Flight Insurance: Northeast US vs Everywhere Else

[apr911]

Hi all,

Have a general question about your experiences renting planes to fly elsewhere in the country.

I've lived and flown in Texas (2010-2014), Southern California (2014-2016) and 2 separate stints in Eastern PA/NJ (pre-2010, 2016-Present).

In PA/NJ it seems flight schools are either charged more or are less willing to foot the burden of the insurance premium. They dont authorize night flight for PPL's unless they also have an IRA and further it requires both a night and instrument check out. They generally dont authorize instrument flight without a specific written approval of a flight plan by the chief instructor which is not exactly easy to come by, especially if you dont have a lot of time flying actual IMC. Lastly, their currency requirements requires that you fly with them at least every 90 days or you have to go through a checkout again, plus you must be checked out in each make/model (this often seems more of a money grab than anything else).

My current flight school/rental location struggled to get a complex added to their line thanks to insurance and they are considering adding a multi-engine but having the same issue (in addition to having only 1 flight instructor technically qualified to fly it and teach it) and they dont have a high-performance plane either. They do have tailwheels though which is unique among the other schools I've flown with on the east coast.

I've flown with 6 different flight schools here in PA and NJ now and they all have generally had similar policies (only 1 school allowed night flight without an instrument rating). They all also have required I bring renters insurance with significantly higher coverages than else where even though their planes are often the same and less equipped. And of course the last money grab, the "overnight" or "all-day" minimums of 3 hours per day that make it difficult to actually "go somewhere" in a rental.

Meanwhile, I look at places I've flown elsewhere.

In Texas, I was able to fly VFR day and night as a newly minted PPL. They had a multi-engine, high-performance, complex, tailwheels and gliders all with the very typical 10 hours in make/model or 25 hours in a complex/hi-perf/multi/glider minimums. Their planes were (and still are) better equipped, cheaper per hour and required lower renters insurance coverage. I wasn't instrument rated so I dont know what their policy was regarding IMC but I do know the planes flew in IMC. I also dont know what their currency requirements were but I did go at 9 months once without flying with them and nobody said boo when I showed up to rent a plane, late in the afternoon with the plane booked well into the evening/night hours.

In California, I was part of 2 groups that didn't even require renter's insurance (though they preferred it) and had very reasonable deductibles on the group insurance. They also had the full gamut of aircraft. Their only currency requirement was that you were required to do 1 hour of ground and flight with an instructor every year (which counted as a BFR anyway) and complete 6 credits with Wings and a special 90 day landing currency for the tailwheel. Otherwise, you were authorized to fly the plane in accordance with your license and your most complex checkout (i.e. a PA28R checkout would qualify you for a PA28, C172, C152, et al but a C152 checkout would only only cover the 172, PA28 and the like but not the PA28R). There was no restriction on night flight or IMC flight the only real restriction they had were for a few restricted airports that required a special checkout due to specific hazards with the airport but it was a one and done checkout for each airport, no recertification required and this is despite the fact that there are some pretty big mountains in California. Strangely, though practically everything else was more expensive in California, flight time per hour was (and still is) significantly less than what I am paying now in the NorthEast.

So what's been your flight school or FBO's rental policy in other parts of the country? Are they generally open like I've experienced in Texas and California? Or are they more restrictive like I've experienced in the North East? Just trying to determine which group is the odd one out (by FBO count, the North East policies outnumber TX/CA policies by 6-4 but by region, TX/CA policies outnumber NorthEast policies by 2-1.

 

[Todd82]

Coming from the eastern PA area (Ace at ABE, Gateway at 1N9... er... XLL) out to various FBOs in western PA, northern WV, and now SW Ohio I never noticed differences in anything but price. But everything costs more out east so that was no surprise. I guess a case of YMMV.

 

[James331]

The east coast in general comes off as potty trained at gun point, not sure why that is but I’ve noticed it across the board.

Been awhile since I rented, but I rented on the west coast with a similar west coast experience as you.

 

[Katamarino]

Generally flying schools are set up to teach people to fly and their airplane rental policies are set with their primary role of "school" in mind.

