Cost of RPP -> PPL

[bernk]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this forum and the idea of becoming a pilot.

I'm hoping someone can answer this for me: Does it cost much more to start with an RPP and then do a PPL than go straight for the PPL, or is the difference negligible?

Bern

[tyndall]

By the time you add an extra flight test, pre-flight test evaluation, the extra time to get back in the groove of learning, going over things you've already been taught, it works out to be about $1k more.

[dahspeers]

In my opinion the RPP is essentially useless, just go straight to a PPL. And it will be cheaper too. Written tests are $120, most PE's charge minimum $300 for a flight test.

[Ivan42]

In my opinion the RPP is essentially useless, just go straight to a PPL. And it will be cheaper too. Written tests are $120, most PE's charge minimum $300 for a flight test.

eh, what? Can you elaborate on that?

The RPP costs 75% of the PPL (generally - it can probably be obtained for less), enables the holder to fly solo and/or with one passenger in 25 hours and the requirements/lessons parallel the PPL for the most part.

For someone intending on flying intermittently within the region around a local airport, it isn't all that bad of deal.

It's NOT a cost saving measure though, if your long-term intention is a PPL. Your learning program for the PPL will cover everything on the RPL and quite a bit more. It does take longer before you can take a passenger up but if your intention is to fly regularly and on medium-length cross-countries, the PPL is the way to go.

[CpnCrunch]

In my opinion the RPP is essentially useless, just go straight to a PPL. And it will be cheaper too. Written tests are $120, most PE's charge minimum $300 for a flight test.

It depends what flying you want to do. I have a PPL, but if I was learning to fly today I would probably just get a recreational license. PPL is overkill if you just want to fart around and take the occasional passenger (which is all that 90% of private pilots do anyway, as far as I can see).

[akoch]

"enables the holder to fly solo and/or with one passenger in 25 hours and the requirements/lessons parallel the PPL for the most part.

For someone intending on flying intermittently within the region around a local airport, it isn't all that bad of deal."

Two things scare me personally with this:
- taking a passenger after only 25 hours. It can be done, but is this prudent? I personally thought that it was OK to start taking up somebody with me only when I got past 100h mark. And it is not the hours, it is necessary time to get the basic skills to set it, practice things, experience things. I'm sure it is all different for everyone, but 25 hours....
- the "intermittent" part is also... scary. Especially with 25-100h in the background, not 6000h+

When I was in the same mental spot in my training considering options, I decided on the PPL. Also a qualified advice done at the right time helped, and can see now it was the right thing to do.

[Shiny Side Up]

Two things scare me personally with this:
- taking a passenger after only 25 hours. It can be done, but is this prudent?

Its not so much the hours one has when completing said license but rather the really lax standards we have for keeping said skill current. Most people I know would probably be pretty good to take passengers right after their flight test, unfortunately though rec flyers are generally sporadic in their skill topping up, so you'll have people taking passengers up with possibly months between flights, or worse, years.

In this regard we could save a lot of innocents out there if we were able to somehow educate the non-pilot passenger public on what the required standards are.

[akoch]

Well, educating the newcomers into the aviation is a time-consuming and difficult process. Trying it with the non-flying public probably is not going to fly so to speak.

I do believe however that the PPL is the necessary minimal threshold to clear, in order to obtain (minimal required) skills and knowledge to operate a basic aircraft with reasonable safety margin. Unlike cats we get only one shot. An experienced instructor with over 6000h made it clear to me at the early stage of my learning. Today I see more clearly the guy was right, and I'm glad I listened.

My understanding is that the RPL is attractive because you can start flying sooner. But realistically, once you're flying solo - you got it and you're already doing it. As much as you like. A freelance instructor will in most cases allow you to do it on your own schedule anyway. So... it will be only the limitation of taking passengers, but probably it is for the better anyway. Otherwise you're already flying and enjoying it. Worked for me.

[Shiny Side Up]

Well, educating the newcomers into the aviation is a time-consuming and difficult process. Trying it with the non-flying public probably is not going to fly so to speak.

Just because its difficult, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, that said though I'm not holding my breath. People spend more time researching their phone plans than they do concerned about how safe their pilot is. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

[Beefitarian]

People spend more time researching their phone plans than they do concerned about how safe their pilot is. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Their friend the pilot probably spent a lot of time telling them how terrific they are. It's what we do best, remember?

[akoch]

People spend more time researching their phone plans than they do concerned about how safe their pilot is. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Their friend the pilot probably spent a lot of time telling them how terrific they are. It's what we do best, remember?

How do you know if there is an pilot at your party? He'll tell you.