Currency requirements

[TonyR]

Aussie Andy,

I voted for 12 hours a year perhaps it should have been 12 times, and I know where you are comming from but flying has to be fitted in somewhere. For some people it is the money but it wil cost someone more money and time to get back in the air after say 6 months that it would to drop into a local club and fly for 20 min in a 150 or something once a month.

I just don't see the point in spending £6,000 on a PPL and then not flying even 12 times a year.

Take the flying club in Derry, N Ireland, a 152 costs about £85 per hour, 30 min x 12 =£510 per year or £10 a week.

And as I said try to fly with others and cost share.

There are pleanty of club a/c not doing much so I don't see the problem.

Tony

[englishal]

I'm of the view that it should be the pilots choice, along the lines of a BFR in the States.

Most pilots will have the sense not to fly if they are un-current, I certainly don't, the longest gap I've left is about 7 months. I went up with an instructor until I felt happy (a couple of hours and some circuits), he was happy, and I went on to complete a further 100 or so hours over the next 10 weeks. I now try and fly every couple of weeks, but have trouble finding flying buddies....my mates work too hard, and I get bored flying on my own (EGHH...TB10/PA28.....loads of hours to burn if anyone wants a jolly sometime)

[boomerangben]

Me thinks it depends on you and the type of flying you do. To remain current in IMC requires more than flying VFR. If you've got several hundred hours you need less than those with a shiny new license. I personally advocate the helicopter system which is so many hours a year including a check ride with an examiner (although I think an unrestricted FI would be a better rule).

[MLS-12D]

I now try and fly every couple of weeks, but have trouble finding flying buddies....my mates work too hard, and I get bored flying on my own (EGHH...TB10/PA28.....loads of hours to burn if anyone wants a jolly sometime)

Hi englishal,
Thanks for the invitation.
It sounds like you need a new challenge. Perhaps it's time for you to consider moving on to a different type of flying (e.g. gliding, aerobatics, floats, helicopters, tailwheel, etc. etc.) ... life is too short to be bored 'driving' around to the same old places in an easy-fly spam can!
Best wishes,
MLS-12D

[englishal]

Yea good idea!

I have a gliding club a couple of miles from my house, so I'm going to pay them a visit this summer.

Aero's....another fine idea, I quite fancy doing the AOPA course, though the people I contacted at Compton Abbas don't do it anymore...........

We were talking of a float plane course in Laughlin, Nevada. Cheap hotels, gambling, free booze, hot sunshine....ah a good summer holiday me thinks!

Cheers

[slim_slag]

EA, Suggest you look at the temps before you head out to Laughlin in the summer. Bit toasty right now, pay a visit to the fun little float plane during Spring Break when the weather is cooler. The additional scenery on the river will heat the blood...

FAA seems to have it about right (I'm tired of saying that) with currency requirements.

[englishal]

Flew out there last summer....fantastic place. Got a hotel for $25 per night via the FBO, it was a palace (though lost considerably more in the Casino). Spring break scenery sounds good though

EA

[Classic]

I think currency requirements should be based on experience. When I first got my PPL I could only afford an hour every six weeks or so and had no idea what I was doing. Last year, after 22 years of professional flying and 4 years since my last SEP flight I jumped into an AA5 and felt back up to speed after an hour's instruction.

So any regulation of flying hours is never going to suit everybody -we all have our own levels of experience, competence and confidence.

We, as pilots, should encourage others, as should flying schools and the CAA/PFA, to take a sensible attitude to currency and use their common sense rather than setting limits or creating legislation which will only restrict GA.

I think Tony R's idea of having a scheme whereby pilots short of those qualities, experience, competence or confidence, can look to others for a cheap and easy way to get airborne and rebuild or regain them, so they don't lose that hard earned PPL or the enthusiasm to use it.

I would be happy to help anyone in such a situation, either with them coming with me in my 2 seat homebuilt based near Buckingham or for me to fly with them. Just PM me and we could talk it through. Lest anyone object, this is not instructing, just pilots teaming up to help each other out.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, having started the thread, since it's starting to slip down the page it's probably appropriate that I add up the results.

Which out of 68 votes so far, comes out at an average of roughly 13½hrs per year, as our collective opinion of how current a pilot should be.

I have to say, as a minimum, I could live with that, and would feel reasonably comfortable sharing the sky with pilots who are all doing an average of at-least 1:10 per month, which is roughly what that comes out as.


