Choosing a School Questions

S

Steve37

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
Steve
I'm looking for a little advice on selecting the proper school to go with for my PPL training. I've got several options in my area ( Orlando ) and they all run the gamut when it comes to prices.

I've already done a discovery or two and have talked to several different local schools. For comparison purposes I've narrowed it down to two schools.

School 1 - they are suggesting I use a C172 with a Garmin 1000 as well as 10 hours of estimated simulator time for an estimated total of about $14k assuming 52 hours of instruction. This school is located at a busier airport and is more convenient for me.

School 2 - this is at a less busy airport and would use more light sport aircraft to train in, despite going for a PPL. I'm not opposed to this as long as I can be comfortable being a taller student. They don't use simulators and estimated cost based on 40 hours is about $6,500.

Just by phone calls school 1 seems more professional, but I'm not sure if they are worth double the cost. Other options I'm looking at are joining a club to reduce plane costs or to fly something cheaper without the garmin setup.

Any advice here? My guy tells me that being cheap when it comes to instruction isn't a great idea, but double the price seems steep?

Appreciate any help.
 
I highly do not recommend getting your PPL with a G1000. You need to learn to fly an airplane without a computer first.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of LSA. I also do not really have much experience with them so I can't tell if you should fly them or not.

It sounds like your looking for sign up to one of those training programs where you pay them in advance and get everything done. I do not recommend you do that, if halfway through the training you decided you don't want to fly with them any more (not uncommon), you may not be able to get your money back.
I have also never seen anyone get their PPL in the time that the school advertises. Sure it's possible, but unlikely.


Do you really have only those two options? There got to be other things in the area.
You can try looking for other schools here: http://www.aopa.org/learntofly/school/index.cfm


I recommend you try to find something with round gauges, and with a modern radio that also has traffic.


Steve37 said:
My guy tells me that being cheap when it comes to instruction isn't a great idea
Click to expand...

He's right.
Don't chose the most expensive thing in the area, but certainly don't look for the cheapest.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest you don't start with a G1000 equipped aircraft get the basics of a learning in a steam gauge panel first, once you,have your PPL you can get checked out on the G1000 panel. 14k is becoming the norm around Central Florida these days in something like a 172SP. 6.5k in a sport aircraft is a very good price.
Is Lakeland to far out of Orlando for you ? There is a very good flight school based at Lakeland Linder. And will probably come in a bit cheaper than 14k for PPL training in a 172SP.
Also don't think need to be getting sim training unless you want to go straight onto getting your IFR ticket after your PPL.
 
you should feel lucky you have two options! Orlando?

How many flight schools/independent CFI's within 1 hour's car ride?
 
Look around there are other airports in the area. I would stay away from the school using the garmin 1000. A lot of money for an advanced aircraft. Think about what you are going to fly when you get your ticket.
 
Mike Boehler said:
you should feel lucky you have two options! Orlando?

How many flight schools/independent CFI's within 1 hour's car ride?
Click to expand...

:confused:
Orlando is a pretty big place. A quick search on that AOPA flight school site that I provided showed 19 schools.
 
Download the free ebook at www.FreeFlyBook.com. It's a 70-page .pdf that will answer just about any question you can come up with and also is a primer on basic aeronautical knowledge. It's a great starter for you and is a free download - no signup needed.
 
Steve37 said:
I'm looking for a little advice on selecting the proper school to go with for my PPL training. I've got several options in my area ( Orlando ) and they all run the gamut when it comes to prices.

I've already done a discovery or two and have talked to several different local schools. For comparison purposes I've narrowed it down to two schools.

School 1 - they are suggesting I use a C172 with a Garmin 1000 as well as 10 hours of estimated simulator time for an estimated total of about $14k assuming 52 hours of instruction. This school is located at a busier airport and is more convenient for me.

School 2 - this is at a less busy airport and would use more light sport aircraft to train in, despite going for a PPL. I'm not opposed to this as long as I can be comfortable being a taller student. They don't use simulators and estimated cost based on 40 hours is about $6,500.

Just by phone calls school 1 seems more professional, but I'm not sure if they are worth double the cost. Other options I'm looking at are joining a club to reduce plane costs or to fly something cheaper without the garmin setup.

