The 100 hour glass ceiling
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Stickandrudderman - yes that is a good idea. Did anything ever come of AOPA's mentorship scheme?
Not that I'm aware of.
Stickandrudderman - yes that is a good idea. Did anything ever come of AOPA's mentorship scheme?
Not that I'm aware of.
Mentor scheme apparently up and running:
Looks fiendishly complicated though from insurance point of view
See here
AOPA: Mentoring Scheme - Mentees
Cusco
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The day you take off with no nerves at all you will start becoming dangerous.
- apply top-class maintenance and pro-actively manage the people that do it, avoiding the cowboys (possible only if you are an owner)
- follow procedures / checklists
- understand the aircraft systems
- keep escape routes open (e.g. carrying a raft when over water) at all times
Then you can fly without being nervous.
Re the AOPA mentor scheme, I don't understand why they made it so complicated. I spoke to Haywards Aviation insurance about this and (they had not apparently been contacted by AOPA UK over it) they cannot see why there should be a liability issue purely as a result of a passenger being carried who is better qualified than the PIC - so long as the LHS is always the PIC.
My suspicion, which won't sound too charitable to AOPA, is that AOPA tried to get too involved in it (and a cynical person might observe that by requiring both pilots to be paid-up AOPA members they are using this as a membership generator for AOPA) and as a result they have created a climate whereby AOPA could be liable (rather than the mentor, for whose liability I am sure there is no legal precedent provided that the mentor is not an instructor) because they are acting as an "introducer" of the mentor.
There is some precedent from the USA whereby a passenger who just happened to be an instructor (FAA CFI/CFII) was held up following some accidents. But I think very few mentors will be instructors, not least because they would get into trouble with their school for undermining revenue generation.
I think, given typical airfield polics, there would be plenty of scenarios where a very overt mentor is going to get some stick from the mentee's flying school who will see it as usurping their instructors' authority and undermining opportunities for extracting additional funds from the mentee. The mentor probably will not have any connection with that school, but for example his own hangarage may be a bit delicate... always got to watch your 6 o'clock
I do some mentoring but always in my plane, always with the other chap in the RHS, always with me being the PIC, plus I help out with ground school/preflight stuff and that is almost the bigger benefit. And the stuff I have so far done was pre-PPL so no school was potentially involved.
Last edited by IO540; 11th Jul 2010 at 15:31.
I think I get your drift, too, and thanks for your comments.
Yet allow me to insist: One should be prepared, indeed, but it is impossible to be totally prepared. At least, that's what I was taught.
Most dangerous is to _believe_ one is totally prepared. I was sharply reminded of that at last weekend's obituaries.
There is not a single flight possible with zero risk. Whatever risk remains - and it can be reduced to acceptable levels, no less than the average car ride, far less a car ride through Friday afternoon traffic jams around major cities; but no-one seems to be nervous when starting such a ride - whatever risk remains should increase our nervosity, to raise our adrenaline levels, to keep us at the top of our ability.
There should never be any routine flight. Routine flying is dangerous - at least, that's what I was taught.
On top of that, routine flying is just as expensive as high adrenaline flying - and only half the fun. Don't want to sound like an adrenaline junkie, though...
((off the record: I am a bit of an amateur musician, too, and got exactly the same lesson in that world: whenever, however, wherever you play a tune, it should be played as crisply and as consciently as if it were the first time you did it. Thought of that guy many times, since))
Yet allow me to insist: One should be prepared, indeed, but it is impossible to be totally prepared. At least, that's what I was taught.
Most dangerous is to _believe_ one is totally prepared. I was sharply reminded of that at last weekend's obituaries.
There is not a single flight possible with zero risk. Whatever risk remains - and it can be reduced to acceptable levels, no less than the average car ride, far less a car ride through Friday afternoon traffic jams around major cities; but no-one seems to be nervous when starting such a ride - whatever risk remains should increase our nervosity, to raise our adrenaline levels, to keep us at the top of our ability.
There should never be any routine flight. Routine flying is dangerous - at least, that's what I was taught.
On top of that, routine flying is just as expensive as high adrenaline flying - and only half the fun. Don't want to sound like an adrenaline junkie, though...
