PPL annual flying hours question
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those that can't fly as much as they would like and know the rust has set in, will fly with an instructor without a second thought and enjoy it.
Those that take the view 'I have a licence and will not fly with an instructor if I can avoid it'.
Those that take the view 'I have a licence and will not fly with an instructor if I can avoid it'.
Personally, I take extra care when I haven't flown the aircraft class within the last 3 weeks, or type within the last 6 - generally it's a matter of days, but doesn't always work as planned.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's great about flying is that one can always take some extra little add on rating or course.
I plan to take a mountain flying course in Idaho to introduce myself to the skills needed in this kind of environment. I also want to finish my single engine seaplane rating. And if I feel I still need something, I'll do taildragger.
Always something to learn and not only do you learn the new skills, but they will have bearing on other flying as well. And keep you current. A win-win.
I plan to take a mountain flying course in Idaho to introduce myself to the skills needed in this kind of environment. I also want to finish my single engine seaplane rating. And if I feel I still need something, I'll do taildragger.
Always something to learn and not only do you learn the new skills, but they will have bearing on other flying as well. And keep you current. A win-win.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 5th Apr 2011 at 12:45.
Moderator
To believe someone flying twice that TIME is immediately much safer to me seems like a much bigger trap than the 12hr pilot who knows they are going to be somewhat limited. Someone could have done 24hrs via longer enroute legs and done exactly the same amount of landings and take-offs as the 12hr pilot, it's meaningless.
A pilot who is very recent on a few elements of flying, to the exclusion of all the rest, is a greater risk than a pilot with even less recent experience, if that experience was "well rounded". Everything in balance.
That said, I quite agree with the theme of:
those who do fly a considerable amount, with a considerable wealth of experience, nearly uniformly have very different views from those with little or no experience. Why do you suppose that is?
After a half hour refresher of two circuits and slow flight, then straight into more than 10 hours flight testing two modified Navajos in the last few weeks, I know what it feels like to feel like you're playing catch up with the plane. And I can pick my flying conditions to be perfect. I'm constantly paying attention to assure that swiss cheese holes are not lining up un-noticed.
Are pilots with only modest recent experience being effective for watching for the holes lining up in their flying? Or is all their attention devoted to the task at hand?
It's very hard to measure, and no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you don't know, so you may not see what you're missing.....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only partial. And I would still have reservations about my own safety if I was flying under 30 hrs per year.
G
G
It's very hard to measure, and no disrespect intended, but you don't know what you don't know, so you may not see what you're missing.....
I'm going to try and diverge a little.
Here's a question - since we all accept that hours alone are too crude a measure, what do we all think is a genuinely sensible measure for "current" in a light aeroplane pilot: I'm not going to differentiate between roles of that pilot (PPL, instructor, test, taxi...) since we're all in the same boat if something goes wrong.
Here's a first stab for everybody to shoot at, as an ABSOLUTE minimum; I don't give a flying monkey about the law here, just starting from scratch.
- 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days, one of those in the last 28
- 24 hours in the last year
- PFL in last 28 days
- Stall in last 90 days
- Power loss, engine fire, flapless approach - all practiced in last 90 days
- Flown the type, or reviewed the POH, in the last 60 days.
- Some form of 30min+ navigational exercise (A-B, or diversion) in the last 6 months
All stuff that any of us can self administer, or a club could impose if it wanted.
Any advance on that?
G
N.B. I'd have reservations about the safety of anybody flying 3000 hrs per year !
Here's a question - since we all accept that hours alone are too crude a measure, what do we all think is a genuinely sensible measure for "current" in a light aeroplane pilot: I'm not going to differentiate between roles of that pilot (PPL, instructor, test, taxi...) since we're all in the same boat if something goes wrong.
Here's a first stab for everybody to shoot at, as an ABSOLUTE minimum; I don't give a flying monkey about the law here, just starting from scratch.
