Why Microlights Might Not Be the Silver Bullet for Flight Training Costs

When I first heard about the upcoming rule change allowing microlight flight training hours to count towards a Private Pilot Licence (PPL (A)), I was excited. As a long-time microlight instructor, I welcome this move. It’s a positive step that recognises the value of microlight experience. On the surface, it suggests a potential way to drastically reduce the cost of getting a PPL. Microlights are generally cheaper to run than traditional training aircraft, so it’s easy to imagine students saving a lot of money by doing part of their training in these lighter machines. However, in my 15 years of instructing on microlights, I’ve learned that things aren’t quite that simple. In this opinion piece, I want to share why microlights might not be the “silver bullet” for flight training costs that some hope, and what students and flying schools should consider before leaping in.

A Welcome Change – With Caveats

Under the new Civil Aviation Authority rule (laid-out in CAA ORS9 Decision 53, effective 1st October 2025), flight training in a three-axis microlight can now count towards the PPL (A) requirements. This is a big change in the UK pilot training landscape. It effectively opens the door for student pilots to log training hours in cheaper microlight aircraft and have those hours credited when they go for a full PPL (A) licence. It sounds like a big change for affordability in flight training.

While I applaud this new flexibility (anything that lowers barriers for aspiring pilots is good news), there are a few important caveats to understand. You cannot credit any solo flying done in a microlight towards your PPL – all the required solo hours and solo cross-country flights for the PPL must still be flown in a traditional General Aviation (GA) aircraft. In practice, this means a student could do a chunk of their dual instruction in a microlight with an instructor, but they’ll need to transition to a Cessna, Piper, or similar GA plane for the solo phases of training and the final test. Also, the training programme isn’t automatically shorter or easier; a qualified instructor will conduct a pre-course assessment and decide how much of your microlight experience can be credited and what additional training you need when switching to GA. In other words, it’s not as simple as swapping halfway through and cutting the course in half. There will still be a structured conversion process to ensure you meet all PPL standards.

The Temptation of Lower Costs

It’s easy to see why this change is attracting attention. Microlight flying has long been touted as a more affordable way to learn to fly. Hourly rates for microlight lessons are typically lower than for traditional PPL training on aircraft like the Cessna 152. For example, you might find microlight instruction around £140–£180 per hour, whereas a standard GA trainer might be £170–£250+ per hour at many schools. Fuel costs are lower (a Rotax 912 engine in a microlight sips mogas at perhaps 15 litres per hour, whereas a C152’s Lycoming drinks more expensive avgas at maybe double the cost per hour). Maintenance and operating expenses for microlights tend to be less as well. So on paper, if a student could do, say, 20 or 30 hours in a microlight at the lower rate, the potential savings could be significant – possibly thousands of pounds off the total training bill.

Beyond cost, modern three-axis microlights are capable aeroplanes. Many are equipped with slick avionics, GPS, and even glass cockpit displays, especially the newer 600 kg class microlights. They often have responsive handling and can be great fun to fly. For years, the microlight route has been a popular alternative for those pursuing recreational flying, precisely because of these cost and modernity advantages. Now, with those hours being recognised for the full PPL, it seems like the best of both worlds: start cheap and modern, finish with a full PPL.

However, before everyone rushes to book a microlight for their next lesson, I want to pump the brakes a little. In my experience, microlights are not a magic shortcut to a PPL. The training might actually end up taking longer or becoming more complicated in some cases, which can eat into those upfront savings. Let’s explore some of the practical challenges and hidden costs that could arise.

Weather and Scheduling Challenges

One of the first realities to consider is weather limitations. Microlights, by their nature, cannot tolerate the same windy or gusty conditions that a heavier GA aircraft can. They have a much lower wing loading and weight, which makes them more susceptible to turbulence and wind gusts. While the demonstrated crosswind limits for many microlights and GA trainers might look similar on paper, the real challenge lies in handling gusts. In the UK, gusty conditions are a frequent reality, and the higher wing loading and overall heavier weight of a GA aircraft like a Piper PA-28 give it greater stability in those situations. By contrast, many microlights have a slower approach speed and much lower wing loading, which means any gust represents a larger proportion of that approach speed and has a greater effect on the aircraft. This combination can make them more of a handful, and potentially hazardous, in strong gusts, particularly for less experienced pilots.

