I spent more money than i should getting my license north of Seattle, and i don't regret it. it was a confidence builder and something i really recommend to hacker types - learning to fly is such a perfect combination of the technical and aesthetic, satisfying the need for beauty, freedom, and aventure and challenging your mind at the same time.
Flying, after a while, can become routine and at a certain point the marginal value is low - it's expensive and if you're not going to be a professional pilot, it begins to seem like a very expensive and pointless hobby. but the experience of learning to fly is worth it.
At the time i got my license it was a minimum of 40 hours so the sport pilot rating makes it a lot easier. however, i'm not sure that at 22 hours it's very safe to go up with someone else - it's easy to get overconfident in the pattern, make a turn a little too tight, and stall, and at 1000 feet above the ground, it's generally not recoverable. i didn't feel super confident in pretty much any situation (crosswind, busy airport, low clouds, etc) until around 80 hours.
a cessna 172 burns 8gallons of 100octane fuel an hour.
add min $60K for an airplane, depreciation, insurance, etc.
Unless you go the homebuilt/experimental route. In which case you can fly something like a quickie q2 ($20-30K) and burn ~4gallons/hr of autogas.
Oh also, the zenair zodiac 601 recently had a problem with its wings folding up in flight. Check that they've been corrected before you take a trip in one.
Personally the sport pilot license bores me to death. Can't fly into busy airspace, can't fly more than 120mph or so, vfr only, single passenger, essentially overgrown ultralights.
It's not just that you can't fly into busy airspace, it's that you can't fly into airspace where you need to talk to an air traffic controller for VFR flight (class B-D).
If you live in or near a big city chances are that the airports out of which you will want to fly will be close to airspace into which you cannot fly. It a hassle if you have to drive out to the boonies in order to start your flying trip or if you have to take the long way around a large block of busy airspace.
i spent around 15K and i have about 150 hours, in cessna 172s, a bit of time in mooneys, some time in a piper or three, learned how to fly in mountains and was about 80% of the way toward an instrument rating. So, i spent about $100/hr on average but i had about $120/hr of fun :)
"Fantasy flights are charity flights operated by a host airline for locally disadvantaged and terminally ill children to fly to a fictitious destination."
I'm still mulling this over, but my initial reaction is very mixed/slightly negative.
Of the people I know who have a pilots license, the ones who seem pleased/proud/positive about it are those who are (lucky enough) to own/co-own a plane.
As was pointed out with me, the right planes don't loose value/much value and so once you own a plane your running costs are low. Then you can book a weekend in Tahoe (I'm in SF) and just fly the plane out.
The people for whom flying is expensive is, ironically, those who don't own a plane and have to rent. By the time you've rented (paid + time to organize that, you might as well just fly commercially)
It is absolutely impossible to fly somewhere cheaper than commercial whether you own or rent — it's pretty basic economies of scale. Private pilots do not do it to save money; they do it for the love of flight itself.
This is something I've wondered about for a while. We have a family of four - where does that economy of scale start to tip the balance? At what point does the increment of cost for private flight get small enough that you say, "OK, for being able to fly out of the local airport on a day's notice, that's worth it?"
I think it's unlikely that you're ever gonna reach a point where it's reasonable for a family but with say 10 executives who are paid thousands of dollars an hour, then it starts to make sense.
If your frame of reference is an economy coach ticket, if you say "it's more expensive to fly private", you'll almost never be wrong. (Your economy coach ticket is heavily subsidized by the first-class and other full-fare tickets.)
If your frame of reference is a first-class or full-fare business class ticket, I can often beat or near the airlines on both cost and door-to-door time. (If the keys to the plane are in your pocket, there's no getting there an hour ahead, dealing with the parking garage, the TSA theater, maybe a delay on takeoff for crew or aircraft availability or ATC/ground holds, perhaps changing planes, waiting at baggage claim, etc. Plus, I can often start and end the flight much closer to the "doors" I want to be at, leave my shoes on and carry 4 oz of gel deodorant in my bag if I want.)
As to "that's worth it", I bought a Cessna 182/Skylane (4 seat, single-engine, 160 mph high-wing) a little over 12 years ago, and have flown it for business travel as well as most of our in-US, east of the Mississippi, personal travel, as well as a few trips west of the Mississippi. It costs me under $2/mile on average, and the direct operating cost (aka marginal cost: the cost of an incremental trip within a year) is just under $1/mile. If I had to, I'd pay 2x what flying actually costs me without thinking about it.
