PPL annual flying hours question

[P6 Driver]

Planning ahead to possibly taking up PPL flying training, I have a question about the number of flying hours PPL's in the UK clock up.

I am aware of the CAA minimums for flying in order to keep a licence valid, but wonder what might be a "typical" number of flying hours that PPL pilots fly annually, once qualified. Is there an "average"?

[Ryan5252]

I passed my PPL in June last year and have done 70 hours post licence issue if thats any help. More important than the 'number of hours' is the quality of the flying IMHO. I do alot of cross country flights to different places, not much point in just doing 'burger runs' for the sake of logging an hour or doing laps of a circut.

Try and challenge yourself to get the most out of your licence as well as fulfilling your potential as a pilot. You will also learn to 'trust' your aircraft, it is alot more capable than most people believe!

[MFC_Fly]

You need to ask YOURSELF, "how much can I affords to spend on flying?" and, if not your own aircraft, "how often is the aircraft available?"

Only YOU can determine how many hours YOU will fly per year.

MFC

[Conventional Gear]

I asked this question at my club of several PPLs who own their own aircraft, most said they, and those they know, do around 50hrs per year and considered that 'good going' when considering weather etc. This was a mix of people who fly aerobatics, tour or just bimble about on nice days.

It really is just a finance/time what you want out of thing though? For sure some clock up more hours, others just barely keep current. When it came to my last SEP renewal I had no choice but to do it by test, I had far less than the required 12hrs that year. :{

[Genghis the Engineer]

Disregarding the legal aspect, personally I think that anybody doing less than 30 hours in a year is (a) probably dangerous, and (b) should be questioning whether they should really be doing this - or at-least, doing it the way they are.

G

[flybymike]

Disregarding the legal aspect, personally I think that anybody doing less than 30 hours in a year is (a) probably dangerous, and (b) should be questioning whether they should really be doing this - or at-least, doing it the way they are.



Bollox. Surely 100 hours a year would be safer still. If they meet the requirements and pass the LPC /club check outs/ revalidation flights etc then let 'em fly. GA is being regulated out of existence as it is never mind sanctimonious pontification from those who can afford to fly more than others.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bollox. Surely 100 hours a year would be safer still. If they meet the requirements and pass the LPC /club check outs/ revalidation flights etc then let 'em fly. GA is being regulated out of existence as it is never mind sanctimonious pontification from those who can afford to fly more than others.

It's a viewpoint.

However, for many years I've flown in cheap syndicates at around £30-£40/hr, and I am not proposing a rule, just explaining my personal view. £1000/year will buy you 8 hours in a rental PA28, or 30 hours in a syndicate microlight - I'd always take the latter if that's my only choice, and I'd much rather share the circuit with somebody who flies more hours in a cheaper flying machine.

I've also been regularly disturbed by just how close to the edge of killing themselves and/or somebody else some of these 10hrs/yr pilots are, when I encounter them in the circuit, or am asked to assess them as possible syndicate members.

I'm also quite clear in my mind, as an above averagely experienced pilot, that if I'm flying less than a couple of hours per month, I'm getting dangerous. If with 1200 hours I'm like that, I'm unconvinced that a 150hr pilot is better off than I am. Worse, they often lack the judgment, which to be fair comes with experience, to realise how dangerous they are.

G

[Pilot DAR]

I've got to agree with Genghis on this one. I onced asked my insurer, how few hours would I fly before you really worried I was not maintaining my proficiancy. The answer came back "With 6000 hours, we're fine with you flying ten hours a year, but less would concern us. For a less experienced pilot, less than 25 a year is concerning". If an inexperienced pilot is flying once a month, the first 15 minutes of each flight is probably dusting off cobwebs, so the gaining skill is not starting until after that in each flight.

You will find after hundreds of hours in the same class of aircraft, it will become second nature, but then complacency creeps in quickly, and I think that's worse! That's what I'm trying to ward off these days, and it's incideous!

Budget 25 hours a year for your first few hundred hours. If you miss some flights 'cause of weather, that's okay. If you plan to fly consistanty less, you should think carefully about how you will maintain and grow your skills.

[Conventional Gear]

I can't disagree on the economics, permit tailwheel or 3 axis microlight share on the cards for me ASAP. It took me a while to figure this as most who got their licence when I did went for shares in CofA aircraft similar to those they trained in.

I did the maths and couldn't see any advantage over rental of buying these shares unless doing 50 hrs+ a year. You can see now why I was asking everyone at the club how many hours a year they were actually doing, as most said I would be lucky to do 50 hrs it didn't add up to go for one of these shares. So I kept on renting and struggling with currency.

As is for me the financial strain is about to lift, but I do feel for those I know who strive to get in 30 minutes a month to keep the whole thing going, I know all too well what it feels like and would much rather see them carry on doing that, than for them to drop out of flying completely.


Anyway I hope the above isn't too much thread drift and is some use to the OP. It's generally easy I think to get the momentum to get through the PPL, it's afterwards that things get more complicated.

[SNS3Guppy]

Disregarding the legal aspect, personally I think that anybody doing less than 30 hours in a year is (a) probably dangerous, and (b) should be questioning whether they should really be doing this - or at-least, doing it the way they are.

Flying is a perishable skill, no doubt. The hardest part of flying, of course, is paying for it. From a private pilot perspective, especially post-checkride, it's hard to justify the cost of flying. Most students working toward their private have a solid goal; they can justify the cost of the rental or partnership and hourly expense because it's part of their effort to get their private pilot certificate or license.

Once the certificate is obtained, that justification is gone. A lot of students quit once they get their initial certification. The motivation has disappeared, and it's very hard to justify the expense.

Just as I always encouraged a student to fly at least once a week, more if able, I always encourage a private pilot to fly at least once a week. If that's not possible, once a month. Students are given to understand that the less the fly, the more review they will need, and the same applies to flying privately after certification. Proficiency fades, and the less someone flies, the more they should consider getting review with an instructor or another experienced pilot.

I found that I couldn't afford to fly privately, so I put myself in a position to get other people to pay me to fly. Flying once a week can get expensive. It's hard to justify, especially if someone is doing it for a hobby. This is the reason that I always encourage individuals to seek higher training. It's so much easier to justify flying and training when one is working toward a goal. Begin training toward an instrument rating, for example, or toward a commercial certificate, and there's some motivation. One doesn't need to be training every minute; one can go do hood-work or safety-pilot work with another private pilot. One can be practicing landings, chandelles, lazy-eights, approaches, stalls, steep turns, or any number of other proficiency building exercises, to justify the cost.

I've known individuals who built their own airplane or bought a homebuilt which used very little fuel, didn't cost much to maintain, and which was inexpensive to operate, in order to fly more, pay less, and stay more proficient. That's always an option.

Personally, I have a hard time staying proficient if I'm flying less than 300 hours a year. Generally I fly 600 hours or more a year, but someone else is paying me to fly. I certainly couldn't do that on my own, and I dont' think I'd try. If I go several weeks without flying, I feel the effects the next time I get in the cockpit. I have several decades of flying experience, and more than a few hours, and it doesn't immunize me from the effects of not flying. I need regular instrument flight, regular landings, regular exposure to what I do, or I feel the effects. Time away from a conventional gear airplanes will be evident, and I've been flying them since I was a teen.