What does this mean for a student? More cancelled lessons and more waiting around for suitable weather if you’re training in a microlight. You might find that a day which is perfectly flyable for a Cessna (just a bit breezy) is a no-go for the microlight. Over a full course of training, those cancellations can add weeks or months to your timeline. There’s also the frustration factor – consistency is key when learning to fly, and if weather gaps keep you grounded, you may need refresher time to get back up to speed, which means extra hours (and cost). In the UK, where windy days aren’t exactly rare, this is a genuine consideration. Even if the microlight’s hourly rate is lower, a cancelled lesson is not free because you will still need to fly that hour later, and repeated weather delays can erode any cost advantage.

Even a modest gust can balloon a microlight back into the air on flare or push it off-centerline quickly. The aircraft’s light weight means it bleeds off energy fast, so you have to be very precise with your airspeed and flare timing. All of this can make mastering landings in a microlight more challenging for some students compared to landing a heavier GA trainer that carries more momentum and is a bit more stable. The learning curve for landings might be a bit steeper, potentially requiring more practice landings to reach proficiency. That again could translate to more hours in the circuit (which means more cost), offsetting the cheaper rate.

CT2k Microlight landing in gusty crosswinds

And let’s not forget the undercarriage strength. Microlights are built to be lightweight, and many have relatively spindly landing gear. They’re designed to absorb normal landings just fine, but hard landings or “arrival” touchdowns that a Cessna’s spring steel gear might shrug off can cause damage to a microlight. As an instructor, I can’t count how many slightly rough landings I’ve seen student pilots get away with in a GA aircraft that would probably have broken something on a typical microlight trainer. This means both instructors and students tend to be more conservative and careful in microlights, which is good for safety and skill development, but it might slow down your progress. A student might need to nail a consistently soft, on-speed landing in the microlight before we send them solo or move on, whereas in a more forgiving aircraft we might progress a bit sooner. Cumulatively, that could mean additional training hours spent achieving the required mastery.

Ikarus C42 microlight heavy landing

Differences in Handling and Equipment

Another factor to weigh is how different microlights can be in handling and cockpit layout compared to the GA aircraft you’ll ultimately fly for your PPL test. Many three-axis microlights have conventional control surfaces (stick or yoke, rudder pedals) but the similarities can be superficial. For example, one of the most common microlight training aircraft in the UK is the Ikarus C42, which has a joystick in the centre of the cockpit and a throttle lever between the pilot's legs. If you learn on the C42, you get used to flying with your right hand on the stick and left hand on the throttle (when flying from the left seat). Now switch to a Cessna 152 for your later training: suddenly you have a yoke in front of you and a throttle knob on the panel to your right – you’ll likely be using your left hand on the yoke and right hand for throttle. It’s a mirror image of the control usage, and it can feel quite foreign at first! I’ve seen students need a few hours to stop instinctively reaching for that nonexistent centre stick or to break habits like using the wrong hand for certain tasks.

Besides the controls, instrumentation is another big difference. Microlights, especially older or simpler models, often have a very basic VFR instrument fit: airspeed, altimeter, slip ball, compass, maybe an engine monitoring display and a portable GPS. What you won’t usually find are the traditional “six-pack” of flight instruments (no artificial horizon or gyro compass in many cases), nor nav aids like VOR or NDB receivers.

Ikarus C42 Cockpit

Flight Design CT2k Cockpit

They’re simply not required for microlight flying and add unnecessary weight. In addition, many microlights have different panel layouts and equipment levels, even on the same model, because many of them are custom designed during manufacturing for the buyer. The standard layout of flight instruments on the left, radio stack in the centre, and engine gauges on the right is not strictly maintained in the micolight world. I realise that this is also the case for many GA aircraft, but the panel on a typical school trainer is fairly standardised.

