Question - carrying passengers

[archbishop]

Hi all

Can anyone tell me whether or not flights logged as P1/S I.e. my Skills Test can be be used as a takeoff/landing for the purposes of the 90 day rule? I've only flown as P1 twice since my test and my previous time logged as P1 during training has just ticked over 90 days.

Apologies if this is daft question but can't seem to find the answer.

Thanks

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Can't imagine why not. As it's "sole manipulator of controls" that's important Pu/t certainly counts; it's really difficult to imagine why P1/S wouldn't!

[archbishop]

Thanks for the reply. Reason I thought it might not count was because the examiner is logged as Captain even though he didn't touch the controls.

[mrmum]

GtW is correct, your operating capacity during the flight is irrelevant. You can be PIC (P1), P/UT, or PICUS (P1 U/S), it doesn't matter, you simply have to be the handling pilot, "sole manipulator of the controls" to use the correct wording

[sevenstrokeroll]

in the us...the examiner gets PIC time but so does the guy who is being checked...provided he passes!

[jollyrog]

I can see where this is going, so I'll ask now;

Which is the best headset please?

[3 Point]

Great post, LOL:D:D:D

[patowalker]

I expected someone to ask if the passengers have been told the number of your landings. They might encourage you to log some more before coming aboard. :)

[BackPacker]

Pato, I was thinking the same thing. If you are so desperate for landings that you need to worry whether the landings during your skills test count, you probably should not be carrying passengers by a long shot. Even though legally you may be entitled to it, it is wise? Better do an hour or so of T&Gs and general handling first.

When the ink is still wet on your license, the legal minimum for currency might not be enough, as you don't have experience to fall back on.

[archbishop]

Thanks for the replies. Point taken re level of experience having only recently passed. That said if someone wishes to fly with me and they are aware of this, I'd be happy for them to join me.

[charliejulietwhiskey]

Archbishop, I too have just passed and I reckon of course experience is an important factor however so is currency, having taken 11 months to do my PPL I've done 105 landings and 46 hours in the last 12 months and of course been supervised by a 9000 hour instructor on many of those.

To be honest Ive been shocked to see some very experienced old hands do some terrible landings after a winter without flying, some embarrassing. I realise that you dont go if you dont feel competant as a new pilot, safety first.

Maybe its a lot of these old know it alls knocking you!

[Halfbaked_Boy]

charliejulietwhiskey, I would rather fly with you than an 'old hand' that hasn't flown for the Winter anyday.

On the whole, I find that currency is more important than total experience. It's a close call (obviously total time being conductive to total experience), but in general, I've felt totally safe with somebody who is relatively inexperienced but has done a lot of recent flying and is very self critical.

Some of the moments during which my pants became most brown occurred when I was sat next to one of your 'old hands', with whom complacency had obviously set in and regular items were being forgotten until prompted by myself. Flaring at 20 feet, speed to 50 kts on final (PA28), flaps staying down until climbing past 3,000 feet, no regular checks (FREDA etc), the list goes on.

We're all guilty of forgetting, and leaving things a little late sometimes, but it's easy to identify the ones with further 'issues' that need addressing.

[charliejulietwhiskey]

I'm just saying that some people talk a good flight! To be honest I don't mind being inexperienced, self critical and always looking to improve, I'm no expert and would like to go forward always remembering that, I have still a lot to learn but at the end of the day the most important factor is......

I know that.

[RTN11]

The first 100 hours or so after licence issue is the real danger zone in terms of over confidence and lack of experience. I'd be very careful, and if you have a passenger lined up book an aircraft for two hours, do an hour of circuits and then all being well take the passenger up later. Certainly don't rush into passengers on your first ever flight after licence issue and constantly watch your back and evaluate every flight to analyse any problems creeping in.

As above currency is better than total experience, but I feel this only really applies once you have 150-200+ hours.

[Fuji Abound]

I dont think so.

I thought the evidence pointed in another direction.

The first 100 hours is pretty safe. The next few can be a bit dodgy, and then you should be ok.

At least intuitively that makes sense. You have had good habits drummed into you, most don't have the confidence to go too far or fly in more challenging conditions, that's the first hundred hours or so, then the confidence grows but not necessarily the skills to go with it, which have interestingly enough started to get a little sloppy, with luck you scare yourself and the experience starts to take over so you get less susceptible to being involved in an accident.

I think that's what the evidence points to, unless of course you know other wise.

[007helicopter]

Just to raise the mood somewhat & worth £20.00

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Killing-Zone-How-Pilots/dp/007136269X

The killing zone is reckoned to be the 50 - 350 hour period for new pilots being most at risk.

Either way go steady and do not put to much pressure on your self, the more on-going training and practice you can invest in the better and generate a healthy respect for passenger safety.

[charliejulietwhiskey]

I bought the killing zone whilst doing PPL, well worth a read, keeps you vigilant for sure!

[Fuji Abound]

The Killing Zone - we have debated that one before. In fact there is no evidence to support the statistical conclusions reached; it is never the less a good read.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The Killing Zone - we have debated that one before. In fact there is no evidence to support the statistical conclusions reached; it is never the less a good read.
Seconded. Ignore the rubbish statistics, read the case histories.

