Ultralight For Sale

Economical Ifr

what is the cheapest way to obtain your CFI rating?

What is the best most economical route to take, so far I have thought about buying a cheap ifr certified plane with a partner or two, going into the Navy, flight clubs but they are just as expensive as renting, also what is the cheapest way to get IFR certification, free lance CFII willing to work cheap?

The bulk of the cost of attaining your ratings is aircraft rental. The instructor makes a relatively small portion, roughly about 10%. Given typical rates for flight training, say $45/hr for the instructor and $130/hr for the primary aircraft you'll fly, such as a later model Cessna 172, you will spend about $2,800 to $3,000 on instructor fees and about $35,000 on aircraft rental to go from student pilot to CFII in a single engine aircraft.

If done right, buying your own IFR certified airplane and paying top dollar for the best instructor you can find is your cheapest route. A good instructor is worth his / her pay and will actually save you time and effort, while going for the cheapest instructor you can find will usually cost you more in the long run if you don't get good training. Freelance instructors often charge comparable, or even a bit cheaper than flight school rates.

If you buy an aircraft intelligently, you can sell it after you get your ratings without losing much (if any) money, so all you'll be out is fuel, insurance, tie-down fees, financing costs and maintenance. If you buy a decent plane and do all the flying in under 12 months, your maintenance costs should be reasonably low as well. Some of the costs will vary depending on the part of the country you live in.

You're not going to save a huge amount of money by buying a plane to train in and selling it when you're done, but if well executed such a plan can cut the total cost of getting your ratings by about 20% to 25% over renting a flight school aircraft. Besides that, you'll have the flexibility to do something really fun (and well worth the experience you'd gain) like flying coast-to-coast and back at your leisure if you want to. Try that with a flight school plane. It's not usually a possibility.

After I received my PP license I bought a 1971 IFR Cherokee 140 to build hours in. The only plane I needed to rent was a Piper Arrow for 12 hours - 10 to meet the commercial pilot requirement and 2 for taking checkrides. I didn't lose money on the plane when I sold it and actually made a little money. I flew all over the country (literally) in that airplane. Coast to coast twice. Covered 37 states and nearly two hundred different airports. Great experience no flight school could have given me.

Lets say you want to go as cheap as possible. Find a decent IFR certified Cessna 150 / 152 for around $25,000 and fly it for 240 hours. Your fuel cost at 6gph @$4.25 per gallon will be about $6,000, a year of insurance will maybe set you back $1500 (if you start as a student pilot), financing for 12 months will cost about $3,500 if you put 20% down on it, tie-down for a year will cost about $750, maintenance will cost about $500 for oil changes every 50 hours and other minor maintenance, and an annual inspection will cost about $1,000 if no major repair is required. Lets say you lose $2,500 when you sell it. Your total investment will be $15,500 for 240 hours of flying, plus another $3,000 in instructor fees, $1,500 in examiner fees
(private, instrument, commercial, CFI, CFII), and throw in another $1,000 to cover incidentals like charts, books, cleaning supplies, written test fees, etc.

Then you'll have to rent a complex high-performance airplane for about 15 hours plus instructor so you can do the required 10 hours for your commercial pilot certificate and also demonstrate proficiency on your CPL and CFI checkrides. Let's say the plane and instructor costs $275 an hour, so add another $4,000.

Your total cost to go from student pilot thru CFII would then be about $25,000 in big round numbers. It's very doable IF you buy the right plane at the right price and don't screw around or screw up. If you do your homework and buy right, you might lose no money at all when you sell the plane, so your cost might be $22,500. If you fly in a part of the country where fuel is 50 cents a gallon cheaper than average, then you'd save another $700. If you could find a decent instructor who would charge $45 instead of $50 an hour, you might save another $300. If you fly conservatively at economy cruise power and higher altitude on cross-country flights, you could probably trim another $500 off your total fuel bill. If you do the oil changes yourself and help with the other maintenance, you could probably save another $500. With the right mix of cost-cutting measures and not losing any money on resale of the plane, you could theoretically get the total cost down to about $20,000.

