12 hours, is it really enough to stay safe?

[Monocock]

If I only drove my car for 12 hours a year I reckon I'd be far more likely to make poor decisions at the wheel, misjudge speeds and distances and generally be very unconfident.

I know flying is costly and that 12 hours is as much as some can justify but is it really a safe number to allow a pilot to remain legal?:hmm:

[Kolibear]

If I flew 3 x four hour long x-countries, I'd be good at nav, but little else.

If I flew 40 circuits, my landings would be good, but little else.

I I flew once a month, I'd be current, but little else.

If I flew 12 hours in one month, I'd be skint, but probably quite good.

[stillin1]

I guess it depends on what you do with those 12 hrs. Low monthly / hr pilots really need to devote a reasonable proportion of the time they fly to ensuring that they get back up to speed on the stuff that matters - asap.
Circuits (including take-offs and landings), stalling / competant slow speed handling (or avoidance thereof) are a must IMHO. After that do the fun sightseeing, cloudbashing, mates impressing / scaring, cross country toodle (hrs-a-wasting) stuff. It is what having a puddle-jumper is all about.
Legislating a "more realistic" min hrs number would just get too beaurocratic. Altough I think "4 hrs every 6 months" would make more sense of the desire to have a few hrs and some recent currency. We all fly for the fun of it. We owe it to ourselves to be as good as we can, asap, every trip:cool:

spellin mistakes is cos i can't spell

[Whirlybird]

It depends.

If the pilot is experienced - eg loads of hours previously, airline pilot, helicopter pilot, microlight pilot - but only gets 12 hours on what we used to call group A aircraft, it's probably enough.

Otherwise, it depends on the person, but I would think it's enough if that pilot realises their own limitations and lack of experience. They ought to be able to fly short distances in good weather. They may or may not be able to cope with much more.

And as Kolibear says, it depends what you do with those 12 hours. However, I believe you have to have at least 6 hours as P1, and at least 12 take-offs and landings, though I'm not certain of that without looking it up. And of course one of those hours must be with an instructor.

That's my twopennorth anyway.

Now, helicopter pilots only have to have two hours per year per type, plus an LPC (Licence Proficiency Check) with an examiner. If you fly a number of types, fair enough. But only two rotary hours per year, or only two flying hours at all!!!!! :eek: I do have my doubts as to whether that is safe.

[Monocock]

Two hours!!!!

That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.

Are these limits set at such levels because the powers that be are concerned about the uproar there might be if they increase them.

BRL, can we have a poll as to whether the general view is that

a./ 12 hours is enough
b./ The limit needs increasing
c./ 12 hours is too many

[ozplane]

Just a thought but until recently under the CAA rules it was only 5 hours per year. Has the safety record improved since it's gone to 12? My feeling is that it may have got worse but I don't have the figures to hand.

[Fuji Abound]

I have found the check pilot type flights interesting in answering the question as to when a pilot is becoming unsafe.

As others have said the amount of previous experience is very relevant. I would assess that a pilot with 300 or more hours on type say within the last five or so years is noticeable better able to cope with relatively few hours in a year particularly if that time is well spaced throughout the year. In my experience the same pilot with six months without flying is almost certainly unsafe until he has completed two or three hours flying. In contrast the pilot with lower total previous hours becomes “rusty” far more quickly.

Again as others have said it is usually certain skills which deteriorate and these I would assess to be landings, particularly in cross wind, PFLs, instrument skills and of course any situation which requires the pilot to have surplus capacity.

I think the real danger for any pilot who is in a period of low hours and has not flown that recently is to take on an initial flight in conditions that are less than ideal - I know this seems obvious, but that cross wind that really wasn’t too much of a problem last year all of a sudden becomes a big issue!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I must be typical of a fair number of low hours PPLs in that I can afford to fly just about often enough to meet the club's 21 day currency rule. Whenever I do a landing that I'm not entirely happy with I spend my next hour practising circuits ... so I spend about one flight in three doing circuits.