((off the record: I am a bit of an amateur musician, too, and got exactly the same lesson in that world: whenever, however, wherever you play a tune, it should be played as crisply and as consciently as if it were the first time you did it. Thought of that guy many times, since))
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the “100 hours min” restrictions I know of are 100h P1, not total time. I started power flying back in 1991, and the “100 hour” restriction was already well established. Do not assume that if you turn up with 101 hours you will be allowed to do what you want. The 100 hours normally just gets you to the interview…
If anybody is looking for a place on a strip in Staffordshire, and has 100 hours, get in touch…
Rod1
If anybody is looking for a place on a strip in Staffordshire, and has 100 hours, get in touch…
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Katamarino said:
Specifically, it divides the number of low-hour pilot accidents by the number of accidents, and claims that low hour pilots are risky because they are in a lot of accidents.
The correct measure is to divide the number of low-hour pilot accidents by the number of low-hour pilot hours flown, and then compare that ratio with the high-hour pilot equivalent.
This error is so well known it has a name: "the base rate fallacy". For example I expect most GA accidents in Britain involve British pilots. I can't use this statistic to deduce that British pilots are the worst in Britain. Nor that they magically improve when flying in Germany, etc.
So far as I know, there is no record of how many hours are flown annually by low-hour pilots, which could be why we never see the correct measure.
In Paul Craig's defence, I believe he did do a lot of research on accident records and published them, and there are some useful lessons in his book, so I am in no rush to criticise even if the statistical analysis is dodgy.
And even if he does't prove it exists, the idea of a Killing Zone is at least plausible!
"The Killing Zone" book is statistically worthless; it's a shocking attempt at mathematics.
The correct measure is to divide the number of low-hour pilot accidents by the number of low-hour pilot hours flown, and then compare that ratio with the high-hour pilot equivalent.
This error is so well known it has a name: "the base rate fallacy". For example I expect most GA accidents in Britain involve British pilots. I can't use this statistic to deduce that British pilots are the worst in Britain. Nor that they magically improve when flying in Germany, etc.
So far as I know, there is no record of how many hours are flown annually by low-hour pilots, which could be why we never see the correct measure.
In Paul Craig's defence, I believe he did do a lot of research on accident records and published them, and there are some useful lessons in his book, so I am in no rush to criticise even if the statistical analysis is dodgy.
And even if he does't prove it exists, the idea of a Killing Zone is at least plausible!
Yes, this is the error that I was referring to, and why I said it was "statistically worthless" rather than just "worthless". Of course, one would not have expected such a basic error from someone trying to do proper research.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another book for newly qualified PPL
I'd like to recommend a book specifically targetted at the newly qualified PPL which covers many of the concerns addressed in this thread, but also lists and expands a whole range of potential opportunities for the newbie.
Although written about 10 years ago (1997) the information still seemed pretty current to me. It's very well written and easy to read. Targetted for UK audience.
Clearer Horizons by James Allan (Available from Amazon UK - it came quite quickly despite the out-of-stock status)
Although written about 10 years ago (1997) the information still seemed pretty current to me. It's very well written and easy to read. Targetted for UK audience.
Clearer Horizons by James Allan (Available from Amazon UK - it came quite quickly despite the out-of-stock status)
Moderator
There was a "look"......
30 years ago, I'd be talking to really experienced pilots (my work happened to put me in the same place as some Canadian renowned test pilots). I'd be talking to them, so as to try to weedle my modest piloting experience into their ranks. I got "the look". It was not rude, or condecsending, it was not associated with any particular words.... It was just a look... I saw it, but did not understand it. I'm starting to, and it's finding its way on to my face too.
I have no intention to demean anyone here, or make less of the modest experience which new pilots have, but, I have "the look", none the less.
There are a few posts here from multi thousand hour pilots, and a few from new pilots. Trust me, each of those multi thousand hour pilots has the same look on their face here. We want to encourage new pilots (that's why we post, for the most part), but falsely fluffing up new pilot's egos with "oh yeah, you've got what it takes now, go do what you want", is not going to happen.
If you're paying attention, you will never stop learning. The instructor or mentor pilot should not have to pay you, even though they are learning too - they have earned the privilage of charging for their expertise if they choose, be it major, or modest. Thinking you cannot learn form them is simply foolish, and that's just the negative warning sign that the 100 judges are watching for.
