When is a pilot no longer considered "low-time"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was partly reading the killing zone recently that set me off on this line of questioning.
I agree the data needed "normalising" to make it relevant.
My question purely relates to the "vanilla PPL", not IMC or any other flavour out there. It is all too obvious that an IMC has to be maintained in top condition.
I agree the data needed "normalising" to make it relevant.
My question purely relates to the "vanilla PPL", not IMC or any other flavour out there. It is all too obvious that an IMC has to be maintained in top condition.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Bose's question was not so much what is experienced or competent (not low time), and what is inexperenced (low time), but rather what is commonly percived to be high/low time.
In my experience (about 100 hrs), people with 200+ hours consider me low time, and those with 40-50 hrs consider me high time
So I guess it depends more about your vantage point, than who you are looking at.
Personally when qualified I thought 100hrs total would be a lot, however now that I'm there, I still consider myself low time. Mainly because of the things that I still have to do, and therefore need help with. I've yet to make an internantional P1 flight, or to fly P1 into a major international airfield. I certainly would need to do a lot of work before attempting either. Until such things are nothing new to me, I'll consider myself low time.
dp
In my experience (about 100 hrs), people with 200+ hours consider me low time, and those with 40-50 hrs consider me high time
So I guess it depends more about your vantage point, than who you are looking at.Personally when qualified I thought 100hrs total would be a lot, however now that I'm there, I still consider myself low time. Mainly because of the things that I still have to do, and therefore need help with. I've yet to make an internantional P1 flight, or to fly P1 into a major international airfield. I certainly would need to do a lot of work before attempting either. Until such things are nothing new to me, I'll consider myself low time.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo
I think you make a very valid point re PPL accident statistics.
It has been reported in the press over the years (the CAA understandably don't go on the record on this subject but you can glean some data from their license issue data website) that 90-95% of PPLs expire before their first renewal, and that 75% of expired PPLs have expired with 10 or fewer hours flown. I've had this confirmed by some flying school owners. I gather the figures for the USA aren't that different, putting to bed the assertion that this is due to lack of money.
Of the PPLs that remain in the game, most (but not all) fly very little per year.
All this is going to make it hard to draw conclusions purely from the # of hrs flown.
When one goes to the CAA safety seminars, etc, it is readily apparent that they are aimed at very low currency pilots - presumably for a good reason.
Re the old argument that at 200-400hrs one is most likely to get killed, it is not necessary to meet very many PPLs to realise there is a vast range of experience around. There are many PPLs with 500hrs+who have done <10hrs in the last year. One 3000hr pilot I know has nearly just lost his PPL.
Also I can't think of any mode of transport where safety-wise not only is so much in your own hands (and not in anyone else's) but also the most common accident causes are so easily avoided. This alone is going to make a mockery of anything hour-based because here a bit of care goes such a long way.
The average PPL is going to be extremely safe - because he chucks it in almost immediately and any flying he does do is likely to be very easy local stuff. Only a tiny % of PPLs ever make it into this "killing zone" and the factors which "induce" those few people to fly for long enough are much more likely to correlate with the increase in accidents than the # of hours flown.
A social scientist with a good stats grounding would have a field day here
I think you make a very valid point re PPL accident statistics.
It has been reported in the press over the years (the CAA understandably don't go on the record on this subject but you can glean some data from their license issue data website) that 90-95% of PPLs expire before their first renewal, and that 75% of expired PPLs have expired with 10 or fewer hours flown. I've had this confirmed by some flying school owners. I gather the figures for the USA aren't that different, putting to bed the assertion that this is due to lack of money.
Of the PPLs that remain in the game, most (but not all) fly very little per year.
All this is going to make it hard to draw conclusions purely from the # of hrs flown.
When one goes to the CAA safety seminars, etc, it is readily apparent that they are aimed at very low currency pilots - presumably for a good reason.
Re the old argument that at 200-400hrs one is most likely to get killed, it is not necessary to meet very many PPLs to realise there is a vast range of experience around. There are many PPLs with 500hrs+who have done <10hrs in the last year. One 3000hr pilot I know has nearly just lost his PPL.
Also I can't think of any mode of transport where safety-wise not only is so much in your own hands (and not in anyone else's) but also the most common accident causes are so easily avoided. This alone is going to make a mockery of anything hour-based because here a bit of care goes such a long way.
