Learning to fly

[GB]

I was thinking about studying for a PPL. Last year, I flew for 5 hours with
Cabair in Elstree. I was quite happy with that (except see below). However,
their charges for a package to get to PPL seem very high - about £12-15k.
Elstree is my local airfield, and there is another company there, Firecrest,
that seems to be about 40% to 50% cheaper. Is there anything to be said for
or against one or the other?

Does the age of the aircraft matter? Firecrest seem to use Cessna 150s and
172s. I checked one of the numbers, and it appears to be about 20 years old.
Is that kind of aged for a plane of this type? Cabair's aircraft are hardly
new, either.

My only gripe with the tuition of Cabair was one particular incident that
happened in my third lesson. The instructor lectured me about the importance
of keeping a good look-out. Ten minutes later, he instructed me to make a
slow left turn. I queried that, as that would have taken us straight into
the path of another aircraft flying in the opposite direction, at the same
altitude, on our left hand side. The other aircraft passed us about 30
seconds later. It seems an odd instructional technique, if it was
intentional.

[Peter]

Post by GB
I was thinking about studying for a PPL. Last year, I flew for 5 hours with
Cabair in Elstree. I was quite happy with that (except see below). However,
their charges for a package to get to PPL seem very high - about £12-15k.
Elstree is my local airfield, and there is another company there, Firecrest,
that seems to be about 40% to 50% cheaper. Is there anything to be said for
or against one or the other?
Does the age of the aircraft matter? Firecrest seem to use Cessna 150s and
172s. I checked one of the numbers, and it appears to be about 20 years old.
Is that kind of aged for a plane of this type? Cabair's aircraft are hardly
new, either.
My only gripe with the tuition of Cabair was one particular incident that
happened in my third lesson. The instructor lectured me about the importance
of keeping a good look-out. Ten minutes later, he instructed me to make a
slow left turn. I queried that, as that would have taken us straight into
the path of another aircraft flying in the opposite direction, at the same
altitude, on our left hand side. The other aircraft passed us about 30
seconds later. It seems an odd instructional technique, if it was
intentional.

I have no experience of the firms you mention, and I doubt you will
get anybody to openly criticise them even if they wanted to ;)

Today, a PPL (based on the UK average of 55-65hrs, not the 45 minimum)
costs upwards of £10k. Schools may quote lower figures but any quote
will be based on 45hrs total time which you are NOT going to achieve
unless you either have exceptional ability, or have done considerable
unlogged time (e.g. flying around as a passenger with another pilot
who informally teaches you the procedures and lets you fly).

Most GA training planes are old, but some are worse maintained than
others. I learn on some awful wreckage. But some schools are operating
nice stuff e.g. Diamond DA40 types.

Many people learn to fly purely as a personal challenge and chuck it
in as soon as they are done. Then, the type doesn't matter. If however
you are learning to fly with a view to doing some serious flying
afterwards, AND you have the budget to do such flying (many people
inexplicably get a PPL even though they must have known they would
never have the budget for ongoing flying) then it would pay to learn
with a school which offers reasonable quality hardware on self fly
hire basis.

Safety comes largely from currency ON TYPE and this policy will both
save a lot of money (on conversion training) and will make you a
better and safer pilot sooner.

As regards the incident, that could happen to anyone. A person in the
LH seat has a poor view to the right, and a person in the RH seat has
a poor view to the left. And no matter how good your lookout is, you
are not going to spot the vast majority of other planes. Assuming
straight line trajectories, a plane on a *genuine* collision course
will appear as a *stationary* point in your field of view and thus
virtually impossible to spot. If you have two people up front, you
both needs to look out for stuff as far as possible. If flying alone,
you need to be extra careful with RH turns and in general avoid them
completely. The best protection from the already extremely low risk of
a mid-air is to fly above the general PPL population i.e. above say
2500ft. Nearly all UK midairs have happened at or below 1000ft.

x----------x

[Robert Eagle]

£12,000+ seems very high for a PPL course. For instance West London Aero
Club at White waltham currently quotes £6750 for 45 hours JAR PPL dual
instruction in a Warrior including seven written exams or £4800 for 32 hours
National PPL dual instruction in a Warrior including seven written exams.
These prices may be subject to fuel surcharges that some clubs have
introduced, but would still seem to be much more competitive.