Yesterday, I flew the 168th different aircraft of my "career", A Cessna 180 floatplane, which I landed in an Atlantic fjord in Norway. With 400 hours of Cessna floatplane time, still a very new experience for me, in many ways. The pilot flying with me very likely has somewhat fewer total flying hours than I, but obviosly has a lot more experience doing this. I asked quite a few questions, and got great answers. I sure learned a lot from him.
New pilots, we'll try to not give you "the look", but try not to assert your skills too much either. Please keep your minds open for a thousand hours or so, then go back and re-read all of this!
My best wishes for your happy, long, and safe flying careers!
I have no intention to demean anyone here, or make less of the modest experience which new pilots have, but, I have "the look", none the less.
There are a few posts here from multi thousand hour pilots, and a few from new pilots. Trust me, each of those multi thousand hour pilots has the same look on their face here. We want to encourage new pilots (that's why we post, for the most part), but falsely fluffing up new pilot's egos with "oh yeah, you've got what it takes now, go do what you want", is not going to happen.
If you're paying attention, you will never stop learning. The instructor or mentor pilot should not have to pay you, even though they are learning too - they have earned the privilage of charging for their expertise if they choose, be it major, or modest. Thinking you cannot learn form them is simply foolish, and that's just the negative warning sign that the 100 judges are watching for.
Yesterday, I flew the 168th different aircraft of my "career", A Cessna 180 floatplane, which I landed in an Atlantic fjord in Norway. With 400 hours of Cessna floatplane time, still a very new experience for me, in many ways. The pilot flying with me very likely has somewhat fewer total flying hours than I, but obviosly has a lot more experience doing this. I asked quite a few questions, and got great answers. I sure learned a lot from him.
New pilots, we'll try to not give you "the look", but try not to assert your skills too much either. Please keep your minds open for a thousand hours or so, then go back and re-read all of this!
My best wishes for your happy, long, and safe flying careers!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
Thank you for your wisdom - which is much appreciated but I think you are misunderstanding me - if it is my words (in part) which you are addressing.
When I say that when you have completed your PPL you have all you need to know to fly the aircraft you are rated for - I mean in a head knowledge sense. This is obvious - that's what the PPL course is designed to do and the skills test tests that you are competent to fly an aircraft as PIC according to your terms of your license.
That there is much, much more to learn I have no doubt. That is life. But many pilots see the continuous checkouts (currency and hiring at a different club) as merely income earning opportunities and as such are resented. It is a formality and is often conducted as such.
I don't doubt that they do make their own contribution to safety - but what I am saying is that I am not learning much from them. This is not arrogance or over confidence on my part - anything but. It's just that they're just going through the motions of what they have to do.
After all many flying instructors do not have that much more experience that the average PPL. It's just the next link in the road to becoming an airline pilot. Unlike your good self most of these people could not care less if you become a better pilot. It's a job - not a well paid job I hasten to add - and I don't envy the way they have to sit around in a ridiculous uniform watching day time TV without being paid on days in which the weather is unsuitable for flying.
This is not to say that they are not of help. Of course they are - but it crazy that there are all these checks which the CAA (which after all has safely as top priority) do not require. So is it a circus or not?
Most PPLs want to fly safely. Safety evenings are typically packed out. They also want to know as much as they can about how to improve their flying. But may I suggest that this hackneyed commercial airline industry supporting path needs to be examined as it is not serving the PPL community well?
What I want from an instructor and what I am happy to pay for is to learn NEW skills - not to be continually tested on the skills I already have. If I make a poor approach or a balloon landing I make a note to do it better next time. All the instructors in the world are not going to help in this case - I know how to do it myself - it just needs practice. It's like driving a car after a break - you proceed carefully at first and feel your way back into the skills you already have.
Do pilots who own their own aircraft and are not subject to these checks have a poorer safety record? I think yes where there is complacency - no where there isn't.
Some pilots are comfortable with the aircraft they fly and are not interested in learning to fly more complex types. So what's wrong with that? They don't want to fly IR because they enjoy flying in good weather and are quite happy with VFR. If they encounter IMC conditions then they turn back - as they were trained.
As for "the look" - sounds like some kind of very weird tribal stuff to me! Is this the look one gets from older kids at school or from a stern headmaster? Please!
Thank you for your wisdom - which is much appreciated but I think you are misunderstanding me - if it is my words (in part) which you are addressing.