One should never make any assumption regarding proficiency. People tend to overestimate themselves. The notion that it's just like riding a bicycle isn't true. One can get on a bicycle and go after a long time away from the handlebars, but there's a big difference between staying upright on a bicycle, and being a proficient pilot.

I should add that there are a lot of ways to keep your mind in the game between flights. Participating on sites such as this is one. Reading as much as you can about flying and flying topics is another. Not simply stories about people who fly, but by digesting material such as the Barry Schiff series of "The Proficient Pilot," or any number of flight manuals, is a good way to keep your mind constantly working about aerodynamics, situational awareness, navigation, performance, safety, and so forth. Studying accident reports to learn from the mistakes of others, reading the maintenance manual for the airplane you fly, studying the aircraft flight manual, etc, are all all good ways to keep your mind on flying. That's important to keeping you proficient, just as getting in the airplane is important.

Some find the use of various computer simulations or games, to be helpful. I can't speak to those as I don't play them or use them, but I've had good reports from a number of individuals who felt that it helped them.

Visualization is also important. There's a lot to be gained from sitting in a chair with one's eyes closed and visualizing one's way around the traffic pattern, or going to the airport and sitting in the airplane on the ramp and doing the same thing. I always encourage students to do that; pick a weather day when flying isn't an option, and go sit in the airplane and fly the trip in your mind, reaching for the controls, feeling the airplane, imagining the trip. You might be surprised what it can do for you, and in a world where it's extremely expensive to start the motor, it's one more way to keep yourself tuned up to the flying you'd like to be doing.

Recognize that if you can't fly much, your proficiency will slip more than you will realize. Recognizing the fact is a key to knowing in advance and acting accordingly. You're not a sharp as you think especially if you're not flying regularly. Tailor the flying you do, then to take this into account. That may mean flying with an instructor, or it may mean dedicating your one hour for the month to doing landings, rather than sight seeing. It may mean putting together a flight card before you arrive at the airport: you're scheduling exactly what will be done on the flight to get the most out of your money and your time. Three stalls, four normal landings, Five minutes of slow flight, two soft field landings, etc. Some concrete target ideas of what you're going to do will help you make the most of the time you've got.

Once a week really ought to be the minimum, but it's hard to do, and hard to justify, especially in this economic climate, and with the cost of flying today. If you can't fly once a week, shoot for once every two weeks, and do everything you can to maximize on that flying. If you can't do that, then shoot for once a month. If you can't do that, you'll be best spending your flying with an instructor to stay proficient, because you won't be flying enough to keep up your own level of proficiency. If you have very little flight experience to begin with, then you don't have much of an experience base to fall back upon, but don't forget that no matter how experienced you are, flight proficiency and skill begins to fade with disuse very quickly. Recognize it, and plan accordingly. Fly as much as you can afford, and make up the difference in enthusiasm, interest, and effort.

[AdamFrisch]

The analogy with bike riding is both true and not true.

As someone who took his license when I was very young and then couldn't afford to fly for 15 years, I can tell you that some things don't go away, like the basic ability to fly. What does go away is procedure. Stalls and unusual flying, radio work, regulations - that sort of stuff. I could still land a 152 on the first try as good/bad as I did when I was 20 and had a newly minted PPL A.

Incidentally, I quite recently went up for 2 hrs in helicopter for the first time since 1995 and I could still hover albeit perhaps not as smoothly as at the height of my training. Point is, the physical act of coordinated muscle movement in order to fly is non-perishable, but the rest might be.

This, I think, holds true for all flying, no matter what type.

[Rugbyears]

I usually manage 2-3 times a month however feel just as comfortable flying once a month.

[SNS3Guppy]

Again, riding a bike is about being able to stay upright. Not exactly the halmark of proficiency. One tends to overestimate one's self; it's human nature.

Simply because fifteen years later one can still remain upright doesn't mean one has remained proficient. Or that one has retained anything of significance.

I spent two years away from the cockpit, and before I took that hiatus, I was very connected to my flying. I thought, the airplane did. It was an extension of me. When I returned, I thought one thing, the airplane did another.

Even muscle memory fades. The ability to judge height in a flare fades. Airspeed control fades. It may be easier to bring back for some, than others, but it definitely fades.

We see a number of individuals who want to upgrade from the flight engineer seat to the right seat, who don't make the upgrade. They have to meet minimum company upgrade requirements in terms of flying experience, and many of them will go rent a simulator for a few hours before coming to class. Even though they may have thousands of hours in type as a flight engineer, they're often our of practice as pilots. For those that are flying privately on the side, it's still a big leap. I've seen a number of them wash out, and it's not because they're not bright, sharp individuals; they are. It's not because they don't know the airplane like the back of their hand. They do. It's because the longer they've spent manning the panel, the lower their proficiency has become, and it shows up when they get in the simulator and have to fly. Even after spending twelve hundred dollars an hour to rent a sim to try to get up to speed before hand, I've seen them wash out because they couldn't fly the airplane.

We've had a number of individuals who did make the leap, of course, but regardless I think every one of them will agree that the level of proficiency drops substantially when not flying, or when not flying enough.

The dangerous ones are those who don't recognize this important truth.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think with both flying, and riding a bike, the handling skills do stay with you.

But the ability to simultaneously handle, navigate, communicate, monitor what the aeroplane's doing, follow checks, and maintain situational awareness - all at once, that's what goes. So, stuff gets missed - and that I think is what tends to make a less-current pilot relatively dangerous. Mostly, they can still take-off and land okay.

Much the same with a bicycle - when I was a student who went everywhere by bike, I was quite safe and comfortable cycling places on a busy main road in all weather - my handling skills and SA were sharp enough that I made it to 25! Now, I'd be lucky to survive the experience intact and my very occasional cycle rides I constrain to quiet country roads.

G

[Conventional Gear]

As a relatively low hrs PPL having now taken two large breaks from flying - I was actually surprised how easy it was to fly the plane still, not easy as in complacency, just that it wasn't actually hard work (as I remembered it) to fly circuits but really enjoyable. If anything I was more precise than I was before (letting the plane do the work more) and better at judging landings. I can't explain that but that is how it seems. Almost like the neurons in my thick head had continued to sort out flying mode even when I wasn't doing any.


It's definitely the procedural stuff that I'm more worried about.

Sims helped me a lot for SEP renewal and club currency. I don't 'play' sims as such, what I get from computer sims is like flying, it directly relates to what I put in and how it is approached. There are a couple of good books on how pilots can use say FSX, it's not always a case of 'playing' it, it can be just going through checklists, thinking out radio calls etc to keep some level of currency on procedure, right through to bashing circuits or doing PFLs and instrument flight. In all it's keeping familiarity, I do things like forgetting to call final on the sim. I bet I would have gone on to do it in the air if I hadn't picked up on it first on the sim. Doing that several times during a club checkout would guarantee needing to book another hour at my club.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Disregarding the legal aspect, personally I think that anybody doing less than 30 hours in a year is (a) probably dangerous, and (b) should be questioning whether they should really be doing this - or at-least, doing it the way they are.
There wouldn't be any private flying in the UK then. The number of people who are that rich has got to be too small to support the infrastructure.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There wouldn't be any private flying in the UK then. The number of people who are that rich has got to be too small to support the infrastructure.

