I have worked out the numbers regarding profitability and cost associated with the flight school I'm trying to start up.

My data was based on previous flight school experiences.

I have based my expenses and profits data on 500 hours per year of aircraft use. and i am pleased and comfortable with the results. I was advised to set up my company as an "LLC" and write off all expenses associated with the operation.

I was somewhat surprised to see that the expenses associated with running a flight school make up over 50-60% of the total annual income. But i was not too surprised at this fact.

I will start out at first as the sole instructor, with one employee who will keep up with scheduling and phone calls etc while i am flying.

I will also start out with one airplane.

I have narrowed it down to the following two types

1. Cessna 172
2. Piper Warrior

I considered going the cheaper route with a Cessna 150/152 but i felt that it would be a bit underpowered in the hot Texas sunshine, it might be difficult to find a 150/152 that is IFR certified, and i feel like students would rather rent a 4 place airplane after they get their license rather than rent a two seater.

Do you guys agree with that observation?

I have decided to rent the aircraft for a rate between $95 per hour and $110 per hour wet. and charge a rate of $30 per hour on instruction. i think this is a pretty low average rate for instruction in the USA these days. (of course prices may change depending on fuel costs)

eventually i would like to grow the school to include two instructors, and two airplanes... perhaps one of which will be a complex or high performance. but i have concentrated more on the upstart aspect.

I also have great low cost lease option on a light twin but that is a long ways down the road.

I have not decided what to do about insurance yet... though i have factored in about 8,000 dollars per year in insurance costs.

any guys with experience in this sort of thing? would it be best to cover all students in my own insurance or have them each acquire their own?

feedback?

OK.. Now I'll try to answer points in order:

500 hours per year is 42 hours per month (months are easier to plan by). "Real" cost to operate a $60,000 IFR C172 is about $60/hour (fuel, engine, 100hours/annuals)... That'll be $40/hour gross income.. or .. $1,700 month.

I don't know your fixed costs (rent, utilites, etc.) but I'll guess at $500/month (assuming a hangar). Insurance isn't as tricky as it looks to factor in.. but it IS tricky when it comes to keeping attracting clients. If you go with a full waiver of subrogation, you'll have to charge more per hour. If you require renters to carry non-owner insurance, you can keep it lower. Personally, I think all parties are better off with the waiver... you just gotta sell it.. as in, "my rates are higher because you're covered". Either way, using your numbers ($8000 for hull replacement and liability (that's probably a little low)), it's $670/month.

You can see that this leaves you with just over $500/month in aircraft income. Let's say that 70% of the rental hours are dual. There's another $880/month of income... for a total of $1650 of "useable" income.. before daily, non-fixed and unforseen expenses.. which ideally, will be coverd by member dues.

Are we on the same page so far ?

Quick summary and a comparison:

Assuming these numbers are reasonably accurate..Knowing that you'll be working or available 7 days a week.. and nothing goes wrong...  Can you live on less than $20,000/year?

The club where I'm most active has 200 dues paying members ($30/month), 50 of them active, 10 very active...  We have eight airplanes ( 3 172s, 2 PA-28s, a 182, a Libert XL, and a Mooney 201) and 5 instructors (2 full time).. a full-time "clerk" and is run by a retired guy who draws no salary...  It's barely staying afloat flying  150-250 hours per month (1800-3000 hours per year).

Wow     I have to say that the realist in me is leary, but you've got quite a bit going for this operation.. more than enough to take a stab at it. The biggest hurdle is a supportive spouse (both that she's working and is understanding and patient about your dream)....

Flourishing clubs/schools do exist.. and they all started small...

You don't seem pie-eyed.. quite the contrary.. if this can be pulled off..it sounds like your situation and plan are quite sound...

I won't bother to research exact numbers re: insurance and the like.. you'll get accurate data soon enough..


Life is short and it's not a practice life...   Go for it !

hope so... we are still a few months away from even setting the ball in motion... but i remain cautiously optimistic.

I doubt that this flight school idea will ever generate enough money to replace a typical 9 to 5 job, but i enjoy aviation and my wife does too (even though she is not a pilot) and we can sure try like hell 

when i was there instructing in 2005 i licensed 20 pilots that year as the sole instructor with only one airplane and no advertisement other than word of mouth... and i have a lot of friends at the airport.

hopefully it will turn out that i have enough things going in my favor to make this work, even if just a little bit. 