For a qualified pilot I have found flying clubs to be a much better bet. My club in Western PA has 7 decently equipped aircraft including an Arrow, Archer, C172SP, 3 x C172 180hp, and a C152. Rental rates are much lower than any flight school in the area, daily minimum for long trips is only 1 hour a day (2 hours a day at weekends), and there's a great social scene as well. They can do any training from PPL all the way to CFI.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

It all depends on who and where you rent from. While awaiting delivery of my LSA, I rented in NEPA to keep current. They have two Warriors and an Arrow. Rental rate wasn’t too bad and after a checkout there were no other restrictions. They did require, what I thought was a higher than usual coverage (Loss) amount, on their aircraft. I never rented the planes for more than a few hours, but could have without penalty, so I was told.

On my last trip west, last summer, I did notice a slight dip in rental rates and IMO, better equipped and looking aircraft, a big plus in my book. So, there is some validity to the OP’s take on costs, if only on the East / West coasts.

 

[apr911]

Generally flying schools are set up to teach people to fly and their airplane rental policies are set with their primary role of "school" in mind.

Admittedly, my flight experience on the West Coast was more "club" than "school" but I did briefly fly with a Part 141 school while working on my instrument rating. Their prices were more expensive for slightly less equipped airplanes (they all were in good order with decent avionics but where had KLN89B in C172R for $170 vs Garmin x30 series and Aspens or Garmin flight gauges for $130 in C172N or $140 in a C172SP and of course the no thrills "NavRadio Only" C172C for $120. Their C152's were equipped the same and ran $125 vs the club's C150 with a Garmin which ran $99).

For Solo however, the school did not require you to carry renters insurance, though they did recommend it to cover their deductible, the school's insurance deductible was only $5,000 for fixed gear and $10,000 for their multi/retractable. Their policy also required only 5 hours in make/model and a 1 hour check out every 90 days. They did not require instrument ratings or separate check outs for night flights. Admittedly their overnight policy was a 3 hour minimum per day and I dont know what their policy was on Actual IMC solo since I did not have my instrument rating yet, though they had no problem with me going up with my instructor in Actual IMC to perform maneuvers in VFR on top.

So I'm willing to chalk up the 3 hour minimum per day charge to "flight schools" rental policies being geared to the "school." But considering that their planes are not regularly flying at night or during instrument conditions, I struggle with the rental policy and cost being entirely due to this... Especially since I've flown with at least 3 schools that have had reasonable or no insurance requirements aside from the being able to pay the school's deductible and no night flight restrictions.

I also note that with at least one airport that I've flown out of in NJ, I practically had to beg and plead with them to be able to take up their Cessna's even after complying with their separate checkouts for C172 and C152 as well as night/IMC. They had several C172's and 152's just sitting there going unused and the scheduler would cancel my flights without consulting me because it looked windy (which I became convinced was code for, I'm a little old lady [literally] and I want to close up shop and go home early rather than wait and make some money off a certificated pilot who wants to rent/fly in 10knot gusting 15 practically right down the runway winds). Of course this was an airport hard hit by TFR's so you'd think they'd jump at the chance to get their planes in the air flying and making them some money.


As to clubs, I wish there was a club similar to the one I flew with on the west coast nearby. Unfortunately there are no clubs that I can find at the 3 airports closest to me. The closet club I could find is at an airport that is 45minutes-1 hour drive time away (vs 30 min or less for the other 3 airports). There are actually 2 clubs there but they both are very small; 1 of them has only a single aircraft and the other has 2. The clubs are also setup more like "partial ownerships" than clubs with high, partially refundable initiation fees.

 

[Clip4]

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post other than to validate your dissatisfaction with the policies and fees of the flight schools in your area.

The truth is these schools don’t want you renting their planes for recreational use and if they do rent them to you they only want to do so under good day VFR conditions for an out and back flight under a restrictive currency requirement. That is what they do every day with there students. This is not abnormal in the industry nationwide. Regionally there are usually exceptions - in your immediate area there are none.

You also mention one school is struggling to buy a multi for training and you believe the issue is insurance. The issue is there is not enough multi students to support a multi engine aircraft in most flight schools and they are not profitable. As you mention, keeping competent MEIs can be an issue.