This means two things for a PPL student: 1) No instrument flying practice – PPL training requires you to do some instrument reference flying (simulating inadvertent IMC) using an artificial horizon or at least a compass and turn coordinator. In a microlight without those, you can’t really practice that part until you get into the GA plane. And 2) Re-learning to use different avionics when you transition.

There’s nothing insurmountable here – good training will cover it – but it’s an extra adjustment that can take time.

Then there’s the engine and systems. Most fixed-wing microlights use the Rotax 912 series engine (or similar Rotax models). These operate quite differently from the Lycoming/ Continental engines in typical training aeroplanes. A Rotax has no mixture control for the student to manage, it usually runs at much higher RPM with a gearbox reduction drive to the propellor, and it might have dual carburettors with a manual choke for starting. It’s also liquid-cooled, so you watch coolant temperature in addition to oil temp. When you jump into a Cessna, you’re suddenly dealing with an older-style engine system: you’ll have to learn how to manage mixture, there’s typically a carb heat control to prevent icing, and the engine feels and sounds very different (a lower RPM rumble versus the high-pitch whir of a Rotax). Transitioning students could find the engine handling portion confusing at first, for example, remembering to apply carb heat or adjust mixture, which they never had to do in the microlight. Again, this isn’t a show-stopper, but it does mean your first few hours in the GA plane might be spent just getting comfortable with engine checks and procedures that would have been second nature had you trained on that system from day one. It’s additional learning overhead.

Rotax 912 ULS fitted to a Flight Design CTSW (microlight)

To summarise, when you eventually switch from microlight to GA aircraft in your training, you’ll go through a period of adaptation. During that time, you may not be making forward progress on new syllabus items; instead, you’re getting up to speed with different controls, instruments, and procedures. That adds to the total hours you’ll need before you’re test-ready. The hope with counting microlight hours is that you’re not starting from zero when you move to the larger plane, and you’re not, the general flying skills do carry over, but expect a bit of a step backwards initially as you adjust. The more different the microlight is from the GA trainer, the bigger that step might be.

Instructor Experience and Training Quality

From a flying school’s perspective, incorporating microlights into a PPL training programme isn’t as simple as buying a cheap aircraft and tossing students into it. Instructor experience is a critical factor. While any flight instructor with a Single Engine Piston rating can technically instruct on a microlight (since 3-axis microlights can be covered under their licence with differences training), not all instructors truly understand microlight flying. I’ve worked with many instructors over the years, and those coming from a pure GA background often underestimate how different instructing in a microlight can be.

For instance, an instructor used to a PA-28 might feel comfortable flying in a 15 knot crosswind because the Piper can handle it, and they might assume the microlight can too – which could lead to a hairy situation if they push the limits. In many cases a microlight has the similar maximum demonstrated crosswind figures in the AFM, but the ability requirements to handle those crosswinds differs greatly. Or they might not anticipate how quickly a microlight can get into a pilot-induced oscillation on landing if the student over-controls; in a heavier plane, the inertia damps it out, but in a microlight it can escalate fast, and the instructor needs to be on the ball to take control. I’ve seen GA instructors get a surprise the first time a gust caught a microlight on short final.

Because microlights are less forgiving in some aspects, an instructor really should have a solid amount of microlight-specific flying under their belt before teaching ab-initio students in one. In my view, a brief differences or conversion course for the instructor is not enough. They should spend time really getting to know the aircraft’s quirks, perhaps flying with an experienced microlight instructor for a while, before they start teaching newcomers. A flying school that wants to offer this cost-saving route needs to invest in instructor training and standardisation for microlights. If they don’t, there’s a risk that students won’t get the smooth, quality training they deserve – or worse, an underprepared instructor could let a situation get out of hand, leading to a damaged aircraft or shaken confidence.