- 3 take-offs and landings in 90 days, one of those in the last 28
- 24 hours in the last year
- PFL in last 28 days
- Stall in last 90 days
- Power loss, engine fire, flapless approach - all practiced in last 90 days
- Flown the type, or reviewed the POH, in the last 60 days.
- Some form of 30min+ navigational exercise (A-B, or diversion) in the last 6 months
All stuff that any of us can self administer, or a club could impose if it wanted.
Any advance on that?
G
N.B. I'd have reservations about the safety of anybody flying 3000 hrs per year !
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think stalls belong in there and certainly not nav exercise.
I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.
Nav. Well, each to their own but I can tell you that I never ever do a full flight plan taking in the variation, deviation, crosswind component etc. Only time I've done all that is when I've had a checkride/skills test! I'll do a rough mental calculation and then I'll use VOR's and other aids like GPS. Tracking a VOR will nicely tell you what crosswind component you have. Only time I'd reconsider is if I had to do a long overwater leg with no options to deviate, let's say a ferry flight to Greenland or something. Then, for sure.
I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.
Nav. Well, each to their own but I can tell you that I never ever do a full flight plan taking in the variation, deviation, crosswind component etc. Only time I've done all that is when I've had a checkride/skills test! I'll do a rough mental calculation and then I'll use VOR's and other aids like GPS. Tracking a VOR will nicely tell you what crosswind component you have. Only time I'd reconsider is if I had to do a long overwater leg with no options to deviate, let's say a ferry flight to Greenland or something. Then, for sure.
Moderator
To complete the circle on what should be a minmim as Genghis proposes, one must understand who is regulating/imposing it. If the proposal is to self administer, it becomes good guidance. The problem with guidance is that sometimes the people who should most follow it, are least likely to.
It is important to consider who takes the risk, if the pilot does not meet the minimum skill set for the task they have to perform. First and always, the pilot takes the risk, then the passengers, aircraft owner, insurer, then at a distance, third parties. In the long shot, the government who regulates, and the general reputation of aviation.
All of these parties have something to loose of the pilots gets it really wrong. So it would appear that those parties, somewhat in the order I have presented, hold the interest in pilot currency - pilot foremost!
In Canada we have a very modest annual recurrency requirement, which is a prerequisite to flying. It can be nothing more that a self study refresher test, which you complete open book, and keep on file, should you be challenged for it. It's a minimum for sure.
It is not reasonable for some pilots, to attempt to inforce hours of piloting per calendar period, prior to acting as PIC. Every floatplane pilot in Canada could have a problem come spring time! Similarly, for some of us, checkouts are not available - "there's to plane, go fly it". So we review what we can (flight manual) and go. At those times, lots of extra vigilence is very wise!
THough I have not seen insurance companies "regulate" numbers, I know that I have been asked to sign letters to them, verifying time I have flown with other pilots in support of their being insured PIC. I know that after an accident, the insurance companies are known to ask for logbooks!
As for stalls, I support the idea of an expectation of currency with stalls, and here's why:
If a pilot is uncomfortable in the stall, how is that pilot in the flare, when spactial orientation and precision are much more vital? We first learn how to fly a plane, then where to fly it. If the how of stalling any particular aircraft is a fading skill, the where during a stall is really in trouble! How's that going to work out when you have to stretch a glide over a stone fence on a forced approach?
During a flight test, I stalled the aircraft, as was breifed prior to takeoff. The safety pilot reacted with unease, and the whole event did not go well. I was later told by his cheif pilot that his pilot should never have allowed me to stall the plane, and that a stall was an "emergency situation" for that operator. I had certification requirments to demonstrate for that aircraft, and I had simply not been flying with the best choice of pilot for that aircraft. That happens....
Genghis' numbers are certainly a great objective to strive for, and would be ideal as a personal measure, but are probaby too optimistic for some pilots to achieve. Those pilots need to know that they are at the lower level of recency, and choose their flying conditions accordingly.
