Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839484
A bright future is reliant on the creation of flying clubs providing access to fun aeroplanes.
The aeroclubs of yore with little Jodels, J3s, Condors, Gardans, Sipas etc need to be ‘recreated’.

Gliding clubs survive to this day, why not aeroclubs?

Too much serious emphasis on professionalism, and sophisticated avionics?
A vast chasm between those who can afford the turbocharged IFR machines and those who just want to fly around the patch with the occasional expedition further afield.

Many privately owned aeroplanes, and closed groups, with many enthusiasts left out, forced to rent aircraft based on expensive airfields.

I once fed this need.
When it all ended a member said “What will we do now?”
The Condor Club made a profit in 1987, but my heart was in trouble.
I admire the people who stuck it out against the odds... A contemporary: Singh is one I admire in this respect, he’s still at it at Biggin Hill. Well done.
terryws, A4 Pacific liked this
By Edward Bellamy
#1839526
I'm not sure on what basis the distinction between self-fly hire and 'non-equity' groups is made - it sounds like the CAA are taking the view that forming a non-equity group, which normally involves a fixed monthly charge, is akin to starting a club and therefore counts as non-commercial.

The legal nomenclature does not explicitly state that but having a relatively small and selected group of individuals who pay a regular contribution is probably better than just putting the aircraft up for general hire. Clearly can work OK otherwise people wouldn't do it.

I know the CAA view is somewhat that you should contract a CAO/CAMO either way, but I think most people do anyway, which is fine so long as they understand the rules well.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1839546
Edward Bellamy wrote:I'm not sure on what basis the distinction between self-fly hire and 'non-equity' groups is made - it sounds like the CAA are taking the view that forming a non-equity group, which normally involves a fixed monthly charge, is akin to starting a club and therefore counts as non-commercial.


I wondered that too

Ian
GrahamB liked this
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839613
My understanding was that hiring out an aircraft was no longer regarded as ‘commercial’, full stop. It seems as though someone had the gold leaf application kit to hand.

The use that the aircraft is put to is another matter.
By GAFlyer4Fun
#1839646
MichaelP wrote:A bright future is reliant on the creation of flying clubs providing access to fun aeroplanes.
The aeroclubs of yore with little Jodels, J3s, Condors, Gardans, Sipas etc need to be ‘recreated’.

Gliding clubs survive to this day, why not aeroclubs?

Too much serious emphasis on professionalism, and sophisticated avionics?
A vast chasm between those who can afford the turbocharged IFR machines and those who just want to fly around the patch with the occasional expedition further afield.

Many privately owned aeroplanes, and closed groups, with many enthusiasts left out, forced to rent aircraft based on expensive airfields..


It was like that in the 1990s and is still like that if an ab-initio wannabee does there research entirely on the internet. With a couple of exceptions the search will show the only rentals are the same aircraft used to teach at flying schools. You cant rock up at an airfield and rent an RV, yet in the motoring world can rent anything at a price (some needing deeper pockets than others).

Back then PPLs came out of flying schools knowing nothing about aircraft maintenance or aircraft ownership so it it took a leap of faith to spend thousands on a share in an old aircraft as newer aircraft were (and still are) generally unaffordable for personal purchase.
It would take another leap of faith to start a new group around a new/old aircraft and not knowing the other pilots. It only takes one of those people to make life really difficult for the others, hence we end up with a share market which is often word of mouth with no advertising necessary, or some very old adverts for shares that either dont sell or they forgot to remove the dead advert.

No easy answers that dont need lots of money.
Shoestring Flyer liked this
User avatar
By irishc180
#1839651
MichaelP wrote: A contemporary: Singh is one I admire in this respect, he’s still at it at Biggin Hill. Well done.


Singh is a legend, they haven't made it easy for him at Biggin Hill but he's sticking with it. I ring him for advice... or a blessing... depending on how stuck I am.
Flyin'Dutch', AndyR, G-BLEW and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839661
I could never afford, even less, justify sole ownership of an aeroplane.

