12 hours, is it really enough to stay safe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 hours, is it really enough to stay safe?
If I only drove my car for 12 hours a year I reckon I'd be far more likely to make poor decisions at the wheel, misjudge speeds and distances and generally be very unconfident.
I know flying is costly and that 12 hours is as much as some can justify but is it really a safe number to allow a pilot to remain legal?
I know flying is costly and that 12 hours is as much as some can justify but is it really a safe number to allow a pilot to remain legal?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I flew 3 x four hour long x-countries, I'd be good at nav, but little else.
If I flew 40 circuits, my landings would be good, but little else.
I I flew once a month, I'd be current, but little else.
If I flew 12 hours in one month, I'd be skint, but probably quite good.
If I flew 40 circuits, my landings would be good, but little else.
I I flew once a month, I'd be current, but little else.
If I flew 12 hours in one month, I'd be skint, but probably quite good.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends on what you do with those 12 hrs. Low monthly / hr pilots really need to devote a reasonable proportion of the time they fly to ensuring that they get back up to speed on the stuff that matters - asap.
Circuits (including take-offs and landings), stalling / competant slow speed handling (or avoidance thereof) are a must IMHO. After that do the fun sightseeing, cloudbashing, mates impressing / scaring, cross country toodle (hrs-a-wasting) stuff. It is what having a puddle-jumper is all about.
Legislating a "more realistic" min hrs number would just get too beaurocratic. Altough I think "4 hrs every 6 months" would make more sense of the desire to have a few hrs and some recent currency. We all fly for the fun of it. We owe it to ourselves to be as good as we can, asap, every trip
spellin mistakes is cos i can't spell
Circuits (including take-offs and landings), stalling / competant slow speed handling (or avoidance thereof) are a must IMHO. After that do the fun sightseeing, cloudbashing, mates impressing / scaring, cross country toodle (hrs-a-wasting) stuff. It is what having a puddle-jumper is all about.
Legislating a "more realistic" min hrs number would just get too beaurocratic. Altough I think "4 hrs every 6 months" would make more sense of the desire to have a few hrs and some recent currency. We all fly for the fun of it. We owe it to ourselves to be as good as we can, asap, every trip
spellin mistakes is cos i can't spell
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends.
If the pilot is experienced - eg loads of hours previously, airline pilot, helicopter pilot, microlight pilot - but only gets 12 hours on what we used to call group A aircraft, it's probably enough.
Otherwise, it depends on the person, but I would think it's enough if that pilot realises their own limitations and lack of experience. They ought to be able to fly short distances in good weather. They may or may not be able to cope with much more.
And as Kolibear says, it depends what you do with those 12 hours. However, I believe you have to have at least 6 hours as P1, and at least 12 take-offs and landings, though I'm not certain of that without looking it up. And of course one of those hours must be with an instructor.
That's my twopennorth anyway.
Now, helicopter pilots only have to have two hours per year per type, plus an LPC (Licence Proficiency Check) with an examiner. If you fly a number of types, fair enough. But only two rotary hours per year, or only two flying hours at all!!!!!
I do have my doubts as to whether that is safe.
If the pilot is experienced - eg loads of hours previously, airline pilot, helicopter pilot, microlight pilot - but only gets 12 hours on what we used to call group A aircraft, it's probably enough.
Otherwise, it depends on the person, but I would think it's enough if that pilot realises their own limitations and lack of experience. They ought to be able to fly short distances in good weather. They may or may not be able to cope with much more.
And as Kolibear says, it depends what you do with those 12 hours. However, I believe you have to have at least 6 hours as P1, and at least 12 take-offs and landings, though I'm not certain of that without looking it up. And of course one of those hours must be with an instructor.
That's my twopennorth anyway.
Now, helicopter pilots only have to have two hours per year per type, plus an LPC (Licence Proficiency Check) with an examiner. If you fly a number of types, fair enough. But only two rotary hours per year, or only two flying hours at all!!!!!
I do have my doubts as to whether that is safe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two hours!!!!
That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.
Are these limits set at such levels because the powers that be are concerned about the uproar there might be if they increase them.
BRL, can we have a poll as to whether the general view is that
a./ 12 hours is enough
b./ The limit needs increasing
c./ 12 hours is too many
That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.
Are these limits set at such levels because the powers that be are concerned about the uproar there might be if they increase them.
BRL, can we have a poll as to whether the general view is that
a./ 12 hours is enough
b./ The limit needs increasing
c./ 12 hours is too many
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought but until recently under the CAA rules it was only 5 hours per year. Has the safety record improved since it's gone to 12? My feeling is that it may have got worse but I don't have the figures to hand.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found the check pilot type flights interesting in answering the question as to when a pilot is becoming unsafe.