When I say that when you have completed your PPL you have all you need to know to fly the aircraft you are rated for - I mean in a head knowledge sense. This is obvious - that's what the PPL course is designed to do and the skills test tests that you are competent to fly an aircraft as PIC according to your terms of your license.
That there is much, much more to learn I have no doubt. That is life. But many pilots see the continuous checkouts (currency and hiring at a different club) as merely income earning opportunities and as such are resented. It is a formality and is often conducted as such.
I don't doubt that they do make their own contribution to safety - but what I am saying is that I am not learning much from them. This is not arrogance or over confidence on my part - anything but. It's just that they're just going through the motions of what they have to do.
After all many flying instructors do not have that much more experience that the average PPL. It's just the next link in the road to becoming an airline pilot. Unlike your good self most of these people could not care less if you become a better pilot. It's a job - not a well paid job I hasten to add - and I don't envy the way they have to sit around in a ridiculous uniform watching day time TV without being paid on days in which the weather is unsuitable for flying.
This is not to say that they are not of help. Of course they are - but it crazy that there are all these checks which the CAA (which after all has safely as top priority) do not require. So is it a circus or not?
Most PPLs want to fly safely. Safety evenings are typically packed out. They also want to know as much as they can about how to improve their flying. But may I suggest that this hackneyed commercial airline industry supporting path needs to be examined as it is not serving the PPL community well?
What I want from an instructor and what I am happy to pay for is to learn NEW skills - not to be continually tested on the skills I already have. If I make a poor approach or a balloon landing I make a note to do it better next time. All the instructors in the world are not going to help in this case - I know how to do it myself - it just needs practice. It's like driving a car after a break - you proceed carefully at first and feel your way back into the skills you already have.
Do pilots who own their own aircraft and are not subject to these checks have a poorer safety record? I think yes where there is complacency - no where there isn't.
Some pilots are comfortable with the aircraft they fly and are not interested in learning to fly more complex types. So what's wrong with that? They don't want to fly IR because they enjoy flying in good weather and are quite happy with VFR. If they encounter IMC conditions then they turn back - as they were trained.
As for "the look" - sounds like some kind of very weird tribal stuff to me! Is this the look one gets from older kids at school or from a stern headmaster? Please!
Last edited by Molesworth 1; 11th Jul 2010 at 20:44.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
"The Killing Zone" book is statistically worthless; it's a shocking attempt at mathematics.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I found the book very helpful and illuminating. My PPL instructor told me that pilots kill themselves by doing stupid things - and I think the book bears that out. (Actually so do the AAIB reports - and some of these pilots had thousands of hours!)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, the best way to avoid having to due currency checks is to fly regulary - by far the better option. The two year check I am happy with - again it can be used constructively to learn new skills rather than just a "check".
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the original question... Insurers specify minimum hours, for good reason, and most owners follow the same principle.
I'm secretary of a group (with a Piper Arrow), and in the process of joining another (with a Jodel D119).
The insurance companies for both want 100 hours P1, and some minimum number of hours on the particular type. That's to do with "risk".
When a newly-qualified PPL wanted to join the Arrow group (with about 50 hours total) they asked for a chunk of extra premium and imposed a higher "excess" while he was flying. Once he got to 100 hours P1 and 40+ hours on type, they refunded the balance of the extra premium and withdrew the higher excess. I don't know how they do the risk calculations, but that was the result.
The insurance for the new group I'm joining asked for an extra £80 for me to fly, because despite a fair number of P1 hours and added ratings, I've never flown a little taildragger like that. I also have to do some number of landings with an instructor before I can solo it. Same "risk" calculation.
Two inherent truths above resonate with me:
- A PPL is a licence to learn, and you should never stop learning. I learn something most flights.
- If you don't feel a little apprehensive before setting off on a flight, then you should worry!
I'm secretary of a group (with a Piper Arrow), and in the process of joining another (with a Jodel D119).
The insurance companies for both want 100 hours P1, and some minimum number of hours on the particular type. That's to do with "risk".
When a newly-qualified PPL wanted to join the Arrow group (with about 50 hours total) they asked for a chunk of extra premium and imposed a higher "excess" while he was flying. Once he got to 100 hours P1 and 40+ hours on type, they refunded the balance of the extra premium and withdrew the higher excess. I don't know how they do the risk calculations, but that was the result.