The age of the aircraft matters little. All a/c are subject to the same
maintenance standards. An older aircraft costs the club less in depreciation,
and this is likely to be reflected in the prices it charges.

Finally, if you don't feel confident with an instructor or club for any
reason, go elsewhere.

Details about nearly all flying schools in the UK can be found on PilotWeb:
http://www.pilotweb.aero/

best, Robert Eagle

Post by GB
I was thinking about studying for a PPL. Last year, I flew for 5 hours with
Cabair in Elstree. I was quite happy with that (except see below). However,
their charges for a package to get to PPL seem very high - about £12-15k.
Elstree is my local airfield, and there is another company there, Firecrest,
that seems to be about 40% to 50% cheaper. Is there anything to be said for
or against one or the other?
Does the age of the aircraft matter? Firecrest seem to use Cessna 150s and
172s. I checked one of the numbers, and it appears to be about 20 years old.
Is that kind of aged for a plane of this type? Cabair's aircraft are hardly
new, either.
My only gripe with the tuition of Cabair was one particular incident that
happened in my third lesson. The instructor lectured me about the importance
of keeping a good look-out. Ten minutes later, he instructed me to make a
slow left turn. I queried that, as that would have taken us straight into
the path of another aircraft flying in the opposite direction, at the same
altitude, on our left hand side. The other aircraft passed us about 30
seconds later. It seems an odd instructional technique, if it was
intentional.

[Peter]

Post by Robert Eagle
The age of the aircraft matters little. All a/c are subject to the same
maintenance standards.

In theory yes, but there is a huge difference in the condition of a 30
year old plane maintained to the absolute bare minimum (or below -
nothing stops the boxes being checked but the work not being done),
and the condition of something newer.

And the punter will not want to fly a piece of wreckage after the PPL.

One could argue that wreckage doesn't matter if one just wants a PPL.

Some of the stuff I flew in was dreadful. Not actually dangerous, but
then with a fixed wing aircraft the only things which will kill you
are the wings or the elevator coming off, and that is extremely
unlikely. Even an engine failure is normally OK.

The difference between a cheap and dirty plane and a better one, over
say 60hrs, is insignificant on the longer term picture of flying as a
hobby.

The cheapest possible PPL will always be one done in the USA. There
are about 6 schools in Florida, and one in California, which offer JAA
PPLs. Anyway, one can fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL, worldwide (ref: ANO
article 26).

[Robert Eagle]

There's an advantage in going to the USA to learn if you need to get your
licence quickly. But if you're not in a great hurry, there's no harm in
taking your time. and doing it closer to home.

I have heard very differing reports about schools in the USA, especially
Florida. It's advisable to get opinions from those who've been there.

Post by Peter

Post by Robert Eagle
The age of the aircraft matters little. All a/c are subject to the same
maintenance standards.

In theory yes, but there is a huge difference in the condition of a 30
year old plane maintained to the absolute bare minimum (or below -
nothing stops the boxes being checked but the work not being done),
and the condition of something newer.
And the punter will not want to fly a piece of wreckage after the PPL.
One could argue that wreckage doesn't matter if one just wants a PPL.
Some of the stuff I flew in was dreadful. Not actually dangerous, but
then with a fixed wing aircraft the only things which will kill you
are the wings or the elevator coming off, and that is extremely
unlikely. Even an engine failure is normally OK.
The difference between a cheap and dirty plane and a better one, over
say 60hrs, is insignificant on the longer term picture of flying as a
hobby.
The cheapest possible PPL will always be one done in the USA. There
are about 6 schools in Florida, and one in California, which offer JAA
PPLs. Anyway, one can fly a G-reg on an FAA PPL, worldwide (ref: ANO
article 26).

[Peter]

Post by Robert Eagle
There's an advantage in going to the USA to learn if you need to get your
licence quickly. But if you're not in a great hurry, there's no harm in
taking your time. and doing it closer to home.
I have heard very differing reports about schools in the USA, especially
Florida. It's advisable to get opinions from those who've been there.