As others have said the amount of previous experience is very relevant. I would assess that a pilot with 300 or more hours on type say within the last five or so years is noticeable better able to cope with relatively few hours in a year particularly if that time is well spaced throughout the year. In my experience the same pilot with six months without flying is almost certainly unsafe until he has completed two or three hours flying. In contrast the pilot with lower total previous hours becomes “rusty” far more quickly.
Again as others have said it is usually certain skills which deteriorate and these I would assess to be landings, particularly in cross wind, PFLs, instrument skills and of course any situation which requires the pilot to have surplus capacity.
I think the real danger for any pilot who is in a period of low hours and has not flown that recently is to take on an initial flight in conditions that are less than ideal - I know this seems obvious, but that cross wind that really wasn’t too much of a problem last year all of a sudden becomes a big issue!
As others have said the amount of previous experience is very relevant. I would assess that a pilot with 300 or more hours on type say within the last five or so years is noticeable better able to cope with relatively few hours in a year particularly if that time is well spaced throughout the year. In my experience the same pilot with six months without flying is almost certainly unsafe until he has completed two or three hours flying. In contrast the pilot with lower total previous hours becomes “rusty” far more quickly.
Again as others have said it is usually certain skills which deteriorate and these I would assess to be landings, particularly in cross wind, PFLs, instrument skills and of course any situation which requires the pilot to have surplus capacity.
I think the real danger for any pilot who is in a period of low hours and has not flown that recently is to take on an initial flight in conditions that are less than ideal - I know this seems obvious, but that cross wind that really wasn’t too much of a problem last year all of a sudden becomes a big issue!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I must be typical of a fair number of low hours PPLs in that I can afford to fly just about often enough to meet the club's 21 day currency rule. Whenever I do a landing that I'm not entirely happy with I spend my next hour practising circuits ... so I spend about one flight in three doing circuits.
Of course every now and then the weather scrubs a flight, so I then have to fly with an instructor, which is clearly a Good Thing. On Saturday I hadn't flown for five weeks, so booked the SEP re-validation lesson, and although my performance did show that I hadn't flown for five weeks I managed to frighten neither myself nor the instructor. And, following discussion here, did one circuit and landing with no ASI, which was not something I'd ever done before - turned out to be dead easy, leaving me wondering "so how come this has killed people then", but so many things leave me wondering that ... And in fact the weather was a bit yukky (vis and cloudbase) so there was nobody flying except IMC students and me. It was useful to do an hour in weather in which I wouldn't have left the ground if I'd been solo, and confirm that I could cope with it without any trouble.
So, I do a little more than the 12 hours per year, and when I feel myself to be less safe than I would like I do something about it. Am I as safe as people who fly lots more? No, I don't suppose so. Am I safer than some of the people I read about in the accident reports? I like to think so, but then, before it happened, probably so did they ...
Of course every now and then the weather scrubs a flight, so I then have to fly with an instructor, which is clearly a Good Thing. On Saturday I hadn't flown for five weeks, so booked the SEP re-validation lesson, and although my performance did show that I hadn't flown for five weeks I managed to frighten neither myself nor the instructor. And, following discussion here, did one circuit and landing with no ASI, which was not something I'd ever done before - turned out to be dead easy, leaving me wondering "so how come this has killed people then", but so many things leave me wondering that ... And in fact the weather was a bit yukky (vis and cloudbase) so there was nobody flying except IMC students and me. It was useful to do an hour in weather in which I wouldn't have left the ground if I'd been solo, and confirm that I could cope with it without any trouble.
So, I do a little more than the 12 hours per year, and when I feel myself to be less safe than I would like I do something about it. Am I as safe as people who fly lots more? No, I don't suppose so. Am I safer than some of the people I read about in the accident reports? I like to think so, but then, before it happened, probably so did they ...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a bare minimum to allow you to keep flying, its definitely not enough for you to consider yourself safe. By quite some margin, I would estimate.
You can take off ok, you can definitely fly somewhere and you can perform an acceptable landing on a long runway.
How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.
The statistics show that you would die.
You can take off ok, you can definitely fly somewhere and you can perform an acceptable landing on a long runway.
How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.
The statistics show that you would die.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get the facts straight....
It's not 12 hours a year; it's twelve hours every second year. You can legally not fly for a year, then do 12 hours the next year. Actually, you can legally not fly for 23 months, then do 12 hours in the next month. And I do wonder about the sanity of whoever invented that rule.
It's not 12 hours a year; it's twelve hours every second year. You can legally not fly for a year, then do 12 hours the next year. Actually, you can legally not fly for 23 months, then do 12 hours in the next month. And I do wonder about the sanity of whoever invented that rule.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
23 months?
I need retraining if I take a long lunch break....
