Comments

It is wearying to hear the constant drone of this question over and over. I also registered in order to comment to this article. I'm a former subscriber to Flying and it seems to me that writers in these periodicals, and AOPA USA, must have their heads in the sand most of the time. One might surmise that this question gets asked as a media stunt or that there is some glimmer of hope that reality can be rationalized with the fantasy of justifying general aviation's hyper inflation. It's obvious, even to the casual observer, that GA math does not add up. $300K+ for four seats? In a vessel designed over 50 years ago? No, Mr. Goyer, "Let me explain." As an expat living in Europe, I have flown in Germany and the U.K. as a club member or in a shared ownership scheme. The real cost of flying light GA planes here is at least triple that in the USA but so highly regulated as to render it marginally useful as a means of private transportation. Many European pilots travel for a two week holiday to the US on Luftthansa to get their flying fix for less total expense than renting aircraft in their home country for an equivalent number of flight hours. In 2009, while stationed in Germany, I got back into flying after 13 years of non-activity. I found the owner of a fractional ownership company in Frankfurt that contracted one of his N-registered Diamond DA-40s to me on an hourly basis. (The cost of buying and maintaining a 1/8 share was just too much for me to justify - over $25,000 initial and $11,000/yr. + hourly operating costs) The dry rate to rent was 179 Euros/hr., 100LL cost 2.06 Euros/liter and the instructor's rate was 25 Euros/hr. After 7.0 hours of flight time, I tallied over $2,400 to get current. I also had to drive two hours from my home to get to the aircraft's home base. Then, I joined a military flying club in Mannheim (a mere 90 minute drive) in 2010 to save a few dollars. The club has 3 antique Cessnas, a 152 at $100 and two 172s for $120/$130 wet. For over six months in 2011 they were all out of service for various reasons. Maintaining aircraft on the FAA register in Europe is becoming more difficult. See the EASA comment in Flyinb's post. After recently relocating to the UK, I joined a nearby flying club where I set out on my journey to obtain the JAR-FCL PPL because there are no N-registered aircraft within reasonable commuting distance of my home or office. Our antique fleet of C-152's go for about $172/hr. wet. An old Warrior runs $205/hr. and our Arrow costs about $240/hr. We also have a Duchess that rents for $464/hr. Instructor fees are approximately $58/hr. On 12 September, after 14 hours of dual, four written exams, a two-hour O&P and over 1,500 pounds sterling ($1=.62 pence), the flight school sent my application off to the CAA. Nearly three months have passed and no word on the application, no response to queries and there is no temporary UK CAA license. They did, however, manage to charge the $300+ license fee promptly enough. The UK adopted EASA Part FCL on 17 September 2012 and there is no small confusion involved about it all. Short of a personal visit to Gatwick, I'm beginning to doubt I'll ever see a license. Indeed 'there’s more to the “flying costs too much line.”' The fact is that in Europe GA is a sport rather than a means of personal transportation for all but the true blue-blooded types. It is over-regulated, extremely structured and there are fees for even thinking about something aviation related. God forbid you bust a noise abatement area - neighbors call their local airport daily to complain about the traffic. All fields are required to be staffed by trained personnel and are closed when not staffed. Very few aerodromes are open outside the hours between sunrise and sunset; there are steep penalties for operating on a closed field including license suspension or revocation. Some stay open until 21:00 one day during the week for night flying (an additional rating not included in the basic PPL). To a greater degree than in the US, people would rather see the real estate occupied by flying fields put to other uses. "Truth be told, no matter what I did for a living, I’d find a way to fly. I just would." I feel very fortunate to be able to participate in GA no matter where I am or whatever the cost. It is way too expensive and the windows of opportunity to go flying in England, weather not withstanding, make it unreasonable to expect to maintain proficiency, so, 99% of my flight time is dual. "Even with a minimum wage job, I’d find a way to get into the air" - to put my flying history in perspective, I could fly more often in new aircraft when I was getting my license in the early '80s while working after school in a part time sub-minimum wage job. Now, I earn a very respectable salary and am scarcely able to scrape by on an hour or two each month. As for "flying the kind of airplane that" I want to fly, the only justification I can reasonably accept personally would be to fly for personal transportation. Our household is a family of five which excludes much of the reasonably priced used market and everything new. I cannot come to grips with flying a powered kite just for fun, besides, I prefer substantial structure around me in the air. I am an A&P and could build my own plane, but, that isn't presently an option where I live. Even if it were, how many kits have a 1 + 4 cabin? We are still very blessed in the USA - there is no place like it on earth to partake in our sector of aviation. I am looking forward to returning home before the "death spiral" has come to its conclusion. Finally, I wish the aviation media, including AOPA USA, would pull their collective heads out of whichever dark place they are sticking them. GA is too expensive and we all know it - you can stop wasting our time, your prose and all the surveys to study the matter any further.