I'd rather have fly my family.
EG: A newly qualified PPL, with 65 hrs in which he just managed to scrap through the GFT(Checkride), didn't know have to workout a weight and balance nor did he know what purpose the Density Altitude chart was for! Guess you don't really need that page here in the UK!
Another UK trained PPL with a couple of hundred hours - theory OK, hands on flying a bit shaky, radio procedure even by USA standards was awful.
Yet another PPL with fast approaching 1000hrs failed the CPL oral exam miserably....
And I find it rather worrying that with the UK weather causing difficulties with continous training on part time basis how much knowledge is retained, as said Nick Lappos above when training is interrupted.
On a similar thread how much of the CFI knowledge base goes rusty through lack of student turnover? And yes I know a lot of CFIs, especially in the USA, are lowtime anyway but which side of the pond is their knowledge base going to improve and be maintained the best.
Also I would be more conserned that the UK schools are selling PPLs when training costs here are that much higher. A few extra hours training in the states hurts the bank balance a lot less.
Whirly as for no radio or radar you do live in Wales after all...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nickp
I must admit I'm having some difficulty following your point. Anyone who trains abroad may reasonably be expected to take a little time to adjust to flying here. That doesn't mean he's not been properly trained.
I agree it's far better to train in the country where you plan to fly, if finances permit. But, given the cost advantage of training in the US, it may still be cheaper to train there and allow some money to do some additional local training when you get back.
I don't have any difficulty seeing the explanation for what your 'senior individual in the CAA' says. Don't make the mistake of assuming the FAA PPL and the CAA PPL are the same standard. And the more reliable weather explains the difference in the time it takes to get a JAA PPL.
Lower standards in the US? I doubt it. The safety statistics don't support your impressions. Could it be just a little patriotic bias showing through? Or too long a conversation with your 'senior individual in the CAA'? Bear in mind that it's a constant source of wonderment to the CAA that American aircraft don't constantly crash because FAA aircraft and airman standards are so low. They tend to attribute it to simple good fortune!
What a pity we didn't simply copy the FAA system lock, stock and barrel instead of wasting so much time and money inventing a Joint European system which only makes life even more difficult and more expensive both for UK training organisations and for aspiring aviators.
I must admit I'm having some difficulty following your point. Anyone who trains abroad may reasonably be expected to take a little time to adjust to flying here. That doesn't mean he's not been properly trained.
I agree it's far better to train in the country where you plan to fly, if finances permit. But, given the cost advantage of training in the US, it may still be cheaper to train there and allow some money to do some additional local training when you get back.
I don't have any difficulty seeing the explanation for what your 'senior individual in the CAA' says. Don't make the mistake of assuming the FAA PPL and the CAA PPL are the same standard. And the more reliable weather explains the difference in the time it takes to get a JAA PPL.
Lower standards in the US? I doubt it. The safety statistics don't support your impressions. Could it be just a little patriotic bias showing through? Or too long a conversation with your 'senior individual in the CAA'? Bear in mind that it's a constant source of wonderment to the CAA that American aircraft don't constantly crash because FAA aircraft and airman standards are so low. They tend to attribute it to simple good fortune!
What a pity we didn't simply copy the FAA system lock, stock and barrel instead of wasting so much time and money inventing a Joint European system which only makes life even more difficult and more expensive both for UK training organisations and for aspiring aviators.
Last edited by Heliport; 21st May 2002 at 08:48.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm far from being an expert on the difference between UK and US trained PPLs. But having just got back from the US I do have some opinions on this.
I was impressed with the actual standard of flying over there. People with the same number of hours as I have knew lots more about mountain flying, and had practised autos etc from 500 ft, which I'd never done. I did a lot of that kind of stuff there with an instructor, and learned a lot. But then I realised I have little use for it here. We don't have any mountains higher than 4000 ft or so, and that only in Scotland. We don't have any high altitude airfields. (Yes, I'd forgotten how to use the density altitude chart; hadn't used it since my PPL skills test). We don't fly around at under 500 ft because it's illegal; it's also unsafe because you're liable to encounter a highspeed military jets.
On the other hand, PPLs over there didn't seem to have a clue about navigation. People seemed to follow roads or coastlines all the time. I took a student who was just about to do his checkride with me when I flew from LGB to Santa Barbara. We got lost in LA, trying to follow the freeways. He looked around in desperation, then got out his GPS. I looked at the compass and which direction we were heading, noted where the coastline was, worked out my last known point - basic navigational skills; it works even in LA. But he didn't seem to even know how to try that.