Of course every now and then the weather scrubs a flight, so I then have to fly with an instructor, which is clearly a Good Thing. On Saturday I hadn't flown for five weeks, so booked the SEP re-validation lesson, and although my performance did show that I hadn't flown for five weeks I managed to frighten neither myself nor the instructor. And, following discussion here, did one circuit and landing with no ASI, which was not something I'd ever done before - turned out to be dead easy, leaving me wondering "so how come this has killed people then", but so many things leave me wondering that ... And in fact the weather was a bit yukky (vis and cloudbase) so there was nobody flying except IMC students and me. It was useful to do an hour in weather in which I wouldn't have left the ground if I'd been solo, and confirm that I could cope with it without any trouble.

So, I do a little more than the 12 hours per year, and when I feel myself to be less safe than I would like I do something about it. Am I as safe as people who fly lots more? No, I don't suppose so. Am I safer than some of the people I read about in the accident reports? I like to think so, but then, before it happened, probably so did they ...

[bar shaker]

Its a bare minimum to allow you to keep flying, its definitely not enough for you to consider yourself safe. By quite some margin, I would estimate.

You can take off ok, you can definitely fly somewhere and you can perform an acceptable landing on a long runway.

How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.

The statistics show that you would die.

[Whirlybird]

Just to get the facts straight....

It's not 12 hours a year; it's twelve hours every second year. You can legally not fly for a year, then do 12 hours the next year. Actually, you can legally not fly for 23 months, then do 12 hours in the next month. And I do wonder about the sanity of whoever invented that rule.

[ShyTorque]

23 months?

I need retraining if I take a long lunch break.... :rolleyes:

[Aim Far]

I agree 12 hours in 2 years doesn't make you a safe pilot but I'm not sure this is such a big problem.

It is pretty unlikely that someone flying less than 6 hours a year will have their own plane. So they are renting or sharing. Most clubs have far stricter currency requirements than that. So do sensible groups. Most owners wouldn't let someone who is not very current fly their plane solo. Most people who fly less than 12 hours a year will realise they need to take their inexperience into account in assessing what they can and cannot do.

So the number of people who will be able to fly when very out of practice is very small. And if they want to do it, why stand in the way of evolution weeding out the terminally stupid?

Personally, it annoys me when the rule-makers try to impose a rule to cover what should be common sense. They usually just get in the way of those who are trying to act sensibly while not doing anything at all for those they are targeting.

I would prefer to get rid of the 12 hour rule altogether and leave it to the market and pilots' common sense.

[Whirlygig]

Two hours!!!!
That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.
Yes, but, as Whirlybird said,
two hours per year per type, plus an LPC (Licence Proficiency Check) with an examiner.
If you fail the LPC, you have to go through retraining and your licence would be invalid. In practice though, one is unlikely to pass an LPC in a helicopter on two hours a year solo.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[18greens]

Is it not better for someone to do 12 hours in one month every 24 months than 1 hour per month.

The problem with the 5 hour rule was people only needed to do an hour every 2 months. Now they need to do roughly an hour a month in the second 12 months. The costs of keeping your licence is the same but people who are flying hopefully will be flying more often.(albeit not at all every other year). People on budgets tend to lay off then squeeze in several hours which makes them more current. A lot of aero pilots give up in winter.

The CAA have to impose a minimum and I think they came up with a good compromise. Obviously flying 4-5 hours per month is the ideal but the costs are not practical

Remember also with the 5 hour rule people could get a licence, buy a plane and never see an instructor again until they die. At least they are now forced to take a checkride every 24 months.

Now the really sensible thing would be to extend the 24 month check ride to drivers.

[justinmg]

bar shaker said
"How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.

The statistics show that you would die."

Is this true??? If it is I think the CAA / JAA should not hesitate in inceasing the requirement.

J

[Andy_R]

To emphasise the question being asked, is 12 hours really enough to stay safe ?