I would not go to Florida. The schools there are nowadays pretty busy,
and as a foreigner you are limited to Part 141 schools (to get the
I-20, needed to get the M-1 visa). I did my IR in Arizona and would go
back there every time. The weather is excellent, which is a bonus for
what will always be a fixed time frame high workload project.

However, if you want a 100% JAA route then your only non-Florida
option is that school in southern California. People speak very well
of it. And one cannot do the JAA IR in the USA, though I heard one can
train towards it to some degree.

There are also options in Spain, which avoids the visa/TSA stuff. In
fact if I was doing the JAA IR I would look at Spain for that. There
are some possible issues over adding a Spanish issued JAA IR to a UK
issued PPL but one would sidestep this by picking up a Spanish PPL
while out there.

I've written some notes on the FAA route here
http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-pplir/index.html

One interesting option is an FAA PPL, on which one can fly a G-reg
worldwide VFR, and once you have 100hrs you can convert this (by
sitting ~ 3 UK exams and a checkride) to a JAA PPL. Then you have both
sets of paperwork, both standalone.

[Ross Younger]

Post by GB
Elstree is my local airfield, and there is another company there, Firecrest,
that seems to be about 40% to 50% cheaper. Is there anything to be said for
or against one or the other?

General advice is always to shop around. Different clubs and schools
operate differently in terms of how they run their show and the sort
of a feeling you get around the clubhouse. In particular it's very
worthwhile to try and find an instructor you get on well with and stick
with them as far as possible - that way you can keep up good continuety
throughout the course.

I don't know how Cabair's Elstree branch run their show, but Cabair as a
whole is a very commercial-oriented organisation; a lot of their income
comes from students doing the whole ATPL course. Bear this in mind when
comparing them against other operations.

All I can suggest is that you go and visit Firecrest to see if the club
suits you; see if you can find out what their existing customers think.
If you can, have a word with Malcolm (the man behind Firecrest), if he's
not up to his armpits working in the hangar - he's a great guy, full of
tales - tell him about your flying background and see what he thinks.
(I should disclose that I know Malcolm, and he hopefully remembers
me. I'm not a Firecrest customer, but I probably would be if Elstree was
more convenient for me. I understand that Malcolm is a licensed aircraft
engineer himself, and this allows him to keep his costs lower than they
would otherwise be.)

Post by GB
Does the age of the aircraft matter? Firecrest seem to use Cessna 150s and
172s. I checked one of the numbers, and it appears to be about 20 years old.

No, it doesn't really matter, not to a PPL student. I'd venture that
new aircraft are probably not worth the premium unless you've got (or
are training towards) an Instrument Rating.

I'd say that the majority of UK club aircraft are 20-40 years old.
The maintenance regime is very strict, even for light aircraft,
and because of this there's no real difference from a safety point
of view. The practical difference is that a newer aircraft is more
likely to be in good nick (good paint job, plush interior, brand new
state-of-the-art avionics) - and that you'll pay extra for this, not to
mention contributing (also via the hire rate) towards the higher capital
cost of a new aircraft. OK, so newer designs tend to be lighter and more
fuel-efficient (and some use jet fuel, which is currently significantly
cheaper than the avgas that most piston aircraft drink) - but I suspect
that this is outweighed by the difference in capital cost in most cases.

Post by GB
My only gripe with the tuition of Cabair was one particular incident that
happened in my third lesson. [...]

Could just have been an honest slip-up. Instructors are only human,
after all.


Ross

[Peter]

Post by Ross Younger
No, it doesn't really matter, not to a PPL student. I'd venture that
new aircraft are probably not worth the premium unless you've got (or
are training towards) an Instrument Rating.

I very much disagree with the above as stated - it all depends on why
one is learning in the first place. If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think long,
otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

[Ross Younger]

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think long,
otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.


Ross

[GB]

Post by Ross Younger

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think
long, otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.

Could you kindly explain that a bit more, please. At the moment, I'm just
looking at a PPL. Instrument flying would be interesting, too, but I'm 55 so
too old for the airlines.

[Peter]

Post by GB

Post by Ross Younger

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think
long, otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.