Going through a flight school and renting a C-152 for the bulk of your flying, it will cost you about $28,000 (including renting the complex airplane for 15 hours) IF you could rent one as cheap as $85 an hour and you purchase renters insurance (a very smart investment). So you see, you aren't really going to save a bundle of money and there are certain risks involved with owning an airplane, but I personally feel the trade-off is well worth it to fly when and where you want to, plus you learn a lot of valuable things when you own your own plane that you aren't likely to learn if you rent.

Flying Ifr By Collins, Richard L. $24.4 Author: Collins, Richard L. Subtitle: The Practical Information You Need to Fly Actual Ifr Flights Publication Date: 2001/09/01 Binding Type: Paperback Language: English Depth: 0.75 Width: 6.00 Height: 9.00

Flying IFR : The Practical Information You Need to Fly Actual IFR Flights $14.89 No Synopsis Available

IFR for VFR Pilots : An Exercise in Survival $14.89 No Synopsis Available

XCELITE 2CSKCATV ECONOMICAL PRE-ADJUSTE $25.99 XCELITE 2CSKCATV ECONOMICAL PRE-ADJUSTE

Kenda Economical Butyl ATV Tube $28.99 Kenda Economical Butyl ATV Tube

Economical Writing $12.89 No Synopsis Available

The Economical Table $28.76 No Synopsis Available

Economical Cookery $40.23 No Synopsis Available

Kenda Economical Inner Tube $24.99 " Fits Tire Size: 5.00/5.10/5.30 Tough, butyl rubber Sizes to fit motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, trailers and go-carts High quality at an economical price"

---

Account limit of 2098 requests per hour exceeded.

For Sale Glasair 1 FT

Disagreement In Ifrs Convergence

Approaching IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) through a converged set of accounting standards, as announced by India, is a highly inconsistent but alternative line of thinking, observes T. P. Ghosh, Professor in the Institute of Management Technology, Dubai International Academic City, UAE.

For starters, it may help to know why there is a growing interest among all capital market participants, including the SEC in the US, for accepting a single set of robust accounting standards. Many multinational companies and national regulators and users support global standards because they believe that the use of common standards in the preparation of public company financial statements will make it easier to compare the financial results of reporting entities from different countries, explains Ghosh, in the course of a recent interaction with Business Line over the phone and email.

"They believe it will help investors to understand opportunities better. Large public companies with subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions would be able to use one accounting language company-wide and present their financial statements in the same language as their competitors. Interestingly, 90 per cent of the respondents to an IFAC survey in 2007 said IFRS adoption is very important or important for economic growth ( www.ifac.org)."

What worries Ghosh is that many countries that claim to be converging to international standards may never get to full compliance. "Most reserve the right to carve out selectively or modify standards they do not consider in their national interest, an action that could lead to incomparability — the very issue that IFRS seek to address."

Excerpts from the interview:

Globally, is the IFRS debate getting caught up in rhetoric? Is there disharmony in the understanding of the terms associated with international financial reporting?

Possibly, the fair value measurement of assets and liabilities is not appropriately perceived. In particular, there is confusion about the methodology to be adopted for fair value measurement of non-traded financial assets at initial recognition; and subsequent measurement is not properly understood.

Nevertheless the IFRS concept gets adequate acceptance. Of course, in many jurisdictions the critical issue is the diminishing role of the national standard-setters in the post-IFRS adoption era. In the case of convergence, the national standard-setters can retain their roles and responsibilities.

Of course, there are certain serious conflicts such as the regulatory minimum depreciation versus accounting depreciation, or prudential provisioning versus accrued loss approach for provisioning. There is the fear of under-depreciation or under-provisioning.

International standard-setters have the concern of over-conservatism. National regulators could avoid this debate by creating regulatory reserve. Dividend distribution policy can easily be regulated taking care of the desired level of retention.

To add to our woes, there is also confusion about the term convergence. Malaysia wishes to converge to IFRS by 2012 but "convergence with IFRS means full compliance with IFRS as a basis for financial reporting system in Malaysia." On January 28, 2010, the Brazilian Federal Council of Accounting and the Brazilian Accounting Pronouncements Committee signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the IASB that sets end-2010 as the target date for full convergence with IFRS and establishes a framework for future co-operation between the organisations.

