I have flown in several flying clubs in Normandy and in the Paris area. I agree with a lot that has been said here.
French aéroclubs, to me, fall into 2 categories :
I chose to fly in the biggest club in France partly for the anonymity and the big fleet. I am not disappointed for now. But every pilot choose its club according to his needs. One important thing that is never taught in training is that one needs to build his own continous improvement path.
Of course I dream of a club like PlusOne around Paris. It could be a huge success. But Easa rules would never allow it .
Welcome. Fantastic English indeed. Way too few French people here.
you usually have to obey to the rules of the intimidating President or the chief instructor(who thinks the club belongs to him of course).
I realize this may be written slightly tongue in cheek, but still, that indeed seems to be quite typical of France. In Germany, at least in a bigger club, this wouldn’t normally be allowed to happen.
By the way, out if curiosity, anyone know how come the biggest aeroclub in France is named “Aeroclub Hispano Suiza”?
MedEwok wrote:
and then create an artificial turf war between them..
What would GA be without “turf wars” ? 
I have seen clubs been torn apart due to it, friends becoming enemies for life. Private GA is in many ways just a collection of stubborn and single oriented fan boys, openly and covertly advocating “their” little flavor of what constitutes “real” flying or “real” aircraft. Maybe 90% are able to step back, shake their heads and smile of it all, but there are always someone who just can’t stop nagging, and always “newcomers” that gets “lured” in, at least before they get the bigger picture, which 90% do – eventually
It’s actually rather amusing. At VansAirforce they have a separate section called “never ending debate” with lots of subsections for these things. The there is the “alternative engine” section that used to get swamped by people explaining why any alternative to Lycoming was a dead in the water choice. That didn’t stop until they hired a new mod who acted real nazi (and still do) and removed every single one of those posts. The alternative engine section was to have a place to discuss alternative engines, not if and why they are better or worse than Lycomings. Now they have a separate sub-section also in the “never ending” section called “alternative vs traditional powerplants” where “Lycoming fan boys” can preach their righteous religion trying to save those “Wankel/diesel/Subaru/Electric infidels” from eternal doom Such discussions can be fun, and I’m no better than anyone else getting involved in this fun. Labeling such discussions as “never ending debates” sorts of explains it all to newcomers though (as well as reminds old timers), what this is all about.
Club vs owning is the prime example of a never ending debate. There is no correct answer. One isn’t “better” than the other. One doesn’t exclude the other. One doesn’t “hold back” pilots!! Other examples are microlight vs experimental, experimental vs certified, microlight vs certified, glass vs steam, fiber vs metal, Cessna vs Piper, BRS vs no BRS, tail wheel vs nose wheel (not so much here, due to 99% have only flown with nose wheel).
All these “never ending debates” boils down to personal taste, personal priorities, or other realities in life preventing this, enabling that.
Peter wrote:
This is semantics. If you have a group of say 100 people, you will have natural wastage, via death, illness, with especially the pilot demographic being neither young nor healthy you will get loss of medicals. So you have to promote the “enterprise” continually otherwise it will shrink and eventually disintegrate amid bickering over who should pay for what and who is subsidising who
Semantics is hugely important, I don’t know why people try to hand wave away “semantics” because it literally means the meaning of the message!
Maintaining a reasonable, sustainable, steady state does not require all the “bad” aspects of clubs that have been listed, and it can be done without paid staff, silly regulations on who may fly etc. etc. The club I was in didn’t really have to actively promote at all – 99% of new members came by word of mouth, and it has sustained itself for nearly 40 years that way with a healthy membership number and a nice mixed fleet of aircraft.
Additionally I think the best clubs are the ones that aircraft owners want to be a member of because it’s more than just a source of aircraft rental, there’s also a social aspect. I spent a lot of time just “hanging out” at Houston Gulf because we did have a good social scene there.
Jujupilote wrote:
big town clubs : 100-300 membres, 4-7 aircrafts on a nice hard runway
Not necessarily a hard runway. Look at Les Mureaux (LFXU) and St Cyr-l’Ecole (LFPZ). The latter even has 2 parallel grass runways>. Both those fields have some pretty sizeable clubs.
Jujupilote wrote:
I chose to fly in the biggest club in France partly for the anonymity and the big fleet.
Another advantage of the big clubs is that they have the resources to become an ATO and offer IR training. That is why I joined Hispano-Suiza at one point in time when preparing my FAA-EASA IR conversion. In the end it did not serve me much, but it did give me access to their C182 G1000. When I first arrived in France in 2003 and was looking for a club, I visited Hispano-Suiza, turned around and walked away disgusted. Nobody was interested in me, took the time to chat. I was just handed a couple of brochures and that was it. So instead I drove to Les Mureaux where I found a totally different atmosphere at AC Roger Janin and joined. I was a member of ACRJ until I found a N-reg, IFR-capable airplane at Pontoise
Now I am no longer member of any club, nor the French federation FFA and try to compensate the social aspect
I completely understand your choices Aviathor. I only chose Hispano for :
I think the social aspect of flying in a club is overrated. To me, most pilots fly and go back home ASAP. So a good forum and a few meet ups beats the social scene of most clubs.
