As an out-of-state student 2001-2005, Purdue cost me approx. $110k which included tuition, flight fees, & lodging (dorm one year, off-campus housing the next 3). Had I been an Indiana resident, I could have cut that cost by 35-40%.

For the same total expense, I could have attended University of Kentucky, done all my flight training through CFI-AIM @ LEX, bought 200hr of multi time and a CE500 type rating, gotten a new car and still been a few grand less total cost.

Despite that, I have no regrets whatsoever for the choice I made.

 

That's actually not that bad. It is a large investment no matter where you go, so you might as well enjoy the heck out of it. Really just depends how much you are willing (and able) to invest.

 

"1960 CESSNA 150A, TT 3900+, new annual, needs paint & interior improvement, $11,000. KY"

Just one of many ad's in the Trade-a-Plane.....

Purchase a cheap plane, hire an instructor and save a ton of cash. My experience has been that most people with an interest in learning to fly want a new 172, Cirrus or Diamond. Not many really want to fly an old tired Piper Colt or C150. If they can't fly the newest equipment, then they chose not to fly at all. The expense of 80k is not a variable in the decision making process, only "can I get the loan?"

My son is truly happy to learn in our "old" family airplane. It's equipped to complete his ppl and instr. He has flown the Diamonds with me but doesn't "prefer" the glass,,, he's just happy to be airborne. Btw, he's 13. Another friend of ours is 15 and learning to fly his Dad's Pacer. Never heard him once say he wanted something newer.

In a few years, we'll most likely pick up a 310 or Apache. Do the tickets, build some time and sell the bird. Hopefully, I'll be able to launch my son with his tickets and zero debt.

Bottom line, in my opinion..
There will be many that will not fly if it's not modern glass,,, so be it, don't fly, do something else.

 

On that note. I would rather prospective airline pilots have more experience in Round Gauges than Glass. Anyone can transition from steam to glass it is much harder to transition the other way around. Add to that having to see steam for the first time when your at a 121 operation is just irresponsible. I understand FBOs and 141 places want to attract more people but what about safety?

 

Amen, Kapt...it is irresponsible to be training primary in a Cirrus, Diamond, or G1000 anything.

 

"Irresponsible"? Why?

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call it irresponsible, but I would have to ask what's the point? A primary student should be looking out the window anyway - the shiny screens are just going to distract (oh, and cost a lot more money too). I have to question the ethics of all these schools that stick someone in a glass airplane for early training.

 

Again..."question the ethics"? Why?

 

I think people are using the wrong words here to get their point across: "question[ing] the ethics" for examples. There is no *ethical* question here. There are people who feel that learning on round gauges is the best way to learn and there are others who believe that learning on modern equipment that the pilot is actually more likely to use when they first step into an airplane is the best course of instruction. There are probably pros and cons for each approach. Time marches on and so does the technology and training techniques.
One we are fighting in my profession right now is the use of simulators for actual tactical situations. How much actual flight time are they going to replace with simulator time? Certain types of flights lend themselves to simulator training (smart weapons e.g.) whereas BFM just can't be simulated in the same way.

USMCFLYR

 

I think a lot of the complaining comes from the cost of glass cockpit g1000. My feeling is that students do NOT need to learn how to do a stall in a g1000. However, it is a personal choice, and if they want to spend the money, then so be it.