12 hours, is it really enough to stay safe?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 hours = approx £1500 = £125 per month.
For the average driver in the average car, that's your average monthly fuel bill.
For the average family of four, that's just over the average weekly household shopping bill.
For the average family of four, it's less than half of what you would have to save each month to afford a decent holiday abroad.
If you smoke, you know what you pay for fags, tot up the weekly bill at UK tax paid prices, and I'd wager you would be paying easily as much a month.
If you drink, not quite so much, but you could do without it.
In the vast majority of cases, if you can afford to fly at all, you can find that amount of money from somewhere, just make sure you have a "secret" bank account to stash away the loot, and don't tell her indoors.
For the average driver in the average car, that's your average monthly fuel bill.
For the average family of four, that's just over the average weekly household shopping bill.
For the average family of four, it's less than half of what you would have to save each month to afford a decent holiday abroad.
If you smoke, you know what you pay for fags, tot up the weekly bill at UK tax paid prices, and I'd wager you would be paying easily as much a month.
If you drink, not quite so much, but you could do without it.
In the vast majority of cases, if you can afford to fly at all, you can find that amount of money from somewhere, just make sure you have a "secret" bank account to stash away the loot, and don't tell her indoors.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to note that from posts here it appears that the #1 factor which limits currency is money.
In that respect this debate is no different from one about what level of landing fees is reasonable, etc.
However there must be a lot of people who do have the money but find that flying does not present a sufficient attraction. There are hassles with the weather and (if renting) with aircraft condition, availability, not being able to book one for long weekends, etc.
One generally has a fixed amount of dosh coming in, and one will spend it according to the "return". While there are no doubt people who are absolutely desperate to fly and will spend every penny on it (and who are probably over-represented in these online forums) most people will make choices. I bet many find that the "social scene" at their local flying set-up is a turn-off for both them and more so for their female companion! So the money gets spent doing something else.
I don't think 12hrs every 2 years is enough for flying from A to B in UK weather, but a lot of people don't do that. They pick a sunny day for a local bimble, perhaps with a passenger who is more current. It is true that such a pilot could legally go off in 3000m vis etc etc but most of them are smart enough not to. So this cannot be solved by regulation.
In that respect this debate is no different from one about what level of landing fees is reasonable, etc.
However there must be a lot of people who do have the money but find that flying does not present a sufficient attraction. There are hassles with the weather and (if renting) with aircraft condition, availability, not being able to book one for long weekends, etc.
One generally has a fixed amount of dosh coming in, and one will spend it according to the "return". While there are no doubt people who are absolutely desperate to fly and will spend every penny on it (and who are probably over-represented in these online forums) most people will make choices. I bet many find that the "social scene" at their local flying set-up is a turn-off for both them and more so for their female companion! So the money gets spent doing something else.
I don't think 12hrs every 2 years is enough for flying from A to B in UK weather, but a lot of people don't do that. They pick a sunny day for a local bimble, perhaps with a passenger who is more current. It is true that such a pilot could legally go off in 3000m vis etc etc but most of them are smart enough not to. So this cannot be solved by regulation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet many find that the "social scene" at their local flying set-up is a turn-off for both them and more so for their female companion!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But can anyone answer the question... has it got safer with the 12 hour and an LPC than with the five hours per year? Of course those who thought up the rule will find statistics to prove it, but statistics can prove anything you want. The JAA rules have certainly reduced light aircraft flying, to what benefit? Less flying means less accidents maybe?
The rules have certainly stopped alot of very safe experienced pilots flying, because of costs and pettiness of keeping up to date.
10,000 hrs+ on bigger types with many thousands on light aeroplanes, but deemed not up to snuff without flying with a spotty hours builder instructor. Burocrassy!
The rules have certainly stopped alot of very safe experienced pilots flying, because of costs and pettiness of keeping up to date.
10,000 hrs+ on bigger types with many thousands on light aeroplanes, but deemed not up to snuff without flying with a spotty hours builder instructor. Burocrassy!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to shout, but I did pose a question a few posts back, and I don't like being ignored, so.....
DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOURS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER?
DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOURS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't ignoring you Whirly, I just hadn't read this thread through.
Doing more hours doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot. If you're doing it wrong then doing it wrong more often is hardly an improvement.
On the other hand the biennial flight with an instructor might well lead to bad habits being picked up and corrected.
TD & H
It's not 12 hours and an LPC, it's 12 hours OR an LPC (which has just been upgraded to include Nav)
While the rules are there and have to be obeyed people should not be fixated on them. If adherence to the rules does not prohibit you from flying that is not the same thing as saying that you are OK to fly. Use your judgement, if you are not comfortable DON'T DO IT. (please excuse shouting).
Mike
Doing more hours doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot. If you're doing it wrong then doing it wrong more often is hardly an improvement.
On the other hand the biennial flight with an instructor might well lead to bad habits being picked up and corrected.
TD & H
It's not 12 hours and an LPC, it's 12 hours OR an LPC (which has just been upgraded to include Nav)
While the rules are there and have to be obeyed people should not be fixated on them. If adherence to the rules does not prohibit you from flying that is not the same thing as saying that you are OK to fly. Use your judgement, if you are not comfortable DON'T DO IT. (please excuse shouting).
Mike
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with FRW, you can acyually get away with flying once in 4 years and being legal.
Pass PPL, just inside 2 years later take profiency test to re-validate, just inside 2 years later go flying. Sum total, maybe an 1 1/2 hours dual in (a shade under) 4 years - riduculous.
IMHO the 5 hours every 13 months was better; not perfect but better(and a darn sight simpler)
Pass PPL, just inside 2 years later take profiency test to re-validate, just inside 2 years later go flying. Sum total, maybe an 1 1/2 hours dual in (a shade under) 4 years - riduculous.
IMHO the 5 hours every 13 months was better; not perfect but better(and a darn sight simpler)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, can I just check then, that as a commercial pilot the 12 hours etc applies plus the LPC but you are still exempt the LPC as you have one every 6 months anyway (all be it on much larger ac).
Its being suggested that its 12 hours or an LPC which would mean for a commercial pilot that you never have to fly a single to keep current on it ?
Its being suggested that its 12 hours or an LPC which would mean for a commercial pilot that you never have to fly a single to keep current on it ?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what you mean by "large aeroplane" but as I understand multi engine hours do NOT count towards keeping a single engine (SEP) rating. Therefore you must either re-validate by experience (the 12 hours plus the nif naf bits) or by proficeincy check on type (ie a single engine piston)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Edge of the fens
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud69's recent experience rang a bell with me. I passed my Skills Test in May this year, flew a one hour check out on the Warrior a week or so later, and then flew about another seven hours in the Warrior over the next two months. Nice and current, happy with how the aeroplane handles, happy with where all the dials and gauges are.
And then I go and do my TWC on a Super Cub. Six and a half hours spread over a couple of weekends in August, and that's the rating done. And by now, I'm delightfully happy with how the Super Cub handles, what her checklist consists of, where her particular dials and gauges are, what the speeds are.
But the bank account had precluded me from going and having a chug in the Warrior while I was Cubbing, so... a couple of weeks after finishing the TWC, I turn up for a check out on the Warrior. Club rules say 28 days... it's been about 50, so off I go with the instructor. I've been flying quite a lot in the last couple of months, so surely it can't be THAT hard? Can it?
Wrong.
During that 50 days away from the Warrior, I'd forgotten LOADS. Partly due to time eroding my memory and reducing my effectiveness, and partly due to the fact that I'd flown something different in between. The 45 minutes I had with my instructor in the Warrior were without a doubt the most beneficial 45 minutes I've ever had. Without him, and without the club's 28 day rule, I'd have been a liability up there. I'd forgotten where dials and gauges were, what speeds I should be at in particular stages of flight, how the nav / com stuff worked, how fast the Warrior covers ground compared to the Super Cub...
In answer to the original question, is 12 hours enough to remain safe? If you're talking about PPL's who stick to one aeroplane (that's one aeroplane, not one type - we have three PA28's, all of which have different characteristics), I really don't know the answer. But if you expand that to take in PPL's who fly different aeroplanes and / or different types, I'd say 12 hours is definately NOT enough.