Any advice here? My guy tells me that being cheap when it comes to instruction isn't a great idea, but double the price seems steep?

Appreciate any help.
Click to expand...


Go with the cheaper. Busy airports are expensive because of the time wasted waiting on the ground. $14,000 for a PPL is ridiculous, you can buy a 150 for that.
 
Thanks for the responses everyone. There are lots of schools here, I was just presenting the two options on both ends of the spectrum. The school that uses the 172 with the garmin has other 172's without the garmin at $30 or more less per hour. If I cut that and the simulator hours their price would be closer to $11k, still quite a bit more than the other schools.

Sounds like there is no major learning benefit from being at a busy airport vs a smaller one?
 
No, you'll learn to deal with traffic better flying out of a busy airport. On the other hand you'll spend more time holding short (aka more money) and higher chances of a mid-air.

Don't waste your money on the sim. I really don't think it's necessary for VFR training.
 
Steve37 said:
School 1 - they are suggesting I use a C172 with a Garmin 1000 as well as 10 hours of estimated simulator time for an estimated total of about $14k assuming 52 hours of instruction. This school is located at a busier airport and is more convenient for me.
Click to expand...
They sound well-organized and professional.

School 2 - this is at a less busy airport and would use more light sport aircraft to train in, despite going for a PPL. I'm not opposed to this as long as I can be comfortable being a taller student. They don't use simulators and estimated cost based on 40 hours is about $6,500.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this is a low-ball number -- very, very few people get their license in only 40 hours. That alone gives me an uneasy feeling about their organization and professionalism.

Also, is your goal to be flying LSA's or aircraft more like that 172? If the answer is 4-seat Standard category planes, that alone would be good reason to go with School 1, but in combination with School 2's unrealistic sales pitch, I'd firmly in the School 1 camp.

BTW, if you expect to be flying glass panel airplanes in the future, you're better off learning them from the start -- it will save you transition time later.

And based on your later posts, the $11K figure for the "traditional" panel 172 probably isn't that much higher than what it will really cost you at School 2 with a more realistic total training time.
 
You shouldn't have to pay $14K for your PPL. Like others have said, shop around more. You're in Orlando so you should have no problem finding a school. And don't get all blown away with the planes with all the bells and whistles. Your doing VFR so 99% of the time you are going to be looking outside.
 
jordane93 said:
You shouldn't have to pay $14K for your PPL. Like others have said, shop around more. You're in Orlando so you should have no problem finding a school. And don't get all blown away with the planes with all the bells and whistles. Your doing VFR so 99% of the time you are going to be looking outside.
Click to expand...

That depends on future aspirations. If one intends to go IR in a glass plane, it's probably easier to start in it since you have time to learn the buttonology before you need to know it without looking at it. VFR, no big deal to learn it quickly.
 
Henning said:
That depends on future aspirations. If one intends to go IR in a glass plane, it's probably easier to start in it since you have time to learn the buttonology before you need to know it without looking at it. VFR, no big deal to learn it quickly.
Click to expand...
True but even if the OP wants to go glass and get his IFR I wouldn't pay for $14K for the PPL to get familiarized with glass
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm guessing this is a low-ball number -- very, very few people get their license in only 40 hours. That alone gives me an uneasy feeling about their organization and professionalism.
Click to expand...

Yeah I missed the part about 40 hours. Steve, don't work with them, 40hrs is BS, almost no one gets their PPL in that time.

Give them a call and ask what's the average time it takes to get a PPL, see what they say. I bet you it won't be 40, and if it will be they are laying.
 
Henning said:
That depends on future aspirations. If one intends to go IR in a glass plane, it's probably easier to start in it since you have time to learn the buttonology before you need to know it without looking at it. VFR, no big deal to learn it quickly.
Click to expand...

Easier, yes. But at some point it will become a major problem. Sooner or later he will go up in something with round gauges and be completely lost. Or even if he will be forced to use standbys in IMC, sure he'll get some training with the standbys, but he'll be a lot better at it if learning with round gauges from the start.
 
I never saw that big of a difference in using round gauges or 2D glass, 3D glass on the other hand, yeah, bg difference, but not as big as the difference between using a Kx 155 and a Garmin 530.
 