The Korean Accounting Standards Board (KASB) has adopted IFRS as Korean IFRS (K-IFRS) which are completely identical to IFRS except for the timing differences for newly-published IFRS. K-IFRS are proposed to be kept up-to-date as IFRS change.

K-IFRS will be required for all listed companies in Korea from 2011. Unlisted companies may elect to use K-IFRS. All listed companies other than financial institutions can apply K-IFRS as early as 2009 on a voluntary basis. This alternative is somewhat as in India except that the Indian Accounting Standards Board has been engaged in a lengthy process of reissuing exposure drafts on a globally exposed set of accounting standards for Indian convergence.

What is your view on India's approach towards IFRS?

India is pursuing a convergence approach. Convergence implies allowable differences in presentation, measurement, recognition and disclosures. Of course, it is not yet clear whether there will be full compliance or not. But the recent press release of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs signals divergence. It seems India will not apply IFRS 1, ‘First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards,' in the convergence process. There is already announcement of exemption from providing comparatives in the IFRS convergence, which is contrary to the requirement of IFRS 1.

Also, there is an announcement regarding the issuance of the revised Schedule VI. The IAS 16, ‘Property, Plant and Equipment,' on the contrary, requires depreciation charge based on estimated useful life, residual value and major components of an asset.

Unlike Malaysia and Canada, India has not yet signalled full convergence.

How has been the record in the implementation and adoption of national accounting standards in India? Do you expect that many of these issues will be ironed out in the post-IFRS era?

There are three issues — conflicting regulatory framework, divergent view of the national standard-setter on many accounting issues, and procedural delays.

Time lag in adopting a new accounting approach is very high in India although all Indian accounting standards are based on the IAS/IFRS. Improvement in the presentation of financial statements has been delayed because of regulatory framework. There is resistance to deregulate the format of the financial statements.

AS 16 to AS 29 were issued after an average time lag of five years. The time lag was due to ideological resistance. There has been very low acceptability of segment reporting, consolidation, and deferred taxation.

India does not have national standards on investment property, agriculture, share-based payment, non-current assets held for sale, etc.

Existing standards are not updated. Here, procedural delays may be major reasons rather than serious ideological differences. For instance, there could be no reason for revising conditions for revenue recognition or accepting the concept of operating segment. There could be no ideological difference in accepting balance-sheet liability method of deferred taxation.

AS 30 to AS 32 are issued but not implemented, which are major divergent areas. Understandably there is implementation difficulty. But it was the responsibility of national standard-setter to replace in a timely manner the orthodox investment accounting standard, which is another extreme of the application of historical costs ignoring the available fair market value of a financial asset.

As a result, almost all Indian standards have become divergent over the years.

Given the proposition of converged set of accounting standards, I don't think the situation will improve. The converged set of standards will become divergent in no time given the adaptation time lag in India.

In what areas of IFRS transition do you foresee Indian corporates facing difficulties?

Difficult areas are many, of which the important ones are: componentisation of property, plant and equipment and making depreciation charge; recreation of cost records of property, plant and equipment for IFRS adoption or determining fair value which will be the deemed costs; measurement of amortised cost of financial liabilities and financial assets having scheduled cash flows; creation of tax base of assets and liabilities; decomposing compound financial instruments; and application of impairment analysis on loans and receivables in place of standardised provisioning.

Interestingly, any retrospective application of change in accounting policies and rectification of errors will cause considerable difficulties in the post-IFRS era. Local accounting software should be effective enough to capture retrospective application and retrospective restatement.

Any other points of interest.

Major issue is global harmonisation of financial reporting necessitated by the cross-border listing and fund-raising; this seems to be forgotten in the convergence process. Uniformity in financial reporting would be feasible through IFRS adoption, not through convergence with differences. The G-20 leaders also emphasised on global financial reporting standards.

Second, instead of reproducing a converged set of standards with differences or full convergence, it could be appropriate to list the IFRS clauses which India does not wish to accept and provide additional guidance wherever the national standard-setters think appropriate. This would help the issuer of financial reports and users to reconcile the divergences.

About the Author

Tags: aviation, economical ifr, ifr, reader_plates

Comments are closed.