No, we'd all be in syndicates on permit aeroplanes flown on MOGAS rather than paying horrendous club rental rates inflated by all the regulatory hoops that they have to jump through and the cost of running Lycontinentals on Avgas.

Those who are currently on syndicated permit aeroplanes flown on MOGAS of-course are mostly paying under £60/hr for their flying, so can afford to do a bit more.

G

[EGMC]

Many of those that say it's too expensive, probably haven't made the time commitment that is involved to seek out more economical flying. It can take ages to research and join a group or meet people to share your flying with- It's taken me 5 months! [Club-renting is a convenient and accessible way to fly but that justifies the premium]
For new/low hour private pilots [like me] that haven't really established a strong pilot network with which to share flying experiences, there are ways to get air-time: the 'Spare seats' thread, hanging around a flying club- empty seats/lonely pilots that don't use PPRuNe. Reading/discussing around anything that you think you need to improve on so that you accomplish more in the air. Lots of software out there these days too, its worth using things like RANT and FSX and the many apps that are available online.
I like the notion of having targets on specific flights- it can really stretch your time out usefully check-lists of tasks and challenges to work through. I keep a type of expanded log book/diary where I write up every thought and peculiarity of the flight.
When I was flying in the winter months, I could only manage about an hour/month!... In spite of it being with an expert instructor, it still took me about 5 hours of self-briefing and visualising to feel 'maybe I wont make myself look like a jackass in front of him this time'

[Lister Noble]

Gertrude,you are so right.
The pomposity and self belief on this forum sometimes goes beyond belief.
Maybe that's why I don't look on here so often.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

join a group

I'm afraid that in my family that would just be too expensive.

If I buy a plane she promises she'll buy a horse. And she said a couple of days ago, when I was remarking how much cheaper planes had become recently, that she would put the horse out to livery in NZ, where she would visit it whenever there was some rugby on.

Cheaper by far if I just carry on renting.

[Hamish 123]

Lister, seconded.

It appears that Genghis lives in a parrallel universe or something. It clearly bears no relationship to the GA world I live, one which is populated with suicidal PPLs, endangering all around them because they do less than 30 hours a year.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Lister, seconded.

It appears that Genghis lives in a parrallel universe or something. It clearly bears no relationship to the GA world I live, one which is populated with suicidal PPLs, endangering all around them because they do less than 30 hours a year.

Or maybe I'm just less able than many other pilots, and need more hours to stay sharp?

G

[SNS3Guppy]

I think with both flying, and riding a bike, the handling skills do stay with you.

Again, a dangerous myth to believe.

[Hamish 123]

Genghis, fortunately for me, and I suspect the vast majority of PPLs and NPPLs, the CAA does not agree with your hypothesis.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, fortunately for me, and I suspect the vast majority of PPLs and NPPLs, the CAA does not agree with your hypothesis.

Probably because such low hour pilots seldom fly outside of the direct or indirect supervision of an FI and therefore don't have much chance to f**** up. I wonder how many could pass their PPL skill test again however.

Out of interest, why point at me specifically rather than, say, SNS3Guppy who said:

Once a week really ought to be the minimum, but it's hard to do, and hard to justify, especially in this economic climate, and with the cost of flying today. If you can't fly once a week, shoot for once every two weeks, and do everything you can to maximize on that flying. If you can't do that, then shoot for once a month. If you can't do that, you'll be best spending your flying with an instructor to stay proficient, because you won't be flying enough to keep up your own level of proficiency. If

or PilotDAR who said:

I've got to agree with Genghis on this one. I onced asked my insurer, how few hours would I fly before you really worried I was not maintaining my proficiancy. The answer came back "With 6000 hours, we're fine with you flying ten hours a year, but less would concern us. For a less experienced pilot, less than 25 a year is concerning".



I know damned well this isn't an ideal world - I also however know that these two guys have been in flying a lot longer, and have a lot more hours, than me.

Blame the inexperienced pilot why don't you :E

G

[Pilot DAR]

I am accountable to the people here for what I write, and I take that responsibility. I do not purposefully exaggerate or inflame a post, just to get people wound up. I'm here to offer what benefit I can to the group, from the experience I have been so fortunate to accumulate.

That said, I would not be a good person, if I posted wildly optimistic suggestions about how a low time pilot can expect to retain skills with long periods of inactivity. Sure, everyone is different, and demonstrates their skill differently - even occasion to occasion, flight to flight.

On this subject, I have put my sword in the ground at 25 hours per year, and that puts me in the group that has wrankled others. Yes, others, you can fly less, and probably meet a minimum safety requirement for a flight, if you have chosen good conditions which do not change much throughout the flight, and if the aircraft remains operating as expected, and some other unforeseen envent does not pop up to challenge your skill. Fly when you can. If you cannot, Oh well...

But, remind yourself, that if you are a 100 pilot, who flies once a month, it is unlikely that you are building new skills at any measuarble rate. You are perhaps sustaining the skills you have - how good are they?. If you're using that hour to practice and review airwork, forced approaches etc., excellent! That will keep you the sharpest. What I find myself sometimes, however, are client's "check" pilots flying with me, who have not flown a stall for years, have never, or not in memory, spun, and have never actually shut an engine down, then flown to to the point of not being able to maintain directional control (twin). It would be unkind to be critical of these pilots, but I find that in some cases, their role in keeping the flight safe has been reduced to reading the checklist to me. Despite the fact that they fly the IFR leg once a week

I am soooo lucky to own, keep my plane at home, and fly whenever I want. I am soooo lucky that clients have the faith in me to anme me on fleet policies, so I can fly whatever needs to be flown that week.

My appreciation of that privilage keeps me very firmly in mind of maintaining a minimum skill set appropriate to a broad range of aircraft types, so when I fly, I am at least safe. I can do it at an hour a month, but I don't like it, and I keep the conditions for that next flight agreeable.

Each new season, I talk the taildragger (yes, it is, 'cause the tailwheel collapsed once, so it did drag the tail) amphibian for it's first seasonal flight. I am by no means "fresh" on the plane. Steep refresher curve!

When you're flying something you have not flown, in what is a "long time" for you, think of the "swiss cheese" model of accidents - the holes all lining up wrong. Recognize that you're being out of practice is a hole all it's own, and the thing you just overlooked is a second hole which just lined up, you'd better keep that third hole from lining up too, or skills which just may not be there, are going to be vital.

I am empathetic that the cost of flying makes frequent flying difficult for some pilots, I can remember those days for me (when the rental of a C150 was $18 per hour - wet!). But, the environment of flying does not care about your finances at all, it cares about the demonstration of your skill!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Again, a dangerous myth to believe.

They'll degrade, but I think they're still there.

I'll bet if you put most people who haven't flown for 30 years in an aeroplane, they'll still be able to follow the basic stick and rudder tasks if you don't demand too much of them.