Henning said:
I never saw that big of a difference in using round gauges or 2D glass, 3D glass on the other hand, yeah, bg difference, but not as big as the difference between using a Kx 155 and a Garmin 530.
Click to expand...

What's "3D glass"? Thanks!
 
Henning said:
I never saw that big of a difference in using round gauges or 2D glass, 3D glass on the other hand, yeah, bg difference, but not as big as the difference between using a Kx 155 and a Garmin 530.
Click to expand...

That's because your proficient with both.

G1000 gives you a lot of things that make everything much easier, for example: winds, rate of turn, huge AI, automatically identifies VORs, can't get reverse sensing, TAS calculations, and probably a whole bunch of other things that I can't think of right now. Don't forget switching from tape to round.

Yes a 530 to a Kx 155 is a pretty big transition, but a 530 (or at least 430) is extremely common. The odds that he'll be flying something without a 430 are much lower than him flying something with a G1000.
 
PPL in 40 hours is not that difficult, but you have to plan to fly atleast 1-2 hours a day. Very hard work, and far from enjoyable.

If you can only fly a few lessons a week, then completing it in 40 hours is very unlikely.

I would run away from any school who insists on using planes with G1000's and simulators for basic flight training.

In Florida, a realistic budget is 100-110/hr for the plane, 35-40/hr for the instructor, and 400 for the DPE. So at 50 hrs and assuming the worst prices, you're looking at around 8000USD.
 
"I would run away from any school who insists on using planes with G1000's"

I would disagree as a blanket statement...all depends on the student and their ability to process information.

I trained at Tailwheels (highly recommend them) outta Lakeland in a G1000 for my PPL and glad I did. Their program was $12.5k for the 172SP steam gauges and $13.5 for the G1000. I got the G1000 due to a scheduling screw up at the SP price, but knowing what I know now I would have gladly paid the extra $1k for the G1000 from the start. You can't buy 46 hours of G1000 training time for $1000 later!

Now I can jump into almost anything and feel comfortable. I bought a 182 with a aspen panel and 430 and was able to jump right in, plus can rent a G1000 if needed. I would argue that it is a LOT easier to transition from glass to steam then steam to glass.
 
mtuomi said:
PPL in 40 hours is not that difficult, but you have to plan to fly atleast 1-2 hours a day. Very hard work, and far from enjoyable.

If you can only fly a few lessons a week, then completing it in 40 hours is very unlikely.

I would run away from any school who insists on using planes with G1000's and simulators for basic flight training.

In Florida, a realistic budget is 100-110/hr for the plane, 35-40/hr for the instructor, and 400 for the DPE. So at 50 hrs and assuming the worst prices, you're looking at around 8000USD.
Click to expand...

I still don't get this. Yeah, there is some new technology, but 25 years ago everybody at the flight school I used took their ride when they hit 40 hrs and most everyone passed on first try, at 125 hrs(required at the time) they got their IR, at 250 they got their CP. I flew two days a week back to back, 2 flights a day, most the people flying there also flew 3-4 flights a week. Why is it now the expectation that minimum time to get a PP is 60-80 hrs? Is it something in the water making us stupider than 25 years ago? Is it Chemtrails dumbing us down?
 
Henning said:
I still don't get this. Yeah, there is some new technology, but 25 years ago everybody at the flight school I used took their ride when they hit 40 hrs and most everyone passed on first try, at 125 hrs(required at the time) they got their IR, at 250 they got their CP. I flew two days a week back to back, 2 flights a day, most the people flying there also flew 3-4 flights a week. Why is it now the expectation that minimum time to get a PP is 60-80 hrs? Is it something in the water making us stupider than 25 years ago? Is it Chemtrails dumbing us down?
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is more traffic and more holding short? Perhaps there are more regs to follow that take more time to learn?

Although spin training isn't required any more...
 
MachFly said:
Perhaps there is more traffic and more holding short? Perhaps there are more regs to follow that take more time to learn?

Although spin training isn't required any more...
Click to expand...

Spin training wasn't required then either, but I got it on the second or third lesson doing power on stalls without enough rudder. You don't learn regs during your flight hours, you learn them reading outside the airplane. Some of the regs like airspace have gotten easier even. I trained at Long Beach CA and it was all sorts of busy and we had a pretty long taxi, so Unless one is training out of Ontario CA or similar, I can't see that causing a 50-100% increase in flight training time.
 
