PPL annual flying hours question
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, what interests me at this point is what about those that cannot or have not kept this level of currency? As licence holding pilots are they really unsafe?
At 1.5hrs PIC since last September, I can honestly say I had a wonderful days aviation solo today, nice local nav revision in very smooth air, bit of VOR tracking, talking to a very busy ATC unit and not fluffing anything up.
Bit of a sporty approach in gusty crosswinds but at no point did I feel I was risking either my or anyone else's safety.
Plenty of people of all standards up there today, many of them students on solo navs who have been waiting for the weather to break.
For sure I also chatted to a lot of people about options for cheaper flying and had my first feel of the controls of a 3-axis microlight (cool experience) so I'm not ignoring my lack of currency over the past couple of years.
But unsafe. Not at all, as a solo nav student I might have been a bit on the limit of overload during the PPL training, I certainly remember a few 'moments' such as the ATC call, 'unknown traffic all around you', guess who had just discovered gliders
, but I did it then, so how hard can it be now to get back into it? Not very really, once I had overcome a bit of pre-flight nerves and was airborne, it was just the same as always in the air, beautiful and overwhelmingly satisfying.
I do think your list is food for thought. Some is actually covered already by club currency of having flown in type in last 28 days at my club. Else it's time to fly with an instructor.
There is another side to flying too though, that is some faith in ones own ability to plan a flight within ones own capability at any given time. A licence to learn has been mentioned, but that is exactly what that means isn't it? A licence that one is able to judge one's own capability to fly on a given day, in a given aircraft in given circumstances to hone or refresh skills and to continue learning?
Somehow I seem to remember that was what an awful lot of the PPL ground school and exams was about? That should be the message rather than what for some are simply impossible levels of continued currency training.
Looking back over a very enjoyable day at the club, perhaps the biggest hole in my currency was that I had missed talking to other pilots and instructors about every aspect of flying, that's actually what has always kept me safe. Talking about the pitfalls and discussing experiences - in fact I left remembering pre-flight nerves can get to even the most experienced pilots, by talking about mine today, enough of them admitted to suffering from them too.
At 1.5hrs PIC since last September, I can honestly say I had a wonderful days aviation solo today, nice local nav revision in very smooth air, bit of VOR tracking, talking to a very busy ATC unit and not fluffing anything up.
Bit of a sporty approach in gusty crosswinds but at no point did I feel I was risking either my or anyone else's safety.
Plenty of people of all standards up there today, many of them students on solo navs who have been waiting for the weather to break.
For sure I also chatted to a lot of people about options for cheaper flying and had my first feel of the controls of a 3-axis microlight (cool experience) so I'm not ignoring my lack of currency over the past couple of years.
But unsafe. Not at all, as a solo nav student I might have been a bit on the limit of overload during the PPL training, I certainly remember a few 'moments' such as the ATC call, 'unknown traffic all around you', guess who had just discovered gliders
, but I did it then, so how hard can it be now to get back into it? Not very really, once I had overcome a bit of pre-flight nerves and was airborne, it was just the same as always in the air, beautiful and overwhelmingly satisfying.I do think your list is food for thought. Some is actually covered already by club currency of having flown in type in last 28 days at my club. Else it's time to fly with an instructor.
There is another side to flying too though, that is some faith in ones own ability to plan a flight within ones own capability at any given time. A licence to learn has been mentioned, but that is exactly what that means isn't it? A licence that one is able to judge one's own capability to fly on a given day, in a given aircraft in given circumstances to hone or refresh skills and to continue learning?
Somehow I seem to remember that was what an awful lot of the PPL ground school and exams was about? That should be the message rather than what for some are simply impossible levels of continued currency training.
Looking back over a very enjoyable day at the club, perhaps the biggest hole in my currency was that I had missed talking to other pilots and instructors about every aspect of flying, that's actually what has always kept me safe. Talking about the pitfalls and discussing experiences - in fact I left remembering pre-flight nerves can get to even the most experienced pilots, by talking about mine today, enough of them admitted to suffering from them too.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that if you could start GA off again, and did not have to fight a multitude of vested interests (from the industry and the CAA, mainly) the whole regulatory environment would be very different.
There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.
The training environment would be very different. One would modernise a lot of stuff.
As regards
- 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
I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry. And the navex is meaningless for anybody who flies for real, 99% of whom use a GPS for 100% of their nav, which then becomes utterly trivial.