G

[24Carrot]

The safety aspect is more related to the number of hours you have in the preceding month, rather than the preceding year. Don't the AAIB reports always kick off with 28 and 90 day currencies?

If you own an aircraft I can see the motivation to spread the hours thinly over the year, but if you rent you have the freedom to get back current as needed, and then fly a lot for a shorter period. "Getting back current" pretty much obliges you to fly with an FI for a bit, which is no bad thing either.

30 hours/year could be 2.5 hours/month spread out over a year with no feedback on your performance, or 10 hours/month over the summer, after getting checked out.

Same average, different currency, and IMHO different levels of safety.

[Piper19]

SNS3Guppy, nice reading your post, and so true.
personally I plan to fly 30 hours/year, resulting in about 25 hours in real because of weather and maintenance. I'm renting the usual Cessna's and Pipers in a club.
However, most of these hours are done between March-September when I make trips abroad. So I always start the flying season with 1 hour instruction. I always combine these check rides wide a new aircraft type each two year, to keep the fun in it.
I also fly a few hours as passenger each year, on which I also navigate or do radio work. This also keeps you sharp for half the price.

[Piper19]

...and in our club there are only a few people above that 25 hour/year. The yearly hour total in our club divided by number of pilots was estimated just above legal minimums. Considering we have a lot of students doing many hours this is remarkable.

[SNS3Guppy]

I'll bet if you put most people who haven't flown for 30 years in an aeroplane, they'll still be able to follow the basic stick and rudder tasks if you don't demand too much of them.

People who believe the same thing manage to kill themselves every year.

There's a reason that minimum proficiency and recency of experience standards, and proficiency checks and flight reviews are established by each governing body which issues pilot certificates.

[Conventional Gear]

SNS3 - nobody is saying one should not be meeting those standards or being checked out.

The CAA say 12 hours in the past year, plus one hour with a FI for SEP renewal in the UK, or renew by test. What is being said is it should be 30 hrs or some other made-up amount. Why not just say if one isn't a commercial pilot doing a 1000hrs per year one shouldn't be doing it?

I tend not to eek my flying out but rather get in as much as I can when I can afford to. I checked out as club current in 30 minutes after a 15 month break, but went on to revise just about every aspect of the PPL before renewing by test, which I passed easily. Who could fly the PPL skills test after such a break someone asked? Well actually apart from the shorter nav and no 'diversion' the test was pretty much the same as the skills test and was just a lot of fun really after doing 3 hours of revision flights first.

As it is the few hours I have got in the past couple of years include Night Qualification, tailwheel conversion and plenty of revision with FIs, my own view is when I've not flown for ages and pass a club checkout it says no more then at 'solo' standard - I plan my next flight accordingly.

The CAA say though that if I have done 3 landings as sole manipulator of the controls, in the past 90 days, I'm also passenger current too and therefore can exercise the rights of my licence - to be branded as dangerous for not doing 30 hours per year doesn't really fit.

How do I now for example do the 30 hrs this year? Should I do them all with an instructor because I won't possibly be able to fly on my own or with friends and rebuild my skill set?

I wouldn't argue that doing more hours in a year wouldn't be more ideal, I would love to do thousands, but to brand anyone sub 30 or 25 hrs/year as unsafe and needing to rethink if they should be flying is simply not inline with requirements of the CAA nor reasonable.

One could fly for 1hr per month, be totally club current, passenger current and meet the 12 hour rule. To believe someone flying twice that TIME is immediately much safer to me seems like a much bigger trap than the 12hr pilot who knows they are going to be somewhat limited. Someone could have done 24hrs via longer enroute legs and done exactly the same amount of landings and take-offs as the 12hr pilot, it's meaningless.

In the same way I do fly circuits often when I'm current, you can bet I have far more landings and take-offs than some of my friends in the past week than they had in the past 4 months :ugh: So the fact they sat cruising for longer to get their burger makes them more current? :=

[thing]

This is an interesting topic for me. I've just started my PPL and although I have the dosh up front to do the PPL and probably some left over for IMC/night rating; once it's gone I'm going to budget £300 a month for flying which at my club buys just over 3 hours in a 172/28 or just under 4 in a 152. Add in some passenger flying at shared cost and I'm hoping to do around 40 to 45 hours a year of hopefully interesting and challenging flying rather than doing the local milk run. I agree with CG in the last post, 45 hours doing 4 hours at a time in a straight line is worse than doing 12 hours of ccts, stalls, forced landing practice etc.

I wouldn't want to be doing any less personally, although I fully understand that people have varying amounts of disposable income. If I could only afford to do an hour a month I seriously doubt I would have taken it up. Again that's no slight on people who do an hour a month, there are plenty at my club who as far as I can see are competent enough, but I don't think I would feel safe doing the legislated minimum.

I will stress the 'I' in I don't think I would feel safe, there are probably pilots who fly half of what I intend to fly who are far better pilots than I will ever be.

[Maoraigh1]

How frequently you need to fly varies greatly. I've been a passenger in our group plane with pilots who fly less than once a month, but who appear to keep their skills. I've flown 24 hours since Jan1. This is less than I hoped for, due to weather. I quickly lose my skills if I do not fly. Fortunately, I lose my confidence slightly quicker than I lose my skills. Only when very current will I be happy with gusty crosswinds.

[SNS3Guppy]

Why not just say if one isn't a commercial pilot doing a 1000hrs per year one shouldn't be doing it?

Who has suggested any such thing?

Then again, those who do fly a considerable amount, with a considerable wealth of experience, nearly uniformly have very different views from those with little or no experience. Why do you suppose that is?

What is being said is it should be 30 hrs or some other made-up amount.

Any value is a "made-up amount." The numbers don't grow on trees, you know.

An hour a month is a very miniscule amount of flying in which to engage and hope to retain any semblance of proficiency. An hour a week isn't much, either. Four hours a month, one a week, is expensive and hard to do for many people, but it's not much.

[Rugbyears]

once it's gone I'm going to budget £300 a month for flying which at my club buys just over 3 hours in a 172/28 or just under 4 in a 152

My word what club are you residing at (very interested, I may consider a block booking)? The cheapest club rates here in the North England are £130ish for C152 and between £140-60ish for PA28 C172 per wet hour.

Obviously there are private run clubs which offer a more cost effective option, but don't forget to factor in the monthly running costs and in some cases the initial cost of share equity.

[thing]

PM incoming.

[Genghis the Engineer]

People who believe the same thing manage to kill themselves every year.

There's a reason that minimum proficiency and recency of experience standards, and proficiency checks and flight reviews are established by each governing body which issues pilot certificates.

Maybe, but I only said "stick and rudder skills" - safely operating an aeroplane: with all of the additional skills of RT, SA, system management, checks... is much more than just the stick and rudder skills.


Related to which, I do very much agree with those who emphasise the importance of the quality of the flying. Certain critical bits of flying - PFLs, circuits, diversions, go-arounds, stalls - need reasonable practice. Somebody flying 40 hours per year who only ever flies the same cross country route for lunch, arguably isn't likely to be as sharp as somebody flying 20 hours, but with a monthly PFL, varied circuits and routes, and practice emergencies or bit of stalling every few months. Plus of-course the time and effort of planning and preparation - not just turning up and jumping in.