[peterh337]

Yes; the stats are largely rubbish because nearly everybody with a PPL chucks it in very roughly around the 100hr mark, and most of those people were doing just very easy very boring very low risk good-weather mission profiles (which is probably why they chucked it in ;) ). So the accident stats are bound to be skewed to show that those who hang in there a little longer start to have a few prangs.

[FlyingStone]

Statistics are useless - even if I calculate that I have a 1:1.000.000 chance that I'll have an engine failure tomorrow, nobody can't say with absolute certainty that I will have it or that I won't have it. The best ones are "flying is safer than driving" - there are too many factors, most of which aren't accounted for when people make "reliable statistics". It's like lottery - you have one in couple of million chances that you get the main award, but still - you could go betting every day for the rest of your life without earning a dime and some lucky bastard will win billions the first time he buys a ticket.

I too support The Killing Zone, very good book with many accident/incident reports combined with detailed analysis of each one. But basically, you only have to learn one simple word: NO. If weather isn't good, if aircraft has some inoperative item that you consider must-have, if you're tired/late, or if your gut says something isn't right - say NO and stay on the ground or away from specific threat. The moment you don't say no when you think you should, you've passed through hole in the first layer of swiss cheese sandwich.

[archbishop]

The gist of recent posts is that there is a danger for complacency and over-confidence to set in and that's where pilots become dangerous. At present, I still fly as if the examiner is sitting in the right hand seat, and I wouldn't hesitate to say "no" and cancel a flight where the conditions were less than desirable. I have made this call already on 2 or 3 occasions since I passed, and made the decision to turn back due to worsening conditions on a couple of solo nav's during training. I took up flying for pure enjoyment and see no fun in flying around dodging cloud and/or showers in poor vis. or fighting against strong blustery wind on finals - I'd much rather save my money and fly when the conditions are better, at least until I am more experienced. Where there's any doubt, I don't fly.

Incidentally, I've just ordered the Killing Zone from Amazon - sounds like an interesting read...

[charliejulietwhiskey]

Totally agree with everything you say, I'm very much in the same boat and have a similar train of thought.

[PompeyPaul]

This was something I was thinking about today. I have now logged 150 hours and my tolerance / borders are way wider today than they were when I first qualified.

The thing is that make things tough. I don't really know what is dangerous to me anymore. When I qualified the legal minima are clear, as are the local school's requirements i.e. no cross wind faster than 10kt.

Today I regularly fly outside of the bounds, but still above legal minima and it's tough to feel out where my limits now actually are :eek:

Today I was flying circuits in 15G25 but straight down the runway. As a student it was way outside of my bounds, but today it was challenging but fine.

That is what I'm really starting to struggle with right now, where are my minima? How do I find them?

They are well above legal minima, there's no way I'd take pax if I were anywhere NEAR the 90 day 3 takeoff/landing rules.

I will now use my IMCr to climb through cloud and fly VFR on top (in UK airspace) but don't feel confident enough to perform an IMC approach.

I guess what I'm babbling about is I can see what I am well in the danger zone because I'm so unclear as to where my limits are as opposed to when I first qualified.

[FlyingStone]

That is what I'm really starting to struggle with right now, where are my minima? How do I find them?

There are many ways to discover/set your minima. One is by simply saying for example that you won't go flying in less than 8 km visibility or divert if the destination is reporting less than 8 km visibility - and stick to that no matter what. Then, as time goes by when you have couple of VFR approaches with 8 km visibility (you can go flying intentionally when the weather is at the limit, to see how your limit looks like, but be prepared to divert if the wx goes below) under your belt and you will get used to it, you can lower your minima to 6 km and again - just stick to it. Same can go for crosswind, cloud ceiling, DA/MDA, visibility for IFR approach, currency, etc.

The other way is to scare yourself, which is most of us have done one time or the other. It usually looks like that - you depart in severe CAVOK only to find out an hour later that reported visibility is 8 km and decreasing. And by the time you get some distance to the airport it drops to 5 km, but you say to yourself that it's still VFR and that you can see enough far ahead to stay clear of obstacles and traffic. Then as you reach few miles out, it drops to 3 km, but you're still legal (at least in most Europe), you just ask for SVFR, because it will be night soon and you have that important family dinner tonight and you have to go home - plus the weather is still above legal minima so has to be safe, right? Then at some point, without even realising it, you find yourself crawling, possibly without ground contact in 2km or even less visibility and suddenly you see some part of ground you didn't expect... And then you get scared and see that VFR at SVFR minima is no picnic and if you don't run out of luck at that moment, you end up safely on the ground with a very valuable experience of scaring yourself (to death) and it'll be probably quite some time before you even think of trying that again. It's just one possible scenario of what could happen.

It all comes down to personality, if you are very strict with yourself no matter what, the first method is very good, although you will always keep wondering what the situation outside the envelope looks like. With the second method - again, if you're lucky - you see the outside part of the envelope and you know that it's best to stay inside your personal limits - knowing how close to incident/accident/death you were the last time you pushed those limits beyond your ability/currency/experience.

[Fuji Abound]

The only way to really discover your limits is to fly with someone who is comfortable with limits a good way beyond your own in conditions that may challenge you but not them. You do the flight and see how it goes. Simples really.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I would suggest (from experience) that you only challenge one limit at a time. Going for a flight involving both more challenging weather than usual and more challenging navigation than usual got interesting for me once - one or the other, not both, would have been more sensible.