You might consider buying a plane and opening a commercial flying club, especially with all the money grabbing going on in your area.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What’s “generally accepted”will always vary from area to area.

After a couple of years of periodic checkouts that usually involved me giving the instructor some instruction, and having to get permission from someone who knew very little about the operation in question other than “it’s dangerous”, I bought my own airplane.

As @Clip4 indicated, it appears that your choices are to either live with what they’re requiring, or buy an airplane.

 

[apr911]

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your post other than to validate your dissatisfaction with the policies and fees of the flight schools in your area.

Well the post has several "goals" if you will.

First its trying to establish what the norm is. Perhaps my view is skewed by the fact that I've done most of my flying in regions that have more permissive rental environments but right now the policies I've encountered in the North East seem to be the regional exception to the "norm" I've experienced everywhere else so far.

I also have noted other differences, such as an avoidance of Bravo airspace and talking to ATC in general on the East coast; to the extent that I've done several approaches with different FBO's here on the East Coast and the instructors tell me not to bother talking to ATC to request a practice approach unless the airport or fix required access to B/C/D airspace. They generally have me shoot the approach without talking to anyone other than CTAF; they also generally seem to skew away from VFR Radar Services formerly known as Flight Following. This is totally different from what I am used to in Texas where flight following was easy to get from the local Charlie airports around San Antonio and Austin or in California where flight following was encouraged at all opportunities and it was unheard of just to "shoot the approach" with out first checking in with ATC. These differences though are easier to dismiss as being regional preference, no body in Texas used flight following in more rural areas and none of the instructors taught me how to talk to center or that it was even possible to obtain VFR services from them and in California there was a much higher concentration of GA aircraft in the sky often trying to use the same fixes, approaches and airports at any given time in CA, the SAN/LAX bravo's are huge fixtures in the area that cant be navigated around in the same way that many Bravos often can plus going inland has a lot of inhospitable land, between the deserts and the mountains, you wouldn't want to have to ditch without having to wait on SAR to launch.

Second I'm trying to establish what it is that I seem to be missing. I'm at a loss to explain why my experience flying was so much cheaper and easier elsewhere in the country. Texas I could easily write off as it is generally cheaper than other parts of the US but California? Everything except flying seemed more expensive in California... and when I try to break down the costs, I find California had higher prices for 100LL, tie-downs, maintenance, DPE's and higher demand overall but flight time and CFI time were both cheaper. Not to mention the "renter's insurance" minimums required and the significantly greater coverages offered by the "schools" insurance policy with lower currency requirements and more "dangerous" flying (open water, congested and mountainous wilderness). The big variable in there that I dont have a lot of insight on is the insurance and that's why my question asked specifically about insurance because it seems either the insurance policy here on the East Coast is significantly more expensive and significantly more restrictive or "insurance requirements" is just the cop out that they are using. I can accept that cop out for some things (like currency) but find it head scratching in other aspects... The economics of a low-demand with high supply of aircraft (CFI's seem to be in high demand in Eastern PA and NJ as most of the schools I've flown with have planes sitting unflown while their CFI's are booked solid) doesn't add up. Instructor economics is the only place where it makes sense that PA/NJ are more expensive than I've experience elsewhere and even than we're talking $5-10 more than CA prices and $15 more than TX prices.

I am also travelling to Florida next month where, policies still unknown and notwithstanding, rental prices are significantly lower per hour along with CFI availability (and price) as I've inquired with several flight schools about pursuing my CFI and whereas I've struggled to get on the calendar with instructors at schools in PA/NJ for weeks on end, in Florida they seem to be almost idle... As to prices in FL my quoted price for CFI/CFII training in FL in the same plane that I flew today with an instructor in PA, was $165/hr instructor included vs. $154/hr for the plane and $72/hr for the instructor here in PA. Or Jack Brown's which offers dual in a J-3 on floats for $195 and I know seaplane insurance is generally prohibitively expensive for flight schools which is why practically nobody offers to allow you to solo their seaplanes.

