Flying Hours: what do they mean?

[Whirlybird]

Hours spent airborne take on an extraordinary significance once you start flying. We hear about them all the time. Hours to first solo, hours to PPL, hour building for professional licences. Total hours, P1 hours, cross country hours, hours on type.

But what does it all REALLY mean? Is someone a better pilot because they soloed in less hours, did a PPL in minimum number of hours, or have more hours than someone else? Does it matter what sort of flying you did in those hours? Or how recently you flew them. Or whether you flew them over a short period, or consistently over several years. Are hours spent flying a jet from the UK to Oz better or worse than hours spent flying a taildragger in and out of short strips, or hours instructing but rarely touching the controls, or hours cattle mustering in an R22?

I was thinking about this recently when I went to the US, needing another 100 rotary hours before I could do a helicopter instructors course. I planned to do a lot of long distance flying originally, and a friend said: "How is flying straight and level across miles of the US going to make you a better pilot?" A good question. When it came to it, I did a mixture of things, a lot of mountain flying, and very little long distance stuff. But did that make me a better pilot? Did it matter? Was I better off spending more time with an instructor, or should I have increased my number of those oft sought after P1 hours? I now have 256 rotary hours, and about 190 f/w hours. But what does this actually mean? What does it tell you, or me, or anyone, about my flying?

Well, that's enough questions for now; I'm sure you get the idea. Basically, to paraphrase George Orwell, are all flying hours equal, or are some hours more equal than others?

[chrisN]

I think it's an "other things being equal" issue, whereby mostly the other things are not equal.

OTBE, more hours make for a better pilot, more experience, better judgement, better capability etc. etc.

There is much more to it that that, however. Just a few examples:

A very experienced pilot lays off for a long time through illness or whatever, comes back to flying, and is as accurate etc. as if still current. Another is so rusty it is like a rough early solo pilot.

There is some evidence that people can think themselves through an experience and subsequently perform much better for real than someone who has not mentally rehearsed it. In both cases there are no "hours" doing it beforehand, but one is better than the other.

So, in general, people vary so widely from one to another that it is difficult to generalise meaningfully.

But if you knew nothing more about two pilots than one having a lot more hours than another, with which would you prefer a loved one to have their first flight with?

[Jepp]

Whirlybird

You are turning into a Uk version of Lane Wallace, this is a compliment not a knock.

I don't really know the answer ,

Flying skill seems to be measured by hours, almost like a score card, the more scores you have the better you must be ???

Can a long haul pilot, who sits there, clocking up ten hours straight and level, really be more skilled than a commuter pilot logging a 45 min flight ,

I don't think so

Jepp

[andrewc]

Funnily enough I'm inclined to think that what should count
rather than hours in the air is the number of landings that
you've made...

I know that it doesn't fit the pecking order which is the
airline industry but I think that the real skills are demonstrated
in the approaches and departures rather than the cruise. :eek:

So I tend to rate commuter and biz jet pilot skills over the
long-haul peeps...simply because they are doing the harder
stuff relatively more often,

-- Andrew

[long final]

I think my personal attitude is that all hours are easy, be it in the cruise, at take off, in the climb or landing - until something goes wrong. That's when it matters, and if you are still there to clock up some more hours after, then you are a better pilot.

I suppose the industry must have a gauge, and hours are it, simply because the more you have, statistically, the more chance you have experieneced problems and overcome them.

Regards
LF

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Whirleybird:

You shure do ask a lot of questions.

However the questions deserve an answer.

Is someone a better pilot because they soloed in less hours: NO.

Does it matter what sort of flying you did in those hours: YES.

Or how recently you flew the time? : All skills generally diminish if you do not use them over a period of time. ( Except Sex. :):) )However it is a bit more complex than your other question, generally speaking an experienced pilot will very quickly regain flying skills after a prolonged lay off from flying.

As to hours spent flying between the UK and Aus compared to hours spent flying a taildragger from short strips: That Whirley depends on which flying you wish to continue doing, they both require their own skills and knowledge of the type of flying you are doing. Therefore there canno't be a fair comparison made between the two.

Hours of instructing are valuable, however it is also a very difficult question to answer properly, without going into far more time than I have to answer the question fairly.