I need retraining if I take a long lunch break....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree 12 hours in 2 years doesn't make you a safe pilot but I'm not sure this is such a big problem.
It is pretty unlikely that someone flying less than 6 hours a year will have their own plane. So they are renting or sharing. Most clubs have far stricter currency requirements than that. So do sensible groups. Most owners wouldn't let someone who is not very current fly their plane solo. Most people who fly less than 12 hours a year will realise they need to take their inexperience into account in assessing what they can and cannot do.
So the number of people who will be able to fly when very out of practice is very small. And if they want to do it, why stand in the way of evolution weeding out the terminally stupid?
Personally, it annoys me when the rule-makers try to impose a rule to cover what should be common sense. They usually just get in the way of those who are trying to act sensibly while not doing anything at all for those they are targeting.
I would prefer to get rid of the 12 hour rule altogether and leave it to the market and pilots' common sense.
It is pretty unlikely that someone flying less than 6 hours a year will have their own plane. So they are renting or sharing. Most clubs have far stricter currency requirements than that. So do sensible groups. Most owners wouldn't let someone who is not very current fly their plane solo. Most people who fly less than 12 hours a year will realise they need to take their inexperience into account in assessing what they can and cannot do.
So the number of people who will be able to fly when very out of practice is very small. And if they want to do it, why stand in the way of evolution weeding out the terminally stupid?
Personally, it annoys me when the rule-makers try to impose a rule to cover what should be common sense. They usually just get in the way of those who are trying to act sensibly while not doing anything at all for those they are targeting.
I would prefer to get rid of the 12 hour rule altogether and leave it to the market and pilots' common sense.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two hours!!!!
That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.
That's insane especially bearing in mind that a helicopter must surely take a higher level of concentration and co-ordination to fly than a Grp A cat.
two hours per year per type, plus an LPC (Licence Proficiency Check) with an examiner.
Cheers
Whirlygig
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not better for someone to do 12 hours in one month every 24 months than 1 hour per month.
The problem with the 5 hour rule was people only needed to do an hour every 2 months. Now they need to do roughly an hour a month in the second 12 months. The costs of keeping your licence is the same but people who are flying hopefully will be flying more often.(albeit not at all every other year). People on budgets tend to lay off then squeeze in several hours which makes them more current. A lot of aero pilots give up in winter.
The CAA have to impose a minimum and I think they came up with a good compromise. Obviously flying 4-5 hours per month is the ideal but the costs are not practical
Remember also with the 5 hour rule people could get a licence, buy a plane and never see an instructor again until they die. At least they are now forced to take a checkride every 24 months.
Now the really sensible thing would be to extend the 24 month check ride to drivers.
The problem with the 5 hour rule was people only needed to do an hour every 2 months. Now they need to do roughly an hour a month in the second 12 months. The costs of keeping your licence is the same but people who are flying hopefully will be flying more often.(albeit not at all every other year). People on budgets tend to lay off then squeeze in several hours which makes them more current. A lot of aero pilots give up in winter.
The CAA have to impose a minimum and I think they came up with a good compromise. Obviously flying 4-5 hours per month is the ideal but the costs are not practical
Remember also with the 5 hour rule people could get a licence, buy a plane and never see an instructor again until they die. At least they are now forced to take a checkride every 24 months.
Now the really sensible thing would be to extend the 24 month check ride to drivers.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My house
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bar shaker said
"How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.
The statistics show that you would die."
Is this true??? If it is I think the CAA / JAA should not hesitate in inceasing the requirement.
J
"How would you cope if you had to put it into a short, muddy field.
The statistics show that you would die."
Is this true??? If it is I think the CAA / JAA should not hesitate in inceasing the requirement.
J
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To emphasise the question being asked, is 12 hours really enough to stay safe ?
Personally I don't think so. Yet, many clubs have a 28 day rule that allows you to more or less get away with this. And the requirement is usually to have flown in the last 28 days, so not necessarily for an hour.
Is 12 hours enough to maintain basic flying skills?
Perhaps, though only for a fairly experienced PPL. I assume Monocock is referring to PPL's rather than airline pilots. As has been pointed out above, although we may retain the ability to fly, the ability to perform under pressure, whether it be a crosswind landing we previously coped with or inadvertant entry into IMC, is severely reduced.
Unfortunately not everyone is as sensible as we would like re currency. Even when hours are kept up, we can still be caught out. I refer to myself as an example, just today:
I have flown around 8 hours in the last 30 days and about 27 hours in the last 90 days, around 80 since March this year, on 3 different types. I was asked this morning if I could take a plane for maintenance to which I readily agreed. It astounded me how much thinking I had to do as it was a type I had not flown for one day under the club's 56 day currency rule.