Enyone who reads this forum knows how I feel about Light Sport. Not only not a good idea.. it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Believe  me... our club has looked into it. There's a reason that there's still virtually no LSA rental fleet out there. Insurance companies don't want anything to do with it... and I can't blame them. The main attraction to Light Sport (for a new pilot) is that you don't have to take (or retake) physicals examinations.. and you can become "licensed" with far less trianing. Would you want to underwrite that group of people, as a whole ?

I'm all for less expensive; more economical flying... and once you're licensed, by all means, go out and get a Light Sport airplane. The planes themselves are wonderful... It's this darn short cut to training, and a driver's license counting as your medical, that's the problem (and what's keeping a rental fleet from forming). My near 30,000 hour mentor still turns red when you bring up this topic... and the well respected and oft-published opinion of Richard Collins...

Quote:


... is one that I agree with.

If you're not willing (or able) to pass a third-class medical every couple of years... and not ready to pay for an extra 20-30 hours of training at the very begining of your flying life (a very small expense when you consider you'll fly for many years and many hundred (if not thousands) of hours), then it's probably not a good idea for you to BE flying airplanes.. especially with other people on board.

During my brief tenure as an instructor.. I came to realize, that even after conventional training, very few pilots are good insurance risks... but you gotta turn'em loose at some point.

Apparently this is mainstream wisdom, 'cause even several years into this Light Sport stuff.. the rental fleet is non-existent. Seasoned instructor don't like it.. Veteran pilots cringe.. and most importantly.. insurance companies aren't crazy about it, either.

I can see keeping a Light Sport plane in a rental fleet.. Both for licensed pilots to punch economical holes in the sky.. and as a less expensive plane for conventional instruction. But I'd not be interested in helping fill the air with pilots graduating by Light Sport standards.

Yeah.. the medical issue is an ever looming threat to ground a pilot. And it has to be that way. I'm glad I'm not responisble for drawing the line that has to be drawn. Diabetes is a no-brainer though. Light-headed-ness and disorientation are the mildest symptoms when blood suger is off... Blurred-vision unconsciouness and seizures are the extreme... and the stress brought on knowing that it's happening, aggravates it all.

With age, comes heart, blood-pressure and vision issues.. and of course metnal accuity and motor skills. As I near fifty; I know my last medical is coming in the not too distant future. Right now, I have to time my eye-exams around my FAA physicals, because my eyes are that bad. I've already conceded that this is my last, second-class certificate and won't even try for anything above third-class, next year. Diabetes runs in my family, and I have had glucose issues, when I was 250lbs (I'm 215 right now). I'll probably ground myself, before I'm sixty.

The medication stuff is touchy... but you gotta fault on the side of caution. I had a potential student on Zanax. There was no "narcotic" effect. I honestly believe that a person's motor-skills are relatively unaffected by these drugs. But, if you need drugs to function on the ground, for whatever reason, you probably shouldn't be flying airplanes.

Is Light Sport, as a way for people just under the bar to keep flying, a good idea ? If you ask me right after I've surrendered my medical certificate, I'll probably say, "yes".  However, common sense dictates otherwise. As the system sits; nothing can stop a person from buying a Light Sport (or Cessna 172, for that matter), and tethereing it at an out of the way, county airport, and hopping around the countryside on a beautiful day. And nothing can stop them from taking a friend up, with them. In that regard, pilots are self-policing.. and potential passengers are on their own to make the decision on whom they fly with. It's always been that way for ultra-lights. We have no choice but to let older, or medically-marginal pilots act responsibly... and there's always been an argument for some sort of minimal traing for ultra-light pilots (albiet, unenforceable).. BUT..Once you cross over into government sanctioned and issued documentation.. lower standards are not the way to go.

The biggest and most tangible benefit from these wonderful, Light Sport airplanes... is economics. They're a much less expensive way to fly.. and that's a good thing. If I'm not mistaken, a Champ, Cub (or something very similar) can already qualify as a Light Sport plane, by weight, speed and horse-power. In the big picture; considering all flying expenses; 20-30 additional hours spent learning, is nothing. The Light Sport license, is a solution to the problem that doesn't exist. If these planes are to ever take a significant place in rental fleets (code for insurance under-writing), and be an economical profit center for fledgling schools/clubs; we've got to run a stake throught the heart of the Light Sport pilot's license.