Personally I don't think so. Yet, many clubs have a 28 day rule that allows you to more or less get away with this. And the requirement is usually to have flown in the last 28 days, so not necessarily for an hour.

Is 12 hours enough to maintain basic flying skills?

Perhaps, though only for a fairly experienced PPL. I assume Monocock is referring to PPL's rather than airline pilots. As has been pointed out above, although we may retain the ability to fly, the ability to perform under pressure, whether it be a crosswind landing we previously coped with or inadvertant entry into IMC, is severely reduced.

Unfortunately not everyone is as sensible as we would like re currency. Even when hours are kept up, we can still be caught out. I refer to myself as an example, just today:

I have flown around 8 hours in the last 30 days and about 27 hours in the last 90 days, around 80 since March this year, on 3 different types. I was asked this morning if I could take a plane for maintenance to which I readily agreed. It astounded me how much thinking I had to do as it was a type I had not flown for one day under the club's 56 day currency rule.

I took the precaution of reminding myself of the POH figures as I wasn't 100% sure I had remembered them correctly. As it was I had, but I still had to search around the control panel several times in flight for temperature guages, tachometer, etc.
It left me wondering how many PPL's would have thought "oh it'll be OK" and maybe come to grief. Although my handling skills were up to scratch, I still found I had to concentrate on straight and level at first as the picture out the windscreen was different from what I had become accustomed to over the past 2 months flying. Landing, though fine, also required more concentration than I had anticipated.

So, NO I am one who thinks that 12 hours is not enough to be safe .

[robin]

I'm one of those who take the view that it isn't the hours that count, it's what you do in them.

As mentioned, you could do a flight each 28 days to maintain currency including 3 landings, a practice PFL and some stall practice, all in around 30-40 minutes

Compare that to someone who drives a rut between a couple of airfields for an hour and back

The second one could do 20+ hours in the year doing that and be considered more experienced than someone with less time, but probably a better and safer pilot. True his nav might not be great, but I know which one I'd prefer to fly with

[Rod1]

I knew two very experienced ex RFA pilots, with very little money, but a love of flying. Under the old rules they would turn up at the club in the height of summer and each do a checkout with an instructor, with the other pilot sitting in the back, and then swap. They would then fly the remainder of the 5 hours each off in a few days and not fly again for 12 months. On one occasion I needed a lift to pick up my a/c and donated my share to the flight and got a lift. This gent must have been 80 – 85. He could have flown rings round me. Unfortunately, when JAA came along, both stopped coming and I lost touch with them.

I have flown 11 hours this year, in two bursts of flying with 4 months gap in the middle. I normally fly 70 – 80 hours a year, and I am not as good as I was, but I keep flying with Instructors and they are happy with my flying.

Rod1

[robin]

Yes but under JAR rules you get signed off one year, don't fly for a year then pile 12 hours into the second year - daft......

[Whirlybird]

It seems to be generally agreed that people differ, and when and how you fly the hours also makes a difference. What is plenty for some is nowhere near enough for others. So is there really any point in having a legal hours requirement? Pilots are taught to make decisions; surely the most important decision is their own fitness to fly.

How about abandoning any hours requirement at all. In it's place, have yearly seminars covering subjects such as keeping current, flying different aircraft, personal differences, overload, etc etc. Teach people when to fly, and when not to, as well as how to fly. Make attendance st one of these compulsory, say, every two years.

It probably won't happen, but it makes sense to me.

[niknak]

12 hours = approx £1500 = £125 per month.

For the average driver in the average car, that's your average monthly fuel bill.
For the average family of four, that's just over the average weekly household shopping bill.
For the average family of four, it's less than half of what you would have to save each month to afford a decent holiday abroad.
If you smoke, you know what you pay for fags, tot up the weekly bill at UK tax paid prices, and I'd wager you would be paying easily as much a month.
If you drink, not quite so much, but you could do without it.