A plug on his behalf for anybody who's not read it - there's a really good chapter on this in John Farley's book "View from the Hover" - on how to use limited flying to best advantage to keep flying skills sharp.

Plus, you can make a good case that it's more rewarding working yourself hard like that to keep the flying sharp. I'd even go so far as to call it fun.

G

[Conventional Gear]

Is that a partial retraction of the 30hrs Ghengis ;):p

There is a big difference between pilots I see at club level.

Those that can't fly as much as they would like and know the rust has set in, will fly with an instructor without a second thought and enjoy it. Will plan carefully to bring in aspects of a flight that need work such as RT, by say planning a simple flight and getting a basic service to start. Knows that it won't hurt to do some PFLs and stalls this month, or some crosswind circuits with an instructor if it's a bit too sporty to chance alone. Have enough money? Start a course, learn something new, brush up on all that old guff you probably forgot or didn't know anyway (humor alert).

Those that take the view 'I have a licence and will not fly with an instructor if I can avoid it', I'll just go to so and so because I've been there a thousand times before and there is no crosswind and I won't have to talk to ATC but it will keep me 'current'.

It doesn't take SNS3's years of experience to figure which I would rather fly with. The first one with 5 hrs this year, rather than the second with 20.

The 'don't have to and won't fly with an instructor', 'don't have to and won't talk to ATC', 'I won't bother planning because I can't fly a heading anyway', culture scares me more than my own limited chances of flying due to finances and health in the last couple of years. Have to say, I sure as hell appreciate every second of it now though, roll on the next flight :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Only partial. And I would still have reservations about my own safety if I was flying under 30 hrs per year.

G

[madlandrover]

Those that can't fly as much as they would like and know the rust has set in, will fly with an instructor without a second thought and enjoy it.

Those that take the view 'I have a licence and will not fly with an instructor if I can avoid it'.

Speaking as an instructor, I recognise both those types. One type I enjoy flying with, the other type can be a struggle - but part of my job is motivating them enough to want to learn. Sometimes that works. The most annoying are the ones who have reached a level of bare adequacy and do not see why they should ever want/need to progress beyond that.

Personally, I take extra care when I haven't flown the aircraft class within the last 3 weeks, or type within the last 6 - generally it's a matter of days, but doesn't always work as planned.

[AdamFrisch]

What's great about flying is that one can always take some extra little add on rating or course.

I plan to take a mountain flying course in Idaho to introduce myself to the skills needed in this kind of environment. I also want to finish my single engine seaplane rating. And if I feel I still need something, I'll do taildragger.

Always something to learn and not only do you learn the new skills, but they will have bearing on other flying as well. And keep you current. A win-win.

[Pilot DAR]

To believe someone flying twice that TIME is immediately much safer to me seems like a much bigger trap than the 12hr pilot who knows they are going to be somewhat limited. Someone could have done 24hrs via longer enroute legs and done exactly the same amount of landings and take-offs as the 12hr pilot, it's meaningless.


Yes, I agree. As stated, this makes a very valid point. However, this begins to open up a broader topic. There's a saying: "you can have a thousand hours, or an hour a thousand times".

A pilot who is very recent on a few elements of flying, to the exclusion of all the rest, is a greater risk than a pilot with even less recent experience, if that experience was "well rounded". Everything in balance.

That said, I quite agree with the theme of:

those who do fly a considerable amount, with a considerable wealth of experience, nearly uniformly have very different views from those with little or no experience. Why do you suppose that is?


The frequent pilot may have a more comprehensive recollection of things which can go wrong, and be flying much more ahead of them. The less recent pilot is just keeping the plane in the air.

After a half hour refresher of two circuits and slow flight, then straight into more than 10 hours flight testing two modified Navajos in the last few weeks, I know what it feels like to feel like you're playing catch up with the plane. And I can pick my flying conditions to be perfect. I'm constantly paying attention to assure that swiss cheese holes are not lining up un-noticed.

Are pilots with only modest recent experience being effective for watching for the holes lining up in their flying? Or is all their attention devoted to the task at hand?

It's very hard to measure, and no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you don't know, so you may not see what you're missing.....

[Conventional Gear]

Only partial. And I would still have reservations about my own safety if I was flying under 30 hrs per year.

G

I would still have reservations about my own safety if I was flying 3,000 hrs per year ;)

It's very hard to measure, and no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you don't know, so you may not see what you're missing.....

I think a fitting thought to be in the mind of a low hours pilot, the trap is thinking one knows it all, or there is nothing else to learn which would improve ones flying. I'm afraid though that can also easily apply to a 30 hr a year syndicate pilot who never pushes the boundary and never does refresher flying with an instructor.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm going to try and diverge a little.

Here's a question - since we all accept that hours alone are too crude a measure, what do we all think is a genuinely sensible measure for "current" in a light aeroplane pilot: I'm not going to differentiate between roles of that pilot (PPL, instructor, test, taxi...) since we're all in the same boat if something goes wrong.

Here's a first stab for everybody to shoot at, as an ABSOLUTE minimum; I don't give a flying monkey about the law here, just starting from scratch.

- 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days, one of those in the last 28
- 24 hours in the last year
- PFL in last 28 days
- Stall in last 90 days
- Power loss, engine fire, flapless approach - all practiced in last 90 days
- Flown the type, or reviewed the POH, in the last 60 days.
- Some form of 30min+ navigational exercise (A-B, or diversion) in the last 6 months

All stuff that any of us can self administer, or a club could impose if it wanted.

Any advance on that?

G


N.B. I'd have reservations about the safety of anybody flying 3000 hrs per year !

[Conventional Gear]

Yep me too Genghis, they would be knackered :}


I think for a club to impose those rules, they would lose most of their customers and be accused of lining their own pockets.

[AdamFrisch]

I don't think stalls belong in there and certainly not nav exercise.

I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.

Nav. Well, each to their own but I can tell you that I never ever do a full flight plan taking in the variation, deviation, crosswind component etc. Only time I've done all that is when I've had a checkride/skills test! I'll do a rough mental calculation and then I'll use VOR's and other aids like GPS. Tracking a VOR will nicely tell you what crosswind component you have. Only time I'd reconsider is if I had to do a long overwater leg with no options to deviate, let's say a ferry flight to Greenland or something. Then, for sure.

[Pilot DAR]

To complete the circle on what should be a minmim as Genghis proposes, one must understand who is regulating/imposing it. If the proposal is to self administer, it becomes good guidance. The problem with guidance is that sometimes the people who should most follow it, are least likely to.

It is important to consider who takes the risk, if the pilot does not meet the minimum skill set for the task they have to perform. First and always, the pilot takes the risk, then the passengers, aircraft owner, insurer, then at a distance, third parties. In the long shot, the government who regulates, and the general reputation of aviation.

All of these parties have something to loose of the pilots gets it really wrong. So it would appear that those parties, somewhat in the order I have presented, hold the interest in pilot currency - pilot foremost!