If you want to travel in your aircraft (as opposed to just going flying), I'd suggest you take the traditional route and go all the way to the private pilot's license. Far fewer restrictions, and if you enjoy flying anyway all of the "extra" time is hardly wasted. IMO, there are too many restrictions on LSA/recreational pilot's certificate to make it usable to actual go places with 3 friends, etc. It's nice to be able to fly into BWI for an Orioles game, or fly up the Hudson River at night, cross Central park and Laguardi tower and head out on course over the Whitestone bridge. I think it's great that the FAA created the easier licenses, but I don't think they are practical for travelling.
Used airplanes are reasonably cheap now, and loans and insurance are easy to get. (Most airplanes are made of aluminum and have nearly infinite lifespans, with avionics, engine/props, interior and paint being replaceable items over the life of the plane. Think of a 30-year old airplane as much more like a 30-year old office building than a 30-year old car in terms of "acceptable to rely on". They're inspected annually [or ever 100 flight hours for rentals/commercial usage], and no reason a 30+ year old plane wouldn't be perfectly reasonable.)
Airplanes have less fudge factor and more stress than Office building so while an office building might last 30-300 years with little problem, all airplanes have a shorter lifespan. (Assuming regular use.)
A well-maintained airplane will last a long time. Well-maintained means doing it the right way: RX components to look for fatigue, etc ... Yes, this costs. Tthere is some concern wrt. catastrophic failure due to fatigue & ideally you want to have a full history of how the plane was flown.
Depends somewhat where you fly. From one major city to another major hub airport no question. But across a couple states that are not major routes say a small town in Montana to Wyoming, it could be a significant differential.
There are too many variables to say that for certain. The corporate jet for example isn't pure ostentation; if you fly enough, or at short notice, or between airfields that aren't well served, it might well be worth it.
> As was pointed out with me, the right planes don't loose value/much value and so once you own a plane your running costs are low.
Unless you're flying more than 100 hours a year, renting is almost always cheaper than owning. Consider a simple single engine Cessna 172. The per hour operating costs are:
- Gas, $42.5 (8.5 gallon/hour, $5.00/gallon)
- Oil, $5 ($250 oil change every 50 hours)
- Engine replacement, $7.50 ($15000 overhaul every 2000 hours)
Total = $55/hour
The fixed costs per year are:
- Annual inspection, $1000
- Insurance, $1000
- Tie-down/hanger, $1200-2400 ($100-200 month)
Total = $3200-4400/year
Assuming 100 hours per year the cost is $87-99/hour. This is an over simplified conservative estimate, it doesn't include other routine maintenance such as tires, breaks, transponder check, pitot-static check, ELT check as well as unforeseen items (radios, starters, vacuum pump, etc).
Renting a Cessna 172 is about $90-120/hour.
By the way, 100 hours per year is a lot. Most recreational pilots are lucky to fly half that per year.
"...once you own a plane your running costs are low..."
not really. I owned a light-sport plane for ~ two years. It was a great airplane, and cost about $20/hour for fuel to operate (and cruised at about 110 mph).
However, the tie-down was about $1500/year; insurance was about $2k/year; and maintenance was about $2k/year. These are the fixed costs -- $4500/year (call it $5K since I'm forgetting stuff I'm sure). Flying 100 hours/year == 100x $20 = $2000 + $5k fixed / 100 hours == $70/hr "real operating costs).
I can rent a much more capable plane (Piper Archer) for $120 per hour, and not have to worry about any ownership issues.
In addition, you can't just run up to Tahoe (at least you can't plan on it). I'm also in the SF area, and fly out of Palo Alto Airport (great place, btw). I've been to Truckee / Tahoe many times in small planes & the trip is great. But don't book a hotel, tell the spouse and make other arrangements assuming you're going to fly up -- what if the weather is bad? What if the weather is marginal? Do you go then? The moment you get into thinking along those lines, you're dead (usually literally).
Owning a plane is about having something that is _yours_ -- a plane where I know the condition and use of every last radio, instrument, wheel and bolt.
All that aside, I strongly recommend learning to fly if you're at all interested. I have been lots of amazing places, seen fascinating things, tested my skills, and once bumped into Clint Eastwood :-). I'd be happy to mentor anyone interested in learning -- http://projectpilot.aopa.org/projectpilot/
to you and others that have commented on the running costs are low...
