For new student pilots, choosing an aero-club or Flight Training Organisation is just like choosing an instructor: at best it can be an educated guess, at worst it’s not more than a lottery. The choice is sometimes made easier by geographical reasons. I learned to fly in Geneva, and there’s only one aero-club there. Luckily, its fleet is wide, and ranges from basic trainers to high-performance single engine aircraft like the Piper Saratoga. When I started, the idea of having a Saratoga in a club seemed simply normal.

I later realised that not all clubs were offering such complex and fast aircraft. In Geneva, the rules applying to the Saratoga were more stringent than those for the other aircraft. Any pilot who had not flown the Saratoga in the last month had to ask his instructor who decided if some practice was requiered before the pilot could fly solo again. A minimal total flight experience was also required before a pilot could start a familiarisation on the Saratoga. Are such differences normal, when the regulations classifies all SEPs in the same class (except the PA-46 family) ?

These limitations sound sensible to me, given the level of skills required to safely operate a complex SEP. The extra workload and extra speed is slightly more demanding – nothing a Joe Pilot can’t overcome however. As often, the question “Can aero-clubs operate high-performance aircraft ?” hides another question: “Can average aero-club pilots fly high-performance aircraft ?”. Experienced pilots help to reduce the costs, as this is an important factor for insurance companies. The legal currency is not a limitation, and this brings us to the recency and personal minimums question again.

I know a lot of aero-club pilots – and I’m one myself. On one side of the spectrum are those who fly the minimal required to maintain their privileges and never fly more than 100 NM away. As they remain within a more controllable environment, they stay perfectly safe. But handling a complex SEP is probably beyond their limits. On the other side are those who regularly fly as far as Scandinavia or north Africa. Their yearly flight time is several time higher than standard members. Such pilots often fly high-performance only because it makes such trips possible, but they don’t fly enough to become aircraft owners.

When I got invited by Matthey to test-fly a Cirrus SR-22 from the Cirrus 147 group, I discovered a new way of organizing a club, somehow “restricted” to pilots flying a lot. Until that, I had never heard of a club offering Cirrus for rent. Is is so fast that only pilots flying more than the average can handle that ? Possible.

However, clubs are not more than the assembly of all their members. If enough members want, and can fly a high-performance aircraft, there are no reasons not to offer it. This was one of the things I loved when I was a member in Geneva: this club is offering almost all possible forms of aviation: basic planes for VFR, high-performance IFR, but also aerobatics, mountain flying with a ski-fitted Super-Cub, and even a Cessna 172 (now TDI) for high-wing fans. Running a club is a question of critical mass, and if a sufficient number of members gather around an activity, all becomes possible.

So yes, even if clubs offering high-performance aircraft are rather seldom, there is no counter indication to operating high-performance aircraft… as long as they have enough members, and appropriate regulations.