Are aeroclubs holding back GA?

Peter wrote:

Actually there are very few aeroclubs in the UK. Most UK pilots that “go places” at all are working on their own.

There would be no pilots going anywhere w/o aeroclubs.

Peter wrote:

The environment in a club is really rather sterile. People are exposed to very little new stuff.

It depends on the club. I’ve only been a member of one (power) flying club, the BAAC in Houston. The structure was a non-profit, instructors were freelancers who the club had approved (basically, the Chief Instructor had to give them a checkout) and we had a mixed fleet with a couple of simple aircraft (fixed pitch fixed gear), a more advanced aircraft (e.g. Piper Arrow) and a couple of travelling machines (e.g. Mooney or Bonanza). Many members were also aircraft owners.

We had a club house with a lock on it which all members had the combination, the aircraft keys were in a lock box inside – and everyone had 24/7 access. Since there we no paid staff and no one there full time our costs were lower than anyone else’s, too.

It worked very well, our rules weren’t onerous – if the insurance didn’t exclude it, you could do it. I did long multi-day trips in the club’s Bonanza for instance, and no one would be breathing down your neck or even commenting. If I were going to create a club here, this is exactly how I’d do it.

No one was getting held back. One member flew the club’s Arrow coast to coast which is a pretty big cross country in the USA.

I’m with Airborne_again, and think it’s mostly a consequence of self-selection.

2 days after I got my licence, I went on a (UK) club flyout, landing at Cherbourg, La Rouchelle, Moulins, Annecy, Chambery, Valley flying in the alps, Troyes. It was great fun! After that, I immediately started flying to France, without any instructor. That flyout certainly increased my confidence to do it, and might have been slower to do it if on my own.

The French club I am part of regularly organises longer flyouts (corsica, africa). There was a thread with more examples that got closed I think.

The scene with less money is naturally going to go to clubs. Often they won’t have money for big flyouts, so for likely a majority of the people, the club’s mission is to provide cheap flying. Big trips are
a) a many hours commitment (so are inherently expensive)
b) are likely to immobilize the planes for longer than usual / done at a discounted hire rate (so they cost the club more)

People wanting “flying accessible for all” will not necessarily want to “subsidize” (see point b) people having the money to fly longer trips.

People might also have less time / confidence to organize things, and thus rely on the club environment to guide them; they might also want to more easily find flying partners (easy on a club scene).

Some people also don’t have the (sometimes a bit irrational) appetite some of us have for Forums.

I don’t think there’s a “Big Character” that stops people from reading Forums (or more precisely EuroGA).

mrfacts wrote:

@Patrick may be able to add how the German club “Rietberger” have solved the conumdrum: they have several capable aircraft at attractive rates, have availability and allow you to go touring

Indeed. There’s a lot of things that club is doing right IMHO. I really only joined for the availability of good and cost effective aircraft, but I’ve come to value the touring oriented atmosphere in the club. There’s a number of big trips organized by club members per year (taking them from Lofoten to Barcelona or further) and individual trips are encouraged as well. People share their impressions of trips on the club’s facebook page or as a presentation on the annual meeting just before Christmas. The availabilty and the attractive rates are a function of the club size, as far as I can see it. The smaller clubs in some villages with a grass field and one powered aircraft can’t pull this off. But once you have a critical mass of paying members and a decent fleet of aircraft and the right conditions (24 h international airport as home base, own maintenance staff for the entire fleet, training “outsourced” to a neighboring flight school to keep aircraft available for “real” flying rather than training), you can do great things.

Of course, this is anecdotal evidence – as are Peter’s observations. I think we’ve worked out on this thread and in others that the term “club” is used in a different way in UK than in many other countries and it seems that we are comparing apples and oranges. But even if we agree on the terminology, it would take much further research than querying the forumites here (who do have a bias to ownership, I tend to think) to establish whether on average, clubs are holding back or promoting GA in a travelling/touring sense. I personally believe they don’t hold anyone back but rather provide a fundament for grass roots GA, from which people can eventually step up to ownership if they find the objective, perseverance, and means to do it.