The example I'm thinking of is a friend who sold his plane for more than he paid for it (I don't know exactly what type but it was more executive jet than single prop - it had a pressurized cabin etc).
Anyway, he sold the plane for more than he paid for it and so after accounting for maintenance and hanger fees he basically only had to pay fuel as his costs (and probably even had some of that off-set by the profit on the sale).
In the same manner I know people who run cars like this - buy sports cars at the top of the list when they come out, receive the vehicle and then drive it for 12 months at which point they can sell it at cost price to someone who would otherwise have to get on at the back of the waiting list. They zero out in terms of loss, and so repeat the cycle having already jumped on the list for the next years model.
You have to have the float for the cost of 1-2 cars but you never loose money net.
This is possible -- I too sold my plane for more than I paid for it, but I'm sure that's just down to luck. I had one annual inspection that cost ~$3K -- it could have cost $750 or $8K -- you just never know what's going to break next, and in most cases, you cannot just decide to fix the problem later.
An airplane is very different from a car. If the plane has a problem, it must be fixed, within a certain time frame, by an FAA licensed mechanic. Maps and charts are updated frequently, and you are required to have current versions on hand. If the aircraft panel GPS is approach certified, you are required to have updated data if you want to use it for IFR approaches, and on and on. I spent about $10K getting my license, and another $10K getting my instrument rating.
Yes, you can skimp here and there, but there's just no way around it -- flying is not cheap, even if you sell your plane for what you paid for it.
All that said, it's worth every penny. A few years ago, I flew by myself, just for fun, on a clear autumn day from Palo Alto, CA to Little River, in Mendocino County in the northern part of the state. Flying at 7500 feet, I watched the sun set over the Pacific and light up the peaks and western slopes of Sierra. I told the controller I was going off-frequency for a moment and turned down the radio. I could see a ship or two on the water, the Russian River valley below me, and what seemed like the entire width of Northern California spread out across a 270 degree view. Worth every penny.
I can't afford to learn how to fly, but I've always wanted to do it. So, when I was a kid (8ish) my parents hooked me on aeromodelling, and I loved it like anything. I used to spend hours sanding away wood, which is quite incredible for an 8 year old.
I know that isn't a substitute for the real deal, but for those of us who can't fork out 15K regularly for something it's worth it.
Moreover, it's possible to make a drone these days. So, a lot of people over here could design a suitable balsa aircraft that could handle the payload and attach a battery with a small video camera to it and an arduino to control it. The biggest problem IMO would be the radio communication, but a lot of solutions exist for that too.
I think that if someone is fairly dedicated they could make one for under $300 using spare parts, and it should be worth it too. As it scratches that itch in a much much cheaper way, and learn a lot about design too.
A huge plus is that if you crash it your or other's life isn't, necessarily, on the line.
I used to fly slope-soaring gliders back in Auckland, and I can't recommend it enough. A slope soarer is a little indestructible foam-and-tape plane that you hurl off a mountain - the wind against the slope provides lift, and you're off. The basic kit was about NZ$300 including the radio - you had to glue it together, sand it and tape it, which no time at all compared to balsa. Aerial combat was the best. Plus, running up and down hills all day got me quite fit.
I agree that 22 hours is a ridiculously low number of hours to be allowed to fly. At 40 hours you’re still a danger to yourself and others because of lack of expertise.
It’s interesting calculus. Who is willing to rent their planes to Sport Pilots? What will this do to insurance costs?
At the same time, this might be beneficial to the general aviation community. GA gets fucked by airports, insurance companies, and oil companies. Maybe if there were more GA pilots, there’d be more members of AOPA (a lobbying group for GA). Maybe Sport Pilots will continue their education and get more advanced certificates.
More people flying is both a blessing and a curse.
I remember reading somewhere that pilot accident rates are high for very low-time pilots, then begin to decrease around 100 hours and then increase again between 500 and 1000 hours, perhaps as pilots become more confident than their skills deserve, and then from 1000 hours on, slowly decrease.
>Flying, after a while, can become routine and at a certain point the marginal value is low - it's expensive and if you're not going to be a professional pilot, it begins to seem like a very expensive and pointless hobby. but the experience of learning to fly is worth it.
