Todays Cost of getting a PPL

After reading John's (BucFan) posting and the revelation that he spent
$12,500 to get his PPL, I have to wonder how representative this is?
It certainly is daunting, to say the least.
Is this is true, it is certainly a factor in the decline in pilot starts
and completions.
Where you live:
What are the going rates for dual instruction?

What are the rates and aircraft being used for training?

In a previous article, john smith said:
After reading John's (BucFan) posting and the revelation that he spent
$12,500 to get his PPL, I have to wonder how representative this is?
It certainly is daunting, to say the least.

Remember that most of the cost of getting your PPL is the cost of flying.
If you don't want to pay for flying, then why the hell are you getting a
PPL?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C is *supposed* to be dangerous, damnit!
-- Anonymous, on "Safer C"

Paul Tomblin writes:

Remember that most of the cost of getting your PPL is the cost of flying.
If you don't want to pay for flying, then why the hell are you getting a
PPL?

The amount that must be paid is an important variable. If flying
costs $10, a lot more people will fly than if it costs $100,000.
Therefore asking how much it costs is entirely reasonable and
legitimate.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, john smith said:

After reading John's (BucFan) posting and the revelation that he spent
$12,500 to get his PPL, I have to wonder how representative this is?
It certainly is daunting, to say the least.


Remember that most of the cost of getting your PPL is the cost of flying.
If you don't want to pay for flying, then why the hell are you getting a
PPL?

Because $12.5K is a ridiculous amount. That's more than twice what it
should cost.

Newps wrote:
Because $12.5K is a ridiculous amount. That's more
than twice what it should cost.

The flight school I worked at was a Cessna Pilot Center. At the time,
the new 172SPs were $100/hr and the instruction was $40/hr. They said it
was *possible* to finish in 40 hours, but that most people took 50 to 60
hours. We told people to plan on $7K - $8K, including books, supplies,
the written, etc. The old C152 rented for $63/hr, but depending on the
size of the student and instructor, that wasn't always an option.

You could buy a new car, like a big Cadillac for $8,000 back
in the mid 60s, now that isn't even a down payment. You
could buy a J3 Cub in 1967 for $3,000 IN GOOD CONDITION.
You also probably had a job that paid $50-75 a week. A
private in the military got $32/mo plus keep.

A new Harley XLCH cost $1400.

A round of golf can cost you a couple of hundred dollars
today.

The question is how many hours do you work to pay for the
lesson and how badly do you want to learn to fly?
The money isn't worth as much.



wrote in message
...
| Newps wrote:
| Because $12.5K is a ridiculous amount. That's more
| than twice what it should cost.
|
| The flight school I worked at was a Cessna Pilot Center.
At the time,
| the new 172SPs were $100/hr and the instruction was
$40/hr. They said it
| was *possible* to finish in 40 hours, but that most people
took 50 to 60
| hours. We told people to plan on $7K - $8K, including
books, supplies,
| the written, etc. The old C152 rented for $63/hr, but
depending on the
| size of the student and instructor, that wasn't always an
option.

Huh?

mike

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Remember that most of the cost of getting your PPL is the cost of flying.
If you don't want to pay for flying, then why the hell are you getting a
PPL?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
C is *supposed* to be dangerous, damnit!
-- Anonymous, on "Safer C"

mike regish wrote:
Huh?

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Remember that most of the cost of getting your PPL is the cost of flying.
If you don't want to pay for flying, then why the hell are you getting a
PPL?

What Paul is saying corresponds with my attitude during training. If it
takes a few more hours to get my PPL, those are hours that I'm *flying*.
It's not like you can't start flying until after you pass the checkride -
I spent my dual time *flying*, which was the whole point of even starting
the training.

Granted, there are limits on how/where/when you can fly, and with whom,
until you pass -- which is a good reason to finish -- at least you're
flying. So one way to look at it is that the cost of the aircraft --
which would be the same whether dual, solo, or post-PPL -- doesn't count
as "cost of training" in the same way as instructor time, materials, fees,
and so forth.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

In a previous article, Alan Gerber said:
What Paul is saying corresponds with my attitude during training. If it
takes a few more hours to get my PPL, those are hours that I'm *flying*.
It's not like you can't start flying until after you pass the checkride -
I spent my dual time *flying*, which was the whole point of even starting
the training.

Exactly. Sure, you want to find aircraft that aren't too expensive to
fly so you get more hours for your AMU, but if it takes 75 hours instead
of 60, what's the problem? It's time flying, and that's what you want the
license for.

I've got to admit that sometimes when I was supposed to be training, I
would just go out flying for fun.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has been encrypted
using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption.

john smith wrote:

After reading John's (BucFan) posting and the revelation that he spent
$12,500 to get his PPL, I have to wonder how representative this is?
It certainly is daunting, to say the least.

I reckon that what is unusual about John, is his candor in admiting
(to himself/others) what he actually spent; when I was trying to
figure things out and budget my initial private certificate, I found
that the answers I got were a bit useless as most people I talked
to were rationalizing away a lot of the costs.

--Sylvain