How to do it is of-course another question. My proposal would be a 3 month rolling average. That would basically mean a pilot would have to have 3:20 in the last 90 days to fly P1, including 3 take-offs and landings on class to carry pax. I suspect that's probably not far off what most experienced pilots apply to themselves anyway.


G

[englishal]

I would suggest a 4 month period....and 4 hrs in 4 months. Not flown for over 4 months, but less than 24 months, a simple "re-validation" flight with a JAA instructor should re-set the clock. Over 24 months, a skills test with an FE.

However, get rid of any requirement to *have* to do a flight with a JAA FI, and *have* to get a form signed by a FE; so long as you remain current, its self ticking over for ever.......

I'd be happy with that.

Cheers

[Genghis the Engineer]

My only disagreement there is that it's misaligned with the 90 day rule.

Make it 4 hours in 4 months, and 4 take-offs and landings, and I'm with you. Or 3 hours in 90 days to align with the t/o+ldg rule - just don't make it too complicated !

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

If there was any indication that setting more restrictive regulations requiring more recent experience would lead to less incidents and more importantly fatalities I would be all in favour of setting them.

However pure handling errors seems to be quite a way down on the list of factors leading to fatalities/accidents.

Top of the list are CFIT and Fuel mismanagement, neither of which will be addressed by increasing the recency requirements.

Somehow I suspect that the regulatory authorities see the lack of relationship too as I think they would have increased the requirements substantially, as this is very easy to implement and to some extent enforce.

FD

[Whirlybird]

What exactly does anyone feel is being gained by having an hours requirement? I'm serious here. IMHO, what is really needed is that pilots learn to assess their own ability for the type of flying they plan to do, based on recency of course, but also on overall experience and various other factors.

I personally advocate the helicopter system which is so many hours a year including a check ride with an examiner (although I think an unrestricted FI would be a better rule).

It's actually only two hours per year per helicopter type. Not a lot, is it? Yet do we see loads of helicopter accidents as a result of lack of practice? I think not.

I voted for pilot's own assessment (or however it was worded) and I've seen nothing here to change my view on that. Yes, there are some idiots around who can't be trusted, and who I wouldn't want to share the sky with. But we're not going to weed them out by this means; let's find some other way. About all the recency requirements do is give a hard time to airline pilots who want to keep their PPLs, others who fly f/w and rotary and microlights and go crazy sorting out myriad dates and requirements, and experienced pilots who end up having a few months layoff for some good reason.

We already have the 90 day rule to protect innocent passengers. Why do we need anything else?

[Monocock]

Sorry if I am getting a reputation for breathing life back into old threads but the recent weather has got me thinking about this topic.

Yesterday I flew for the first time since the 2nd of January. This is the longest gap between flights I have had for 5 years. Normally I would need psychiatric help if I had been ground bound for two weeks but the weather has been unco-operative and work has been demanding.

Last year I flew 101 hrs and felt current on each and every flight. Current to a level that I felt happy with on each flight.

When I advanced the throttle on take-off I have to admit to feeling less than happy with the situation. I felt below par with my confidence. Within 10 minutes of being airborne I had my airmind back and was back in the saddle feeling comfortable.

This is leading up to me saying that there is no way on this earth that 12 hours is sufficient for any pilot to maintain a level of experience, confidence and knowledge in one year. No way at all. I consider it dangerous and I feel confident that accident statistics would verify this view if examined closely. I stand to be shot down however!

If I had the choice of being flown by a 100 hr pilot who flew the week before or a 15,000 hr pilot who hadn't flown for a month or two I know which plane I'd run for.

Comments?

P.S And the 14% who feel it should be at pilot's discretion......please PM with with your intentions on a weekly basis and I will make some temporary restrictions to my flying routes. That suggestion is just ridiculous.

[Whirlybird]

Monocock,

I voted for pilot's discretion, and I haven't changed my mind. However, I know exactly what you mean. And I think the longer you fly, the more aware you are of the difference when you give it a rest for a bit.

However, in my experience, the more flying you've done, the more you recognise your own state of...mind, ability, rustyness, whatever. That means you can make allowances for it. Also, generally, the more experience you have the quicker you get back in the saddle...as you found. And the longer you can leave, without your abilities degrading too much.

Also, there are individual differences. And differences in the type of aircraft, type of flying people do, type of area. If I know I'm rusty, I'll fly circuits on a quiet day, or play in a quiet area without much traffic or too much radio etc to do...I won't take a long trip on a the first sunny day of the year with deteriorating weather forecast.