The average PPL is going to be extremely safe - because he chucks it in almost immediately and any flying he does do is likely to be very easy local stuff. Only a tiny % of PPLs ever make it into this "killing zone" and the factors which "induce" those few people to fly for long enough are much more likely to correlate with the increase in accidents than the # of hours flown.
A social scientist with a good stats grounding would have a field day here
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original question, my personal view would be that you stop being "low time" somewhere around the 100 hours TT and 50 hours P1 mark, but I agree that it doesn't really mean much - you could be well on the way to a CPL/IR in Oxford or have flown 12 hours a year since getting the PPL.
If we are looking at safety, I agree that currency is probably the most important thing - but it isn't everything. You could log 50 hours during a 3 week PPL in Florida and be more current than 99% of PPLs but you're probably less safe than someone with 200 hours who has logged 5-10 in the last month. On the other hand, total time is probably not much more than a measure of how well you may be able to compensate for a lack of currency. Lots of other things come in to play as well - IMCRs (and IMCR currency
), experience of the British winter (or Florida TS season, or...), recent hours with a good instructor etc. - as I was told when learning to understand statistics, just because you can count it doesn't make it mean anything... but people tend to read meaning into the easiest thing to count 
If we are looking at safety, I agree that currency is probably the most important thing - but it isn't everything. You could log 50 hours during a 3 week PPL in Florida and be more current than 99% of PPLs but you're probably less safe than someone with 200 hours who has logged 5-10 in the last month. On the other hand, total time is probably not much more than a measure of how well you may be able to compensate for a lack of currency. Lots of other things come in to play as well - IMCRs (and IMCR currency
), experience of the British winter (or Florida TS season, or...), recent hours with a good instructor etc. - as I was told when learning to understand statistics, just because you can count it doesn't make it mean anything... but people tend to read meaning into the easiest thing to count
Simplicate and Add Lightness
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSG, mainly
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Evo.
It strikes me that there's actually nothing particularly unusual about flying in this respect.
Any skill which has both physical and cerebral elements seems to have similar characteristics. The example that springs to my mind is playing a musical instrument where training time, total (practice and performing) time, and currency all have similar effects to those described in the earlier posts. For many musicians I would think it's fair to suggest that training time + total time is an indicator of how well you could possibly play, whereas currency (recent practice) indicates how well you will actually play today. I suspect the same argument could be used in many other fields, eg. golf, acting, skiing etc.
It strikes me that there's actually nothing particularly unusual about flying in this respect.
Any skill which has both physical and cerebral elements seems to have similar characteristics. The example that springs to my mind is playing a musical instrument where training time, total (practice and performing) time, and currency all have similar effects to those described in the earlier posts. For many musicians I would think it's fair to suggest that training time + total time is an indicator of how well you could possibly play, whereas currency (recent practice) indicates how well you will actually play today. I suspect the same argument could be used in many other fields, eg. golf, acting, skiing etc.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My excuse to [her] indoors for flying as much as poss, is keep safe keep current, and I really do believe that, even though it started off as a joke.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland.
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put a different slant on it, compare flying with driving a car!!
When is someone an experienced driver??
This is normally measured in years of driving. We all know how easy it is to drive a car and how often we do it.
I would estimate that someone has to be driving about 5-6 years plus before they are considered experienced and thats for only driving a car.
So what about flying a plane, which is clearly a much more complex and dangerous affair?? I would suggest it is perhaps a combination of hours, currency, experience of flying different a/c into various airfields (not always the local strip) and airspace.
Happy landings, Mupp....
When is someone an experienced driver??
This is normally measured in years of driving. We all know how easy it is to drive a car and how often we do it.
I would estimate that someone has to be driving about 5-6 years plus before they are considered experienced and thats for only driving a car.
So what about flying a plane, which is clearly a much more complex and dangerous affair?? I would suggest it is perhaps a combination of hours, currency, experience of flying different a/c into various airfields (not always the local strip) and airspace.
Happy landings, Mupp....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Between LPCs
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the currency thoughts. John Farley wrote a very interesting article about this very subject when he was a test pilot on the Harrier, he was deemed low time cos all his early flights in the harrier's early days were very very short, but in terms of currency and experience, he was right on top of it, his argument was that to be called low time is ok, but needs to be viewed alongside currency. I got caught out the other day flying IMC (simulated with a second pilot), I fully know what to do with respect to a Non precision NDB approach and yet when practising it after a long break I totally stuffed it up, my flying was good, but my procedure was pants...pure currency.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My erstwhile boss had the answer:
- Low time is anyone with fewer hours than me.