So aside from validating my dissatisfaction, what purpose does this post serve?

Well first, I'm not particularly tied to PA/NJ. I grew up here and 99% of my family lives in the area but I've spent 6 years in other parts of the country so it wouldn't be unheard of for me to move. In fact its something I'm considering doing in the next few months as I am month-to-month on my lease (and already packing to move as I hunt for a new place) and 3 years after moving back, I'm fed up with the winters and want to move somewhere with better weather. I'd love to move back to SoCal for if for no other reason than the awesome flying but cost of living expenses outside of flight time being what they are makes it somewhat prohibitive. There are a couple other locations I am eying up currently in Georgia and Florida but I remain open to most places in the US. I also am considering going the full "digital nomad" route and giving up a permanent address altogether and traveling the US (before eventually hopping a pond and traveling internationally)... Rental policies around the US might influence where I land and if I go the nomad route than they'll influence where I fly and get my flight time.

Second to that is the question of starting my own club... Starting a club sounds like fun but it comes with a significant start cost and given the apparent general lack of CFI's in the area, I might have issues attracting CFI's and/or offering training and even if I figure out that problem, its hard to gauge demand from the GA community at large when FBO's have planes sitting on the ramp not flying for some reason (my speculation being the confluence of rental cost, renters insurance cost and restrictive flight policies). Plus it would take some time (or a generous investor with deep pockets) to build the club up to a scale both in planes and members that would make it cost effective. Add to that the mysterious issue of insurance and I dont know if structuring something like the clubs on the west coast on the east coast is even possible, hence the question about insurance policies around the US as it would help me gauge if the PA/NJ schools are being stingy or getting hosed in comparison to the rest of the country.

Third is of course buying your own airplane. This is certainly a consideration as well but there are a number of reasons that's not entirely an option right now... Such as being unsettled/possibly moving (especially if I go the digital nomad route), not really knowing what I want (I could get a reasonably well equipped "trainer" type that wouldn't really take me anywhere but would let me build time, which I'm not ultimately that interested in having all I need for now, I could get a Citabria which is a blast but not IFR capable and not really going to take me anywhere or I could go "all-in" on a Bellanca Viking, the current front runner for load/speed/endurance/cost) which is impacted further by the fact that I am still needing time in trainers for CFI/CFII and lastly my flight time overall has not been consistent enough to make the numbers work...

I figure I need to log at least 50 hours per year just to be on par with my current solo rental rates and while that is building equity in a plane vs going purely to rental, my hours just haven't been consistent enough... For a number of reasons.

 

[Clip4]

Well the post has several "goals" if you will.

First its trying to establish what the norm is. Perhaps my view is skewed by the fact that I've done most of my flying in regions that have more permissive rental environments but right now the policies I've encountered in the North East seem to be the regional exception to the "norm" I've experienced everywhere else so far.

I also have noted other differences, such as an avoidance of Bravo airspace and talking to ATC in general on the East coast; to the extent that I've done several approaches with different FBO's here on the East Coast and the instructors tell me not to bother talking to ATC to request a practice approach unless the airport or fix required access to B/C/D airspace. They generally have me shoot the approach without talking to anyone other than CTAF; they also generally seem to skew away from VFR Radar Services formerly known as Flight Following. This is totally different from what I am used to in Texas where flight following was easy to get from the local Charlie airports around San Antonio and Austin or in California where flight following was encouraged at all opportunities and it was unheard of just to "shoot the approach" with out first checking in with ATC. These differences though are easier to dismiss as being regional preference, no body in Texas used flight following in more rural areas and none of the instructors taught me how to talk to center or that it was even possible to obtain VFR services from them and in California there was a much higher concentration of GA aircraft in the sky often trying to use the same fixes, approaches and airports at any given time in CA, the SAN/LAX bravo's are huge fixtures in the area that cant be navigated around in the same way that many Bravos often can plus going inland has a lot of inhospitable land, between the deserts and the mountains, you wouldn't want to have to ditch without having to wait on SAR to launch.