In Canada we have a very modest annual recurrency requirement, which is a prerequisite to flying. It can be nothing more that a self study refresher test, which you complete open book, and keep on file, should you be challenged for it. It's a minimum for sure.

It is not reasonable for some pilots, to attempt to inforce hours of piloting per calendar period, prior to acting as PIC. Every floatplane pilot in Canada could have a problem come spring time! Similarly, for some of us, checkouts are not available - "there's to plane, go fly it". So we review what we can (flight manual) and go. At those times, lots of extra vigilence is very wise!

THough I have not seen insurance companies "regulate" numbers, I know that I have been asked to sign letters to them, verifying time I have flown with other pilots in support of their being insured PIC. I know that after an accident, the insurance companies are known to ask for logbooks!

As for stalls, I support the idea of an expectation of currency with stalls, and here's why:

If a pilot is uncomfortable in the stall, how is that pilot in the flare, when spactial orientation and precision are much more vital? We first learn how to fly a plane, then where to fly it. If the how of stalling any particular aircraft is a fading skill, the where during a stall is really in trouble! How's that going to work out when you have to stretch a glide over a stone fence on a forced approach?

During a flight test, I stalled the aircraft, as was breifed prior to takeoff. The safety pilot reacted with unease, and the whole event did not go well. I was later told by his cheif pilot that his pilot should never have allowed me to stall the plane, and that a stall was an "emergency situation" for that operator. I had certification requirments to demonstrate for that aircraft, and I had simply not been flying with the best choice of pilot for that aircraft. That happens....

Genghis' numbers are certainly a great objective to strive for, and would be ideal as a personal measure, but are probaby too optimistic for some pilots to achieve. Those pilots need to know that they are at the lower level of recency, and choose their flying conditions accordingly.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't think stalls belong in there and certainly not nav exercise.

I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.

I always make sure I'm familiar with the stalling characteristics of whatever I'm flying, and would certainly consider stalling, and stall warning, characteristics to vary very considerably between types. Apart from that, stalling a balanced aeroplane is a perfectly safe thing to do, taking a couple of minutes in the middle of a flight. The regular practice means that a prompt and effective stall recovery is instinctive. Plus Pilot-DAR's views, which I agree with.

Nav. Well, each to their own but I can tell you that I never ever do a full flight plan taking in the variation, deviation, crosswind component etc. Only time I've done all that is when I've had a checkride/skills test! I'll do a rough mental calculation and then I'll use VOR's and other aids like GPS. Tracking a VOR will nicely tell you what crosswind component you have. Only time I'd reconsider is if I had to do a long overwater leg with no options to deviate, let's say a ferry flight to Greenland or something. Then, for sure.

I have had an occasion or three when weather has forced me to divert to somewhere with no navaids, and an overcast was making GPS reception erratic at best. I've also had navaids fall over on me. So, I'm afraid that I just don't agree with you that in crap weather, making a diversion, with a GPS not working properly, is the time to remind myself of all those basic nav skills I've not practiced for a couple of years.


I'm also interested that you seem slightly to regard the PPL syllabus as a maximum, not a minimum standard of flying? I suspect you're far from alone in that, but I can't say that I agree with you - I keep hoping to progress beyond where I was when I passed my first licence 18 years ago.

G

[Unusual Attitude]

Not sure I'd agree totally with Genghis on set min hours as the type your flying, your location and what your using your time in the air for can make a vast difference.

For example, in my C172 out of ABZ i'd have to fly 15-20 mins to get out of the zone and 15-20 mins to get back in leaving only 20mins on a 1 hr flight to practice anything useful other than pottering along S&L following entry / exit routes and chopping around on the radio which isn’t very demanding when you've done it 300 times before.

If I fly my Cassutt from Perth, within 90 secs of take off I can be passing 2000' and well on my way out of the circuit almost ready to do whatever I want.
Indeed Cassutt flights tend to be no more than 20-30mins in duration each time as I can climb quickly to altitude in uncontrolled airspace and practice stalls, steep turns, PFL's or whatever required.

Not just for handling but also for situational awareness a 30 min flight in such a machine is far more demanding than an hour in a C172 ever was given that I'm mixing it in the circuit with far slower traffic on opposing circuits. I'm often in the circuit with microlights on 27 and a Seneca and myself on 21 and it can take quite a lot of planning and thinking ahead just to join and get around the circuit safely without getting in anyone’s way.

Much the same when I had my Tipsy Nipper, I could be at 5000' in the overhead doing Aero's only 5 mins after getting airborne meaning a 30min flight is plenty of time to practice Stalls / spins / steep turns / PFL's and circuits etc. (as long as its quiet of course!)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'd feel a heck of a lot sharper after flying 48 x 30min flights in something high performance / aerobatic than I would just racking up 24hrs per year in a C172 bimbling around....

Quality hours count for far more than just quantity hours.... :ok:

EDIT: OOPS, Just spotted your post on the previous page saying much as the above about quality hours! Very difficult to specify a min amount of hours as it will vary on how the time is spent, 20hrs could be made up of 40 x 30min 'quality' flights after which you would probably be pretty sharp yet still less than the 24hrs your suggesting....?!?!? Perhaps the avg length of time between flights is a bigger factor ?!?!?

[AdamFrisch]

I always make sure I'm familiar with the stalling characteristics of whatever I'm flying, and would certainly consider stalling, and stall warning, characteristics to vary very considerably between types. Apart from that, stalling a balanced aeroplane is a perfectly safe thing to do, taking a couple of minutes in the middle of a flight. The regular practice means that a prompt and effective stall recovery is instinctive. Plus Pilot-DAR's views, which I agree with.

In this we are in agreement. You should know your machine and have experienced stalls in it, in different configurations. But do you then need to recurrently keep stalling it once every month? Even though stalls are safe, they're less safe than "normal" flying. What if something not secured properly tumbles backwards and lodges controls or throws CG so far aft a recovery can't be made? It's a small risk, but nevertheless.

I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?

It's the wrong way to go.

Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In this we are in agreement. You should know your machine and have experienced stalls in it, in different configurations. But do you then need to recurrently keep stalling it once every month? Even though stalls are safe, they're less safe than "normal" flying. What if something not secured properly tumbles backwards and lodges controls or throws CG so far aft a recovery can't be made? It's a small risk, but nevertheless.

I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?

It's the wrong way to go.

Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.

Self declaration medical? simpler exams?, get rid of theIMC and radio nav stuff? you could call it, say, NPPL?

To be honest however, I think to some extent you're talking cobblers. The constraints that are making flying more expensive and less fun aren't in the PPL training, they're in the ever more complicated airspace, the rules that require instructors to have commercial licences, the ever-escalating fuel costs, Nimbys constraining airport operations... And of course, this is making pilots fly less, which makes them less safe - so you get people coming out of the PPL with a baseline "licence to learn" standard of flying, and then sliding backwards because the £1k they might be able to devote to their hobby buys them an incredibly minimal 8 hours in the year.