There’s also a school culture adjustment. In many traditional flying schools, the tempo is set around the broader-weather capability of GA planes. Introducing microlights means the school needs to be prepared for more weather cancellations and different maintenance schedules. If a school tries to treat a microlight exactly like their other trainers without adapting procedures, they might run into issues. On the flip side, schools that are already microlight schools have this knowledge baked in. For them, this rule change could be a boon – they might attract new students who plan to do some hours with them and then transition to a PPL elsewhere. It’ll be interesting to see how those collaborations pan out (and hopefully students won’t be ping-ponging between schools too much, as that can itself reduce training efficiency).

The Question of Real Savings

All these considerations lead to the big question: Will using microlights actually save money for the student in the end? The honest answer is “it depends.” There are situations where it could work well. If the microlight type used for training is very similar in performance and handling to the GA aircraft that will be used later, the transition is likely to be smoother and require fewer additional hours. It can also make sense for a pilot who intends to fly both microlights and GA aircraft after gaining their licence, as experience in both will be directly relevant to their future flying. Finally, if there is a significant price difference between the hourly rate for microlight and GA lessons, and the training can be planned in a way that avoids extra hours during the transition, then real savings are possible.

On the other hand, if a student’s end goal is purely to fly “Group A” GA aircraft (your typical club Cessnas, Pipers, etc.), the case for using microlights to save money is less compelling. Remember that most students take a bit more than the minimum training hours to be fully ready. If mixing microlights in means the total hours creep up, say you end up doing 50 or 60 hours in total due to extra adaptation and weather delays, then any cost saving per hour might evaporate. It’s conceivable someone could spend more in aggregate if things don’t go smoothly. In that case, the “cheaper” route doesn’t actually save money. The worst-case scenario would be a student who struggles with the switch, loses confidence, and ends up needing even more hours to get comfortable again. Any initial savings would be nullified.

We also have to consider the type of microlight used. Not all microlights are vastly different from their GA counterparts. The UK has adopted a 600 kg microlight classification now, which includes some very capable aircraft. Some of these, like the TL-3000 Sirius or Skyleader 400, have performance close to or even better than the classic two-seat GA trainers. They cruise faster, have modern avionics and fuel costs are much lower. They sound ideal – except they come with a hefty price tag. A brand-new high-end microlight can cost in the realm of £120,000 to £170,000+. If a flying school invests in one of these modern microlights to give students a seamless training experience, they will have to charge comparable rates to a GA aircraft or even more to get a return on that investment. So the student might be flying a “microlight” but paying nearly the same as they would for a Cessna hour, effectively negating the cost benefit. On the flip side, the cheaper microlights may not be suitable for heavy training use or for mixing into a PPL programme for the reasons already outlined. It’s a bit of a Catch-22: the microlights that integrate best into a PPL syllabus aren’t much cheaper, and the ones that are cheaper come with more compromises.

The Sirius TL-3000 microlight represents the new 600 kg category and is closer to its GA counterparts than the older generation of microlights.

Now, I do not want to sound negative about this change. There are benefits to training in microlights beyond just the lower hourly rate. In my opinion, a pilot who learns to handle a microlight’s quirks, such as weather sensitivity and the need for precise control, can become a more skilled pilot overall. You really do hone your stick-and-rudder finesse when you learn in a lighter aircraft. Many microlight pilots transition to heavier aircraft and find it relatively easy because they have been sharp on the fundamentals from the start. From a training quality perspective, mixing in microlight experience could produce pilots with greater adaptability and stronger hands-on flying skills. That is a plus that is not immediately reflected in pounds or hours.

Many microlight pilots transition to heavier aircraft and find it relatively easy because they have been sharp on the fundamentals from the start.

Ultimately, we will have to wait and see whether this new mixed training approach will catch on and deliver the savings people hope for. My hunch is that it won't become the standard route for most PPL students, except perhaps those who already have experience in the microlight world. It is certainly a welcome option to have, and I think it will be used in some specific cases. For example, a microlight club member who wants to upgrade to a full PPL can now credit what they have done instead of starting from scratch. For the average student walking into a typical flying school, I suspect many will still go the traditional all-GA route once they understand the practical trade-offs.