There is kind of a paradox here : pilots fly in clubs to be part of a group and as soon as they get their licence, they (1) stay at the club as little as they can (2) feel isolated in their progress as I read in the French Fédération magazine.
Clubs should maybe ask their FI to talk about individualiste goals and progress with members, especially at the annual check flight. Like the annual interview with your manager is the time to talk about professional goals and the means to reach them. It could be a way to keep pilots flying.
@bosco : Hispano-Suiza was the name of a company created by a spanish guy and a swiss guy. Hence the name in spanish. The company moved to France and produced luxury cars and aircraft engines. They still exist but are now Safran Transmission Systems I guess.
This club was the club of their employees before the actual President developped it into the biggest club in France (32 aircraft). He has been President for at least 20 years now.
Jujupilote wrote:
I think the social aspect of flying in a club is overrated. To me, most pilots fly and go back home ASAP.
I guess you have not been in the right club yet…
Jujupilote wrote:
He has been President for at least 20 years now.
He has been President owned and financed the club for at least 20 years now. Or at least that’s what I hear.
boscomantico wrote:
Well, an ideal club would one or two aircraft where the daily minimum would be lower, say 1.5 hours a day, to encourage using it for touring.
That’s what the club I rent from is doing to some degree. Not actively, but passively: There are certain aircraft that are less popular than others (namely, the 3 C172s are less popular than the handful of Archers). There is no written rule, but it is a bit easier to take a C172 away for a longer period than the Archers because the Archers will usually be booked for some local flights, day trips etc unless you book well in advance. The C182s also seem to be booked more by serious tourers because they are real travel machines and many of the low-hour pilots in the club, I think, are not checked out on the C182s.
Peter wrote:
A “non profit” entity is just a fashionable “warm and fuzzy feeling” name for a business which doesn’t pay corporation tax on the surplus
The main difference – apart from the tax benefits – is a difference of mindset. Peter, there have been many, many people on this thread from various backgrounds, countries etc. trying to convey the mindset and the benefits (and yes, the disadvantages) of a well-run club. What else can we do to convince you that the club GA world is not nearly as grim as your original post and some follow-ups imply? Personally, I’m by no means a fan of “Vereinsmeierei” (hard to translate that one!) and was very resistant to join a flying club initially, but my experience (and I can see here I’m by no means a total exception to the rule) has been only positive with respect to the people I’ve met, the aircraft I’ve been given access to, the availability, the rates and what not.
Peter wrote:
This is semantics
It ultimately boils down to who decides, nothing more really. Just being non-profit is not nearly enough. A Club (at least clubs here) are also 100% democratic. Everybody decides. Whatever happens at the Annual Meeting becomes the “law” for the next year. At the annual meeting it is decided which planes are to be purchased, which are to be sold, hourly rates, just about everything. Then the board is elected, and the board’s job is to make sure the decisions voted over from the annual meeting is effectuated, and of course to run the club, appointing persons for specific tasks as needed (Chief of school, responsible for maintenance, chief of barbecuing or whatever ).
For instance, a faction may want to get a touring aircraft. Then this has to be taken up on the annual meeting and voted on (good persuasion skills will be a winning factor ) If this is decided, then it will be the board’s job to look around, finding some candidates for purchase (that faction would also be heavily involved of course, and probably have a few candidates already). Then, another extra annual meeting is necessary before purchasing one of the suitable candidates. A new voting is needed for that. At the same time the initial operating requirements may also be decided (who can fly this Cirrus 22 or whatever, min h needed as PIC, training needed, how long can one person book it at a time, the hourly rates and so on). A good used Cirrus 22 is not cheap. My club would not be able to purchase one outright just like that. It would require that the persons using it would help with financing in some kind of loan/lease/part owner arrangement, a “ticket” to be able to fly it. I don’t know, maybe €10-20k or something depending on price and how many actually will use it. The club will be the operator. Such arrangements are common. It will automatically restrict the users to those willing to put the money where their mouths are, and it will clearly show if the Cirrus 22 is a viable option or not financially. Those who have not paid their “ticket” may also rent it, but at a higher hourly rate and/or slightly less favourable conditions regarding long time renting or something (just as an example). I have myself been doing similar financing for the Army Cub in one club and our new tow plane for the gliding club.
This is basically how it works. The Annual Meeting, a free and open democratic meeting for every member, is what decides. The (newly) elected board has no other mandates than to make sure the decisions at the Annual Meeting actually will be effectuated and to run the club the next year.
Non-profit organisation merely makes sure that money in’t drained out of the club, as well as tax benefits. Theoretically it could also be “for profit”, but that wouldn’t make much sense all the time the aim of the club is to fly, and the members pay for it all.
Throughout my 27 years in an LAA Group owning and operating one aircraft, for the 6 of us, I’ve argued for each hour flown making a profit. This is unpopular, until something goes wrong. In 1992, we all had to put up money for an engine overhaul. This year we found wood deterioration in the wing. We had the money to have it repaired, and recovered, despite having just spent on the generator, and new Mode S and 8.33. There should still be enough left for the engine fund,when the bill comes in.
PS LAA Groups may be more like Clubs in other countries. Pre-EASA, it used to be that there were big advantages in Flight Training Organisations being Clubs.