I agree with you Hagar, mostly. Nobody is kidding anybody about a U.S. third class medical examine as being anything more than; showing up.. proving that you can see.. having your blood-pressure checked.. giving some urine to prove you're not on drugs or diabetic.. and letting an aviation-minded doctor SEE you up close. And that sounds like what's required for your NPPL. Over here, that's not the case for Light Sport Pilot. The only examination for a drivers license is for your vision... and that immediately qualifies you for Light Sport training. You can be a drug addicted, diabetic, with high-blood pressure and a heart condition, and get your Light Sport Pilot license. Insurance companies know this... and they'll tell a club as much when you try to add a Light Sport Plane and Light Sport Training to your club's roster and curriculum.

The silly thing is (like you point out)... few people will get signed off by an instructor after only minimum training. Most will end up with the same amount of hours, and dual instruction, as a regular pilot, taking regular training. They'll end up with nearly the same commitment of time and money, anyway. And actually it will end up costing more when they realize this.. as the training is not 100% transferable. When you consider the big picture; how much time and money flying will absorb; that difference twixt a Light Sport license and a regular PPL, is nothing. The only way you're going to be able to fly a Light Sport airplane, often enough to do it safely, is if you buy one. That kinda shoots the "money saving" aspect down... Just get a regular PPL, and put this Light Sport gremlin to rest... *ugh*.

Anyway...This thread is about running a flight-school. Anybody associated with that type of flying wouldn't be satisfied with only being able to fly out of un-controlled fields, in good weather, during daylight hours. And no flight-school will stay afloat under those restrictions. Flight-schools have insurance companies to answer to and rely on pilot/members who pursue advanced ratings (instrument/complex/multi-engine), and end up actually flying places, with passengers on board.. in and out of complex airspace... etc, etc...

Having an economical, Light Sport airplane or two on the roster would be a bonus. I'd LOVE to have one of these gems at my disposal, when all I want to do is go fly for an hour or two. There's a reason; after all these years; there's still no Light Sport rental fleet. As long as there's still the possibility of under-trained, medically-unqualified pilots hopping into these things; they aren't viable, flight school airplanes.

As for statistical anomalies ? (80 year-old pilots, or 5-hour solo helo-pilots)(I already know I won't be flying past 60 for health reasons).. that's exactly what they are.. Not the norm.. and not a reference for setting the standards.

Bottom line... in order to fly safely, you have to do it often. For most, that means renting. For the guy who can afford to buy a Light Sport... getting a regular pilot's license is no big deal. And the only way an FBO will have a Light Sport airplane available for rent, will be to a pilot holding a regular pilot's license. Their insurance will see to that..

Hi again  

What I meant by anomalies is;  as a percentage of the population, the percentage of octogenerian pilots is very low. As are the percentage of helicopter pilots who solo in 5 hours. I meant neither is a good reference for setting standards for training... or age restrictions.

And yes.. even a 25 year-old pilot can can have a stroke, in flight. There's no accounting for anomalies. The best you can do is adjust physical intervals for age. Right now, for 3rd class medicals..if you're under 40, it's every three years.. over 40, every two years. You certainly can't test pilots every day. Although, once you show signs for a condition, physicals can and are required more frequently for 2nd and 1st class medicals certificates.

I've already conceded that the Sport Pilot deal is done. I won't argue to have it repealed. As I've already pointed out; the industry itself is taking care of pointing out its useless-ness to anybody other than someone who can afford to buy a plane. The bad thing is.. I'd love to get these wonderful little planes into mainstream flying. To do that, they'll have to join the rental fleet.. and the existence of Sport Pilot licenses is standing in the way..

P.S.  my mentor is 76 and probaly still the most competent and able pilot I'll ever know.. 

I'm not disagreeing with with you..  There's no doubt that the amount of training required is dependent on how frequently you train. That's common sense. Obviously the guy who flies every day will solo, and earn his license, in fewer hours than the guy who flies once a week. But that has nothing to do with setting the minimums.