A solution, but one that's too rare is real flying clubs -where nobody's paid, everybody mucks in, cheap syndicates are there to buy into and fly at a sensible price, checkouts by experienced club pilots, no radio, and rules are kept to a safe minimum. I belong to one such club and drive an hour to get there where I can do a day's flying at £35/hr in a basic-as-heck little 2-seater I own £350 worth of, and check out new syndicate members for nothing - except that some rotter has just decided to evict us from the land our runway is on :{

G

[mcgoo]

Even though stalls are safe, they're less safe than "normal" flying. What if something not secured properly tumbles backwards and lodges controls or throws CG so far aft a recovery can't be made? It's a small risk, but nevertheless.

I would say then that you missed the 'S' out of the HASELL check, maybe doing them more often you wouldn't forget it! :E


Couldn't resist, sorry!

[flybymike]

I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?

It's the wrong way to go.

Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.



The first breath of fresh air on the thread. GA is being regulated out of existence just to support the gravy train of EASA and other regulators and enforcers with vested interests who are cutting their noses off to spite their faces. AOPA US states that 80% of students drop out before qualifying. In the UK 70% of PPLs pack it in at first licence renewal. The plethora of increased regulation introduced by JAA in 2000 did nothing whatsoever for safety, it just increased costs and hassle and created more nails for the coffin of GA. The CAA's own analysis in 2007 of the impact of BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests, etc showed no improvement in safety as a result of these changes just , as I said, more hassle and cost and disincentive to obtainand keep a licence. We all managed just as safely for decades before all this stuff came in. Bookworm will be along in a minute to say that the CAA analysis was flawed because there are so few accidents on which to base conclusions but then this simply tells its own story about the need for extra regulation in the first place and I have not seen any subsequent analysis to contradict the earlier one.
Make it easier, reduce regulation, reduce costs, reduce hassle, inconvenience, and provide an incentive to learn and progress instead of placing obstacles in the name of safety. It is alway possible to argue a safety case for increased regulation but impossible to get rid of it once it has arrived. The best safety regulator is a natural sense of self preservation , and the last thing we need is Genghis's suggestions for ruining the industry overnight!

[Pilot DAR]

The best safety regulator is a natural sense of self preservation

In my opionin, the best safety regulator is a well qualified and effective sense of self preservation.

That might be natural for some pilots, but probably not others. Those who are effective in qualified self regulation, still pay the price for those who are not. Higher costs for insurance, and greater regulatory burdon, to maintain a tolerable public image, as driven by the regulator = the public.

Make it easier, reduce regulation, reduce costs, reduce hassle, inconvenience,

Sorry this may come across more harshly than is intended....but....

The only costs in aviation are capital costs, and peoples salary's, where are you going to reduce?

Cut your airport fees? Buy your own property, pay the taxes, and make a runway. Then buy and maintain the tractor, mower and blower to keep it useable. Oh, and help clean up the mess of three landings which did not go as planned by the guest! I pay no landing fees at home.

Cut your rental costs? Buy your own plane. Not another soul has flown mine in 24 years. I fly as I wish, and never work out the hourly cost.

Cut your insurance costs? Self insure your hull. I did for a while, but honestly the hull insurance was so cheap, I could not resist!
(it costs less to fully insure my 1975 C 150 than my 2009 VW Jetta - same insured value)

Cut your maintenance costs? Do your own, under appropriate supervision. Aside from the engine reassembly at overhaul, only my hand has held a wrench on my plane. (you will need some parts though)

Cut your fuel costs? Buy your own tank and pump, build the dike to assure environmental compliance, pay to fill the tank, buy a MOGAS STC, and off you go. I actually get road tax refunded to me on 600 gallons a year!

Cut your tiedown fees? Built your own hanger. Mine cost three weeks of my work, and $2000, twenty years ago, but zero hanger fees!

So, my flying by the hour is really inexpensive, and I have great control over costs now, but it sure cost a lot to get there! And all of this for about 100 hours a year in my plane.

I have invested considerably, to take the control others might have had over my flying, away from them, and I have largely suceeded. For all those who would similarly, power to you. But, to simply say the flying you are doing should cost less, is not well thought out.

It simply costs money to get a plane in the air. Someone has to spend their time, and they expect to be paid for it! You want them to be motivated to do a good job of it, right?

Now, I am responsible to myself, my passengers, and my peers, for my continued competance. I'll sometimes think, "I could go and fly a few circuits, I have not flown this week yet.", But then I realize that there is three hours of grass cutting or snow blowing on the runway which is needed, and I do that instead. I can't afford to pay someone to do it for me!

Or, just plunk down some money for an hour's flying, and let someone else worry about everything!

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think recency of experience, not hours per year, is the most important part of maintaining safe flying skills.

A flight a month is IMO the minimal acceptable amount of flying to avoid skill fade, especially for relatively low time PPL's. If the purpose of your flight is to maintain proficiency, than 30 mins of airtime consisting of a takeoff, flight to the practice area, a few minutes practicing slow flight with full flaps and recovery from slow flight, and few steep turns followed by a return to the airport for 3 circuits will exercise the essential skills.

Stalls are IMO a waste of time, as the best stall prevention is to not let the aircraft stall in the first place. Practicing slow flight and a smooth recovery from slow flight is more important. Plus all of the flight control issues are exaggerated in slow flight so if you can keep the aircraft straight and level in coordinated flight in the slow flight regime then the rest of the flight envelope is going to be easier.

I also think it is vital to do a few circuits. if you look at the accident record most light aircraft are bent in loss of control accidents during takeoff or landing.

Finally I think it is a very good idea to do a year check flight with a (good) instructor. It can be hard to self evaluate so a impartial second opinion is a good way to correct the bad habits that can inadvertently creep in.

[AdamFrisch]

I'll tell you what does scare me and I see it constantly when I'm at the airfield:

People in the circuit over-banking at low speed, low altitude and with everything hanging out. Load factor is up and so is your stall speed - no room for trading altitude for airspeed. Bit of wind shear or wake turbulence and you could be on the wrong side of that pretty quick.

It's easy to do, trying to run a tight circuit or just being slightly behind the aircraft or a bit too late and you pull to much to not overshoot final etc. So I would agree that some circuit work once in awhile probably isn't a bad idea.

[24Carrot]

What Adam describes is a good example of why checkouts are a good idea, and help in a way that currency does not.

You could practice circuits for years, often banking too much too near the ground, occasionally banking much too much, and you could get away with it ... until the bad thing happens.

A better learning experience is to have the bad practice pointed out in a checkout.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with everything you say there except the word 'checkout. Any flying with an experienced pilot and robust debrief is a valuable tool for improvement. That experienced pilot may be an instructor, but equally could be another syndicate member who happens to be a professional pilot, or any other profile of safe and experienced pilot prepared to enjoy the flight, observe and give some constructive feedback.

G

[Hamish 123]

This is a very interesting theoretical discussion. But that's all it is.

[24Carrot]

I agree with everything you say there except the word 'checkout. Any flying with an experienced pilot and robust debrief is a valuable tool for improvement. That experienced pilot may be an instructor, but equally could be another syndicate member who happens to be a professional pilot, or any other profile of safe and experienced pilot prepared to enjoy the flight, observe and give some constructive feedback.