What I'd like to do is learn to fly in South Africa. Think about it - travel somewhere exotic, explore the place not only on the ground, but also from the air, and go back home a pilot.
Also, I heard South Africa is cheaper and have pretty high quality flight instruction.
Hoedspruit in the Limpopo province is a good place to go for this, it has flight school due to it also being the location of an air-force base.
It's also in a central location if you're the type of person who enjoys doing outdoor stuff.
It's close to the Drakensberg mountain range (awesome hiking), like 100km from the Kruger National Park (recommended at least once), there's a lot of rugged touristy stuff to do.
Weather is great.
If you're coming with Euros it will be pretty cheap, just don't go to the tourist traps or decide you need to go do one of the package "safaris" as those are priced to what rich people can bear.
Disclaimer: I am biased, I grew up 3 hours drive from this area.
This is really inspirational. I've always wanted a pilot's license, and now it seems that at least the first step is easier than ever.
I am terribly afraid of single-engine planes, though. I'd probably get to sport pilot and immediately keep going to whatever the next level was that allowed me to fly twin-engines.
You're far more likely to kill yourself due to inexperience, than due to engine failure or any other technical malfunction. You might also consider getting a glider license to fly motor gliders, as they give you more time and options to land if you're worried about that.
Well, there are no twin-engine sport planes; you have to get a regular private pilot's license and then get a multi-engine rating.
Having an extra engine doesn't mean you are going to survive an engine failure. If you don't react quickly to the failure, you're in trouble. And remember, although a multi-engine plane decreases the chance of all engines failing, it increases the chance of an engine failing. So you increase your risk of Something Bad happening. People don't fly multi-engine light aircraft for safety, they do it for better performance. (AFAIK, anyway.)
Single-engine planes have quite good glide ratios, and there are a lot of good places to land them. Try it in the simulator some time.
In active development, unmatched flight model accuracy, huge community of aircraft, scenery, and plugin developers, fly online in VATSIM and IVAO, excellent systems and failure modeling...
You can even buy a USB-Key that makes it FAA-certified!
I'd personally rather just fly a single-engine with a parachute. Many new planes come with them these days, and you can retrofit damn near any plane to add one.
To chime in with the others...
1. The Cessna 150/152 that you would likely train in at some point has a 15:1 glide ratio. That means if you are at 1 mile (5000 feet) above ground level you could potentially glide 15 miles before touching ground. You have some time.
2. You will be heavily, HEAVILY trained on emergency landing practice, to the point where you can almost do it in your sleep. Ten years after training and 5 years since I last flew, I can still tell you everything you're supposed to do, in order (though I'm too rusty to safely do it now).
3. There is an old pilot's joke about twin-engine planes: When the first engine fails, the second engine takes you to the scene of the crash. Engine failure, whatever the cause, is a reason to terminate flight immediately.
4. There is very little that makes a twin-engine aircraft significantly safer. Flying in instrument conditions (clouds, fog), water in the fuel, hypoxia and all kinds of other things don't care how many engines you have and will kill you just as quickly in a twin as in a single.
All of that said - for me, it is a great source of pride to have a pilot's license. I know the risks and take the steps I can to minimize them. But realistically, there are so many more mundane and common ways to lose one's life. You're less likely to die in a private plane than in your car. Flying is fun and a healthy respect for it will keep it fun and safe.
As far as I know, operating a twin-engine plane is more tricky than operating a single-engine plane which in turn is more dangerous than handling a glider.
I was in Japan when I got my first drivers license. It took two weeks of expensive instruction, four separate official tests (two written, two behind the wheel), and I was told I was lucky I wasn't automatically failed on at least one of them which apparently is a common practice.
I find it an interesting comparison, not as a value judgment necessarily. I guess I prefer difficult testing for both drivers and pilots considering that a awful lot of people kill & die all the time as both.
I fly a paraglider which is essentially the same thing only unpowered. At around $10/hour it's within reach of most people. Takes around 7-9 days to get a restricted license in most countries. Then you just grab a friend, walk your back pack up the hill and, if the weather gods are agreeable, launch.
Wow guys, thanks for the link! My tiny site just went from 100 hits/day to 3,800 last night.