Your decision to fly with people experienced in their field and combine many different types of flying was the correct decision.

When flying by yourself you will generally learn important lessons by making mistakes, by flying with someone with lots of experience they can teach you what to do and not to do without you having to make your own mistakes.

Hope that helps, soooo...did you learn anything?? :D :D :D

Cat Driver:
......................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[AMEX]

With Chuck's first two answers I agree and won't elaborate beyond it.
About how much you flew recently vs how good that makes you, well just think about your first flights followed by a very short break of perhaps a week. Today I am pretty sure you can stop flying for well over a few month without any serious deterioration (although the instrument scan goes away pretty quickly). So there it is, just down to your experience, with a common scale to measure it counted in number of hours...
As for what type of flying you do, as Chuck said, it is all down to what you want to do. Basically if you aspire to be a professional instructor then the more time you spend with students, the better you are likely to become for newer students. You will get time to polish or reassess your teaching skills for each indidual.
Then again, if you want to fly let's say crop dusters, this won't be of much use as perhaps some more instinctive flying will be needed (such as gliding, low level flying,...).
No matter how many hours you have had accumulated by now, what will really matter is how much relevant experience, you then hold.
This is just to say hours are all relative but there is one thing they have in common. The more hours you have flown, the more likely you are to have encountered various/unusual situations, had to make split second decision or had time to think about what could have happened if....

This probably why hours matter.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd venture to suggest that they do matter, but they're only part of the question.

I'd be very suprised if, assessed in that role alone, a 15000 hr airline pilot wasn't a lot better in most cases than a 3000 hr airline pilot.

Similarly, a 600hr PPL is likely to be far more experienced than a 200 hr PPL. But as you say, flying different aeroplanes, out of little strips, has a lot more to do with it. The landings idea is a good one.

If you talk to test pilots, they don't talk about hours much, but about types - a really experienced TP might have over 150 types, but still only a few thousand hours.

In all these cases, the more hours you've got, the more opportunities you've been exposed to for things to go wrong, and you've presumably dealt with them (more or less) successfully.

Current regs consider currency in terms of hours in the last 2 years, and take-offs and landings in the last 90 days - so these rules don't just consider hours either.

G

[Evo7]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned a good article by John Farley in this month's Flyer. He talks about this issue - with a good example of a time when he was making a large number of very short Harrier flights (typically one or two minutes, IIRC - maybe 15 minutes of log time in 10 sorties :eek: ). Total time wasn't close to the 15 hours a month that he was supposed to have on type, but those short flights contained some very demanding flying. Worth reading :)

[Chilli Monster]

Quality, not quantity, every time.

I know of people who have got their licence and decided "Right, I'm going to get 100 hours as quick as possible". Sounds good in theory, but they haven't actually progressed in their knowledge whilst doing this 100 hours. The end result is someone who, on paper you would expect to be experienced, but couldn't handle situations that others who may have taken a more "seek the challenge" attitude that others may have.

Compare the above with someone who, once they have their PPL, then decides, in the same number of hours, to learn more and gain more valuable experience within the same 100 hours timeframe. IMC, Night, some Aeros, touring as opposed to bashing the circuit. Visiting more and more varied places and flying in more and more different conditions. Each time exploring and extending themselves to actually increase their knowledge base to make themselves more competent and, more importantly, give them greater experiences so that they have more of an inbuilt "reference library" when they have to call on the experience.

On paper - both pilots will be the same. But I know which one I'd trust more in an aircraft.

CM

[Final 3 Greens]

Whirly

Let me give you a very different perspective on this one, to challenge whether there is any generalised method of assessing a pilot based on a number alone.

The psychologist Maslow spoke of four levels of competence:

Unconscious Incompetence - "Not aware of what I cannot do"

Conscious Incompetence - "Aware what I cannot do"

Conscious Competence - "Aware of what I can do"

Unconscious Competence - "Not aware of what I can do"

The descriptions are abridged to keep the post short, so not entirely correct, but enough so for this discussion.

Therefore the question arises does the Consciously Competent pilot compensate for the lack of extra experience by a greater awareness of the limits of his/her limitations than the Unconsciously Competent pilot?

A very experienced test pilot (Not John Farley!) once told me that he believed that the only area where experience was a strong differentiating factor in pilot capability was awareness in IMC, which he considered the most challenging aspect of flying.