In fact, you could turn the argument around. Is ownership holding pilots back? I can think of two scenarios right from the top of my head: If you own an aircraft, you sort of limit yourself to the missions it allows you to do. I know one pilot who owned a Katana and who never flew it to his house in Spain because he dreaded the long trip in that rather uncomfortable aircraft. He sold it now and went back to renting. If you want the same flexibility as a club member/renter, you have to own a fleet of aircraft! The other scenario is periods where your aircraft is grounded. Of course can you revert to renting then, but I think there is a mindset among owners to not fly during that time. In a decently sized club, one or two grounded aircraft simply mean that you fly one of the others.

alioth wrote:

It depends on the club. I’ve only been a member of one (power) flying club, the BAAC in Houston. The structure was a non-profit, instructors were freelancers who the club had approved (basically, the Chief Instructor had to give them a checkout) and we had a mixed fleet with a couple of simple aircraft (fixed pitch fixed gear), a more advanced aircraft (e.g. Piper Arrow) and a couple of travelling machines (e.g. Mooney or Bonanza). Many members were also aircraft owners.

We had a club house with a lock on it which all members had the combination, the aircraft keys were in a lock box inside – and everyone had 24/7 access. Since there we no paid staff and no one there full time our costs were lower than anyone else’s, too.

It worked very well, our rules weren’t onerous – if the insurance didn’t exclude it, you could do it. I did long multi-day trips in the club’s Bonanza for instance, and no one would be breathing down your neck or even commenting. If I were going to create a club here, this is exactly how I’d do it.

No one was getting held back. One member flew the club’s Arrow coast to coast which is a pretty big cross country in the USA.

Are the clubs holding back GA? I don’t think they do, not at least in such a general sense.

Clubs are how a huge percentage of private pilots get their licenses, so as non profit organisations they have a vital function as basic flight training outfits. Some do go further and offer higher training (IR, CPL, MEP e.t.c.) but most are just that, PPL schools with a rental facility.

It has to be said clearly that there are huge differences between clubs. There are those which Peter mentions who are dominated by a small group or even individuals, but I think they are dying out slowly. Todays clubs as I know them around here are mostly run by motivated crews who want to do the best they can to protect the club and the airfield they operate from.

Therein often lies the problem however. Clubs owning and operating airfields tend to be tending to their own needs first and care preciously less about visiting pilots or even ownership on their airfield, apart from making rental money for hangarspace. People who want to station their planes at a club owned airfield need to be members even though they do not use any or if at all few of the clubs assetts, apart of course the airfield itself.

Then there is the problem of some clubs discouraging ownership or imposing rather strict restrictions on the use of self-owned airplanes on their airfield in order not the have competition to their own charter market.

So generally I’d say clubs are not only neccesary to keep GA alive but are in general a very valuable assett when it comes to keep variety and lots of airfields alive. Some clubs may be hindering particular facets of GA however, such as ownership.

It may be very valid to make the point that even club airfields should be considerred infrastructure rather than private property of the club, even if they are. That said, it may be a way forward to impose rulemaking on to what extent an airfield operator/owner may interfere in the rights of ownership of people based there, under which circumstances they may refuse people using the aerodrome or restricting the use of the airplanes based there. Clubs have to realize that like driving schools there are people who will want to spread their wings. There are some clubs who are very supportive of this (such as the one I am a member with, the MFGZ, who have a special form of membership for owner members) and they IMHO do better this way and also see a lot more goodwill than others who go the other way.

I’m a pure product of the French aeroclub system and I can’t think of any better way to start.

Enthusiasts sharing their passion with others.

Instructors are unpaid and aeroplanes available more or less at cost price.

This is in huge contrast to some flight schools I have visited (particularly in the UK) where I found the atmosphere very intimidating (instructors in uniforms, high vis everywhere…).

However, as with golf clubs, tennis clubs, etc. it really depends on the set up and the people.

In my experience, clubs work best when they have a full time secretary and chief pilot on the payroll.

Sadly, many people only join clubs for the cheap prices and not the atmosphere, and never really take part in anything.

About the long trips, I don’t know how other clubs do it, but we allow such trips. We have two A/C for instruction and trips up to 3 days, and one A/C for longer trips (the one I’m taking to Dresden). Nobody has complained so far and the system works fine.

Also, without clubs GA in Sweden would be dead. I know very few people that own their own A/C and in general it is a very expensive thing to own here. It is comparable to buying your own house, something that you pay mortgage for until the day you die. Definitely not worth it unless you try to run some kind of business that requires an A/C or you rent it out to other pilots through some aeroclub.

Bordeaux_Jim wrote:

Sadly, many people only join clubs for the cheap prices and not the atmosphere, and never really take part in anything.

That is very true!