As for octogenarian pilots ?

3800/618000 =  0.6%   By the last census, octogenarians made up 4.0 % of the population.

They're 4% of the population, but only represent 0.6% of all pilots. That was my point.

i personally have turned a few people away for sport pilot training... for three reasons

1. There was no available LSA at my airport when i was instructing
2. The person seeking training indicated their belief that it would be faster easier training
3. I was not very familiar with LS rules at the time

I managed to talk a couple of them into just getting their private. so thats good i guess. and none of these guys were over 35 years old.

would i sign off a person who met the hour minimums? No

would i sign off someone who i genuinely felt was ready? Yes

But one thing to consider... out of all the private pilots i trained only 2 of them were genuinely ready at about 45 hours... everyone esle was around 60 hours.i would imagine it would be about the same for an LSA... 15 - 20 - 25 more hours than the "minimum" to be ready.

some interesting things about the LSA rules however.

1. If you are a private pilot you are grandfathered in and may operate as a LSP as long as LSP rules are used.

2. Drivers license may be used as your medical

BUT - if you are already a licensed pilot and have had a medical certificate denied for any reason, this issue must be resolved before operating as a light sport pilot.

so it sounds to me like any old joe who has lost his medical for whatever reason must clear this issue up before legally operating as a light sport pilot.

Im still on the fence about LSA rules... i just dont think it is restrictive enough as to disqualifying conditions.

My dad has Type II diabetes, he controls it through diet, exercise and a pill (does not require injected insulin) he is 55 years old, weights about 215 lbs and he still holds a third class medical but has to do a lot of foot work to keep it current... for as infrequently as he actually takes an airplane up -despite the fact that its almost always to go flying with me - its getting to the point where all the hassle of dealing with doctors constantly is not worth it. he is a capable private pilot, he is competent and he makes good decisions.

do i think he is going to hurt anyone besides himself if he takes a 30 minute jaunt around the pattern followed by a tour of a local lake over a very sparsely populated countryside? very unlikely - especially if i am going to be flying with him 80% of the time... but it is possible that things can go wrong up there... but if my old man goes down due to a black out or what not... he is probably going to go down in a cattle field or hay field.

on the other side of the coin, take the retired 320 lb airline pilot who is diabetic and working on his 3rd heart attack. and wants to use his LSP license to go to oshkosh annually, or wants to use the license to visit his grandkids at an uncontrolled airport in a Houston suburb. disaster waiting to happen IMHO. if he blacks out or dies it is only a matter of minutes before he wanders into the heart of an international airport, or crashes into a playground or neighborhood.

i think there should have been ruling on the LSP license to prevent people from flying over densely populated areas, or they should have to get a LSP medical certificate from a medical examiner which allows for certain health problems but not for others perhaps.

good looking little plane there by the way

I have always wanted a cub or stearman myself

Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, that my flying has evolved into something more utile and less recreational, is subjective, I guess. Almost every flight I take, has a purpose, destination, and has been "scheduled". Our lunch flight, Rotty, was probably my last just-for-fun stint in a cockpit. And even that was planned, and not just a flight for the pure joy of it. I came close to filing that morning... but that's a lot of hassle, radio work, and rigid piloting to cover 60nm. At the time I pondered filing, another hour would have elapsed before the plan was in the system, an instrument preflight gone through, clearance delivered, and I myself was ready (yeah, it still takes me a while to get into the IFR mindset), so it was kinda pointless. Had that flight been time sensitive and obligatory; I'd have filed early that morning, after my first weaher check.

I got a frame of reference a couple months ago, when I ferried the owner of a 310 up to Indian River, Michigan. I could tell he was impatient about having to travel at 110knots. As we were talking, and I was just enjoying being in the air, he was relating that flying and owning a speedy 310, to him, was just a way to get to/from his property up north in 1/4th the driving time... and that he could take-or-leave flying, as a recreational activity. I think I'm getting that way (albeit not on a 310 budget..lol) myself. We took that flight in a 172. I'm all of 220, he's a bit more, and I had a friend tag along so I wouldn't have to fly back alone. Obviously, that meant a fuel stop and some planning, as Toledo, Detroit and Flint airspace had to be negotiated, and the weather looked to be a factor, too. Flying by instrument was not an option, because that would have made it a two-stop flight, in order to keep an IFR minimum fuel supply on board (try filing and flying IFR in actual IMC where you really do push the fuel to its limit for making an honest pilot out of yourself).