BM
And then I go and do my TWC on a Super Cub. Six and a half hours spread over a couple of weekends in August, and that's the rating done. And by now, I'm delightfully happy with how the Super Cub handles, what her checklist consists of, where her particular dials and gauges are, what the speeds are.
But the bank account had precluded me from going and having a chug in the Warrior while I was Cubbing, so... a couple of weeks after finishing the TWC, I turn up for a check out on the Warrior. Club rules say 28 days... it's been about 50, so off I go with the instructor. I've been flying quite a lot in the last couple of months, so surely it can't be THAT hard? Can it?
Wrong.
During that 50 days away from the Warrior, I'd forgotten LOADS. Partly due to time eroding my memory and reducing my effectiveness, and partly due to the fact that I'd flown something different in between. The 45 minutes I had with my instructor in the Warrior were without a doubt the most beneficial 45 minutes I've ever had. Without him, and without the club's 28 day rule, I'd have been a liability up there. I'd forgotten where dials and gauges were, what speeds I should be at in particular stages of flight, how the nav / com stuff worked, how fast the Warrior covers ground compared to the Super Cub...
In answer to the original question, is 12 hours enough to remain safe? If you're talking about PPL's who stick to one aeroplane (that's one aeroplane, not one type - we have three PA28's, all of which have different characteristics), I really don't know the answer. But if you expand that to take in PPL's who fly different aeroplanes and / or different types, I'd say 12 hours is definately NOT enough.
BM
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that always catches me when I first fly a warrior after a super cub is, when I put in aileron to turn final, nothing happens. The damned thing just flies straight on through and I end up lining up on a parallel runway 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoey50:
Yes, my understanding, and what I've done. Your LPC on big aeroplanes counts as the required flight with an instructor, then you would just have to fly 12 hours SEP in the last 12 to keep SEP priveleges (sp???!)
Or, as I did, couldn't get the 12 in, so did a SEP LPC to renew my privlijagees.
Yes, my understanding, and what I've done. Your LPC on big aeroplanes counts as the required flight with an instructor, then you would just have to fly 12 hours SEP in the last 12 to keep SEP priveleges (sp???!)
Or, as I did, couldn't get the 12 in, so did a SEP LPC to renew my privlijagees.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a good pub (I wish!)
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoey5o
I guess whoever signs up your LPC would be able to sign to confirm your 12 hours flown, or of course if you do the SEP LPC then the examiner will sign there and then. Its surprising how many tre's (or whatever we call them nowadays) on large aircraft are not aware of rules regarding SEP, so you may need to explain to them before they'll sign.
I guess whoever signs up your LPC would be able to sign to confirm your 12 hours flown, or of course if you do the SEP LPC then the examiner will sign there and then. Its surprising how many tre's (or whatever we call them nowadays) on large aircraft are not aware of rules regarding SEP, so you may need to explain to them before they'll sign.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Edge of the fens
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting response there, Final 3 Greens, seeing as you know little of my history. I'm sure you didn't mean that recently qualified PPL's aren't entitled to voice their opinions.
The point I was making is that changing aircraft types during your 12 hours per year means that your mental workload increases, as you have more than one 'set' of aeroplane characteristics that you have to be conversant with, while at the same time reducing the time spent in each.
Theoretical scenario 1 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 12 hours per year.
Theoretical scenario 2 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 6 hours per year, and one particular Cub for 6 hours per year.
I struggle to see how the total number of hours the particular PPL holder has logged would make any difference to the salient fact that a) he is logging on average only one hour per two months per type, and b) has two different sets of characteristics that he needs to be conversant with. Please enlighten me.
BM
The point I was making is that changing aircraft types during your 12 hours per year means that your mental workload increases, as you have more than one 'set' of aeroplane characteristics that you have to be conversant with, while at the same time reducing the time spent in each.
Theoretical scenario 1 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 12 hours per year.
Theoretical scenario 2 - a PPL flies one particular Warrior for 6 hours per year, and one particular Cub for 6 hours per year.