In the vast majority of cases, if you can afford to fly at all, you can find that amount of money from somewhere, just make sure you have a "secret" bank account to stash away the loot, and don't tell her indoors.;)

[IO540]

It's interesting to note that from posts here it appears that the #1 factor which limits currency is money.

In that respect this debate is no different from one about what level of landing fees is reasonable, etc.

However there must be a lot of people who do have the money but find that flying does not present a sufficient attraction. There are hassles with the weather and (if renting) with aircraft condition, availability, not being able to book one for long weekends, etc.

One generally has a fixed amount of dosh coming in, and one will spend it according to the "return". While there are no doubt people who are absolutely desperate to fly and will spend every penny on it (and who are probably over-represented in these online forums) most people will make choices. I bet many find that the "social scene" at their local flying set-up is a turn-off for both them and more so for their female companion! So the money gets spent doing something else.

I don't think 12hrs every 2 years is enough for flying from A to B in UK weather, but a lot of people don't do that. They pick a sunny day for a local bimble, perhaps with a passenger who is more current. It is true that such a pilot could legally go off in 3000m vis etc etc but most of them are smart enough not to. So this cannot be solved by regulation.

[Monocock]

I bet many find that the "social scene" at their local flying set-up is a turn-off for both them and more so for their female companion!

Are you insinuating that we are all knuckle draggers?:hmm:

[FixedRotaryWing]

You even do not need to fly 12 hours to maintain the SEP class rating. A single proficiency check every two years will do.

[TD&H]

But can anyone answer the question... has it got safer with the 12 hour and an LPC than with the five hours per year? Of course those who thought up the rule will find statistics to prove it, but statistics can prove anything you want. The JAA rules have certainly reduced light aircraft flying, to what benefit? Less flying means less accidents maybe?

The rules have certainly stopped alot of very safe experienced pilots flying, because of costs and pettiness of keeping up to date.
10,000 hrs+ on bigger types with many thousands on light aeroplanes, but deemed not up to snuff without flying with a spotty hours builder instructor. Burocrassy!

[Whirlybird]

Sorry to shout, but I did pose a question a few posts back, and I don't like being ignored, so.....


DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOURS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER?

[Mike Cross]

I wasn't ignoring you Whirly, I just hadn't read this thread through.

Doing more hours doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot. If you're doing it wrong then doing it wrong more often is hardly an improvement.

On the other hand the biennial flight with an instructor might well lead to bad habits being picked up and corrected.

TD & H
It's not 12 hours and an LPC, it's 12 hours OR an LPC (which has just been upgraded to include Nav)

While the rules are there and have to be obeyed people should not be fixated on them. If adherence to the rules does not prohibit you from flying that is not the same thing as saying that you are OK to fly. Use your judgement, if you are not comfortable DON'T DO IT. (please excuse shouting).

Mike

[Evil J]

I'm with FRW, you can acyually get away with flying once in 4 years and being legal.

Pass PPL, just inside 2 years later take profiency test to re-validate, just inside 2 years later go flying. Sum total, maybe an 1 1/2 hours dual in (a shade under) 4 years - riduculous.

IMHO the 5 hours every 13 months was better; not perfect but better(and a darn sight simpler)

[hoey5o]

Chaps, can I just check then, that as a commercial pilot the 12 hours etc applies plus the LPC but you are still exempt the LPC as you have one every 6 months anyway (all be it on much larger ac).
Its being suggested that its 12 hours or an LPC which would mean for a commercial pilot that you never have to fly a single to keep current on it ?

[Evil J]

I don't know what you mean by "large aeroplane" but as I understand multi engine hours do NOT count towards keeping a single engine (SEP) rating. Therefore you must either re-validate by experience (the 12 hours plus the nif naf bits) or by proficeincy check on type (ie a single engine piston)

[BeauMan]

Cloud69's recent experience rang a bell with me. I passed my Skills Test in May this year, flew a one hour check out on the Warrior a week or so later, and then flew about another seven hours in the Warrior over the next two months. Nice and current, happy with how the aeroplane handles, happy with where all the dials and gauges are.

