When is a pilot no longer considered "low-time"?
Bit of a moving goal post. It can apply to total time, some sub-category eg turbine/night/multi/instructing/agricultural or even compared the norms for a particular level of licence eg PPL, CPL or ATPL. It can even be the norms for a particular occupation.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on the context, the type of aircraft and its complexity, the mission profile, amount of training etc etc.
200 hours should make a reasonable C152 driver, a command of a 747 with less than 4,000 would seem little enough, but fast jet pilots who are training whenever they are not flying seem to reach a satisfactory level at 1,000 hours.
W
200 hours should make a reasonable C152 driver, a command of a 747 with less than 4,000 would seem little enough, but fast jet pilots who are training whenever they are not flying seem to reach a satisfactory level at 1,000 hours.
W
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I only had about 50 power / 40 gliding when I became a Ppruner, and my screen name seemed appropriate them. At that stage I knew another PPL who had 150 hours and that seemed quite a lot. But now I've done about 150 hours power, it still feels pretty low time to me!
Perhaps the minutes are sometimes more significant than the hours, especially those spent in very intense activities, e.g. gliding, aerobatics, formation, doing your IMC training.
Number of landings is a measure where a lot of SEP folk have probably caught up with long haul transport types, but of course the long haulers have other skills which I'll probably never have. Looking forward I think I'll have done well if I can reach 2,000 hours by the time I can't afford to fly any more, or fail my medical.
I know a couple of people who have more than 10,000 hours on single engine piston and gliders. To me that's high time by any standards!
Perhaps the minutes are sometimes more significant than the hours, especially those spent in very intense activities, e.g. gliding, aerobatics, formation, doing your IMC training.
Number of landings is a measure where a lot of SEP folk have probably caught up with long haul transport types, but of course the long haulers have other skills which I'll probably never have. Looking forward I think I'll have done well if I can reach 2,000 hours by the time I can't afford to fly any more, or fail my medical.
I know a couple of people who have more than 10,000 hours on single engine piston and gliders. To me that's high time by any standards!
I use a normal rule of thumb for PPL holders of 100 hr P1C before I'll let them become self-authorising on our ac.
But non-one ever stops learning.
But non-one ever stops learning.
Cut & Paste Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Durham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know folk who have flown a thousand hours and some that have flown an hour - a thousand times. The breadth and depth of experience to deal with the unexpected, manage, resolve, plan, adapt and cope is vastly different between the two groups.
When the mechanics of flying become autonomic and the management, negotiation and strategy of a flight is generally working out in varying conditions and destinations - you are probably on the lower rungs of an endless ladder of learning.
When the mechanics of flying become autonomic and the management, negotiation and strategy of a flight is generally working out in varying conditions and destinations - you are probably on the lower rungs of an endless ladder of learning.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sage advice and the perpetual learning comments are all fine and agreed with. But..... I want to understand peoples perceptions of when someone is no longer low hours.
What makes our minds up that that a person has gone from a low hours novice to whatever stage follows before they are classsed as an experianced pilot.
Do we look at somone for example who has flown 500 hours in less than 2 years with a variety of types, ratings etc as being low houred or something else?
I liked Beagles 100hr P1 interpretation.
Before anyone asks there is not real relevance for this question just trying to understand how we view our own experiance as a pilot community.
What makes our minds up that that a person has gone from a low hours novice to whatever stage follows before they are classsed as an experianced pilot.
Do we look at somone for example who has flown 500 hours in less than 2 years with a variety of types, ratings etc as being low houred or something else?
I liked Beagles 100hr P1 interpretation.
Before anyone asks there is not real relevance for this question just trying to understand how we view our own experiance as a pilot community.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think that currency is far more important than total time.
When I returned from two months of hour-building in January 2002, I felt confident that I could handle a PA18, which was what I'd spent most of the two months flying, about as well as I'd ever be able to, despite only having 200hrs total time. But after just a couple of months of only flying at the weekend, my skills were back to average PPL level.
Right now, I've flown nearly every day for the last week and a half whilst doing my CPL course, and once again I find myself able to handle gusty cross-winds that I wouldn't have even considered flying in two weeks ago. I have no doubt that, once I've finished the course and go back to weekend flying once again, my skill level will return to its more normal level.