Could you kindly explain that a bit more, please. At the moment, I'm just
looking at a PPL. Instrument flying would be interesting, too, but I'm 55 so
too old for the airlines.

I sort of tried to answer that earlier in this thread. In case you
missed it, here is my post again:

I have no experience of the firms you mention, and I doubt you will
get anybody to openly criticise them even if they wanted to ;)

Today, a PPL (based on the UK average of 55-65hrs, not the 45 minimum)
costs upwards of £10k. Schools may quote lower figures but any quote
will be based on 45hrs total time which you are NOT going to achieve
unless you either have exceptional ability, or have done considerable
unlogged time (e.g. flying around as a passenger with another pilot
who informally teaches you the procedures and lets you fly).

Most GA training planes are old, but some are worse maintained than
others. I learn on some awful wreckage. But some schools are operating
nice stuff e.g. Diamond DA40 types.

Many people learn to fly purely as a personal challenge and chuck it
in as soon as they are done. Then, the type doesn't matter. If however
you are learning to fly with a view to doing some serious flying
afterwards, AND you have the budget to do such flying (many people
inexplicably get a PPL even though they must have known they would
never have the budget for ongoing flying) then it would pay to learn
with a school which offers reasonable quality hardware on self fly
hire basis.

Safety comes largely from currency ON TYPE and this policy will both
save a lot of money (on conversion training) and will make you a
better and safer pilot sooner.

As regards the incident, that could happen to anyone. A person in the
LH seat has a poor view to the right, and a person in the RH seat has
a poor view to the left. And no matter how good your lookout is, you
are not going to spot the vast majority of other planes. Assuming
straight line trajectories, a plane on a *genuine* collision course
will appear as a *stationary* point in your field of view and thus
virtually impossible to spot. If you have two people up front, you
both needs to look out for stuff as far as possible. If flying alone,
you need to be extra careful with RH turns and in general avoid them
completely. The best protection from the already extremely low risk of
a mid-air is to fly above the general PPL population i.e. above say
2500ft. Nearly all UK midairs have happened at or below 1000ft.

x----------x

[Tim Ward]

Post by GB

Post by Ross Younger

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think
long, otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.

Could you kindly explain that a bit more, please. At the moment, I'm just
looking at a PPL. Instrument flying would be interesting, too, but I'm 55
so too old for the airlines.

Depends what you want to do. If you want to get a licence, put it on the
shelf, then do something else, any old junk heap will do. (Provided you
don't mind the cancelled lessons whilst it's being mended.)

If, having got your licence, you want to carry on flying, then depending on
what sort of (amateur) flying you fancy:

- local joy rides
- aerobatics
- touring
- flying from your farmer mate's field
- instrument flying
- floatplane flying
- etc etc

and so on, you'll find some aircraft are more to your taste than others.
Personally I prefer to pay more for newish aircraft with full sets of
working electronics for the local joy rides and small amount of VFR touring
I do - others would be content with cheaper old bangers with a dodgy radio
and hand-held GPS and no other nav gear for the same type of flying. It's up
to you.

[Martin Sapsed]

Post by GB

Post by Ross Younger

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think
long, otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.

Could you kindly explain that a bit more, please. At the moment, I'm just
looking at a PPL. Instrument flying would be interesting, too, but I'm 55 so
too old for the airlines.

Look at it another way. If you drive, do you have a newish car which
you'll replace every few years or a 10 year old Escort? They both do
broadly the same job but the former will be more comfortable, won't have
bits that don't work, will be less likely to be out of action for
repairs, may have nice extras (sat nav, air-con, cruise control).

If you're regularly doing long journeys, the former will be much more
appealing. If you're just doing local trips, the latter would be fine.

Does that help?

Martin

[GB]

Post by Martin Sapsed

Post by GB

Post by Ross Younger

Post by Peter
If one just wants a PPL to tick
the "learn to fly before I die" box (as many do) that I agree. But
looking longer term, no way. In this business one needs to think
long, otherwise one wastes a lot of money and a lot of training.

Fair point; I perhaps wasn't as clear as I could have been.
I agree, it's a different ballgame entirely if your intention is the
airlines or serious IFR touring.