Then there was weather. If the wind got up to 12 kts over there, people got worried. I did my first solo over here with 17 kts. And I think a lot of US PPLs would have problems with the kind of weather we take for granted in the UK.
I doubt if I could pass a US commercial checkride without a bit of extra training; I don't have the experience of mountain flying and suchlike. But I don't need it here. But I doubt if some of the US lowish hours CPLs would pass the JAR commercial skills test, certainly not the nav, finding an isolated farmhouse among many similar ones, having been given a gride reference in advance. But they don't need to. They don't do that sort of flying over there.
To summarise, it seemed to me, after admittedly very limited experience in only one area of the US, that you learn what you need to for where you're going to fly. At least at first. Neither is better or worse, but they are a bit different. For that reason, I think that initially learning in the country where you intend to fly is a good idea. After that going to other places to get different experience is good (and great fun, if you don't mind feeling like an idiot for a bit!).
I was impressed with the actual standard of flying over there. People with the same number of hours as I have knew lots more about mountain flying, and had practised autos etc from 500 ft, which I'd never done. I did a lot of that kind of stuff there with an instructor, and learned a lot. But then I realised I have little use for it here. We don't have any mountains higher than 4000 ft or so, and that only in Scotland. We don't have any high altitude airfields. (Yes, I'd forgotten how to use the density altitude chart; hadn't used it since my PPL skills test). We don't fly around at under 500 ft because it's illegal; it's also unsafe because you're liable to encounter a highspeed military jets.
On the other hand, PPLs over there didn't seem to have a clue about navigation. People seemed to follow roads or coastlines all the time. I took a student who was just about to do his checkride with me when I flew from LGB to Santa Barbara. We got lost in LA, trying to follow the freeways. He looked around in desperation, then got out his GPS. I looked at the compass and which direction we were heading, noted where the coastline was, worked out my last known point - basic navigational skills; it works even in LA. But he didn't seem to even know how to try that.
Then there was weather. If the wind got up to 12 kts over there, people got worried. I did my first solo over here with 17 kts. And I think a lot of US PPLs would have problems with the kind of weather we take for granted in the UK.
I doubt if I could pass a US commercial checkride without a bit of extra training; I don't have the experience of mountain flying and suchlike. But I don't need it here. But I doubt if some of the US lowish hours CPLs would pass the JAR commercial skills test, certainly not the nav, finding an isolated farmhouse among many similar ones, having been given a gride reference in advance. But they don't need to. They don't do that sort of flying over there.
To summarise, it seemed to me, after admittedly very limited experience in only one area of the US, that you learn what you need to for where you're going to fly. At least at first. Neither is better or worse, but they are a bit different. For that reason, I think that initially learning in the country where you intend to fly is a good idea. After that going to other places to get different experience is good (and great fun, if you don't mind feeling like an idiot for a bit!).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A flying holiday in New Zealand
Could I suggest you look at training in New Zealand. Real mountains, good climate, plenty of helicopters, and above all cost effective.
Try a search on the web for helicopter schools in New Zealand.
Try a search on the web for helicopter schools in New Zealand.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: maidenhead, UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Whirlybird has summed up the situation very well. The problem is that the student thinks that because he has a JAR PPL he has all the knowledge and skills required to fly in the UK. We recently had a US trained student who performed perfectly well on the handling check but then hired the aircraft and flew straight through the Heathrow and Stansted zones enroute, in a straight line, to his destination.
If the new PPL appreciates that some of the money he has saved by learning in the US must be spent by learning the differences when flying in the UK, then fine. But how many schools in the US make that point clear? Preferably to the student before he starts?
If the new PPL appreciates that some of the money he has saved by learning in the US must be spent by learning the differences when flying in the UK, then fine. But how many schools in the US make that point clear? Preferably to the student before he starts?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nickp
Perhaps the US schools assume that anyone able to get all the way from the UK to the States, pass the ground exams, and get successfully through a PPL course might just be bright enough to work that out for themselves.
I'm surprised your school didn't require rather more than just a handling check before allowing a newly qualified and unknown PPL to set off on a flight which took him anywhere near the Heathrow or Stansted zones.
Perhaps the US schools assume that anyone able to get all the way from the UK to the States, pass the ground exams, and get successfully through a PPL course might just be bright enough to work that out for themselves.
I'm surprised your school didn't require rather more than just a handling check before allowing a newly qualified and unknown PPL to set off on a flight which took him anywhere near the Heathrow or Stansted zones.