Second I'm trying to establish what it is that I seem to be missing. I'm at a loss to explain why my experience flying was so much cheaper and easier elsewhere in the country. Texas I could easily write off as it is generally cheaper than other parts of the US but California? Everything except flying seemed more expensive in California... and when I try to break down the costs, I find California had higher prices for 100LL, tie-downs, maintenance, DPE's and higher demand overall but flight time and CFI time were both cheaper. Not to mention the "renter's insurance" minimums required and the significantly greater coverages offered by the "schools" insurance policy with lower currency requirements and more "dangerous" flying (open water, congested and mountainous wilderness). The big variable in there that I dont have a lot of insight on is the insurance and that's why my question asked specifically about insurance because it seems either the insurance policy here on the East Coast is significantly more expensive and significantly more restrictive or "insurance requirements" is just the cop out that they are using. I can accept that cop out for some things (like currency) but find it head scratching in other aspects... The economics of a low-demand with high supply of aircraft (CFI's seem to be in high demand in Eastern PA and NJ as most of the schools I've flown with have planes sitting unflown while their CFI's are booked solid) doesn't add up. Instructor economics is the only place where it makes sense that PA/NJ are more expensive than I've experience elsewhere and even than we're talking $5-10 more than CA prices and $15 more than TX prices.

I am also travelling to Florida next month where, policies still unknown and notwithstanding, rental prices are significantly lower per hour along with CFI availability (and price) as I've inquired with several flight schools about pursuing my CFI and whereas I've struggled to get on the calendar with instructors at schools in PA/NJ for weeks on end, in Florida they seem to be almost idle... As to prices in FL my quoted price for CFI/CFII training in FL in the same plane that I flew today with an instructor in PA, was $165/hr instructor included vs. $154/hr for the plane and $72/hr for the instructor here in PA. Or Jack Brown's which offers dual in a J-3 on floats for $195 and I know seaplane insurance is generally prohibitively expensive for flight schools which is why practically nobody offers to allow you to solo their seaplanes.

So aside from validating my dissatisfaction, what purpose does this post serve?

Well first, I'm not particularly tied to PA/NJ. I grew up here and 99% of my family lives in the area but I've spent 6 years in other parts of the country so it wouldn't be unheard of for me to move. In fact its something I'm considering doing in the next few months as I am month-to-month on my lease (and already packing to move as I hunt for a new place) and 3 years after moving back, I'm fed up with the winters and want to move somewhere with better weather. I'd love to move back to SoCal for if for no other reason than the awesome flying but cost of living expenses outside of flight time being what they are makes it somewhat prohibitive. There are a couple other locations I am eying up currently in Georgia and Florida but I remain open to most places in the US. I also am considering going the full "digital nomad" route and giving up a permanent address altogether and traveling the US (before eventually hopping a pond and traveling internationally)... Rental policies around the US might influence where I land and if I go the nomad route than they'll influence where I fly and get my flight time.

Second to that is the question of starting my own club... Starting a club sounds like fun but it comes with a significant start cost and given the apparent general lack of CFI's in the area, I might have issues attracting CFI's and/or offering training and even if I figure out that problem, its hard to gauge demand from the GA community at large when FBO's have planes sitting on the ramp not flying for some reason (my speculation being the confluence of rental cost, renters insurance cost and restrictive flight policies). Plus it would take some time (or a generous investor with deep pockets) to build the club up to a scale both in planes and members that would make it cost effective. Add to that the mysterious issue of insurance and I dont know if structuring something like the clubs on the west coast on the east coast is even possible, hence the question about insurance policies around the US as it would help me gauge if the PA/NJ schools are being stingy or getting hosed in comparison to the rest of the country.

Third is of course buying your own airplane. This is certainly a consideration as well but there are a number of reasons that's not entirely an option right now... Such as being unsettled/possibly moving (especially if I go the digital nomad route), not really knowing what I want (I could get a reasonably well equipped "trainer" type that wouldn't really take me anywhere but would let me build time, which I'm not ultimately that interested in having all I need for now, I could get a Citabria which is a blast but not IFR capable and not really going to take me anywhere or I could go "all-in" on a Bellanca Viking, the current front runner for load/speed/endurance/cost) which is impacted further by the fact that I am still needing time in trainers for CFI/CFII and lastly my flight time overall has not been consistent enough to make the numbers work...