I struggle to see how the total number of hours the particular PPL holder has logged would make any difference to the salient fact that a) he is logging on average only one hour per two months per type, and b) has two different sets of characteristics that he needs to be conversant with. Please enlighten me.
BM
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BeauMan,
In my experience, and that of others I've talked to, an interesting thing happens the longer you fly and the more types you fly. You start to become more experienced at switching between types. I notice it particularly, flying both f/w and helicopters. In the early days, it caused confusion. These days, recent practice on one seems to improve my performance on the other. After all, to a certain extent flying is flying, and many things are similar, no matter what you fly.
To take your example, I'd say it depends on that particular PPL. If he/she is fairly new to flying, then two types may cause confusion. If the said pilot has been flying many types for many years/flying hours, it probably won't make a great deal of difference. It may even help, because if you fly different types, you are aware of the problems - you look at a control before you move it, you study the important numbers and if necessary write them down, you take a huge amount of care because you understand the problems involved.
But like I've said, this varies between individuals. It's why I think that ANY hours requirement is useless and in fact counter-productive. Since to many people legal means safe, it may give them the impression they've flown enough, when they haven't. And conversely, the legal minimum may be quite unnecessary for some people.
Pilots are trained to make decisions, about when to fly, where to fly, how to fly etc etc etc. Doesn't it make more sense to let them decide on their own ability and currency too? Why are we treating them as adults most of the time, and children in this one aspect?
In my experience, and that of others I've talked to, an interesting thing happens the longer you fly and the more types you fly. You start to become more experienced at switching between types. I notice it particularly, flying both f/w and helicopters. In the early days, it caused confusion. These days, recent practice on one seems to improve my performance on the other. After all, to a certain extent flying is flying, and many things are similar, no matter what you fly.
To take your example, I'd say it depends on that particular PPL. If he/she is fairly new to flying, then two types may cause confusion. If the said pilot has been flying many types for many years/flying hours, it probably won't make a great deal of difference. It may even help, because if you fly different types, you are aware of the problems - you look at a control before you move it, you study the important numbers and if necessary write them down, you take a huge amount of care because you understand the problems involved.
But like I've said, this varies between individuals. It's why I think that ANY hours requirement is useless and in fact counter-productive. Since to many people legal means safe, it may give them the impression they've flown enough, when they haven't. And conversely, the legal minimum may be quite unnecessary for some people.
Pilots are trained to make decisions, about when to fly, where to fly, how to fly etc etc etc. Doesn't it make more sense to let them decide on their own ability and currency too? Why are we treating them as adults most of the time, and children in this one aspect?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOURS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER
I favour a BFR approach, because you won't get signed of unless you are safe, unlike the current system, where I can log a 1 hr flight in my logbook, and still be a flying nightmare.
I like to think that most pilots have the mentallity that if they feel unsafe, haven't flown for a while, or feel they need some remedial training, then they will employ an instructor before they kill themselves. I certainly would.
I don't think there is evidence to suggest that US pilots are more dangerous than JAA boys and girls becasue they have a 12 hour in month 13-24 requirement. If the 12 hour requirement is kept, then it should be spread over 2 years, to stop people from "I'm not going to fly until march, becasue then it'll count towards my revalidation"
EA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is evidence to suggest that US pilots are more dangerous than JAA boys and girls becasue they have a 12 hour in month 13-24 requirement.
Agree with you, but then it's not a level playing field. Flying is cheaper and more accessible in the US so one tends to be more current anyway. One would therefore guess that the US pilot body as a whole is safer than the UK pilot body. At the end of the day a light aircraft pilot has 1001 ways of killing himself, and we regularly let people solo with less than 12 hours total time! The nanny state can go too far with inflexible regulations, better that reasonable people decide what is needed on a case by case basis.
Agree with you, but then it's not a level playing field. Flying is cheaper and more accessible in the US so one tends to be more current anyway. One would therefore guess that the US pilot body as a whole is safer than the UK pilot body. At the end of the day a light aircraft pilot has 1001 ways of killing himself, and we regularly let people solo with less than 12 hours total time! The nanny state can go too far with inflexible regulations, better that reasonable people decide what is needed on a case by case basis.