Hello has anyone taken there PPL fixed wing then CPL rotary-craft?
If so what amount of money would someone be saving?
and are there any other pros and cons


Thanks, Braden

Here's an older post from the Vertical site..
http://forums.verticalmag.com/topic/742 ... -a-newbie/

One thing is for sure. If you ever want to rent & fly an aircraft recreationally once you are all licensed up, it will be a lot easier & less $$ to rent a little airplane...

I did my PPLH based upon a CPLA (I was not able to do my CPLH with the training organization in Ontario due to silly restrictive regulation in Ontario). I recommend having lots of fixed wing experience to support your helicopter flying for the simple reason that some of the helicopter training is simply flying, irrespective of aircraft type, so you may as well have that experience in a lower cost aircraft. You can also use a fixed wing to think about your rotor wing flying in terms of observing from above and thinking about current conditions, and selecting landing sites.

You will also get training credit for licenses held in fixed wing. As mentioned, the solo flying it is wise for any newer pilot to do is going to have to be fixed wing, as you cannot practically rent a helicopter for solo recreational flying. I chose to fly as a student helicopter pilot for more than two years, and used the licensing situation to afford myself many solo cross country flights. Finally the offer of an MD500 type endorsement motivated my to finish my PPLH, so I would have a license to endorse. I did this, and have not flown a helicopter solo since! I have not pursued the CPLH.

I did CPL-A to CPL-H a few years ago. Every flight for the first 5-10 hours and probably most flights for the next 5-10 hours, I remember being overloaded enough at some point to think "I cannot imagine how much more difficult this would be if I have to be learning all the other basic aviation skills (i.e. talking on the radio, listening to the tower, interpretation of winds, runways/parts of the circuit etc. etc. etc...) at the same time".

Will it save money...I don't know. However, PPL-A to CPL-H will certainly make more efficient use of the MUCH more expensive helicopter time.

I would suggest that just getting to the solo stage in an airplane would be beneficial from that perspective.

Glenn

It may or may not help you and there will be a negligible dollar savings as usually the helicopter flight schools have a program "from the ground up" and the only thing that will be the same is the basic ground school. Having previous flight experience could be beneficial but I have not seen any evidence proving either. It's going to cost you 100hrs of helicopter time to get your CPL-H regardless.

Once you have your CPL-H and then want to upgrade to say an IFR, you can do it in fixed wing to save money.

Part 4 of the CAR's and the related standards can be read for possible clarification.

Heliian wrote:...
It's going to cost you 100hrs of helicopter time to get your CPL-H regardless.

Won't save you any money but CPL-A to CPL-H only requires 60 hours of helicopter time.

Glenn

C-GKNT wrote:

Heliian wrote:...
It's going to cost you 100hrs of helicopter time to get your CPL-H regardless.

Won't save you any money but CPL-A to CPL-H only requires 60 hours of helicopter time.

Glenn

I wouldn't waste my time with that stiff wing junk if you're serious about helicopters. Helicopter pilots are just way cooler.