Recce

It is then not surprising to learn that more than half the people who set out to get a PPL get lost along the way and never obtain that cherished dream. Or that the number of experienced pilots who choose not to renew their licences each year is rapidly increasing as the costs of flying and the complexity of aviation soar. Even if you own your own two-decades-old four-place lightie the cost of an engine overhaul can set you back two months’ wages alone. No matter how you look at it, private flying in today’s generation of light aircraft is formidably expensive.

The situation must change if aviation is to prosper, as it generally has in the past thirty years, and if we as an industry are to continue to attract new and eager aviators to the fold. There must be change and the primary vehicle of that change will begin with aircraft design. Today’s generation of light aircraft is painted in a wingtip to the wingtip cost structure. The design is archaic, the maintenance overheads are too high and as soon as the word ‘aviation’ is stamped on an engine the cost of servicing that engine climbs into the luxury class. It need not be that way and at last, even the stalwarts of traditional GA styling are conceding this.

Ex-US Federal Aviation Administration chief, Lynn Helms, recently threw down the gauntlet to the big three manufacturers (Beech, Piper and Cessna) to produce what should be known as a ‘basic aircraft’. This aircraft would fit between what we know as ANO 95. 22, our new and liberal ultralight category, and the US FAR Part 23 legislation which covers the bulk of current daylight aircraft. Lynn Helms describes a ‘basic aircraft’ as a light single-engined aircraft of not more than four seats, meeting modern-day safety standards and cruising at speeds applicable to the majority of flights undertaken by private pilots. One would imagine an economical cruising speed of around 110 knots with a range of 400 miles as generally fitting this description. This then takes us back to the days of Austers, of Jodels, of Victas, of TriPacers and Cubs, early 172s and Cherokees.

Does, for instance, an ab initio student need to learn on a $55,000 two-seat trainer which is tied to the flying school via a high-interest lease that requires such high per-hour training fees in the first place? Would that student learn just as ably on a $12,000 nineteen-sixties vintage Victa, Jodel or Cub? Did not some of the best pilots Australia ever saw learn on the humble Tiger Moth? In those days they could learn to fly, and once in possession of a licence, they could endeavour to expand that horizon through actually flying for pleasure. Today, the average person has to dedicate his monthly net savings to a mere two-hour jaunt away from the base.

Flying training has priced itself out of the market and the primary reason is the cost and complexity of the aircraft involved.

Change is in the wind though and quite a few aero clubs are now beginning to realise that a good used Victa or Jodel-style aircraft can be of benefit for their membership. Many are even interested in buying a brace of the better ANO 95. 22 ultralights for private member hire operated away from their base airfield. While this has obvious limitations in the cities, the country aero clubs have not been slow to seize the opportunity this new generation of ‘simple’ machines are offering their clientele.

Several issues ago in our Newsdesk section, we made mention of the Robin ATL light trainer. This aircraft was designed at the behest of the French who saw a pressing need to break the monetary treadmill that was beginning to suffocate flying training not only in Europe but throughout the world. The ATL is now undergoing its flight test programme using a VW engine which burns a mere two to three gallons of mogas per hour. The ATL has all the necessary instrumentation for PPL flying, is much smaller than a Tomahawk, and is largely built from fibreglass and aluminium. By the time it reaches our shores around 1986, it will still constitute an investment of around $30,000, yet its hourly operating costs should be a pittance compared with the present generation of light two-place trainers. There are others being designed along similar lines with again Europe, and in particular France, taking the lead.

The other avenue for pilot training is of course ultralights. In our December edition Ultraflight column, we mentioned several distributors that are now offering a comprehensive ultralight training programme for the beginner. That an ultralight pilot with fifty hours on such machines may then wish to dabble in what the old timers call ‘real’ aircraft is beyond contention. It will happen as surely as the day is long that a lot of ultralight pilots will eventually wish to expand their horizons and gain full private pilot status. In this instance, our ultralight pilot, who is already fully conversant with how to keep an aeroplane aloft will be able to complete his DofA PPL licence course in a bare minimum of 33 hours of flight time. This will bring down the cost of gaining a PPL as obviously it is a lot cheaper to fly an ultralight for an hour than a 152, Tomahawk or Skipper. There may even come a time (and the DofA are not negative on this proposal) when hours logged on ultralights are credited as fixed-wing time when undertaking PPL training. The British CAA sanctions a time credit system while a similar scheme is currently under investigation by the FAA.

The problem of where PPLtraining is going is here today and just as surely are its various solutions. Life is ever-evolving and success goes to those who are quick enough to grasp the opportunities that life continually throws our way. Lynn Helms and his ‘basic aircraft’ and our own new breed of 95. 22 ultralights is one such opportunity that aviation cannot afford to miss.