The insurance for the new group I'm joining asked for an extra £80 for me to fly, because despite a fair number of P1 hours and added ratings, I've never flown a little taildragger like that. I also have to do some number of landings with an instructor before I can solo it. Same "risk" calculation.
Two inherent truths above resonate with me:
- A PPL is a licence to learn, and you should never stop learning. I learn something most flights.
- If you don't feel a little apprehensive before setting off on a flight, then you should worry!
Some very good inputs here. Thanks chaps!
Just to add my 2 cents. Clearly, as a newly released PPL or even newly released "any license", the new privilege does not mean one can do whatever one wishes. It takes a lot of time and experience to become comfortable with any new license, any new aircraft and to take things further than what training had the time for.
However, there is a problem with scaring the wits out of new pilots too. I fully agree they should be told about dangers and problems they will likely face, but this should not turn out into a "you'll never learn this" kind of attitude. These people have gotten the first step, but now it is time to go beyond that. Many never will tough, because they have been drilled to know exactly their home circuit or airports they have been to with their FI's, and they never even consider going further. Such pilots can have 500 hours or more and still be in the same kind of killing field of a 50 hour pilot, the moment they step outside the local flying area and venture off to other places.
I believe new pilots need to be encouraged to spread their earned wings, but be told in a positive manner how to do so safely. Hey, why not fly down to xyz airport today, it's good weather, the place is nice, just plan it well and do it. Far too many don't. I have met PPL's with over 1000 hours which have never left the country (and I live in Switzerland, which is really not very large), or whose flight log still contains only airports they have seen during basic training.
The second big killer I see is the fact that many PPL's are flying far too few. This has escalated massively in the last few years where costs have exploded. The 12 hour minimum per annum is not by any measure enough to keep proficient, nor is the 3 landings per 3 months if one wishes to carry passengers. 100 hours per year starts to look such that one reasonably knows what one is doing in an airplane and it will allow you to plan flights with a certain routine rather than making every single flight a doctoral thesis, if you get my meaning.
Lastly, transition to new airplanes mean things start again to an extent. A pilot may have 100 P1 Hours in his base trainer, however, when he transitions to the shiny new complex plane, he will be back to square 1 (or maybe 2) with his new ride. It was interesting and horrifying to read how many new PPL's in the US got themselfs killed with the new fast glass cockpit planes, but not really surprising. There is a heck of a difference between a Cherokee trainer and a Cirrus 22 or a Columbia 400! Even transitioning to something more conventional such as a Mooney or Debonair/Bonanza after flying 100 kt cruisers will come as a rude awakening.
Even ATPL's with 20k hours might return to the killing zone (and quite a few do) after returning to light aircraft in retirement or after long absence. Used to the power and superb systems of their airliners/biz jets, they may be in for a rude shock to figure out that IFR in a Trinidad is a whole different ballgame than in an Airbus or Boeing with all the bells and whistles. Some of these light planes, with basic or no automatisation, may actually prove a sight more demanding than flying high up and away with the 400 ton widebodies.
I have recently returned to the ranks of CPL and plan to regain my IR too after an absense of several years. Combined with a new aircraft type, coming back to skill test level was one gold plated s.o.b, compared to the days when I had been doing it regularly. I am well outside the "critical" total time by now, but I am still very much a beginner on my current aircraft. That is why I have set myself pretty strict limits to what I will do and what not, such as runway lenght, weather, range and other issues FAR beyond what the manual sais the plane can do. I'll start to go further once I am absolutely comfortable with what I am doing now, but not before. If that means that I have to get an FI along every time I need to position to my maintenance base (which has a short grass runway) then so be it, I am not ashamed of this, even tough some folks are thinking "coward" every time this issue comes up. But I won't do it until I feel comfortable.
A dear friend of old used a very short but to the point sentence to close his absolutely readable columns over in Avweb.
"Be careful up there!"
I think this sums it up nicely. Be careful, but enjoy it!
Best regards
AN2 driver
Just to add my 2 cents. Clearly, as a newly released PPL or even newly released "any license", the new privilege does not mean one can do whatever one wishes. It takes a lot of time and experience to become comfortable with any new license, any new aircraft and to take things further than what training had the time for.