As UL730 says, it also depends on the type of flying you do. Having flown from Biggin Hill to Le Touquet 20 times in the last 6 months will probably make you a pretty good pilot when it comes to filling in and filing flight plans, and landing on big tarmac runways, but won't help you fly into a small grass strip, and vice versa - and that's true whether you have 100hrs or 10,000hrs total time.
At least, that's the way it seems to work for me - I don't know if everyone else is the same.
FFF
----------------
When I returned from two months of hour-building in January 2002, I felt confident that I could handle a PA18, which was what I'd spent most of the two months flying, about as well as I'd ever be able to, despite only having 200hrs total time. But after just a couple of months of only flying at the weekend, my skills were back to average PPL level.
Right now, I've flown nearly every day for the last week and a half whilst doing my CPL course, and once again I find myself able to handle gusty cross-winds that I wouldn't have even considered flying in two weeks ago. I have no doubt that, once I've finished the course and go back to weekend flying once again, my skill level will return to its more normal level.
As UL730 says, it also depends on the type of flying you do. Having flown from Biggin Hill to Le Touquet 20 times in the last 6 months will probably make you a pretty good pilot when it comes to filling in and filing flight plans, and landing on big tarmac runways, but won't help you fly into a small grass strip, and vice versa - and that's true whether you have 100hrs or 10,000hrs total time.
At least, that's the way it seems to work for me - I don't know if everyone else is the same.
FFF
----------------
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currency seems to be a good answer.
So would we describe our hypothetical example pilot who may only have been flying for a couple of years but has managed 250hrs a year on multiple types as experianced?
After all he must certainly be current and keep bringing the aircraft back undamaged must demonstrate a level of competancy?
So would we describe our hypothetical example pilot who may only have been flying for a couple of years but has managed 250hrs a year on multiple types as experianced?
After all he must certainly be current and keep bringing the aircraft back undamaged must demonstrate a level of competancy?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading some statistic somewhere that new PPLs are less likely to have an accident than a 100hr P1. The rationale being that the new PPL has just come off an intensive amount of flying, and, as a newly qualified pilot, is more likely to approach the big open sky with fear and trepidation (thats me that is) thus being more cautious and fastidious about things like pre-takeoff checks etc. There could be an element of complacency that creeps in as you approach the magic 100 hour figure.
Obviously, the more hours you have, the better equipped (in theory) you are to handle emergencies and stuff.
I guess I'm about to be shot down in flames, but don't worry, I'm used to it.......
Obviously, the more hours you have, the better equipped (in theory) you are to handle emergencies and stuff.
I guess I'm about to be shot down in flames, but don't worry, I'm used to it.......
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who gives a rats ass as to whether people think you are low time or not, end of the day if your a safe competent pilot and one who doesnt think he "knows it all" and tries to learns something from every flight, to me thats all that counts, like has already been said currency is what counts, whether you have 100 hrs or 5,000 hrs you will still fit in the same size body bag if it all went tits up 
safe flying, enjoy it, and take something from every flight
Dean.
safe flying, enjoy it, and take something from every flight
Dean.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: 7nm N of LARCK
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours
An old saw which has been doing the rounds for some time:
After 100 hours you think you know it all.
After 500 hours you know you know it all,
After 5,000 hours you know you'll never know it all!
I guess you are as low-hours as you feel, on the day.
Safe Flying.
After 100 hours you think you know it all.
After 500 hours you know you know it all,
After 5,000 hours you know you'll never know it all!
I guess you are as low-hours as you feel, on the day.
Safe Flying.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x
The answer is that you are only ever as good as your recent currency ON TYPE. So a 3000hr pilot who hasn't flown for a year won't be any good.
And this is 10x more true in IMC. Which is why learning IMC flight in a collection of planes with diff instrument layouts, and then flying something else again, isn't a good idea.
Of the PPLs who are still hanging in there after a few years, most do so few hours, perhaps 10/year, that I would not consider them safe pilots.
At 50hrs/year, perhaps 100hrs P1 is a start?
The answer is that you are only ever as good as your recent currency ON TYPE. So a 3000hr pilot who hasn't flown for a year won't be any good.
And this is 10x more true in IMC. Which is why learning IMC flight in a collection of planes with diff instrument layouts, and then flying something else again, isn't a good idea.