I took the precaution of reminding myself of the POH figures as I wasn't 100% sure I had remembered them correctly. As it was I had, but I still had to search around the control panel several times in flight for temperature guages, tachometer, etc.
It left me wondering how many PPL's would have thought "oh it'll be OK" and maybe come to grief. Although my handling skills were up to scratch, I still found I had to concentrate on straight and level at first as the picture out the windscreen was different from what I had become accustomed to over the past 2 months flying. Landing, though fine, also required more concentration than I had anticipated.
So, NO I am one who thinks that 12 hours is not enough to be safe .
Personally I don't think so. Yet, many clubs have a 28 day rule that allows you to more or less get away with this. And the requirement is usually to have flown in the last 28 days, so not necessarily for an hour.
Is 12 hours enough to maintain basic flying skills?
Perhaps, though only for a fairly experienced PPL. I assume Monocock is referring to PPL's rather than airline pilots. As has been pointed out above, although we may retain the ability to fly, the ability to perform under pressure, whether it be a crosswind landing we previously coped with or inadvertant entry into IMC, is severely reduced.
Unfortunately not everyone is as sensible as we would like re currency. Even when hours are kept up, we can still be caught out. I refer to myself as an example, just today:
I have flown around 8 hours in the last 30 days and about 27 hours in the last 90 days, around 80 since March this year, on 3 different types. I was asked this morning if I could take a plane for maintenance to which I readily agreed. It astounded me how much thinking I had to do as it was a type I had not flown for one day under the club's 56 day currency rule.
I took the precaution of reminding myself of the POH figures as I wasn't 100% sure I had remembered them correctly. As it was I had, but I still had to search around the control panel several times in flight for temperature guages, tachometer, etc.
It left me wondering how many PPL's would have thought "oh it'll be OK" and maybe come to grief. Although my handling skills were up to scratch, I still found I had to concentrate on straight and level at first as the picture out the windscreen was different from what I had become accustomed to over the past 2 months flying. Landing, though fine, also required more concentration than I had anticipated.
So, NO I am one who thinks that 12 hours is not enough to be safe .
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm one of those who take the view that it isn't the hours that count, it's what you do in them.
As mentioned, you could do a flight each 28 days to maintain currency including 3 landings, a practice PFL and some stall practice, all in around 30-40 minutes
Compare that to someone who drives a rut between a couple of airfields for an hour and back
The second one could do 20+ hours in the year doing that and be considered more experienced than someone with less time, but probably a better and safer pilot. True his nav might not be great, but I know which one I'd prefer to fly with
As mentioned, you could do a flight each 28 days to maintain currency including 3 landings, a practice PFL and some stall practice, all in around 30-40 minutes
Compare that to someone who drives a rut between a couple of airfields for an hour and back
The second one could do 20+ hours in the year doing that and be considered more experienced than someone with less time, but probably a better and safer pilot. True his nav might not be great, but I know which one I'd prefer to fly with
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew two very experienced ex RFA pilots, with very little money, but a love of flying. Under the old rules they would turn up at the club in the height of summer and each do a checkout with an instructor, with the other pilot sitting in the back, and then swap. They would then fly the remainder of the 5 hours each off in a few days and not fly again for 12 months. On one occasion I needed a lift to pick up my a/c and donated my share to the flight and got a lift. This gent must have been 80 – 85. He could have flown rings round me. Unfortunately, when JAA came along, both stopped coming and I lost touch with them.
I have flown 11 hours this year, in two bursts of flying with 4 months gap in the middle. I normally fly 70 – 80 hours a year, and I am not as good as I was, but I keep flying with Instructors and they are happy with my flying.
Rod1
I have flown 11 hours this year, in two bursts of flying with 4 months gap in the middle. I normally fly 70 – 80 hours a year, and I am not as good as I was, but I keep flying with Instructors and they are happy with my flying.
Rod1
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is there any point in a legal hours requirement?
It seems to be generally agreed that people differ, and when and how you fly the hours also makes a difference. What is plenty for some is nowhere near enough for others. So is there really any point in having a legal hours requirement? Pilots are taught to make decisions; surely the most important decision is their own fitness to fly.
How about abandoning any hours requirement at all. In it's place, have yearly seminars covering subjects such as keeping current, flying different aircraft, personal differences, overload, etc etc. Teach people when to fly, and when not to, as well as how to fly. Make attendance st one of these compulsory, say, every two years.
It probably won't happen, but it makes sense to me.
How about abandoning any hours requirement at all. In it's place, have yearly seminars covering subjects such as keeping current, flying different aircraft, personal differences, overload, etc etc. Teach people when to fly, and when not to, as well as how to fly. Make attendance st one of these compulsory, say, every two years.
It probably won't happen, but it makes sense to me.