As an update to that story, I have continued flying — larger things, to more distant places. (Helping build a Sportsman 2+2 and flying to the Yukon were life highlights.) In fact, as rubyrescue said, that newfound sense of confidence has been key in trying for my latest adventure: Living for a month at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry (http://j.mp/9gtIuc). If you’re curious, my application video — with stuff about flying — is here: http://j.mp/a7ESd0
The title is a bit misleading. The author mentions in passing that he took an at-home ground school course and passed the FAA written exam before flying. Studying to pass that test, and studying to retain some knowledge that can be useful when actually flying, can take more than a week itself.
The other major omission is learning to fly in or through heavily controlled airspace. There are a lot of rules and procedures, especially radio procedures, to learn and practice, and they really need to be practiced with an instructor to get some of them to stick. An instructor can teach to you to communicate effectively with air-traffic control in ways that home-study courses won't. Expecting to learn that in a week and retain it is nuts.
This is a bunch of BS (just ask Ted Stevens and his fishing buddies). We might have fewer small plane accidents if people realized that flying a plane isn't as simple as it seems. Just knowing how to operate the controls isn't enough. It's also a matter of experience and the sound judgment that results from experience.
I've been interested for quite a while in investigating flying ultralight / microlight planes, maybe gliders or even pedal-powered planes. Haven't ever done so though, nor do I know at all where to start looking, and have nowhere near the money I'd need to actually do any of it.
Until then, however, anyone here have experience with any of the above? Is it worth it? Anything major to watch out for?
If you're looking to get into flying, and put off by the expense, try sailplanes (gliders). I learned first in gliders, and then got my airplane rating a few years later, but I still go out to fly sailplanes on the weekend, because gliding is more of a sport, and more engaging once you already know how to fly.
More importantly, for a lot of people, it's much cheaper than flying airplanes -- typically less than half the cost.
It's also a more social type of activity, as gliding is mostly organized around clubs, which exist to provide instruction and tow planes. You'll meet lots of great people in the club. In airplanes, you typically don't have a whole lot of routine contact with other pilots, because you just drive out to the airport, get in, and go.
If you're interested, ssa.org is the national organization, and they have a list of local clubs.
By far the cheapest way to experience flying for the true love of it, is to join a soaring club.
Sailplanes require far less maintenance and are cheaper to operate (try flying 5 hours for the cost of a tow + $20/hr rental) (in the US)
Flying them is enormously rewarding as you are 100% concentrated on what you are doing, is quiet, peace full and depending on where you fly, you may be rewarded with spectacular views of the world from way above.
Finally, for the inner geek, flying gliders competitively is a highly technical/mental activity, top pilots tend to strongly correlate with engineering and science professionals.
Flying is not inherently dangerous, but is terribly miss-forgiving of your mistakes.
IMHO, getting a license in a week is just not enough enough time to get scared enough times to understand the risk/responsibilities involved with flying.
You really need to give your brain the time to assimilate the reality of what you are doing , before you can really be a safe pilot.
(Same goes for any other non-forgiving activity.. Skydiving, Paragliding, etc.)
He made a major mistake with his little "forget the plan, I'm going south" adventure on his last solo.
What really gets me is I don't think he knows how much of a bad idea this really was... and more importantly how much this attitude could burn him in the future.
Admittedly I don't know the eastern US well enough to understand how much of a detour this was, but a mid-flight change with limited daylight hours into unknown weather patterns is a good way to get yourself into trouble fast.
A perfect example that suggests you should take longer than a week to fly an aircraft.
60 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadOnce you get the stones to go in and out of Front Royal, drop me a line, we'll go out for a beer and talk about those power lines...
Flying, after a while, can become routine and at a certain point the marginal value is low - it's expensive and if you're not going to be a professional pilot, it begins to seem like a very expensive and pointless hobby. but the experience of learning to fly is worth it.
At the time i got my license it was a minimum of 40 hours so the sport pilot rating makes it a lot easier. however, i'm not sure that at 22 hours it's very safe to go up with someone else - it's easy to get overconfident in the pattern, make a turn a little too tight, and stall, and at 1000 feet above the ground, it's generally not recoverable. i didn't feel super confident in pretty much any situation (crosswind, busy airport, low clouds, etc) until around 80 hours.
edit: pattern is the nice little box you make when you're flying around an airport, preparing to land... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield_traffic_pattern
Unless you go the homebuilt/experimental route. In which case you can fly something like a quickie q2 ($20-30K) and burn ~4gallons/hr of autogas.
