At my field, much the same situation as achimha describes. Few experimentals, though, but perhaps 65% microlights, the rest CofA. Maintenance going on all the while – even on an absolutely non-flyable day like today someone was carting in his tools and gear in a wheelbarrow. Everybody knows everybody, and if I run out of locking wire or whatever I’ll get some from one or other neighbour. Even on a PA32, a broken piston was taken out in its usual hangar then taken to LOMA for repair.
I can’t help wondering whether, if some aerodromes maintain ridiculous terms and conditions, it is because some people are ready to accept them. For lack of any better, of course. Unfortunate, one could call that, yes.
Ah Silvaire, I think his A&P certificate allows you to play with planes!
And his motorcycles, and his planes and… :-)
Joking aside, people have been unbelievably generous to me in aviation, and it’s one of those things that’s hard to explain. I try to do the same in return.
I’ve hatched a plan to get my A&P after I retire, in ten years… it’s do-able, and I have a funny feeling I’ll still be hanging around the airport.
I don’t agree that it only takes will to perform good maintenance on an aircraft
That’s not what I said. I said building. Maintenance is a whole different thing and requires different skills and competence. Not necessarily more difficult, but different, often with less margin for trial and error. You can re build a wing if the first try became crooked, but you cannot re-torque the propeller when it falls off in mid air.
Based upon that, I retain the opinion that I would never start one, as long as I valued my time by the hour
This is a tricky one. It’s like saying you would never go fishing because it’s more cost effective to purchase pre-fabbed chunks of fish at the nearest store. The most cost effective will always be to work 16 h a day and sleep the rest. But life is more than work and sleep. I get what you are saying though, I just don’t agree with the perception that building is a waste of time. If anything, building an aircraft causes fewer fishing trips and less time at the beach rather than less time in the air.
For all the people who ask me about starting an amateur build project, I generally advise against their doing that, if cost saving is the motive.
This is dependent on what you are building and lots of other things. Glasairs can be built in 2 weeks, then you get a better looking “Cessna” with better performance for less than half the price. Most homebuilts have no “certified equal”, so going certified is really not that much of an option, it’s more like a poor substitute. I don’t disagree entirely though, if cost saving is the only motive, then your options are very limited, and is only meaningful if you are going become an owner. This is why the will to built is the number one thing to consider if you are looking into building.
a plane is not at all a waste of time, it just may not be cost effective use of time. I’ve rebuilt several, and there’s one in England right now with my name on it. But in most cases, and particularly for a lesser skilled or lesser equipped person, it’s cheaper to just buy the end product – same a fish. Building and maintaining is excellent use of your time, if the goal is to become skilled at doing that, and an airworthy aircraft is also a part of the outcome, but it cannot be a cost saving effort. I’m all for it, but for the right reasons.I just don’t agree with the perception that building is a waste of time.Quote
But at the heart of it, it costs money (or your time, if you have the necessary skills) to fly, there’s just no way around that…..
I think we agree actually. Renting is definitely the less costly short term alternative, considering you don’t fly too much. In a longer perspective, things get more complicated. But cost effectiveness? That is a tricky one when considering a hobby. Gliding at the club and the whole week end is gone for a couple of hours flight, but this doesn’t mean the time is wasted, far from it. When towing gliders, I fly continuous from morning to evening and pay nothing (I don’t get paid either 
) It’s highly cost effective, but the flying is constricted to – well – towing gliders. We are all having fun though, and that is the main thing.
I think, as I originally wrote, that the best thing to do is to try to find out how much time and money you are willing to invest. Then find what options are available, and chose the one that seems best. Often opportunities just pops up also, and one thing have a habit of leading to another, and suddenly you could end up flying all you can manage and pay nothing, or better – getting payed a little if you are lucky and persistent. And, there is more to flying than just piloting.
If you are going to collect hours and pay as little as possible, then some kind of “aerial work” (towing, lifting skydivers etc) is one way. Another option is to instruct. Both requires some amount of experience and hours, and probably more than what is cost effective by renting. That £10k Jodel or a TMG with 3-4 others is maybe the best all together?
My airport, EDML (Landshut) in Bavaria: Owner maintenance is done in all hangars. From complete avionics installations to engine installations. I have never heard that anybody ever had a problem with that.