- High time is anyone with more hours than me.
Just as:
- Young is 5 years or more younger than me;
- Old is 10 years or more older than me.
That's as true now as it was 50 years ago
Keef
- Low time is anyone with fewer hours than me.
- High time is anyone with more hours than me.
Just as:
- Young is 5 years or more younger than me;
- Old is 10 years or more older than me.
That's as true now as it was 50 years ago
Keef
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, I'm new to this forum, so please bear with me as I try to get my feet wet.
I personally agree with what Whiskey Kilo wrote. It's pretty interesting how this principle works. When I had 100 hours, I realized that I really knew a lot about aviation. When I had 500 hours I was practically ready to be an ATP. When I had 1000 hours, well that was it, I knew it all - or so I thought. Here I am, some twelve thousand hours later and I can't believe how much I don't know.
Accidents seem to cluster at certain distinct points: 100 hours, 500 hours, 1000 hours, 3000 hours, 10000 hours, and 20000 (if I remember correctly). This occurs not only with total time, but also with “time in type”. There is a real tendency to get too comfortable and let your guard down. A 10000-hour pilot with 3000 hours in type needs to be careful that he doesn’t get complacent or he too, will get bit. Unfortunately, over the years, I have known many good pilots who have died in aircraft accidents. When it happens, it is a VERY sobering experience. All too often, as you look back on the events surrounding the accident it becomes very apparent that, in many cases, it was very avoidable. It’s all too easy to let bad operating practices creep into our day-to-day flying. Like the guy said when St. Peter met him at the Pearly Gates, “It never killed me before!”
The problem with inexperience is that you haven't developed the ability to know when to say "no" and your experience level isn't great enough to handle a lot of "what if" scenarios. Nowadays, low-time pilots have a broad range of knowledge, it just doesn't run very deep. That's what experience does - deepens your knowledge and understanding.
I only earn my money on those very infrequent days that I have to tell my boss "no". When the weather is good and when the equipment is operating correctly it doesn't take much of a pilot to do my job. It's when we have to deal with "difficult" weather, "belligerant" equipment, and/or "challenging" airports that I earn my money. In other words, I get paid to say "no". However, they expect me to have the skill and experience to only say "no" when it is the only safe option. Inexperienced pilots get into trouble when they say "no" and it wasn't necessary or when they don't say "no" when it was.
As far as experience goes, there is a big difference between 500 hours of experience and 1 hour of experience repeated 500 times.
Oh well, I'd better get off my soapbox.
The Jetlag Kid
I personally agree with what Whiskey Kilo wrote. It's pretty interesting how this principle works. When I had 100 hours, I realized that I really knew a lot about aviation. When I had 500 hours I was practically ready to be an ATP. When I had 1000 hours, well that was it, I knew it all - or so I thought. Here I am, some twelve thousand hours later and I can't believe how much I don't know.
Accidents seem to cluster at certain distinct points: 100 hours, 500 hours, 1000 hours, 3000 hours, 10000 hours, and 20000 (if I remember correctly). This occurs not only with total time, but also with “time in type”. There is a real tendency to get too comfortable and let your guard down. A 10000-hour pilot with 3000 hours in type needs to be careful that he doesn’t get complacent or he too, will get bit. Unfortunately, over the years, I have known many good pilots who have died in aircraft accidents. When it happens, it is a VERY sobering experience. All too often, as you look back on the events surrounding the accident it becomes very apparent that, in many cases, it was very avoidable. It’s all too easy to let bad operating practices creep into our day-to-day flying. Like the guy said when St. Peter met him at the Pearly Gates, “It never killed me before!”
The problem with inexperience is that you haven't developed the ability to know when to say "no" and your experience level isn't great enough to handle a lot of "what if" scenarios. Nowadays, low-time pilots have a broad range of knowledge, it just doesn't run very deep. That's what experience does - deepens your knowledge and understanding.