I would ditch the "complex" definition. There is nothing complex about a CS prop and a retractable gear. OTOH I would have mandatory training on GPS-level (and above) avionics, much of which is too sophisticated for many (that fly with it) to understand. Most instructors have only a limited understanding of it, too.
As regards most people giving up, yes I am certain one could do a lot about that, and reducing it from say 90% to say 80% would double the size of the GA scene which would be wonderful.
Especially if one ended up retaining pilots who actually really have more than 2 bob to rub together!! This game is packed with hopefuls who keep kidding themselves they can fly but they cannot afford it, at any level which does what they want to do, they never could afford it, and eventually most of them will drop out disillusioned. Such a shame.
A lot of things need an overhaul but it will never happen because there are vested interests at every step.
There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.
The training environment would be very different. One would modernise a lot of stuff.
As regards
- 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
I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry. And the navex is meaningless for anybody who flies for real, 99% of whom use a GPS for 100% of their nav, which then becomes utterly trivial.
I would ditch the "complex" definition. There is nothing complex about a CS prop and a retractable gear. OTOH I would have mandatory training on GPS-level (and above) avionics, much of which is too sophisticated for many (that fly with it) to understand. Most instructors have only a limited understanding of it, too.
As regards most people giving up, yes I am certain one could do a lot about that, and reducing it from say 90% to say 80% would double the size of the GA scene which would be wonderful.
Especially if one ended up retaining pilots who actually really have more than 2 bob to rub together!! This game is packed with hopefuls who keep kidding themselves they can fly but they cannot afford it, at any level which does what they want to do, they never could afford it, and eventually most of them will drop out disillusioned. Such a shame.
A lot of things need an overhaul but it will never happen because there are vested interests at every step.
There is no doubt that if you could start GA off again, and did not have to fight a multitude of vested interests (from the industry and the CAA, mainly) the whole regulatory environment would be very different.
There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.
There would not be any medicals at all, because the State has no business in dictating individual attitudes to risk. You are allowed to rock climb, parachute, etc, aren't you? It comes down to 3rd party damage which is absolutely miniscule.
The training environment would be very different. One would modernise a lot of stuff.
As regards
- 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
I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry.
- 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
I am not sure I agree with the whole package. That is a big overhead in terms of paying an instructor to be in the RHS so he can verify you actually did those things, otherwise most people will just make a logbook entry.
And the navex is meaningless for anybody who flies for real, 99% of whom use a GPS for 100% of their nav, which then becomes utterly trivial.
I would ditch the "complex" definition. There is nothing complex about a CS prop and a retractable gear.
OTOH I would have mandatory training on GPS-level (and above) avionics, much of which is too sophisticated for many (that fly with it) to understand.
Most instructors have only a limited understanding of it, too.
As regards most people giving up, yes I am certain one could do a lot about that, and reducing it from say 90% to say 80% would double the size of the GA scene which would be wonderful.
Especially if one ended up retaining pilots who actually really have more than 2 bob to rub together!! This game is packed with hopefuls who keep kidding themselves they can fly but they cannot afford it, at any level which does what they want to do, they never could afford it, and eventually most of them will drop out disillusioned. Such a shame.
A lot of things need an overhaul but it will never happen because there are vested interests at every step.
G
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is almost exactly zilch which can be done about it at a national level.
And I am sure most flying schools would not want to change things, because their busines model ends when the customer apparently stops purchasing their services (training or hire).
An individual school/club could do quite a lot, without actually breaking the CAA syllabus. In another life, if I wanted to blow away a load of do$h, I would probably have a go at setting up a very different kind of flying school, which would do all the things which have been done to death in numerous pilot forums
But it would need a significant investment.
It would crucially also need a location with a decent catchment area and restricted competition. All the time that another outfit can set up next door with a 1970 C150 and the owner of the business working for nothing, you cannot really do much.
And I am sure most flying schools would not want to change things, because their busines model ends when the customer apparently stops purchasing their services (training or hire).
An individual school/club could do quite a lot, without actually breaking the CAA syllabus. In another life, if I wanted to blow away a load of do$h, I would probably have a go at setting up a very different kind of flying school, which would do all the things which have been done to death in numerous pilot forums
But it would need a significant investment. It would crucially also need a location with a decent catchment area and restricted competition. All the time that another outfit can set up next door with a 1970 C150 and the owner of the business working for nothing, you cannot really do much.