I figure I need to log at least 50 hours per year just to be on par with my current solo rental rates and while that is building equity in a plane vs going purely to rental, my hours just haven't been consistent enough... For a number of reasons.

Let me sum up what you want. You are looking for a place to rent airplanes with minimal cost, minimal rules, minimal currency and checkout requirements, minimum insurance requirements, no long term commitment, available instructors at minimal cost. Good luck.

 

[Cici]

In colorado i rent from 2 places. One has over 20 planes and has excellent availability. The other has 15 planes (cirrus). I carry a $5k policy to cover the deductible at both places. There are no restrictions in terms of night/imc at either. Ive been surprised how little restriction there is. Both have a 1.5 hour/day minimum for overnight, but both places work with you if it makes sense. M&m - both hour minimums and checkout are common for anything beyond a primary trainer. Cirrus wants you in every 3 months, but you can get away with 6 months. When i have to cross that bridge, I'm just going to do an ipc.

To be honest, it seems i have it pretty good. If i found myself in the NE situation, i would just buy a plane.

 

[apr911]

Let me sum up what you want. You are looking for a place to rent airplanes with minimal cost, minimal rules, minimal currency and checkout requirements, minimum insurance requirements, no long term commitment, available instructors at minimal cost. Good luck.

Minimal Cost - I'm not looking for some cut-rate budget, rental operation with ratty equipment... but TX/CA prices for a C172 180HP with steam gauges and a Garmin G430 or greater was $125... A Warrior PA-28-181 with an Aspen and Garmin 530 was $140 and overnights were 1/hr minimum per day. I'm currently paying 20% more and 10% for respectively for C172 with a 160HP engine without any GPS and for a PA-28-161 (smaller engine, lower speed and lower operating costs) also without GPS or the Aspen... So yeah, its not cost directly but rather value for my money. I dont know that I'd really mind paying what I am if the planes were better equipped/in-line with what I am used to but again, when comparing the other costs (fuel, tie-downs, engine run rates, maintenance, database updates, etc) and finding the planes in the North East have lower general costs (again I dont know enough about insurance) I'm at a loss for why I'm paying so much more for less equipped planes and/or why the schools wouldn't want the planes flying more other than profit motive (which explains less equipped but not frequency) or the ubiquitous insurance excuse I've heard (which is the only one that explains both less equipped and frequency of flight).

Minimal Rules - Again I'm not looking for lawlessness but I should be able to exercise the privileges of my certificate, once checked out and within the US, without having to seek special approval each time. IFR rating for flight at night doesn't really impact me since I have my IRA but its my understanding from speaking to the FBO owner in NJ who was most permissive, restricting night flight is a quick and easy method for reducing insurance premiums, thus its relevant to the original question of what it is I seem to be missing about insurance.

Minimal Currency and Checkout Requirements - This is a bit of a push pull... I have no real problem with the separate checkout for VFR/IFR. I can also see the logic in requiring at least an additional initial Night checkout. Where things get weird is in the fact that I dont have to get a checkout every 90 days as long as I have flown with them in Day and/or Night in the last 90 days and there's nothing in their rules requiring me to get checked out for IFR again but I need to maintain VFR currency in both day and night conditions with them... I concede that maintaining a 90-day currency in 1 set of conditions (day/night) is reasonable but struggle with the idea that I can remain FAA current day/night by flying with a friend out of their FBO for night flight, have flown with my FBO during the day in the last 90 days but haven't flown a night flight specifically with my FBO in the same period and suddenly I need a new checkout to rent at night... Again this differs from my experiences elsewhere and when asked about their weirdly loopholed currency requirements, they cite their insurance demands as the reason which again is relevant to the original topic of conversation about what I am missing.

Minimum insurance requirements - I carried insurance even at my club in CA. It was nice to be a named member on the clubs insurance but that doesn't mean I am not going to carry my own... In particular for bodily injury/property damage. As to hull insurance, Ultimately, its What I carry in insurance is not germane to the original post while the question of why the insurance policies on the east coast seem so much more restrictive and have higher deductibles.