My point is (yeah I have one too), is that though I'd love to hop in an LSA tomorrow morning and just buzz around for the fun of it,  I can't because I don't know of one within 100 miles that's available for rent. The Champ associated with our club, is up in Marysville, but even if I had ready access to it; the times I'd fly without a person on board and a place to go (inside of a Champ's, two-person fuel range) are very few. Way too few for me to stay safely current in what would be a hunter's equivelant of a muzzle-loader. Sure, they're fun to shoot, but if your intention is to efficiently take a deer, you take a scoped, bolt-action rifle with you. I'm so wrapped up in, and conditioned to, the kind of flying that's just as much about planning as it is execution, that (like the 310 pilot who doesn't even think of it as fun) just hopping up into the sky because it's a nice day to fly and I can, is kinda lost on me. I've come very close to saying, "the enjoyment no longer = the money spent", more than once. After you've reached that frame of mind, you start thinking about "de-rating" yourself to something like LSA. I've even thought about taking a year away from flying, and steering that money into a home-built. After you get to the point where you fly a couple times a week; every week; for three, straight years.. where virtually every flight starts with planning, the night before..this will make sense. You'll have seen and experienced enough to start questioning the purpose, and the very safety of pilots attracted to LSA.. and the type of casual, less-committed, under-trained, no-medical, less-current, undisciplined flying it would promote (insert Richard Collin's quote here).

Requiring some sort of medical examination is a start... and since we all agree that few(if any) pilots will be turned loose by their instructors after 25 hours of training; you might as well be looking at a regular PPL, anyway. Knowing that the vast majority of people who will be able to fly LSA often enough to do it safely, will be LSA owners....and considering that if a person chooses LSA training for economic reasons,  they won't be able to do it often enough to stay safely current; one has to question the whole concept.   For pilots like your Champ instructor, the LSA rules make great sense. And the whole GA world can benefit from these planes. There's just got to be a better defined, less stigmatic approach to the LSA rulebook. A modified medical is a start. Limiting when and where you can fly, when you aren't committed to "real" , currency maintaining frequency, makes sense too. But there's no need to spend your first 100 hours learning anything less, than the in-and-outs of piloting, that a regular PPL student learns. If that's how this was handled from the get-go, we'd probaly have an insurance-friendly, flourishing, LSA rental fleet by now...

Quote:


You know ? ..  I do remember that moment, distinctly... And I didn't have to think about it long before realizing why that thought popped into my head. By then, the weather was relatively good; there was no, "gotta get there" feeling, and (most importantly) there's an huge mental burden lifted, when the guy sitting in the right-seat is a pilot, too. You really can switch off the PIC mode enough to just enjoy. There's no worrying about anyone getting anxious and uncomfy if the ride gets bumpy.. no worrying about assuring them it's nothing... no feeling obligated to be an open book of aeronautical info for every question that pops into there naive head...  AND .. even if something does go wrong, not only are you not keeping them from losing their cool while keeping your own, the problem handling skills are doubled.

The Packers play at 1pm tomorrow (I've not watched maybe two games in 30 years) and it looks like a delightful morning, weaher-wise. I just booked an early, 172 hop up to Marysville.. gonna kick those Champ tires    .. and be back by noon..

Brett_Henderson wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2007 at 4:05pm:


Good for you! 
Whatever you do, don't sit in the Champ and waggle the stick, or you might forget all about the game...

Not a choice, for me...  I'm the type of fan whose outlook on life hinges on how the Pack is doing. I've either been at, or watched on televsion, every game since 1984 (when I a had C-band satellite to get the raw feeds)(I'm a charter subscriber to DirecTV's NFL Sunday ticket).. and most of the games prior to 1984.. except when I was living outside of Packerland.

Packer-fandom is a way of life   

(how's that for side-tracking a thread ? )

Big nascar race in Dallas this weekend... i have been checking out the action every time we do the approach to 13R at DFW.