Last edited:
What are instructors experience level? If both are using 250 hour wonders that have done nothing bug instruct, discard both and keep looking.
 
Henning said:
Spin training wasn't required then either, but I got it on the second or third lesson doing power on stalls without enough rudder. You don't learn regs during your flight hours, you learn them reading outside the airplane. Some of the regs like airspace have gotten easier even. I trained at Long Beach CA and it was all sorts of busy and we had a pretty long taxi, so Unless one is training out of Ontario CA or similar, I can't see that causing a 50-100% increase in flight training time.
Click to expand...

Maybe it became more expensive and people can't afford to fly as often? Maybe instructors learned that they can stretch out the training and get more money? Maybe all the experienced instructors from that time went onto the airlines or whatever?
 
Thanks for the comments everyone. I don't really have an end goal or plan for what I plan to do after getting licensed. It will be mostly just renting and going on leisure flights and vacations. That being said most rentals / club planes I've taken a quick glance at aren't garmin 1000 equipped which makes me agree with those that say to train on a more basic 172. I'll likely go that route and then if I need to learn the garmin I can't imagine it would be that hard to learn.

The instructors at the more expensive school do have 2000 plus hours instructing vs much less at the cheaper school. That is worth some extra money in my mind but I think I'm going to do a little more recon before making a final decision.

Thanks again for all of the help.
 
MachFly said:
Maybe it became more expensive and people can't afford to fly as often? Maybe instructors learned that they can stretch out the training and get more money? Maybe all the experienced instructors from that time went onto the airlines or whatever?
Click to expand...

Actually, my best instructors are dead, they were WWII pilots.
 
Steve37 said:
Thanks for the comments everyone. I don't really have an end goal or plan for what I plan to do after getting licensed. It will be mostly just renting and going on leisure flights and vacations. That being said most rentals / club planes I've taken a quick glance at aren't garmin 1000 equipped which makes me agree with those that say to train on a more basic 172. I'll likely go that route and then if I need to learn the garmin I can't imagine it would be that hard to learn.

The instructors at the more expensive school do have 2000 plus hours instructing vs much less at the cheaper school. That is worth some extra money in my mind but I think I'm going to do a little more recon before making a final decision.

Thanks again for all of the help.
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING wrong with training in a g1000 equipped plane for your PPL. Just be sure you know how to navigate if that thing goes dead. During my IR, I was in a 172 with 2 430W's. For my x countries, my instructor would switch from letting me use the GPS to tracking via radials from VOR's. I really liked this way because it helped me learn how to navigate both ways. If cost isn't an issue, why not do the training in the g1000 172? Also, don't be afraid to USE the g1000 if you need help. Part of the PPL test is knowing how to use all available equipment on board and the g1000 is one of those things you need to know how to work
 
Henning said:
I flew two days a week back to back, 2 flights a day, most the people flying there also flew 3-4 flights a week.
Click to expand...

This is maybe it?
Not sure about the stats of people doing it full time, moving/living close to the airport, but I'm guessing a lot more are doing it on the side.
I know I never did 2 flights a day. I tried once or twice (the few times I could schedule something like that), and weather made them zero flights a day :mad2:
 
Henning said:
I still don't get this. Yeah, there is some new technology, but 25 years ago everybody at the flight school I used took their ride when they hit 40 hrs and most everyone passed on first try, at 125 hrs(required at the time) they got their IR, at 250 they got their CP. I flew two days a week back to back, 2 flights a day, most the people flying there also flew 3-4 flights a week. Why is it now the expectation that minimum time to get a PP is 60-80 hrs? Is it something in the water making us stupider than 25 years ago? Is it Chemtrails dumbing us down?
Click to expand...

As Far As I Can Tell, the 60-80 number came about for 3 reasons:

1) The oft-qouted "72 hour average" (including FT students, stop-and-return, fly-once-a-month, and the slow) morphed into a 72 hour "minimum".

2) Lack of organization and understanding of the teaching/learning process on the CFI's part creates "wasted" flight time.

3) Schools and CFIs found they could pad their bottom lines despite slowing student starts by dragging out milestones and training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top