It is important to consider who takes the risk, if the pilot does not meet the minimum skill set for the task they have to perform. First and always, the pilot takes the risk, then the passengers, aircraft owner, insurer, then at a distance, third parties. In the long shot, the government who regulates, and the general reputation of aviation.
All of these parties have something to loose of the pilots gets it really wrong. So it would appear that those parties, somewhat in the order I have presented, hold the interest in pilot currency - pilot foremost!
In Canada we have a very modest annual recurrency requirement, which is a prerequisite to flying. It can be nothing more that a self study refresher test, which you complete open book, and keep on file, should you be challenged for it. It's a minimum for sure.
It is not reasonable for some pilots, to attempt to inforce hours of piloting per calendar period, prior to acting as PIC. Every floatplane pilot in Canada could have a problem come spring time! Similarly, for some of us, checkouts are not available - "there's to plane, go fly it". So we review what we can (flight manual) and go. At those times, lots of extra vigilence is very wise!
THough I have not seen insurance companies "regulate" numbers, I know that I have been asked to sign letters to them, verifying time I have flown with other pilots in support of their being insured PIC. I know that after an accident, the insurance companies are known to ask for logbooks!
As for stalls, I support the idea of an expectation of currency with stalls, and here's why:
If a pilot is uncomfortable in the stall, how is that pilot in the flare, when spactial orientation and precision are much more vital? We first learn how to fly a plane, then where to fly it. If the how of stalling any particular aircraft is a fading skill, the where during a stall is really in trouble! How's that going to work out when you have to stretch a glide over a stone fence on a forced approach?
During a flight test, I stalled the aircraft, as was breifed prior to takeoff. The safety pilot reacted with unease, and the whole event did not go well. I was later told by his cheif pilot that his pilot should never have allowed me to stall the plane, and that a stall was an "emergency situation" for that operator. I had certification requirments to demonstrate for that aircraft, and I had simply not been flying with the best choice of pilot for that aircraft. That happens....
Genghis' numbers are certainly a great objective to strive for, and would be ideal as a personal measure, but are probaby too optimistic for some pilots to achieve. Those pilots need to know that they are at the lower level of recency, and choose their flying conditions accordingly.
I don't think stalls belong in there and certainly not nav exercise.
I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.
I think stalls are for primary training and when getting to know a new type. Other than that I don't think safety would be improved by going around stalling. Besides, you don't learn anything new. It's vital to recognize a stall in the aircraft your flying, but frankly, if one can't recognize it in any type of aircraft I think one has some more training to do.
Nav. Well, each to their own but I can tell you that I never ever do a full flight plan taking in the variation, deviation, crosswind component etc. Only time I've done all that is when I've had a checkride/skills test! I'll do a rough mental calculation and then I'll use VOR's and other aids like GPS. Tracking a VOR will nicely tell you what crosswind component you have. Only time I'd reconsider is if I had to do a long overwater leg with no options to deviate, let's say a ferry flight to Greenland or something. Then, for sure.
I'm also interested that you seem slightly to regard the PPL syllabus as a maximum, not a minimum standard of flying? I suspect you're far from alone in that, but I can't say that I agree with you - I keep hoping to progress beyond where I was when I passed my first licence 18 years ago.
G
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure I'd agree totally with Genghis on set min hours as the type your flying, your location and what your using your time in the air for can make a vast difference.
For example, in my C172 out of ABZ i'd have to fly 15-20 mins to get out of the zone and 15-20 mins to get back in leaving only 20mins on a 1 hr flight to practice anything useful other than pottering along S&L following entry / exit routes and chopping around on the radio which isn’t very demanding when you've done it 300 times before.
If I fly my Cassutt from Perth, within 90 secs of take off I can be passing 2000' and well on my way out of the circuit almost ready to do whatever I want.
Indeed Cassutt flights tend to be no more than 20-30mins in duration each time as I can climb quickly to altitude in uncontrolled airspace and practice stalls, steep turns, PFL's or whatever required.