I only earn my money on those very infrequent days that I have to tell my boss "no". When the weather is good and when the equipment is operating correctly it doesn't take much of a pilot to do my job. It's when we have to deal with "difficult" weather, "belligerant" equipment, and/or "challenging" airports that I earn my money. In other words, I get paid to say "no". However, they expect me to have the skill and experience to only say "no" when it is the only safe option. Inexperienced pilots get into trouble when they say "no" and it wasn't necessary or when they don't say "no" when it was.
As far as experience goes, there is a big difference between 500 hours of experience and 1 hour of experience repeated 500 times.
Oh well, I'd better get off my soapbox.
The Jetlag Kid
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X wonderful thread ol chap - a real insight.
In answer to your compliment fishing; yes your are an experienced PPL for someone with two years experience, and yes there are dangerous PPLs out there with little currency and irregular and infrequent flying activity. But does that mean they are any the lesser?
250 hours per year is purely a demonstartion of how much money you can afford to throw at your private flying. Others do less but at least they are doing it and keeping our sport/hobby going.
I rekkon I spent 500 hours in my car this year; does that make me an experienced driver? You cannot base this discussion on hours.
Common Bose-x I'm game for a rumble!
In answer to your compliment fishing; yes your are an experienced PPL for someone with two years experience, and yes there are dangerous PPLs out there with little currency and irregular and infrequent flying activity. But does that mean they are any the lesser?
250 hours per year is purely a demonstartion of how much money you can afford to throw at your private flying. Others do less but at least they are doing it and keeping our sport/hobby going.
I rekkon I spent 500 hours in my car this year; does that make me an experienced driver? You cannot base this discussion on hours.
Common Bose-x I'm game for a rumble!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the affirmation!
The replies have been very interesting and while they wern't a fish for personal compliments they have given food for thought.
It is an intersting comparison between the book that sent me off on this thread "the killing zone" and the comments of others.
And Captain Arrestahook I shall rumble with you over beer later!
The replies have been very interesting and while they wern't a fish for personal compliments they have given food for thought.
It is an intersting comparison between the book that sent me off on this thread "the killing zone" and the comments of others.
And Captain Arrestahook I shall rumble with you over beer later!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrestahook
250 hours per year is purely a demonstartion of how much money you can afford to throw at your private flying. Others do less but at least they are doing it and keeping our sport/hobby going
You suggest somebody was fishing for a compliment but you sound like you are looking for a fight allright
What you wrote is, with respect, nonsense.
If somebody can fly 250hrs/yr (I do about half that) all well and good - they will build up excellent currency, presumably on type (since somebody doing 250 is hardly self fly hiring a selection of old spamcans). GA needs more people like that; the whole scene needs the incentive to lift its standards up.
Presently the whole scene is based on nearly every PPL chucking it in in no time at all, so there is no pressure for things to improve.
Yes "we" do have the right to be able to fly just 12hrs every 2 years but then we expect schools to be well organised, operating decent planes, employing decent instructors, and have decent planes available for self fly hire... hardly realistic. If only every new PPL (or even a significant % of them) got out there and did some serious flying.... Presently, with a few pilots hanging in there doing a few hours a year, it is like standing on the Titanic.
250 hours per year is purely a demonstartion of how much money you can afford to throw at your private flying. Others do less but at least they are doing it and keeping our sport/hobby going
You suggest somebody was fishing for a compliment but you sound like you are looking for a fight allright
What you wrote is, with respect, nonsense.
If somebody can fly 250hrs/yr (I do about half that) all well and good - they will build up excellent currency, presumably on type (since somebody doing 250 is hardly self fly hiring a selection of old spamcans). GA needs more people like that; the whole scene needs the incentive to lift its standards up.
Presently the whole scene is based on nearly every PPL chucking it in in no time at all, so there is no pressure for things to improve.
Yes "we" do have the right to be able to fly just 12hrs every 2 years but then we expect schools to be well organised, operating decent planes, employing decent instructors, and have decent planes available for self fly hire... hardly realistic. If only every new PPL (or even a significant % of them) got out there and did some serious flying.... Presently, with a few pilots hanging in there doing a few hours a year, it is like standing on the Titanic.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point for discussion, but utterly meaningless in reality for all the reasons listed so far in the thread, especially that saying to yourself 'OK, I'm no longer low-time' can lead to mega-complacency.
I will advance my own definition, though:
You are no longer low-time when you know when to be scared and when not to be scared.
QDM
I will advance my own definition, though:
You are no longer low-time when you know when to be scared and when not to be scared.
QDM