No long-term commitment - This one I'm mostly guilty as charged. My flight school in Texas had no commitment. My FBO's in PA/NJ didn't have a commitment. My "traditional flight school" Part-141 in CA didnt have a commitment (though they offered to let you buy hours in bulk for less). My flight school in CA had a $75 initiation fee, a $38 monthly fee and a $20 key fee (you got your own key to the airplanes, enabling 24/7 access), so $138 for the first month and $38/month there after. Cancelling the membership took 10 days once there was no balance on your account, the key returned and a cancellation form filed. If you timed it right, you could get half a month in flying before cancelling and only get charged that months dues (so approx. $19 to cancel). If you timed it wrong than you paid dues for a little less than a month and a half (approx. $57 to cancel). The one club in my area that isn't structured like a partial ownership has a $500 initiation fee, a $130 monthly fee and a $1000 bond. They would however save me close to $70/hr flying so I'd be break even at my current flight rate after 9.5 hours and would have to fly 2 hours a month to maintain break even. That's not too bad even compared to CA. I'd probably hit break even after 1 or 2 months and maintaining breakeven wouldn't be that difficult purely from a flight time perspective. There's just a few problems: 1) they have a waiting list to join. 2) forking over $1000 bond (which is not calculated in my "breakeven" numbers since it is refunded on leaving the club but its an expense today that I wont see returned for many months) 3) the club only has 2 C172; I like the 172 enough but I've really started to prefer the low wing airplanes more... Plus I'd like to go faster than 110kts. 4) they're over an hour drive time away which makes flying with them more difficult.

Available Instructors at minimum cost - Available? Absolutely. Minimum Cost? Again, I'd like it if the costs were lower but I'd be totally fine with the slightly higher (10-15%) instructor rate if that money were going into my instructors pocket but I know from talking to one of the instructors there that its not. In CA, the instructors were "attached" but "independent" of the club. Every dollar paid to a flight instructor went into the instructors pocket.


I also note that I am paying per hour rates more commonly charged by FBO's listed on OpenAirplane. Those rates make sense to me with OpenAirplane because you are:
1) not flying with the school in question regularly which makes it a riskier operation for the school; they dont know you or how you fly and renters tend to be abusive to their equipment (whether it be a car, plane, boat or other item you're renting) especially if they are unaffected by their actions (in other words, you ride a plane hard and put it away wet at your local flight school, you're likely to be impacted by the increased maintenance schedule and when the flight school does finally make the connection to you, they're likely to no longer rent to you)
2) you are also "robbing" them of the income of even an initial checkout

But you also are getting:
1) A single checkout that is valid for 12 months, independent of currency requirements
2) A checkout that allows you to rent from quite a few different places and different aircraft
3) A checkout that allows you to exercise the privileges associated with your certificate without special approvals. (though a separate night checkout is still needed to fly at night).

You also clearly to be on the side of the FBO, which is fine. I dont begrudge the FBO the right to make money, I'm just trying to understand how things are so different from what I've experienced elsewhere. Ultimately, I find the price my FBO charges bearable hence why I am still flying with them. The restrictive policies are difficult for me but while I was able to take my money to other local airports when I was in NJ, I dont have a less-restrictive (while policies differ, in the end its about the same) option in my current area in PA so there's not much I can do about that.

As other people have now commented, it seems my experience with the FBO's in PA/NJ is more the exception than the rule which still raises the question of why that is... I don't get the impression the FBO is making that much money per hour of flight time so are their insurance premiums really that much higher and why? What is it about the region that makes those premiums higher. It also opens up options of where I would move to next. I know that probably sounds crazy; moving because of restrictive policies and high costs of plane rental instead of just dealing with it or buying my own plane, but I was already considering a move. I am already in that process so I'm really just eliminating certain options.

 

[James331]

When I have rented, it was like a 30 min flight checkout, I didn’t have to buy insurance for their airplanes, and I could do anything my cert and the plane was legal for.

Only restrictions I’ve seen were for min hours for overnight, or wanting XX hours complex or tailwheel or whatever before renting said plane