Not just for handling but also for situational awareness a 30 min flight in such a machine is far more demanding than an hour in a C172 ever was given that I'm mixing it in the circuit with far slower traffic on opposing circuits. I'm often in the circuit with microlights on 27 and a Seneca and myself on 21 and it can take quite a lot of planning and thinking ahead just to join and get around the circuit safely without getting in anyone’s way.
Much the same when I had my Tipsy Nipper, I could be at 5000' in the overhead doing Aero's only 5 mins after getting airborne meaning a 30min flight is plenty of time to practice Stalls / spins / steep turns / PFL's and circuits etc. (as long as its quiet of course!)
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'd feel a heck of a lot sharper after flying 48 x 30min flights in something high performance / aerobatic than I would just racking up 24hrs per year in a C172 bimbling around....
Quality hours count for far more than just quantity hours....
EDIT: OOPS, Just spotted your post on the previous page saying much as the above about quality hours! Very difficult to specify a min amount of hours as it will vary on how the time is spent, 20hrs could be made up of 40 x 30min 'quality' flights after which you would probably be pretty sharp yet still less than the 24hrs your suggesting....?!?!? Perhaps the avg length of time between flights is a bigger factor ?!?!?
For example, in my C172 out of ABZ i'd have to fly 15-20 mins to get out of the zone and 15-20 mins to get back in leaving only 20mins on a 1 hr flight to practice anything useful other than pottering along S&L following entry / exit routes and chopping around on the radio which isn’t very demanding when you've done it 300 times before.
If I fly my Cassutt from Perth, within 90 secs of take off I can be passing 2000' and well on my way out of the circuit almost ready to do whatever I want.
Indeed Cassutt flights tend to be no more than 20-30mins in duration each time as I can climb quickly to altitude in uncontrolled airspace and practice stalls, steep turns, PFL's or whatever required.
Not just for handling but also for situational awareness a 30 min flight in such a machine is far more demanding than an hour in a C172 ever was given that I'm mixing it in the circuit with far slower traffic on opposing circuits. I'm often in the circuit with microlights on 27 and a Seneca and myself on 21 and it can take quite a lot of planning and thinking ahead just to join and get around the circuit safely without getting in anyone’s way.
Much the same when I had my Tipsy Nipper, I could be at 5000' in the overhead doing Aero's only 5 mins after getting airborne meaning a 30min flight is plenty of time to practice Stalls / spins / steep turns / PFL's and circuits etc. (as long as its quiet of course!)
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'd feel a heck of a lot sharper after flying 48 x 30min flights in something high performance / aerobatic than I would just racking up 24hrs per year in a C172 bimbling around....
Quality hours count for far more than just quantity hours....
EDIT: OOPS, Just spotted your post on the previous page saying much as the above about quality hours! Very difficult to specify a min amount of hours as it will vary on how the time is spent, 20hrs could be made up of 40 x 30min 'quality' flights after which you would probably be pretty sharp yet still less than the 24hrs your suggesting....?!?!? Perhaps the avg length of time between flights is a bigger factor ?!?!?
Last edited by Unusual Attitude; 5th Apr 2011 at 15:27.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always make sure I'm familiar with the stalling characteristics of whatever I'm flying, and would certainly consider stalling, and stall warning, characteristics to vary very considerably between types. Apart from that, stalling a balanced aeroplane is a perfectly safe thing to do, taking a couple of minutes in the middle of a flight. The regular practice means that a prompt and effective stall recovery is instinctive. Plus Pilot-DAR's views, which I agree with.
I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
In this we are in agreement. You should know your machine and have experienced stalls in it, in different configurations. But do you then need to recurrently keep stalling it once every month? Even though stalls are safe, they're less safe than "normal" flying. What if something not secured properly tumbles backwards and lodges controls or throws CG so far aft a recovery can't be made? It's a small risk, but nevertheless.
