I find this thread strange. Many posts do not seem to fit the description of what properly constitutes a “club” at all. What_next and LeSving described the properties of a club in posts #2 and #3. A club is strictly a non-profit organisation, so anyone talking about “customers” or ways for a club to make money is not talking about clubs. In German law, a club is called “eingetragener Verein (e.V.)” and is legally obligated not to make a profit, getting favourable tax conditions in return. Any “real” aeroclub in the country is an e.V.
My club specifically has
“We only apply the 28 day rule if you haven’t flown in the previous 28 days. If you have flown then you don’t need a check flight.”
Two thoughts:
1. If they were trained at your club, do you not trust your instructors and examiners?
2. RIP (Euro) GA… I can’t imagine willfully getting a license from such a club. What’s the point? Do people need help going to the bathroom too?? Flying Cessnas is easy. In some ways, easier than driving a car. The technicalities of ATC and similar formalities are the hard part of flying. This just makes it impossible.
Just flew across the US after no flights for a few months… Can’t imagine not having that freedom…
My guess is that the average US PPL has way more currency than the average European PPL. Plus flying in the USA (I mean actually going somewhere, not 50nm down the road) is a lot easier, for many reasons.
So true about flying long distance in the US… It is an absolute blast.
Indeed, given the 2,5x price difference in AvGas and lack of landing fees, Yanks have less financial constraints, which directly correlates with increased flying times.
It is certainly true that less financial constraints mean more opportunities for flying. It is therefore curious that this discussion so far missed the big elephant in the room: Most pilots would financially not be able to fly if it weren’t for renting club airplanes. The 2016 Aquila A211 at my club would cost 200k€ to buy. At 145€/h wet that means way over 1000 flying hours can be had for the cost of buying alone, and then you haven’t paid for a single liter of fuel yet.
Aeroclubs facilitate flying. I do agree that they can be limiting when one wants to fly further abroad, but even that is not necessarily true and depends on club arrangements.
MedEwok wrote:
Aeroclubs facilitate flying. I do agree that they can be limiting when one wants to fly further abroad, but even that is not necessarily true and depends on club arrangements.
Exactly, and it is up to everyone to make their own club, or change the current one to fit one’s needs. A club, a real club, is non profit, democratic, based on voluntary work entity. It becomes exactly like the members want. If it doesn’t, then it’s not a real club, but something entirely different.
Exactly, and it is up to everyone to make their own club, or change the current one to fit one’s needs. A club, a real club, is non profit, democratic, based on voluntary work entity. It becomes exactly like the members want. If it doesn’t, then it’s not a real club, but something entirely different.
100% agree with every word. The main problem in this topic seems to be that this definition of what constitutes a club is not consequently used. Many rental outfits seem to want to hide their purely commercial intentions behind the word “club”. My future home base has one such “club” as well.
If we are talking 10 hours per year, then yes, you have no choice other than renting. But if you want to “tour” (which was the subject), then 10 hours a year will anyways not get you anywhere really.
So let’s just say 20 hours. For a four-seater rental, one will spend ~4000 Euros for that. With these 4000 a year, one CAN own a quarter share in such aircraft and fly it 20 hours per year. With the difference that, for the “touring” pilot, these 20 hours will usually be much more enjoyable and rewarding because he will be able to keep the aircraft for the whole day or weekend.
In fact, that is what happens in the German aeroclub scene. Most pilots who fly 20 hours or more will realize this, drop out and get themselves a share or so. That’s why we mostly only have 10-hour pilots in the aeroclubs. They are “the rest”.
I have not really ever heard about that phenomenon that MD describes, where
people are fiercly discouraged by others from getting an own aircraft or a share. Must be a rather Swiss thing. I think it usually is rather the pilot who scared HIMSELF away from owning an own aircraft. But if you choose a modest aircraft, and do it in a group, than the financial risk is actually rather low.
If you, Medewok, are ambitious, and find the time to fly more than 20 hours a year, then you will sooner or later come to this conclusion as well. As much as I like aeroclubs for some of their aspects, they indeed tend to be more or less “limiting” for the touring pilot.
Anyway, I guess we are going around in circles…
boscomantico wrote:
one CAN own a quarter share in such aircraft and fly it 20 hours per year
Especially in the UK where rental prices are very high. I think my DOC is about 1/4 of the cost per hour than the typical rental. It completely changes the economics – instead of wondering whether you really want to spend £300 on a trip to Blackpool and back, it’s more “I have a plane, it’s a nice day, let’s go somewhere”
boscomantico wrote:
If we are talking 10 hours per year, then yes, you have no choice other than renting. But if you want to “tour” (which was the subject), then 10 hours a year will anyways not get you anywhere really
Re-reading Peter’s original post he doesn’t strictly talk about touring but about various negative traits of aeroclubs that are supposedly “holding back GA” (see title). I think we had enough posts establishing that this is not the case in general.
I will be the last to dispute that (co-)owning an aircraft or a share makes touring easier from a planning perspective (though financially you have to fly a lot before it makes sense). I just don’t agree with
Clubs = bad for GA
Owners = “real, proper and good GA”
which the OP implicated