A Positive Move, But No One-Size-Fits-All Solution

In conclusion, allowing microlight hours to count toward PPL (A) requirements is a positive and progressive move by the CAA. It acknowledges that a flying hour is a flying hour, and valuable skills can be learned in all kinds of aircraft. I am genuinely happy to see this flexibility as it will give students and schools more creative ways to structure training, and it might introduce more people to the joys of microlight flying. However, microlights are not a magic solution for the high cost of pilot training. The laws of physics and economics still apply. What you save in hourly rates, you might pay for in additional hours or logistical adjustments. Each student’s situation will be different.

If you are a student pilot considering this option, go in with your eyes open. Think about what aircraft you ultimately want to fly and where you will be flying. Talk to instructors who have experience in both microlights and GA. You might even consider doing an introductory lesson in each type to compare. There is nothing wrong with taking a hybrid approach, but be prepared for a little extra work bridging the gap between machines. If you choose the microlight route, embrace it for what it is: a chance to broaden your flying experience rather than only save money. The goal at the end of the day is to become a proficient and safe pilot in whichever aircraft you fly.

For flying schools, this change offers an opportunity to diversify, but it comes with challenges as well. A school that successfully integrates microlights into PPL training will likely be one that invests in proper instructor training, chooses the right equipment, and sets realistic expectations with students about how the process will work. Done right, they could produce some excellent pilots and perhaps carve out a reputation as an innovative training organisation. Done poorly, it could lead to frustrated students or overworked aeroplanes in the maintenance hangar.

As someone who’s passionate about microlight flying, I’m excited to see how this unfolds. But I’ll be watching with a cautious eye, and I encourage students to weigh the pros and cons carefully. Microlights might be a piece of the solution to training costs, but they’re not a silver bullet that instantly slays the £15k PPL dragon. Flying still costs money, and there’s no way around putting in the time and effort to earn that licence. This rule just gives us a new path to consider on that journey.

What do you think? Are you tempted to mix microlights into your PPL training, or would you rather stick to one type of aircraft throughout? If you’re an instructor or a flying school, are you planning to offer this blended approach? I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences – share them in the comments below!

Achieve Your Goals with Bitesize Online Ground School

Whether you train on a microlight or a Cessna, one thing remains constant: you will need to pass the theory exams. Many student pilots find the study aspect just as challenging as the flying. This is where QuizAero’s online ground school can help you shine. Our course is designed to make learning all that aviation theory clear, engaging and convenient. You can study at your own pace with bitesized lessons, 3D animations and hundreds of practice questions that prepare you well for the real exams. We cover every topic you need for PPL and NPPL (Microlight), from Air Law to Navigation, all updated to the latest standards. By preparing with QuizAero, you will go into your exams feeling confident and well-prepared. Since it is online, you can fit your study sessions around your flying schedule. If the weather cancels your lesson, you can turn the day into a productive study session instead. No matter which aircraft you fly, solid ground knowledge is the foundation of a safe pilot. Start your ground school with us and get one step closer to achieving your pilot licence.

Get Started

For Flying Schools: Partner with QuizAero’s Reseller Programme

Flying schools, are you looking at the new microlight rule and wondering how to make the most of it? One way to enhance your training offering (and your revenue) is by joining the QuizAero Reseller Programme. This scheme lets you offer our proven online ground school courses directly to your students as part of your training packages. It’s a win-win: your students get access to top-notch theoretical training content, and your school earns a commission on each signup – without any cost to you. QuizAero can seamlessly integrate with your operations, whether you prefer to include our courses in your own website or simply recommend them to students in person. We take care of the heavy lifting: course updates, tech support, and even progress tracking. You’ll be able to monitor your students’ exam readiness through our instructor dashboard, so you know they’re on track before you send them for ground exams. By partnering with us, you’ll be equipping your students with the best study tools available and reinforcing your school’s reputation for quality training. It’s an easy way to add value to your courses and generate extra income for your school. Interested in elevating your training programme? Get in touch with us to find out more about the reseller scheme. We’d be excited to collaborate with you and help your students succeed.