That view, strangely enough, both supports and rejects the theory that hours are the key!

;) Finals

[Whirlybird]

Final3greens,

That sounds like a modern psychological version of the following:

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool - shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child - teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep - wake him.
Who who knows, and knows that he knows, is a sage - follow him.

I'm not sure about the relevance of either to aviation or pilot skills, though it's an interesting point.

I started this thread because it was something I'd been wondering about, with different opinions myself as time went on. When I started I thought hours were everything, because that's what everyone else seemed to think. When I looked like claiming the world record for hours spent learning to land I hoped they weren't. :D Later on I began to think that what you did with those hours mattered. Logically, it seemed that it must. But in what way? Chilli Monster, it's all very well doing your IMC, Night etc early after gettting your PPL, except you don't get involved in the difficult decision making etc that those of us do who immediately start doing long cross countries (yes, and getting lost in controlled airspace :eek: ). On the other hand, being one of those who learned all about new airfields, weather, navigation, getting lost etc, I never did any circuit bashing, never practised manoevres such as stalls and steep turns, and never got round to doing my IMC etc. I learned to fly helicopters instead. Where did that fit in? Anyway, just when I'd begun to think that total hours were practically irrelevant, I went last week for my first f/w flight in 8 months, and found it surprisingly easy. Somewhere along the line I seemed to have picked up some basics about how to fly, even though helicopters are about as different from C152s as you can get. So maybe just being in the air makes a difference, no matter what you do and in what you do it. I don't know, and judging by the number of different opinions expressed, neither does anyone else, for certain. So how come we have all these things depending on hours - for IMC courses, CPLs, instructor courses, jobs, etc etc? Seems to be fairly arbitrary doesn't it? Or am I missing something here.

[Chilli Monster]

Whirly

In one word - B*******s.

Maybe you should my post again. The two ratings I spoke of only take 20 hours - the rest of the time would, if you read my post properly, be used in using those qualifications on those cross countries in conditions which would enable you to use those ratings and thus improve the decision making process. It therefore stands to reason that what I said still applies, as you then equip yourself to get MORE experience than the person who just blindly hour builds

They also equip with you with further piloting skills which help you not get lost in CAS ;)

CM

[Whirlybird]

Chilli Monster,

In theory, yes. But I've never met anyone who actually did an IMC in 15 hours. And those I've met who did it soon after their PPL often ended up knowing little about cross country flying, without doing so in IMC. So they got the cross country experience, and the IMC got rusty, and didn't get used. There are probably exceptions to this. But I think you're oversimplifying.

[Chilli Monster]

Whirly

Oh yes you have ;) - and that person knows quite a few who did it in 15

(and this person did a cross country in IMC just after getting the rating, and still does them whenever he can :))

I don't think I'm over simplyfying - it just goes back to what I said before. Quality of experience can (and I think is) better than a large quantity of no experiences.

CM

[Whirlybird]

In which case, why the aviation industry's emphasis on hours? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think Whirly, that although we all know that hours alone is actually quite meaningless, what else do we have? Possible things mentioned are, hours in IMC, types, landings, take-offs (landings - take-offs ?). How on earth do you quantify these things into a single "index of experience", I don't honestly think you can.

Hours indicate the potential somebody has had to become experienced. What they don't indicate is whether they managed or not - the only thing that will do that is test.

So, I'd argue for entry to courses (etc.), that specific experience should be demonstrated (let's say landing at 10 airports, flown P1 in three types, made at least 2x200nm+ cross-countries) and reduce or eliminate the minimum hours requirement.

I lay a challenge to my esteemed colleagues here. Come up with a formula to determine an "index of experience" measured in "equivalent hours"....


Here's a stab at it from me

15 minutes per actual flying hour
+ 10 minutes per landing up to 3 per sortie.
+ 5 hours per airfield landed away from base
+ 5 hours per airfield successfully flown at within 25% above published field length
+ 1:30 per hour in IMC or night
+ 3 hours per type logged P1
- 30 minutes per hour of X-country flown VFR using GPS navigation
+ 10 hours per rating obtained.

G

[Final 3 Greens]

Whirly

In which case, why the aviation industry's emphasis on hours?