Could you kindly explain that a bit more, please. At the moment, I'm
just looking at a PPL. Instrument flying would be interesting, too,
but I'm 55 so too old for the airlines.

Look at it another way. If you drive, do you have a newish car which
you'll replace every few years or a 10 year old Escort? They both do
broadly the same job but the former will be more comfortable, won't
have bits that don't work, will be less likely to be out of action for
repairs, may have nice extras (sat nav, air-con, cruise control).
If you're regularly doing long journeys, the former will be much more
appealing. If you're just doing local trips, the latter would be fine.
Does that help?

I think there's a point in there that's so obvious to you guys that you are
not actually saying it. Using the car analogy, if I learn to drive on an
escort, I can drive any broadly similar car. I get the impression that I
might need to cross-train if I start flying a different aircraft, even if
they are both single engine, 'simple' aircraft? Also, would something like a
Cessna 172 not have instrument flying capability then?

I guess that a 20 year old aircraft might not have GPS built in then? But,
don't you have to have some backup alternative anyway? So far, my navigation
has consisted of 'follow the M25 round until you're over the golf course,
then turn right over the 3rd hole and the airfield is 2 miles dead ahead'.

[Peter]

Post by GB
I think there's a point in there that's so obvious to you guys that you are
not actually saying it. Using the car analogy, if I learn to drive on an
escort, I can drive any broadly similar car. I get the impression that I
might need to cross-train if I start flying a different aircraft, even if
they are both single engine, 'simple' aircraft? Also, would something like a
Cessna 172 not have instrument flying capability then?

Every plane feels a bit different, so yes some "differences training"
is usually needed. But not a lot - they all fly "the same way" in the
basic sense.

However, whereas you might be happy to climb into say a rental car and
drive off somewhere, having only worked out where the windscreen wiper
and indicator levers are, and not needing to know how to use the
lights if not planning to drive after dark, one would be dumb to do
that in a plane. So some extra familiarisation *is* needed. One also
needs to look up performance data for e.g. fuel planning.

A C172, if appropriately equipped, is fine for instrument flight.
Which is not to say that if you were out shopping for an instrument
capable plane you would buy a C172 :) Probably you would not, since
they are hardly the most stable platforms in turbulence, and their
range is not great for touring. But a C172 can operate from a
relatively short grass strip of say 400m, whereas a more purpose
designed IFR tourer (e.g. a TB20, SR22, etc) cannot. All depends on
your budget and mission profile...

Post by GB
I guess that a 20 year old aircraft might not have GPS built in then? But,
don't you have to have some backup alternative anyway? So far, my navigation
has consisted of 'follow the M25 round until you're over the golf course,
then turn right over the 3rd hole and the airfield is 2 miles dead ahead'.

This is going to get all the anti-GPS people crawling out of the
woodwork :)

Your method of navigation is fine for good clear weather, and never
going anywhere very far from home. One can use it for long distances
(and again someone is bound to say they flew from Elstree to Kathmandu
using only a map, compass and stopwatch) but it's hard work especially
in relatively featureless terrain, and is massively error-prone. And
while in the UK the "worst" you can do is end up overhead Heathrow and
bring it to a halt (which is itself pretty serious, and could be quite
dangerous) if you get lost in certain foreign places then things can
get a whole lot more exciting...

Personally I would even dream of flying anywhere significant without a
GPS, with another GPS as a battery powered backup.

Many rental planes will not have a GPS in the panel (panel mounted
units are "certified" and thus cost a lot more) but you can buy your
own and fly with that. When I used to rent, that is what I did. The
plane I rented was a piece of wreckage in which none of the nav
instruments (VOR, ADF, DME) worked.

Some long trips which were done under VFR are written up here
www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation

and I would not have done any of them without GPS. There is enough
excitement under VFR as it is, from ATC etc, without having to
remember to wind up the stopwatch :)

x----------x

[GB]

Post by Peter
The
plane I rented was a piece of wreckage in which none of the nav
instruments (VOR, ADF, DME) worked.

I thought these planes are all meant to be maintained to a good standard?
Surely that should include all the equipment on board?

[Tim Ward]

Post by GB

Post by Peter
The
plane I rented was a piece of wreckage in which none of the nav
instruments (VOR, ADF, DME) worked.