Oh also, the zenair zodiac 601 recently had a problem with its wings folding up in flight. Check that they've been corrected before you take a trip in one.
Personally the sport pilot license bores me to death. Can't fly into busy airspace, can't fly more than 120mph or so, vfr only, single passenger, essentially overgrown ultralights.
I don't understand what any of those restrictions have to to with making flying boring. Flying is only fun when you can fly into busy airspace? Why?
If you live in or near a big city chances are that the airports out of which you will want to fly will be close to airspace into which you cannot fly. It a hassle if you have to drive out to the boonies in order to start your flying trip or if you have to take the long way around a large block of busy airspace.
:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_flight
"Fantasy flights are charity flights operated by a host airline for locally disadvantaged and terminally ill children to fly to a fictitious destination."
I'm still mulling this over, but my initial reaction is very mixed/slightly negative.
As was pointed out with me, the right planes don't loose value/much value and so once you own a plane your running costs are low. Then you can book a weekend in Tahoe (I'm in SF) and just fly the plane out.
The people for whom flying is expensive is, ironically, those who don't own a plane and have to rent. By the time you've rented (paid + time to organize that, you might as well just fly commercially)
A Group of 2-4 business people, for a shorter flight, I'd imagine it would be cheaper to fly a Cessna. No queue at airport security.
If your frame of reference is a first-class or full-fare business class ticket, I can often beat or near the airlines on both cost and door-to-door time. (If the keys to the plane are in your pocket, there's no getting there an hour ahead, dealing with the parking garage, the TSA theater, maybe a delay on takeoff for crew or aircraft availability or ATC/ground holds, perhaps changing planes, waiting at baggage claim, etc. Plus, I can often start and end the flight much closer to the "doors" I want to be at, leave my shoes on and carry 4 oz of gel deodorant in my bag if I want.)
As to "that's worth it", I bought a Cessna 182/Skylane (4 seat, single-engine, 160 mph high-wing) a little over 12 years ago, and have flown it for business travel as well as most of our in-US, east of the Mississippi, personal travel, as well as a few trips west of the Mississippi. It costs me under $2/mile on average, and the direct operating cost (aka marginal cost: the cost of an incremental trip within a year) is just under $1/mile. If I had to, I'd pay 2x what flying actually costs me without thinking about it.
If you want to travel in your aircraft (as opposed to just going flying), I'd suggest you take the traditional route and go all the way to the private pilot's license. Far fewer restrictions, and if you enjoy flying anyway all of the "extra" time is hardly wasted. IMO, there are too many restrictions on LSA/recreational pilot's certificate to make it usable to actual go places with 3 friends, etc. It's nice to be able to fly into BWI for an Orioles game, or fly up the Hudson River at night, cross Central park and Laguardi tower and head out on course over the Whitestone bridge. I think it's great that the FAA created the easier licenses, but I don't think they are practical for travelling.
Used airplanes are reasonably cheap now, and loans and insurance are easy to get. (Most airplanes are made of aluminum and have nearly infinite lifespans, with avionics, engine/props, interior and paint being replaceable items over the life of the plane. Think of a 30-year old airplane as much more like a 30-year old office building than a 30-year old car in terms of "acceptable to rely on". They're inspected annually [or ever 100 flight hours for rentals/commercial usage], and no reason a 30+ year old plane wouldn't be perfectly reasonable.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_%28material%29
Note: Damage is cumulative. Materials do not recover when rested.
And if you look at the bottom of the page you will find a fairly long list of airplanes that failed.
Unless you're flying more than 100 hours a year, renting is almost always cheaper than owning. Consider a simple single engine Cessna 172. The per hour operating costs are: - Gas, $42.5 (8.5 gallon/hour, $5.00/gallon) - Oil, $5 ($250 oil change every 50 hours) - Engine replacement, $7.50 ($15000 overhaul every 2000 hours) Total = $55/hour
The fixed costs per year are: - Annual inspection, $1000 - Insurance, $1000 - Tie-down/hanger, $1200-2400 ($100-200 month) Total = $3200-4400/year
Assuming 100 hours per year the cost is $87-99/hour. This is an over simplified conservative estimate, it doesn't include other routine maintenance such as tires, breaks, transponder check, pitot-static check, ELT check as well as unforeseen items (radios, starters, vacuum pump, etc).