The problem with rules is that people use the rules instead of their own judgement. Whether you make it 12 hours a year, 100 hours a year, a flight within the last week, or whatever, it'll be not enough for some people and situations, and too much for others. What is needed is for pilots to take full responsibility for their own actions and their own abilities...as they have to do all the rest of the time anyway. I don't need someone telling me how many hours to do; I know if I'm current or not. And sometimes I get told I'm over-cautious, because like you I'm usually more careful than the rules say I need to be.

In an ideal world, everyone could afford the time and money to fly hundreds of hours a year and at least a couple of hours a week. That would be wonderful - and safe. But it ain't going to happen. So we all do the best we can. And far, far better in my opinion, for pilots to learn how to judge that themselves - we don't need a nanny CAA.

But I'll happily tell you when and where I'm going to be flying...if you really, really want to know.

[WestWind1950]

Monocock,

lucky you to have your own plane and, if i remember right, your very own airstrip... most of us aren't that lucky!

On Friday I flew the first time as an instructor since ??? and the 90-day rule was covered by a flight last December! Did I feel confident? yes! did I feel at all nervous? maybe a bit, but that dwindled as soon as I sat in the right seat. Yesterday I did a cross-country with a student... then today's flight got canceled because of dense fog.

Why don't I fly more often?
1) money... I just can't afford it!
2) we have hardly any students at the moment and the ones we have are being taught by instructors that live just 5 minutes from the field.
3) weather... we have had one of the lousiest summers this year! and when I had time to fly, the weather, like today, was unflyable
3) time... I work full time. And when the weather is great, I'm sitting in the office (see also No. 3)
4) airplane availability.... how often did I have time to fly, weather was great.... but all aircraft were booked

I agree that it would be ideal to fly regularly, but for probably 75% or more of us private flyers that just doesn't work. And that does NOT make us worse pilots!!

Westy

[shortstripper]

Looks like the voting has closed on this, but I'd go for pilot descretion.

The last two posts pretty well sum up my thoughts on the subject.

SS

[Monocock]

WestWind

Having my own a/c and strip has got nothing to do with this at all. I was merely saying that I was surprised at the level of rust that had developed with my instincts in a two week period.

Yes, I am lucky to have these facilities although I would never profess that they allow me to fly more often!! Keeping a strip requires much more than just turning up and turning the key.

You obviously disagree with my views on currency for which I accept a difference in opinion.

I tend to disagree with your last sentence though. I do firmly believe that flying regularly does improve ones piloting skills. An infrequent flyer will certainly not have the honed skills of a frequent one and although I wouldn't choose the words "worse pilot", I might suggest the words "less reliable". Not once in this or the previous thread am I suggesting that I have particularly good skills before anyone pounces! I fly a volume of hours per month that I consider keep me at a level of competence that I feel comfortable with.

The other thing I find interesting is the repeated myth about flying costing vast sums of money and that this is often the most restrictive part of the pastime. To fly at sensible touring speeds in two seat comfort can cost as little as £30/hr. I sometimes see groups of people drinking £30 worth of beer in the flying club bar after renting a C150 for an hour and moaning about the cost of flying.....

I am not being inflammatory and neither do I wish to start a heated discussion. I am purely giving a view.

[FlyingForFun]

It's also important to realise that "currency" involves more than just having flown recently. There are different types of flying, and being current at one doesn't necessarilly make you current at another.

For example.... one PPL I know flies very regularly, but only ever flies to the local area and back. I have no problem with this - it keeps him happy, and he is very good at doing what he does. But he wouldn't be my first choice of pilot to take me on a 200 mile round trip with some complicated airspace to negotiate.

I'm lucky enough to have a job which keeps me very current. But when a student asked me to take him spinning recently, I didn't feel particularly current. I've spun various different types of aircraft, I've explored different types of spin (in an appropriate aircraft, of course), and I have spun the same type of aircraft as I was due to spin that day. But it had been a couple of months since I'd last done any spinning. I climbed up to a nice safe height (with a bit of extra height added to compensate for my lack of currency), and began teaching the student the correct entry procedure. As soon as I'd recovered from the first spin, I felt a whole load more in controle of the flight.....

Not quite sure how any regulation is ever going to completely cover the complexities of a subject like currency.

FFF
--------------

[Whirlybird]

Not quite sure how any regulation is ever going to completely cover the complexities of a subject like currency.

But isn't it interesting that all the posters since this thread was resurrected have been quite certain of their own currency or lack of it. So who are we having the regulations for?