And then I go and do my TWC on a Super Cub. Six and a half hours spread over a couple of weekends in August, and that's the rating done. And by now, I'm delightfully happy with how the Super Cub handles, what her checklist consists of, where her particular dials and gauges are, what the speeds are.

But the bank account had precluded me from going and having a chug in the Warrior while I was Cubbing, so... a couple of weeks after finishing the TWC, I turn up for a check out on the Warrior. Club rules say 28 days... it's been about 50, so off I go with the instructor. I've been flying quite a lot in the last couple of months, so surely it can't be THAT hard? Can it?

Wrong.

During that 50 days away from the Warrior, I'd forgotten LOADS. Partly due to time eroding my memory and reducing my effectiveness, and partly due to the fact that I'd flown something different in between. The 45 minutes I had with my instructor in the Warrior were without a doubt the most beneficial 45 minutes I've ever had. Without him, and without the club's 28 day rule, I'd have been a liability up there. I'd forgotten where dials and gauges were, what speeds I should be at in particular stages of flight, how the nav / com stuff worked, how fast the Warrior covers ground compared to the Super Cub... :ooh:

In answer to the original question, is 12 hours enough to remain safe? If you're talking about PPL's who stick to one aeroplane (that's one aeroplane, not one type - we have three PA28's, all of which have different characteristics), I really don't know the answer. But if you expand that to take in PPL's who fly different aeroplanes and / or different types, I'd say 12 hours is definately NOT enough.

BM

[slim_slag]

The thing that always catches me when I first fly a warrior after a super cub is, when I put in aileron to turn final, nothing happens. The damned thing just flies straight on through and I end up lining up on a parallel runway :eek:

[TD&H]

Hoey50:

Yes, my understanding, and what I've done. Your LPC on big aeroplanes counts as the required flight with an instructor, then you would just have to fly 12 hours SEP in the last 12 to keep SEP priveleges (sp???!)

Or, as I did, couldn't get the 12 in, so did a SEP LPC to renew my privlijagees.

[hoey5o]

Thanks TDH,
nice and simple. I assume the licence will still need signing by someone every 24 months.

[TD&H]

Hoey5o

I guess whoever signs up your LPC would be able to sign to confirm your 12 hours flown, or of course if you do the SEP LPC then the examiner will sign there and then. Its surprising how many tre's (or whatever we call them nowadays) on large aircraft are not aware of rules regarding SEP, so you may need to explain to them before they'll sign.

[Final 3 Greens]

Beauman
I'd say 12 hours is definately NOT enough. With all due respect, at your number of hours, you don't have the experience to make such a sweeping statement.

For you, it is probably true, but for others it is not.

[BeauMan]

Interesting response there, Final 3 Greens, seeing as you know little of my history. I'm sure you didn't mean that recently qualified PPL's aren't entitled to voice their opinions. ;)

The point I was making is that changing aircraft types during your 12 hours per year means that your mental workload increases, as you have more than one 'set' of aeroplane characteristics that you have to be conversant with, while at the same time reducing the time spent in each.

Theoretical scenario 1 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 12 hours per year.

Theoretical scenario 2 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 6 hours per year, and one particular Cub for 6 hours per year.

I struggle to see how the total number of hours the particular PPL holder has logged would make any difference to the salient fact that a) he is logging on average only one hour per two months per type, and b) has two different sets of characteristics that he needs to be conversant with. Please enlighten me.

BM

[Whirlybird]

BeauMan,

In my experience, and that of others I've talked to, an interesting thing happens the longer you fly and the more types you fly. You start to become more experienced at switching between types. I notice it particularly, flying both f/w and helicopters. In the early days, it caused confusion. These days, recent practice on one seems to improve my performance on the other. After all, to a certain extent flying is flying, and many things are similar, no matter what you fly.