Over my 40 years of aviating I have flown as little as 5 and as much as 100 hours per year and that was as much predicated on work and family life as money and even in the years that I flew a lot there was still an awful lot of time that an aeroplane would have been on the deck without any movement at all if I had been the sole owner and aeroplanes do not get one bit better for standing still. There is a reason that aero-engines in club/school environment make it to TBO+extension and privately owned aeroplanes rarely.

A small club or group with likeminded folks really is the sweet point in GA flying, not only are costs and maintenance sorrow shared but it also allows for the sharing of the great things that aviation brings.

Hiring out is really a different proposition altogether. I can see the attraction of having an or several aeroplanes to try and make some money, or more likely reduce one's capital and maybe have some cheap hour building but to let one's pride and joy to go and be used for some ad hoc hiring out would not sit great with me. A non-equity group is in principle the same as a small syndicate but is clearly not the same as hiring out.
MikeB liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839734
Yes.

But if we make all rules for the bad apples we kill it for ourselves.

Certainly, one of the major factors in my closing the Condor Club was a fatal accident in one of my aeroplanes when it was doing low level aerobatics.
But that wasn’t the whole picture.
The biggest problem I have had in this life is that I stand alone, and no human being is capable of doing this for as long as I have without emotional fatigue.

The Condor is somewhat aerobatic, it is very strong, and people have a penchant for doing this. But the Condor is not cleared for aerobatics.
French designs such as the contemporary Emeraude, some Jodels, and even the Minicab were semi aerobatic by design, but not by approval. These are wooden aeroplanes with a good reserve of strength.
The recent inflight failure of a Condor in Ireland was suggested as being through aerobatics...

Metal aeroplanes do not have the same reserve of strength, and they suffer fatigue. Cumulative stress leads to fatigue failure in metal aeroplanes and some are more tolerant than others.
The rigid Cessna 152 is more tolerant than the flexible 172. A barrel roll in a 172 is somewhere I would never ever go!

I aerobat the Chipmunk, and I aerobat the RV4/6/7, but I am very very careful with the amount of G I impose.
The Decathlon and Super Decathlon have higher reserves of strength, so as aerobatic trainers I prefer these.
The CAP 10 is wonderful, but it is clean, and so speed control takes care.
The Extra is too easy to be a proper aerobatic trainer.

Back to the subject of renting aeroplanes.
A lady let out that the pilot had continuously barrel rolled the Piper Arrow II all the way down from orbiting the summit of Mount Baker... I advised the aeroplane owner.
This Arrow was shortly afterwards chewed by an AN2 and so had its wings replaced...

These incidents are in fact more likely in aeroplanes rented through a school than through a carefully managed club or group.

Condor Club aeroplanes were fully insured, and I paid a ‘premium’ for this.
When I lost the Slingsby I placarded all the following T67 aeroplanes with: “All aircraft bite fools” “Do not attempt aerobatics without proper training”
(The insurance company replaced the Slingsby T67A G BJCY with G BIZN which wasn’t as nice).

Whether it be a group, a club, or a school, ‘operational control’ is very important.
If you rent out your aeroplanes you need to use your judgement on who you allow to fly your aeroplanes.
This doesn’t always work, the pilot who crashed my T67A was a very stable personality on the ground.
But it works the majority of the time, and the majority of enthusiasts in this flying business can be trusted, some can’t, but the some should not rule the majority.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1839771
I've not seen that before. +/- 9g is impressive.

Any idea of the cost?

Rob P
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1839786
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:looks like it could be the new Cap10


Well it certainly resembles a CAP-10 pretty closely!! 8)
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1839828
Assuming the discussion is limited to leisure aviation, then we can't justify any of it. But then we don't need to - it's all a total waste of money, so why worry?
To the OP's question, I'd turn it on its head and suggest he buys something really cheap and cheerful just to get into the air and hire something when he wants. That way he gets the fun/challenge of sole ownership without the worry of trying to make budgets work by hiring out something that he can't afford any other way.
Miscellaneous liked this