Possibly but the amount of flying that most schools are doing is significantly depressed on say 5 years ago. I would guess something like 40 percent and thus schools simply don't have enough cash in the kitty and are being forced to take a chance and hope things pick up by the time the big bills are due.
If you can get say an ex private owner spamcam with say 10 months before the annual then by the time it goes in you would have ideally flown 449 hours off (599 would be even better) so you do stand a chance of covering the costs of the annual.
The problem thats now starting to develop is that this has been going on for a good few years and the number of suitable and decent spamcams is dwindling.
Of course what we really need is someone to bring a training aircraft to market with lower running costs. Then we need oxford et al to bring their flight training back to the UK and we could then live of their handed down aircraft. Which is what two previous schools that I worked for did.
What would be the billing to the student(s) for 500hrs in a C152?
I used to pay c. £250 for a 1.2hr lesson in a PA28, when my son had a go at PPL training last year. 500hrs of that would come to about £100k. Admittedly that included the instructor in the RHS, but I can't see why schools are so hard up IF they are actually doing 500hrs/year or anywhere near that.
But how much of that £100k would go in fuel, landing fees and instructor pay?
What would be the billing to the student(s) for 500hrs in a C152?
Those maths are easy
500*100=50000
(The instructor bills the student separately)
Its gets a bit more tricky by the time you have paid 44 quid an hour for Avgas, 500 quid for each fifty hour check. 1500 quid for each 150 check and 6 grand for each annual. Plus parking/hangerage. After all that you not going to clear 20 quid per flying hour. And you won't even clear that if you drop a valve or lose compression on a cylinder.
Getting 500 hours out of an airframe isn't easy. With the downturn many schools now have excess aircraft capacity. Even if they could sell them at say 8 grand you would be mad to buy one and I know of 14 grand annuals on such machines.
Our 172 doesn't do anywhere near 500 hours despite it being the pride of our fleet. One of the 150 does and the other one which only came on line in July we will probably try and avoid another 150 check on it so will aim for 299 hours come annual time in march.
500 quid for each fifty hour check. 1500 quid for each 150 check and 6 grand for each annual
£500 for the 50hr check is way OTT on a C150. That is a TB20 rate. The oil is about £40, and 3-4hrs labour. How about hiring an EASA66 engineer (I believe he can freelance) and doing a deal with a Subpart G (?) firm to sign it off, and doing it in house?
£6k for the Annual, and especially the £14k annual you mention - can you offer a breakdown? I would bet that any C15x which needs a 14k annual was grossly unairworthy the whole previous year, and possibly the 6k one also. I know many schools operate some real junk (I have spent enough time in it myself) but this is on another level.
Or, of course, the CAMO is ripping you off... I think the 7k annuals I knew of on a C150 were a ripoff; billed thus because they knew the syndicate had no capital (meaning: you could never get all 25 members to agree to spend money in improvements) but would pay ongoing bills of any size because divided by 25 they came to very little.
I'm pretty sure those prices are pretty standard.
You've got to remember we are operating 40 year old working machines one of which has 16000 hours on the airframe. They are not used out of choice its just that there isn't anything more cost effective to replace them. Even the newest Cessna 152 is approaching 30 years old.
So when they go in for a fifty its not just a case of change the oil. Off the top of my head the next aircraft to have one will need a new landing light and port light. The DI has failed and that's going to cost a few bob and I suspect there will be a couple of other things as well.
So although some fifty checks are less by the time you factor in all the other bits and pieces 500 quid is not far off the mark.
I have to say Peter its nice to have a debate about the problems flight schools face when it comes to aircraft they operate. I always think most forums are populated by owners or group owners who tend to have an I'm all right jack outlook.
Where as I feel the lack of any cost effective aircraft that are suitable for flight training is a major problem that the industry desperately needs to address if the decline in GA is to be reversed.
What is the area that would save the most? I doubt maintenance would be easy to cut significantly for an aircraft used so much so I assume fuel consumption?
It seems to me the main problem is the regulations under which maintenance must be done by European flight schools. Something like a C150 is a very, very simple machine and in the absence of major structural issues (and even with them, assuming used parts are available) it should be easy to keep one going indefinitely. These are not helicopters, they're sheet metal boxes with air cooled direct drive engines! One local US flight school with which which I'm familiar employs their own A&P IA and he does all the annuals, parts chasing and installation. I'd imagine that works a lot better than using a supplier.
The prices I see quoted for annual inspections under the EASA regime are just bizarre - $1500 for a C152 annual would meet my expectation locally. As I've mentioned before, my own owner assisted annuals cost $200 plus any parts we might install while we're working on the thing.
Yes I feel regulation adds a significant cost and I could go on and on about that.
Although the airframes are old the costs of operating them are minimal Cessna built a tough bird.
The instruments do cost a lot from time to time largely because they are old and are simply worn out.
The radios can be problematic read Narco and 8.33khz is only going to add to costs and from a GA point of view will offer no benefits. Same with mode S.
The engines are the real problem as they need way too much maintenance. In this day end age who the hell has heard of a top end overhaul. Yet one of ours had to have two new cylinders at 1200 hours and this is pretty much the norm. The mags are a pain in the arse as well.
They also drink way too much fuel and fuel that is expensive. One of our aircraft has an STC for Mogas but the CAA have never allowed mogas to be used for flight training. Despite the long gone four star probably being the perfect fuel for 0-200s.
I think the 912 goes a long way to resolving most of these problems however as of yet no one has managed to mate that engine to a decent airframe. Or when they did (Cessna Rotax) they fitted it with a wobbly prop which really isn't needed for flight training and simply adds more to running costs. And at 57000 euro per conversion the cost savings are simly not enough to make it commercially viable.
So we are stuck where we are.