I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
To be honest however, I think to some extent you're talking cobblers. The constraints that are making flying more expensive and less fun aren't in the PPL training, they're in the ever more complicated airspace, the rules that require instructors to have commercial licences, the ever-escalating fuel costs, Nimbys constraining airport operations... And of course, this is making pilots fly less, which makes them less safe - so you get people coming out of the PPL with a baseline "licence to learn" standard of flying, and then sliding backwards because the £1k they might be able to devote to their hobby buys them an incredibly minimal 8 hours in the year.
A solution, but one that's too rare is real flying clubs -where nobody's paid, everybody mucks in, cheap syndicates are there to buy into and fly at a sensible price, checkouts by experienced club pilots, no radio, and rules are kept to a safe minimum. I belong to one such club and drive an hour to get there where I can do a day's flying at £35/hr in a basic-as-heck little 2-seater I own £350 worth of, and check out new syndicate members for nothing - except that some rotter has just decided to evict us from the land our runway is on
G
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though stalls are safe, they're less safe than "normal" flying. What if something not secured properly tumbles backwards and lodges controls or throws CG so far aft a recovery can't be made? It's a small risk, but nevertheless.
Couldn't resist, sorry!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
Make it easier, reduce regulation, reduce costs, reduce hassle, inconvenience, and provide an incentive to learn and progress instead of placing obstacles in the name of safety. It is alway possible to argue a safety case for increased regulation but impossible to get rid of it once it has arrived. The best safety regulator is a natural sense of self preservation , and the last thing we need is Genghis's suggestions for ruining the industry overnight!
Moderator
The best safety regulator is a natural sense of self preservation
That might be natural for some pilots, but probably not others. Those who are effective in qualified self regulation, still pay the price for those who are not. Higher costs for insurance, and greater regulatory burdon, to maintain a tolerable public image, as driven by the regulator = the public.
Make it easier, reduce regulation, reduce costs, reduce hassle, inconvenience,
The only costs in aviation are capital costs, and peoples salary's, where are you going to reduce?
Cut your airport fees? Buy your own property, pay the taxes, and make a runway. Then buy and maintain the tractor, mower and blower to keep it useable. Oh, and help clean up the mess of three landings which did not go as planned by the guest! I pay no landing fees at home.
Cut your rental costs? Buy your own plane. Not another soul has flown mine in 24 years. I fly as I wish, and never work out the hourly cost.
Cut your insurance costs? Self insure your hull. I did for a while, but honestly the hull insurance was so cheap, I could not resist!
(it costs less to fully insure my 1975 C 150 than my 2009 VW Jetta - same insured value)
Cut your maintenance costs? Do your own, under appropriate supervision. Aside from the engine reassembly at overhaul, only my hand has held a wrench on my plane. (you will need some parts though)
Cut your fuel costs? Buy your own tank and pump, build the dike to assure environmental compliance, pay to fill the tank, buy a MOGAS STC, and off you go. I actually get road tax refunded to me on 600 gallons a year!
Cut your tiedown fees? Built your own hangar. Mine cost three weeks of my work, and $2000, twenty years ago, but zero hangar fees!
So, my flying by the hour is really inexpensive, and I have great control over costs now, but it sure cost a lot to get there! And all of this for about 100 hours a year in my plane.
I have invested considerably, to take the control others might have had over my flying, away from them, and I have largely suceeded. For all those who would similarly, power to you. But, to simply say the flying you are doing should cost less, is not well thought out.
It simply costs money to get a plane in the air. Someone has to spend their time, and they expect to be paid for it! You want them to be motivated to do a good job of it, right?
Now, I am responsible to myself, my passengers, and my peers, for my continued competance. I'll sometimes think, "I could go and fly a few circuits, I have not flown this week yet.", But then I realize that there is three hours of grass cutting or snow blowing on the runway which is needed, and I do that instead. I can't afford to pay someone to do it for me!