Agreed, though you might hope that FI's are better at spotting bad habits, and less inhibited about telling you.

[Genghis the Engineer]

This is a very interesting theoretical discussion. But that's all it is.

Why? We may not be agreeing with each other, but so far as I can see, everything being posted is based upon practical experience, and except perhaps for changing the PPL syllabus, everything being discussed is achievable, if somebody wants to.

G

[Conventional Gear]

Genghis, what interests me at this point is what about those that cannot or have not kept this level of currency? As licence holding pilots are they really unsafe?

At 1.5hrs PIC since last September, I can honestly say I had a wonderful days aviation solo today, nice local nav revision in very smooth air, bit of VOR tracking, talking to a very busy ATC unit and not fluffing anything up.

Bit of a sporty approach in gusty crosswinds but at no point did I feel I was risking either my or anyone else's safety.

Plenty of people of all standards up there today, many of them students on solo navs who have been waiting for the weather to break.

For sure I also chatted to a lot of people about options for cheaper flying and had my first feel of the controls of a 3-axis microlight (cool experience) so I'm not ignoring my lack of currency over the past couple of years.

But unsafe. Not at all, as a solo nav student I might have been a bit on the limit of overload during the PPL training, I certainly remember a few 'moments' such as the ATC call, 'unknown traffic all around you', guess who had just discovered gliders :\, but I did it then, so how hard can it be now to get back into it? Not very really, once I had overcome a bit of pre-flight nerves and was airborne, it was just the same as always in the air, beautiful and overwhelmingly satisfying.

I do think your list is food for thought. Some is actually covered already by club currency of having flown in type in last 28 days at my club. Else it's time to fly with an instructor.

There is another side to flying too though, that is some faith in ones own ability to plan a flight within ones own capability at any given time. A licence to learn has been mentioned, but that is exactly what that means isn't it? A licence that one is able to judge one's own capability to fly on a given day, in a given aircraft in given circumstances to hone or refresh skills and to continue learning?

Somehow I seem to remember that was what an awful lot of the PPL ground school and exams was about? That should be the message rather than what for some are simply impossible levels of continued currency training.

Looking back over a very enjoyable day at the club, perhaps the biggest hole in my currency was that I had missed talking to other pilots and instructors about every aspect of flying, that's actually what has always kept me safe. Talking about the pitfalls and discussing experiences - in fact I left remembering pre-flight nerves can get to even the most experienced pilots, by talking about mine today, enough of them admitted to suffering from them too.

[IO540]

There is no doubt that if you could start GA off again, and did not have to fight a multitude of vested interests (from the industry and the CAA, mainly) the whole regulatory environment would be very different.

There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.

The training environment would be very different. One would modernise a lot of stuff.

As regards

- 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days, one of those in the last 28
- 24 hours in the last year
- PFL in last 28 days
- Stall in last 90 days
- Power loss, engine fire, flapless approach - all practiced in last 90 days
- Flown the type, or reviewed the POH, in the last 60 days.
- Some form of 30min+ navigational exercise (A-B, or diversion) in the last 6 months

I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry. And the navex is meaningless for anybody who flies for real, 99% of whom use a GPS for 100% of their nav, which then becomes utterly trivial.

I would ditch the "complex" definition. There is nothing complex about a CS prop and a retractable gear. OTOH I would have mandatory training on GPS-level (and above) avionics, much of which is too sophisticated for many (that fly with it) to understand. Most instructors have only a limited understanding of it, too.

As regards most people giving up, yes I am certain one could do a lot about that, and reducing it from say 90% to say 80% would double the size of the GA scene which would be wonderful.

Especially if one ended up retaining pilots who actually really have more than 2 bob to rub together!! This game is packed with hopefuls who keep kidding themselves they can fly but they cannot afford it, at any level which does what they want to do, they never could afford it, and eventually most of them will drop out disillusioned. Such a shame.

A lot of things need an overhaul but it will never happen because there are vested interests at every step.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is no doubt that if you could start GA off again, and did not have to fight a multitude of vested interests (from the industry and the CAA, mainly) the whole regulatory environment would be very different.

There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.

The difference being that if you rock climb or parachute, you generally don't have passengers, and if you fall, the risk to third parties is pretty minimal.

The training environment would be very different. One would modernise a lot of stuff.

Absolutely, start with properly integrating GPS into the training environment.

As regards

- 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days, one of those in the last 28
- 24 hours in the last year
- PFL in last 28 days
- Stall in last 90 days
- Power loss, engine fire, flapless approach - all practiced in last 90 days
- Flown the type, or reviewed the POH, in the last 60 days.
- Some form of 30min+ navigational exercise (A-B, or diversion) in the last 6 months

I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry.

I think that personal honesty has got to be relied upon here - I do something similar to this, but whilst I fly with an instructor reasonably regularly for one reason or another, not for these reasons.

And the navex is meaningless for anybody who flies for real, 99% of whom use a GPS for 100% of their nav, which then becomes utterly trivial.

Hmmm, I'm just not going to get into that argument again.

I would ditch the "complex" definition. There is nothing complex about a CS prop and a retractable gear.

Ditto FAA's arbitrary "high performance" at 200hp - just make everything differences training, with no minimum time.

OTOH I would have mandatory training on GPS-level (and above) avionics, much of which is too sophisticated for many (that fly with it) to understand.
Some schools seem to be doing that already - but I think I'd differentiate between a GPS system (where if you don't understand it, or it goes wrong, you can fall back on existing trained skills) and say a G1000, where if you don't understand it you've got serious problems.

Most instructors have only a limited understanding of it, too.

About that and many other things. The US system where you have an instructors rating, then can teach what you're qualified to do yourself, would mesh well there.

As regards most people giving up, yes I am certain one could do a lot about that, and reducing it from say 90% to say 80% would double the size of the GA scene which would be wonderful.

Yes - and making flying cheaper and easier has to be the way to do that. Which probably means cheap simple club machines with Rotax engines.

Especially if one ended up retaining pilots who actually really have more than 2 bob to rub together!! This game is packed with hopefuls who keep kidding themselves they can fly but they cannot afford it, at any level which does what they want to do, they never could afford it, and eventually most of them will drop out disillusioned. Such a shame.

Yes, but again if you can make it much cheaper...

A lot of things need an overhaul but it will never happen because there are vested interests at every step.

Yes, especially the schools who are the backbone of certified GA. But don't forget that a lot of this happens already in the microlight and LAA worlds.

G

[IO540]

There is almost exactly zilch which can be done about it at a national level.

And I am sure most flying schools would not want to change things, because their busines model ends when the customer apparently stops purchasing their services (training or hire).

An individual school/club could do quite a lot, without actually breaking the CAA syllabus. In another life, if I wanted to blow away a load of do$h, I would probably have a go at setting up a very different kind of flying school, which would do all the things which have been done to death in numerous pilot forums :) But it would need a significant investment.

It would crucially also need a location with a decent catchment area and restricted competition. All the time that another outfit can set up next door with a 1970 C150 and the owner of the business working for nothing, you cannot really do much.