Think of hours as being like Euros, a universal unit that people can use, even though they are spent on different things, in different countries with different real value.

So for the aviation industry, hours are an easy common denominator that are maintained in logbooks, which are mandatory thus providing an easy and safe check. (i.e. if someone fiddles the records, the aviation company cannot be held responsible though the individual can.)

To understand your question fully you probably need to revisit it and reflect on the test of reality (actual experience, type of flying etc) against measurable reality (hours in this instance.)

At a general level aggregate hours are a benchmark - from my understanding of airline interview procedures, they may get you into the interview/check ride, but individual ability and attitude will get you the job.

:cool: Finals

[Whirlybird]

Genghis,

An excellent attempt. But where do you put helicopters? Or people like an instructor I know, who rarely goes beyond her immediate area, but puts on a C152 like it was an old familiar pair of shoes?

Finals,

I think I'm coming round to thinking the same way. Flying experience is a bit like life experience; it can be different for different individuals, but live/fly long enough, and you'll get it, whether you like it or not, unless perhaps you try very hard not to. Of course, some young people are mature beyond their years, and some low hours pilots (can't think of another term to use :D ) are surprisingly good. Conversely, you wonder what some old people or experienced pilots have actually learned in all their years of living/hours of flying. But I think these are probably rare exceptions.

I guess this could lead on to a question I've been thinking of posing: what actually makes a good pilot?

No, I'm not trying for the record for the longest ever PPRuNe thread with the most different opinions, honest! :D

[Code Blue]

Flying hours are easy to measure, whereas the other facets of an aviators career are less so - except perhaps types flown. I suspect that's why they're measured. Taken in isolation they tell you little, except perhaps as an indicator that the person took some effort over their flying roughly proportional to those hours flown.

Personally, I hope that looking back over my log book, each hour is a different experience than those preceeding or following. I would be disappointed to have page after page of identical hours. I accept that most of the time there is a lot of routine , but I make an effort to introduce some variety if circumstances allow - take a different plane or a different route to somewhere new.

The fact you're concerned about what these hours means at all would suggest to me that you make the effort over your flying.

BTW I agree about negative marks for GPS X-country. When flying for fun I switch my GPS off and do it the old fashioned way. I got so slack just following the line on the map.:rolleyes:

Rgds
CB

[Tinstaafl]

As many have indicated, sheer number of hours isn't a guarantee that someone has certain level of skill however as hours go up so does the likelyhood. Every flight is unique & forces you to practice & develop some skill or other. The greater the number of hours the greater the opportunity that a broad range of skills has had to improve.

Also skill learnt in one area has crossover benefits in other areas eg an aerobatic endorsement can be expected to improve general handling, an IR or IMC improve procedures/navigation including getting somewhere VFR in min. VMC conditions etc etc.

People disparage those who have spent a lot of time doing say, circuits instead of X-country or whatever happens to be their 'pet' favourite. It's highly unlikely that a high number of circuit hours won't be allied with a variety of conditions. That experience & skill development is damned useful for a low level circling approach in strong winds.

RW flying will still have benefits for your FW skills even if it's just by developing the automation of common skills, allowing more of your conscious thought process to be applied to less skilled tasks.

That's part of the reasoning why RW & FW pilots get credits for their experience when they train for the other type of machine eg RW to FW or vica versa.

My opinion is that ANY flying experience has consequential benefits for the rest of your flying skills.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whirly, I'm with you. I know that you mostly fly helicopters, and you probably recall that I mostly fly microlights. Yet we both hold SEP licenses. The "system" doesn't count either your rotary hours or my microlight hours, at-all, towards SEP currency. Re-arrange this into many variations, the answer is generally the same - the powers that be want to see all the hours, on a specific class, for currency or to do a course in that class.

Does this makes sense, no it bloody doesn't. Why can't somebody flying 100 hrs PA in gliders, SEP, microlights, helicopters, gyroplanes, etc. count at least a large part of that towards currency on another class. Makes little sense to me.

Perhaps we should just bin hours altogether and do everything - currency or proficiency, entirely by test ?

G

[Final 3 Greens]

Genghis

I understand your view, especially when a test for another class can replace the instructional flight required every other 12 months to maintain an SEP class rating!