To take your example, I'd say it depends on that particular PPL. If he/she is fairly new to flying, then two types may cause confusion. If the said pilot has been flying many types for many years/flying hours, it probably won't make a great deal of difference. It may even help, because if you fly different types, you are aware of the problems - you look at a control before you move it, you study the important numbers and if necessary write them down, you take a huge amount of care because you understand the problems involved.

But like I've said, this varies between individuals. It's why I think that ANY hours requirement is useless and in fact counter-productive. Since to many people legal means safe, it may give them the impression they've flown enough, when they haven't. And conversely, the legal minimum may be quite unnecessary for some people.

Pilots are trained to make decisions, about when to fly, where to fly, how to fly etc etc etc. Doesn't it make more sense to let them decide on their own ability and currency too? Why are we treating them as adults most of the time, and children in this one aspect?

[englishal]

DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOURS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER
Yes, me.

I favour a BFR approach, because you won't get signed of unless you are safe, unlike the current system, where I can log a 1 hr flight in my logbook, and still be a flying nightmare.

I like to think that most pilots have the mentallity that if they feel unsafe, haven't flown for a while, or feel they need some remedial training, then they will employ an instructor before they kill themselves. I certainly would.

I don't think there is evidence to suggest that US pilots are more dangerous than JAA boys and girls becasue they have a 12 hour in month 13-24 requirement. If the 12 hour requirement is kept, then it should be spread over 2 years, to stop people from "I'm not going to fly until march, becasue then it'll count towards my revalidation"

EA

[slim_slag]

I don't think there is evidence to suggest that US pilots are more dangerous than JAA boys and girls becasue they have a 12 hour in month 13-24 requirement.

Agree with you, but then it's not a level playing field. Flying is cheaper and more accessible in the US so one tends to be more current anyway. One would therefore guess that the US pilot body as a whole is safer than the UK pilot body. At the end of the day a light aircraft pilot has 1001 ways of killing himself, and we regularly let people solo with less than 12 hours total time! The nanny state can go too far with inflexible regulations, better that reasonable people decide what is needed on a case by case basis.

[Julian]

Agree with slim slag, some mates and myself were discussing this the other day with regards to pilot proficency. The main gripe being how inaccessible the IR is to UK pilots unless you have a wedge load of cash with IR courses costing about 12k and the flight test costing 2k, you can undertake the FAA IR for something in the region of 3500 and the test is 250. The US, as slim says, is definitely more GA friendly.

Unfortunately our system is geared on the premise that anyone who wants to advance beyond a PPL is out there to become a professional pilot. I fly from three clubs and at all of thm the FIs have lapsed IRs because they cannot afford the flight tests every year!

Julian.

[andrewc]

I personally find that I get quite twitchy after
not flying for a week or so...symptoms include
listening to aircraft going by, looking at blue spots
in the sky, day-dreaming about places to go...

-- Andrew

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... looking at blue spots in the sky ... Not a lot of those round here today, were there? Any time you're short of a passenger feel free to give me a bell :)

[Zlin526]

12 hrs is a minimum, and every pilot should fly enough till THEY think they are safe. IMHO, 12 hrs is not enough to make a pilot anything like current. If, for whatever reason, you cant afford to remain current, then dont come anywhere near me!

I do 100+ hrs a year on Grp A aircraft and every flight is a learning exercise, even as a 2000+ hr pilot.

IF flying were cheaper, then I'm sure everyone would fly more and remain more current. :{

[J.A.F.O.]

IF flying were cheaper, then I'm sure everyone would fly more and remain more current.
I think Zlin's point is a fair one, so far we seem to have established that 12 hours probably isn't enough for a large number of PPLs and that those PPLs may fly more if flying was cheaper, therefore to make GA safer we must make it cheaper.

So, how do we go about doing that, then?

PFA Types?
Reduce tax on fuel?
Encourage Group Ownership?
The NPPL?
Encourage small fields/strips?
Reduce the costs associated with IR?
Get more diesel engined aircraft flying?