I thought these planes are all meant to be maintained to a good standard?
Surely that should include all the equipment on board?

It's perfectly safe and legal for none of the nav instruments to work, so
long as this is properly documented. It's up to you whether or not you wish
to hire such an aircraft, which will no doubt be cheaper than one in which
everything does work.

[Peter]

Post by GB

Post by Peter
The
plane I rented was a piece of wreckage in which none of the nav
instruments (VOR, ADF, DME) worked.

I thought these planes are all meant to be maintained to a good standard?
Surely that should include all the equipment on board?

Depends on the usage of the aircraft. For VFR, you don't need any
navigation equipment. For IFR, the UK ANO prescribes what equipment
must be carried (presumably working) for different classes of airspace
and stuff like whether paying passengers are being carries.

One day, when you get a PPL and an instrument qualification, you will
need to make a decision as to the quality / equipment level of the
aircraft which you are happy to fly. You may do what many renters do
and buy your own handheld GPS. I also bought a handheld (ICOM) radio,
in case of radio failure. And one's own headset of course - most club
headsets are knackered.

If you go further and join a syndicate, then you need to sort out at
the outset the attitudes of the other members to spending money on
equipment. If you need the nav stuff to work, but the other members
are all VFR-only pilots, they may be reluctant to contribute to
repairing expensive avionics they don't use. This is a major reason
for syndicate break-ups.

The only way to totally control the standard of the aircraft you fly
is to buy your own one. Or you could be lucky and live near an airport
where a school has a new one for rent - there are some around these
days.

[Tim Ward]

Post by GB
I think there's a point in there that's so obvious to you guys that you
are not actually saying it. Using the car analogy, if I learn to drive on
an escort, I can drive any broadly similar car. I get the impression that
I might need to cross-train if I start flying a different aircraft, even
if they are both single engine, 'simple' aircraft?

Not a lot, an hour or three.

Post by GB
Also, would something like a Cessna 172 not have instrument flying
capability then?

Some do, some don't. The new ones I fly do, old ones with broken or
non-existent radio navigation gear don't.

Post by GB
I guess that a 20 year old aircraft might not have GPS built in then?

Quite likely not. Lots of people take hand-helds.

Post by GB
But, don't you have to have some backup alternative anyway?

Yes indeed. For visual flying I look out of the window.

For backup I use VORs and NDBs and DMEs.

For second level backup I might actually bother to turn on the GPS; but only
if I'm really worried about my ability to find my way do I spend the extra
tens of minutes trying to programme the thing. (I did turn on the GPS on my
last trip - I found myself heading back into setting sun in a haze layer,
with forward visibility effectively zero, although I could still see the
ground directly beneath me. So I followed the ADF needle home ... and
occasionally glanced at the GPS as well.)

[akjcbkJA]

Post by GB
I was thinking about studying for a PPL. Last year, I flew for 5 hours with
Cabair in Elstree. I was quite happy with that (except see below). However,
their charges for a package to get to PPL seem very high - about £12-15k.
Elstree is my local airfield, and there is another company there,
Firecrest, that seems to be about 40% to 50% cheaper. Is there anything to
be said for or against one or the other?
Does the age of the aircraft matter? Firecrest seem to use Cessna 150s and
172s. I checked one of the numbers, and it appears to be about 20 years
old. Is that kind of aged for a plane of this type? Cabair's aircraft are
hardly new, either.
My only gripe with the tuition of Cabair was one particular incident that
happened in my third lesson. The instructor lectured me about the
importance of keeping a good look-out. Ten minutes later, he instructed me
to make a slow left turn. I queried that, as that would have taken us
straight into the path of another aircraft flying in the opposite
direction, at the same altitude, on our left hand side. The other aircraft
passed us about 30 seconds later. It seems an odd instructional technique,
if it was intentional.

There is nothing wrong with Firecrest. Their instructors are older and more
mature and may suit you more than some of the Cabair instructors who are
instructing on their way to something else.

Three other pieces of advice

don't pay up front, except by credit card.
Enjoy it - at 55 you can savour spending the thick end of £200 an hour
Don't suffer in silence if there is something you are not happy about.