However, there is a problem with scaring the wits out of new pilots too. I fully agree they should be told about dangers and problems they will likely face, but this should not turn out into a "you'll never learn this" kind of attitude. These people have gotten the first step, but now it is time to go beyond that. Many never will tough, because they have been drilled to know exactly their home circuit or airports they have been to with their FI's, and they never even consider going further. Such pilots can have 500 hours or more and still be in the same kind of killing field of a 50 hour pilot, the moment they step outside the local flying area and venture off to other places.
I believe new pilots need to be encouraged to spread their earned wings, but be told in a positive manner how to do so safely. Hey, why not fly down to xyz airport today, it's good weather, the place is nice, just plan it well and do it. Far too many don't. I have met PPL's with over 1000 hours which have never left the country (and I live in Switzerland, which is really not very large), or whose flight log still contains only airports they have seen during basic training.
The second big killer I see is the fact that many PPL's are flying far too few. This has escalated massively in the last few years where costs have exploded. The 12 hour minimum per annum is not by any measure enough to keep proficient, nor is the 3 landings per 3 months if one wishes to carry passengers. 100 hours per year starts to look such that one reasonably knows what one is doing in an airplane and it will allow you to plan flights with a certain routine rather than making every single flight a doctoral thesis, if you get my meaning.
Lastly, transition to new airplanes mean things start again to an extent. A pilot may have 100 P1 Hours in his base trainer, however, when he transitions to the shiny new complex plane, he will be back to square 1 (or maybe 2) with his new ride. It was interesting and horrifying to read how many new PPL's in the US got themselfs killed with the new fast glass cockpit planes, but not really surprising. There is a heck of a difference between a Cherokee trainer and a Cirrus 22 or a Columbia 400! Even transitioning to something more conventional such as a Mooney or Debonair/Bonanza after flying 100 kt cruisers will come as a rude awakening.
Even ATPL's with 20k hours might return to the killing zone (and quite a few do) after returning to light aircraft in retirement or after long absence. Used to the power and superb systems of their airliners/biz jets, they may be in for a rude shock to figure out that IFR in a Trinidad is a whole different ballgame than in an Airbus or Boeing with all the bells and whistles. Some of these light planes, with basic or no automatisation, may actually prove a sight more demanding than flying high up and away with the 400 ton widebodies.
I have recently returned to the ranks of CPL and plan to regain my IR too after an absense of several years. Combined with a new aircraft type, coming back to skill test level was one gold plated s.o.b, compared to the days when I had been doing it regularly. I am well outside the "critical" total time by now, but I am still very much a beginner on my current aircraft. That is why I have set myself pretty strict limits to what I will do and what not, such as runway lenght, weather, range and other issues FAR beyond what the manual sais the plane can do. I'll start to go further once I am absolutely comfortable with what I am doing now, but not before. If that means that I have to get an FI along every time I need to position to my maintenance base (which has a short grass runway) then so be it, I am not ashamed of this, even tough some folks are thinking "coward" every time this issue comes up. But I won't do it until I feel comfortable.
A dear friend of old used a very short but to the point sentence to close his absolutely readable columns over in Avweb.
"Be careful up there!"
I think this sums it up nicely. Be careful, but enjoy it!
Best regards
AN2 driver
Moderator
After all many flying instructors do not have that much more experience that the average PPL. It's just the next link in the road to becoming an airline pilot. Unlike your good self most of these people could not care less if you become a better pilot. It's a job - not a well paid job I hasten to add - and I don't envy the way they have to sit around in a ridiculous uniform watching day time TV without being paid on days in which the weather is unsuitable for flying.
I have many stories of instructors trying to "check me out" during test flights (Modification, not licensing), where I have had to take them along because of "club rules". It did not take too long before they just sat quietly. Everyone has something to learn. The trick is to know when to shut up and listen.
Other checkouts I've had, where it was an entirely new type to me, and were planned for an hour or so of procdeures and airwork, have rapidly turned into only one circuit, which ended with my being asked "any questions about the plane?". "Not that come to me right now.". "Okay, you're checked out, off you go. Those were typically very experienced chief pilot types, not line instructors.