Of the PPLs who are still hanging in there after a few years, most do so few hours, perhaps 10/year, that I would not consider them safe pilots.
At 50hrs/year, perhaps 100hrs P1 is a start?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK.
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My excuse to him 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. So for me it is currency not hours, and I've not flown this week as the weather is awful. 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a newly qualified PPL I'm definitely the real 'low-time' article! But I think I would side with those who argue currency. I'm into diving and the same argument applies, it doesn't matter how many dives you've done, after a year out, you need a shake-down!
Laters dudes
Laters dudes
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just ordered a book from Amazon UK, called The Killing Zone
A summary says:
You can fly through the zone. Or you can die in it. Most pilots earn their private certificate with 40 to 70 flight hours. Then they leave their instructors behind and enter the killing zone. Grimly embracing the period from 50 to 350 flight hours a vital time for new pilots to build practical and decision-making skills this deadly zone lays in wait for those who err, killing more pilots than all other periods put together. You don't have to be one of them. Aviation safety specialist Paul Craig discoverer of the killing zone shows you the fatal errors that inexperienced pilots make time after time and gives you tactics to avoid them. Based on the first in-depth, scientific study of pilot behavior and general aviation flying accidents in more than 20 years, The Killing Zone:
Maybe its cr@p, but it seems to address the idea that the first few hundred hours are potentially dangerous, and would presumably qualify for the idea of "low hours"
I'll let you know when I've read it
(edited for typos)
A summary says:
You can fly through the zone. Or you can die in it. Most pilots earn their private certificate with 40 to 70 flight hours. Then they leave their instructors behind and enter the killing zone. Grimly embracing the period from 50 to 350 flight hours a vital time for new pilots to build practical and decision-making skills this deadly zone lays in wait for those who err, killing more pilots than all other periods put together. You don't have to be one of them. Aviation safety specialist Paul Craig discoverer of the killing zone shows you the fatal errors that inexperienced pilots make time after time and gives you tactics to avoid them. Based on the first in-depth, scientific study of pilot behavior and general aviation flying accidents in more than 20 years, The Killing Zone:
- Identifies the time frame in which you are most likely to die
- Alerts you to the 12 mistakes most likely to kill you
- Outlines preventive strategies for flying through the zone alive
- Provides guidelines for avoiding, evading, diverting, correcting, and managing dangers
- Includes a "Pilot Personality Self-Assessment Exercise" for an individualized survival strategy
Maybe its cr@p, but it seems to address the idea that the first few hundred hours are potentially dangerous, and would presumably qualify for the idea of "low hours"
I'll let you know when I've read it
(edited for typos)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondered when someone would mention the Killing Zone.
I had mixed feelings about the book. There are some good points - some new, some which, like most good points, are fairly obvious but still worth telling. However, the basic thesis is flawed because he looks at the accident rate as a function of logged hours - the "killing zone" is a peak in the accident rates for pilots with between about 50-300 hours. What he should have done is normalize the data and look at the accident rate per pilot per hours logged. Without this, you cannot tell if 100-300 hour pilots are more likely to have an accident (as the author claims), or if there are just more 50-300 hour pilots out there than <50 or >300 hour pilots - and so more accidents.
(edit) It is often claimed that most pilots do not make their first licence renewal (I have no idea if this is true, or if it applies to the USA) - this would suggest that most pilots make the 50 hours needed to enter the zone but give up before reaching the 300 needed to leave it, creating exactly the profile needed to bias the data to give the accident rate seen in the book.
I had mixed feelings about the book. There are some good points - some new, some which, like most good points, are fairly obvious but still worth telling. However, the basic thesis is flawed because he looks at the accident rate as a function of logged hours - the "killing zone" is a peak in the accident rates for pilots with between about 50-300 hours. What he should have done is normalize the data and look at the accident rate per pilot per hours logged. Without this, you cannot tell if 100-300 hour pilots are more likely to have an accident (as the author claims), or if there are just more 50-300 hour pilots out there than <50 or >300 hour pilots - and so more accidents.
(edit) It is often claimed that most pilots do not make their first licence renewal (I have no idea if this is true, or if it applies to the USA) - this would suggest that most pilots make the 50 hours needed to enter the zone but give up before reaching the 300 needed to leave it, creating exactly the profile needed to bias the data to give the accident rate seen in the book.