Renting a Cessna 172 is about $90-120/hour.
By the way, 100 hours per year is a lot. Most recreational pilots are lucky to fly half that per year.
not really. I owned a light-sport plane for ~ two years. It was a great airplane, and cost about $20/hour for fuel to operate (and cruised at about 110 mph).
However, the tie-down was about $1500/year; insurance was about $2k/year; and maintenance was about $2k/year. These are the fixed costs -- $4500/year (call it $5K since I'm forgetting stuff I'm sure). Flying 100 hours/year == 100x $20 = $2000 + $5k fixed / 100 hours == $70/hr "real operating costs).
I can rent a much more capable plane (Piper Archer) for $120 per hour, and not have to worry about any ownership issues.
In addition, you can't just run up to Tahoe (at least you can't plan on it). I'm also in the SF area, and fly out of Palo Alto Airport (great place, btw). I've been to Truckee / Tahoe many times in small planes & the trip is great. But don't book a hotel, tell the spouse and make other arrangements assuming you're going to fly up -- what if the weather is bad? What if the weather is marginal? Do you go then? The moment you get into thinking along those lines, you're dead (usually literally).
Owning a plane is about having something that is _yours_ -- a plane where I know the condition and use of every last radio, instrument, wheel and bolt.
All that aside, I strongly recommend learning to fly if you're at all interested. I have been lots of amazing places, seen fascinating things, tested my skills, and once bumped into Clint Eastwood :-). I'd be happy to mentor anyone interested in learning -- http://projectpilot.aopa.org/projectpilot/
edit: formatting
The example I'm thinking of is a friend who sold his plane for more than he paid for it (I don't know exactly what type but it was more executive jet than single prop - it had a pressurized cabin etc).
Anyway, he sold the plane for more than he paid for it and so after accounting for maintenance and hanger fees he basically only had to pay fuel as his costs (and probably even had some of that off-set by the profit on the sale).
In the same manner I know people who run cars like this - buy sports cars at the top of the list when they come out, receive the vehicle and then drive it for 12 months at which point they can sell it at cost price to someone who would otherwise have to get on at the back of the waiting list. They zero out in terms of loss, and so repeat the cycle having already jumped on the list for the next years model.
You have to have the float for the cost of 1-2 cars but you never loose money net.
It's how the rich stay rich, I guess.
An airplane is very different from a car. If the plane has a problem, it must be fixed, within a certain time frame, by an FAA licensed mechanic. Maps and charts are updated frequently, and you are required to have current versions on hand. If the aircraft panel GPS is approach certified, you are required to have updated data if you want to use it for IFR approaches, and on and on. I spent about $10K getting my license, and another $10K getting my instrument rating.
Yes, you can skimp here and there, but there's just no way around it -- flying is not cheap, even if you sell your plane for what you paid for it.
All that said, it's worth every penny. A few years ago, I flew by myself, just for fun, on a clear autumn day from Palo Alto, CA to Little River, in Mendocino County in the northern part of the state. Flying at 7500 feet, I watched the sun set over the Pacific and light up the peaks and western slopes of Sierra. I told the controller I was going off-frequency for a moment and turned down the radio. I could see a ship or two on the water, the Russian River valley below me, and what seemed like the entire width of Northern California spread out across a 270 degree view. Worth every penny.
I know that isn't a substitute for the real deal, but for those of us who can't fork out 15K regularly for something it's worth it.
Moreover, it's possible to make a drone these days. So, a lot of people over here could design a suitable balsa aircraft that could handle the payload and attach a battery with a small video camera to it and an arduino to control it. The biggest problem IMO would be the radio communication, but a lot of solutions exist for that too.
I think that if someone is fairly dedicated they could make one for under $300 using spare parts, and it should be worth it too. As it scratches that itch in a much much cheaper way, and learn a lot about design too.
A huge plus is that if you crash it your or other's life isn't, necessarily, on the line.
Nice phrase - I feel the same way about cycling:-)
It’s interesting calculus. Who is willing to rent their planes to Sport Pilots? What will this do to insurance costs?
At the same time, this might be beneficial to the general aviation community. GA gets fucked by airports, insurance companies, and oil companies. Maybe if there were more GA pilots, there’d be more members of AOPA (a lobbying group for GA). Maybe Sport Pilots will continue their education and get more advanced certificates.
More people flying is both a blessing and a curse.