Or, just plunk down some money for an hour's flying, and let someone else worry about everything!
I think recency of experience, not hours per year, is the most important part of maintaining safe flying skills.
A flight a month is IMO the minimal acceptable amount of flying to avoid skill fade, especially for relatively low time PPL's. If the purpose of your flight is to maintain proficiency, than 30 mins of airtime consisting of a takeoff, flight to the practice area, a few minutes practicing slow flight with full flaps and recovery from slow flight, and few steep turns followed by a return to the airport for 3 circuits will exercise the essential skills.
Stalls are IMO a waste of time, as the best stall prevention is to not let the aircraft stall in the first place. Practicing slow flight and a smooth recovery from slow flight is more important. Plus all of the flight control issues are exaggerated in slow flight so if you can keep the aircraft straight and level in coordinated flight in the slow flight regime then the rest of the flight envelope is going to be easier.
I also think it is vital to do a few circuits. if you look at the accident record most light aircraft are bent in loss of control accidents during takeoff or landing.
Finally I think it is a very good idea to do a year check flight with a (good) instructor. It can be hard to self evaluate so a impartial second opinion is a good way to correct the bad habits that can inadvertently creep in.
A flight a month is IMO the minimal acceptable amount of flying to avoid skill fade, especially for relatively low time PPL's. If the purpose of your flight is to maintain proficiency, than 30 mins of airtime consisting of a takeoff, flight to the practice area, a few minutes practicing slow flight with full flaps and recovery from slow flight, and few steep turns followed by a return to the airport for 3 circuits will exercise the essential skills.
Stalls are IMO a waste of time, as the best stall prevention is to not let the aircraft stall in the first place. Practicing slow flight and a smooth recovery from slow flight is more important. Plus all of the flight control issues are exaggerated in slow flight so if you can keep the aircraft straight and level in coordinated flight in the slow flight regime then the rest of the flight envelope is going to be easier.
I also think it is vital to do a few circuits. if you look at the accident record most light aircraft are bent in loss of control accidents during takeoff or landing.
Finally I think it is a very good idea to do a year check flight with a (good) instructor. It can be hard to self evaluate so a impartial second opinion is a good way to correct the bad habits that can inadvertently creep in.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you what does scare me and I see it constantly when I'm at the airfield:
People in the circuit over-banking at low speed, low altitude and with everything hanging out. Load factor is up and so is your stall speed - no room for trading altitude for airspeed. Bit of wind shear or wake turbulence and you could be on the wrong side of that pretty quick.
It's easy to do, trying to run a tight circuit or just being slightly behind the aircraft or a bit too late and you pull to much to not overshoot final etc. So I would agree that some circuit work once in awhile probably isn't a bad idea.
People in the circuit over-banking at low speed, low altitude and with everything hanging out. Load factor is up and so is your stall speed - no room for trading altitude for airspeed. Bit of wind shear or wake turbulence and you could be on the wrong side of that pretty quick.
It's easy to do, trying to run a tight circuit or just being slightly behind the aircraft or a bit too late and you pull to much to not overshoot final etc. So I would agree that some circuit work once in awhile probably isn't a bad idea.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Adam describes is a good example of why checkouts are a good idea, and help in a way that currency does not.
You could practice circuits for years, often banking too much too near the ground, occasionally banking much too much, and you could get away with it ... until the bad thing happens.
A better learning experience is to have the bad practice pointed out in a checkout.
You could practice circuits for years, often banking too much too near the ground, occasionally banking much too much, and you could get away with it ... until the bad thing happens.
A better learning experience is to have the bad practice pointed out in a checkout.
I agree with everything you say there except the word 'checkout. Any flying with an experienced pilot and robust debrief is a valuable tool for improvement. That experienced pilot may be an instructor, but equally could be another syndicate member who happens to be a professional pilot, or any other profile of safe and experienced pilot prepared to enjoy the flight, observe and give some constructive feedback.
G
G