Another option is to instruct.
No, it’s not. Flight instruction is important, it’s highly rewarding and you learn a lot about flying and about people, but it’s not a way to get into the air cheap. If instruction is not your profession, you have to be so dedicated, that you stay professional, even if you are an amateur. You are responsible for the quality of pilots and set the basics for their flight safety. If people come to you to learn to fly, you have to teach them. Sure, you log hours, but essentially you don’t fly a lot and most of the times you’re trying to figure out, how the student wants to kill you today. It is highly rewarding, but aero towing is – at least in my experience – easier.
I know a couple of instructors, who do flight instruction just for cheap flying. They do cancel lessons because they are not in the mood and some of them let their students fly ridiculous amounts of traffic circuits, even when they produce an artificial learning plateau, before letting them solo. In my experience, if you just want to fly cheap, flight instruction is not for you.
Plus, with EASA regulations, the FI has a very high financial entrance level. You need 200 hours flight time (at least 150 hours PIC-Time) (without flight training), the complete CPL Theory, at least 10 hours basic instrument training instruction, 300 NM cross country, a 100 h theory course (mostly educational science) and 30 hours Flight Instructor training. You will have to do a theoretical and practical aptitude test in aviation knowledge, a theoretical test about educational science, a demonstration lesson, and a flight test. And after you have done all that, you have to instruct 100 hours under supervision and perform the supervised supervision of 25 student solo flights. To maintain the licence, you need 50 hours flight training, a refresher seminar within the last 3 years. one of both criteria can be exchanged by a new FI practical exam, which is mandatory every 3 renewals.
If you have at least 30 hours and 60 landings after your flight instruction, you need 5 take offs in a glider being towed, 5 aerotows with instructor and 5 aerotows solo under supervision to get your aerotow rating. This is, what you can do for reducing flight costs. plus scenic flights in aero clubs, of course.
I think the level on instruction is an individual thing, not related to full time or part time. The part time guy (he was actually only in instructing me) who taught me to fly had about ten times as much experience as the full time instructor I used to set me up for the practical (flight) test. With several thousand hours. Including over 2000 hours tail wheel, he was particularly well suited to teaching me how to fly my plane.
It was actually a pretty good combination because although the full time guy knew little about flying in comparison, he was very good at coaching and training to meet a specific objective (night flying and passing test in a 152 with nav radio etc). In a prior life he’s been an Olympic athlete. However, if I’d had only he, I couldn’t have learned to fly in my plane (he was not capable to start it, never mind fly it) and I wouldn’t have learned a lot of practical things that I think come with greater experience.
That is exactly my stance on it. Either you are professional and it is your job to be professional, or you are dedicated enough to be professional. But the instructors I have met, who were driven by cheap flight time, weren’t good at all.
essentially you don’t fly a lot and most of the times you’re trying to figure out, how the student wants to kill you today. It is highly rewarding
OK
The question was how to reduce the cost of flying. If instructing is a good way to do it is another matter, but it’s definitely a way to do it. There are different kind of instruction you can do, you can do ratings for instance; tail wheel, acro, sea, night and so on (without being too precise, I don’t know exactly what the requirements are).
If you have at least 30 hours and 60 landings after your flight instruction, you need 5 take offs in a glider being towed, 5 aerotows with instructor and 5 aerotows solo under supervision to get your aerotow rating.
This is highly dependent on the aircraft used. With the Pawnee, you also need tail wheel rating and there is no option for towing with an instructor + 75 h motor. Today we use a microlight and this requires microlight license and 5 h in the type and 20 landings in the type + a check ride + 75h motor. However, this has become very messy altogether. EASA has also entered with their own rating which will go into effect sometime in the future. Essentially we will have 3 different ratings for towing gliders.
1. EASA rating (whatever that may be) for “EASA aircraft”. Will probably need an motor instructor.
2. “Local” rating for non EASA aircraft. This is independent of motor instructor. A chief gliding instructor issues this rating.
3. Microlight rating, for towing with microlight. This requires a chief microlight instructor.
I have 2 and 3, and if we ever go back to a more modern EASA type towing aircraft, I probably must have 1 as well. A true regulation madness.