As for "the look", it's out there on the faces of more experienced pilots who can be found around the club. It's like the look you give your teenagers in the presence of their freinds. It attempts to convey "well, that is not really a very good, or mature idea, but it's not bad enough that I'm going to embarrass you in front of your friends about. If I remember, I'll discuss it with you later". It's along the lines of "if you haven't somethng nice to say, don't say anything"!
Many "experienced" pilots shudder with amazement at the fact that newly licesned pilots, particularly those with their own plane, who really are not being supervised much, launch off into the next adventure, having so much to learn. But then we remind ourselves that we did too, and we're still here! That said, many of my freinds are not. A freind with six times my flying time was fatally injured a few weeks back during a crash. I will not attempt to second guess him.
If you're flying a "check out", it's probably fair that the check pilot see two circuits (just to assure that the first was not just lucky). I suggest that it is a weak agrument to suggest that you are not willing to pay for this - it's part of the cost of extablishing yourself in aviation, we all had to pay it. Beyond that, if they insist on more flying, I would ask to discuss and understand the objectives (so you can be properly prepared, and reduce the costly airtime of the check flight).
While preparing to pick up a 182 out west last April, the insurer ask me if I was going to get a checkout from the owner. I explained that he was selling the plane, because in the last year he had only flown 5 hours, and none in the last 5 months. Would the insurer want me being checked out by him? They agreed, and that was the end of that. (Don't worry, I have lots of time on 182's)
For some pilots, flying will evolve to the point where if you want a checkout, you'll have to go looking for it - I do. Otherwise, hardly anyone is going to tell you you have to have it. Most likely will be an insurer, but based upon their skill, and your experience on similar types, they may not even ask. That does not mean it would not be wise! With sevral thousand hours, I decided to check myself out on a Tomahawk I had to ferry back(there was no one around who'd flown one anyway). Mistake! I did not bang it, but I quickly realized that at least a briefing and some research would have been a good idea, and I would have looked pretty foolish if I had banged it!
Take heart, we're not trying to insult or demean you. Try not to resist too much, the attempts of the experienced pilots, to help you along toward a long safe flying career.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
Thanks for that.
Significantly the shortest checkout I ever had was two circuits and it was with a grey-haired pilot!
Typically here in the UK a checkout includes stall recoveries, PFLs etc. For a currency check this is about an hour. If hiring at a new club it's often two hours or more.
Many insist on a currency of 28 days. My club is slightly more sensible and makes it 45 days if you have less than 150 hours and 62 if more than that.
As you say this is pointless - especially if the pilot has flown in the last three months.
Thanks for that.
Significantly the shortest checkout I ever had was two circuits and it was with a grey-haired pilot!
Typically here in the UK a checkout includes stall recoveries, PFLs etc. For a currency check this is about an hour. If hiring at a new club it's often two hours or more.
Many insist on a currency of 28 days. My club is slightly more sensible and makes it 45 days if you have less than 150 hours and 62 if more than that.
As you say this is pointless - especially if the pilot has flown in the last three months.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My club is slightly more sensible and makes it 45 days if you have less than 150 hours and 62 if more than that.
I have more than 150 and I can assure you that after six weeks on the ground my flying can be pretty crap - I would not be happy to get in an aircraft with passengers and take off into interesting weather.
OK so maybe I don't need the PFL and stalling every time, but some circuits would seem to be my minimum, and I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do (solo) before taking passengers if no check ride were required.
My last club checkout was 12 minutes 
Of course, that was still plenty of time for me to make 3 silly (albeit small) mistakes.
Still looking for that perfect flight...
Of course, that was still plenty of time for me to make 3 silly (albeit small) mistakes.
Still looking for that perfect flight...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would still have had to have had your 3 take offs and landings within the last 90 days before carrying passengers, of course.
I am pretty sure they would give me an instructor if I felt I needed one. I would also feel rusty after six weeks - I don't know - if I do take a break it's several months and then I definitely DO need an instructor. Saying that it still takes several solo flights before I feel really back into it again.
I am pretty sure they would give me an instructor if I felt I needed one. I would also feel rusty after six weeks - I don't know - if I do take a break it's several months and then I definitely DO need an instructor. Saying that it still takes several solo flights before I feel really back into it again.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many owners operate from airfields with no school and no instructors, perfectly safely. This also allows mentoring to go on without any issues with the local school. The LAA coaching scheme is also an excellent resource if you need experienced help.
Rod1
Rod1