VERY well said! Exactly my experience!
Also, I heard South Africa is cheaper and have pretty high quality flight instruction.
It's also in a central location if you're the type of person who enjoys doing outdoor stuff.
It's close to the Drakensberg mountain range (awesome hiking), like 100km from the Kruger National Park (recommended at least once), there's a lot of rugged touristy stuff to do.
Weather is great.
If you're coming with Euros it will be pretty cheap, just don't go to the tourist traps or decide you need to go do one of the package "safaris" as those are priced to what rich people can bear.
Disclaimer: I am biased, I grew up 3 hours drive from this area.
I am terribly afraid of single-engine planes, though. I'd probably get to sport pilot and immediately keep going to whatever the next level was that allowed me to fly twin-engines.
From http://www.schiratti.com/humour.html:
:)Having an extra engine doesn't mean you are going to survive an engine failure. If you don't react quickly to the failure, you're in trouble. And remember, although a multi-engine plane decreases the chance of all engines failing, it increases the chance of an engine failing. So you increase your risk of Something Bad happening. People don't fly multi-engine light aircraft for safety, they do it for better performance. (AFAIK, anyway.)
Single-engine planes have quite good glide ratios, and there are a lot of good places to land them. Try it in the simulator some time.
http://www.x-plane.com/
In active development, unmatched flight model accuracy, huge community of aircraft, scenery, and plugin developers, fly online in VATSIM and IVAO, excellent systems and failure modeling...
You can even buy a USB-Key that makes it FAA-certified!
All of that said - for me, it is a great source of pride to have a pilot's license. I know the risks and take the steps I can to minimize them. But realistically, there are so many more mundane and common ways to lose one's life. You're less likely to die in a private plane than in your car. Flying is fun and a healthy respect for it will keep it fun and safe.
I find it an interesting comparison, not as a value judgment necessarily. I guess I prefer difficult testing for both drivers and pilots considering that a awful lot of people kill & die all the time as both.
As an update to that story, I have continued flying — larger things, to more distant places. (Helping build a Sportsman 2+2 and flying to the Yukon were life highlights.) In fact, as rubyrescue said, that newfound sense of confidence has been key in trying for my latest adventure: Living for a month at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry (http://j.mp/9gtIuc). If you’re curious, my application video — with stuff about flying — is here: http://j.mp/a7ESd0
/shameless plug
Thanks again,
Davin Coburn
The other major omission is learning to fly in or through heavily controlled airspace. There are a lot of rules and procedures, especially radio procedures, to learn and practice, and they really need to be practiced with an instructor to get some of them to stick. An instructor can teach to you to communicate effectively with air-traffic control in ways that home-study courses won't. Expecting to learn that in a week and retain it is nuts.
Until then, however, anyone here have experience with any of the above? Is it worth it? Anything major to watch out for?
More importantly, for a lot of people, it's much cheaper than flying airplanes -- typically less than half the cost.
It's also a more social type of activity, as gliding is mostly organized around clubs, which exist to provide instruction and tow planes. You'll meet lots of great people in the club. In airplanes, you typically don't have a whole lot of routine contact with other pilots, because you just drive out to the airport, get in, and go.
If you're interested, ssa.org is the national organization, and they have a list of local clubs.
Sailplanes require far less maintenance and are cheaper to operate (try flying 5 hours for the cost of a tow + $20/hr rental) (in the US)
Flying them is enormously rewarding as you are 100% concentrated on what you are doing, is quiet, peace full and depending on where you fly, you may be rewarded with spectacular views of the world from way above.
Finally, for the inner geek, flying gliders competitively is a highly technical/mental activity, top pilots tend to strongly correlate with engineering and science professionals.
IMHO, getting a license in a week is just not enough enough time to get scared enough times to understand the risk/responsibilities involved with flying.
You really need to give your brain the time to assimilate the reality of what you are doing , before you can really be a safe pilot. (Same goes for any other non-forgiving activity.. Skydiving, Paragliding, etc.)
What really gets me is I don't think he knows how much of a bad idea this really was... and more importantly how much this attitude could burn him in the future.
Admittedly I don't know the eastern US well enough to understand how much of a detour this was, but a mid-flight change with limited daylight hours into unknown weather patterns is a good way to get yourself into trouble fast.
A perfect example that suggests you should take longer than a week to fly an aircraft.