When do you lose the ability to fly your aircraft?
 

For one reason or another I find that my flying hours have dropped to very few over the last 2 years. What with covid lock downs, airfields being slow to re-awaken, fighting the neighbours from hell and moving house my logbook shows that last time I committed aviation was in September 2021 (1 hour) and the time before that was last April (3/4 hour). Before that I did my biennial flight with an instructor in November 2020 on the day before another lock down. All of these flights have been taken in my own aircraft, incidentally a kit built aircraft from a Ukrainian company.

So I waited for conditions to be ideal for the sortie, wind down the strip, vis good, plenty of time. I had been to the strip a couple of days ago and checked the aircraft over, fetched the battery back for charging etc then today I fetched fuel in jerry cans and went out to the strip feeling a little apprehensive......... On arrival at the strip I removed the aircraft covers, fitted the battery and put the fuel in. At this point I noticed that the pitot tube cover was missing and was not to be found close by so probably ot removed by the recent winds. I popped in the nav aid, headsets and hand held radio and grabbed my check lists. A thorough pre-flight check and I was as ready as I would ever be but still apprehensive.

The engine started on the second press of the button, the carbs don't always fill after the system has been drained until the engine mechanical fuel pump gets going. I warmed the engine whilst keeping a scan of the engine instruments, all as expected. Mag drops good, max rpm good, intercom working, nobody responded to a radio check request (on Safetycom) but I did hear a bit of chatter so I knew Rx was working. Controls all free and trim set so I taxied out and lined up.

No excuses now so I opened the throttle. As I got up to speed a final glance at the instruments looked good, As the ASI reached 45KTS I pulled back a bit more on the stick and was airborne. It was as if I had been flying every day for weeks.

During the climb out I noticed the ASI was all over the dial. Odd. My perception of the airspeed agreed with the Airspace Aware give or take a bit for the headwind and everything else was good. So, the strip I fly from is not known for it's excessive length. so I didn't fancy going back in a little hot and the last thing I was going to risk was a SLOW approach while feeling the aispeed, on a day when the winds are light so I diverted to another strip a few miles away, one twice as long, twice as wide and on the same heading (into the wind today) where I made a perfect landing. It took me twenty mins to disconnect blow the water from the pitot tubes and then normal service resumed. The remaining local area flight and landing back at base was uneventful.

I do wonder how long being away from the cockpit needs to be before you lose it?

Rans6............

Impressive. I've never made a perfect landing...

One hour a month left me with poor landings, even if I did some T&GS.
Nobody else local current on type.

I would suggest it is not a yes-no answer to the question of how long until you lose it. Instead it is a continuum with the loss of ability to deal with abnormals and emergencies and more demanding conditions occurring first.

Obviously the OP handled his abnormal well but that was helped by flying on a day with benign conditions. Personally I find that it takes about 10 minutes to get comfortable again after a significant break from flying. The challenge, of course, is will I be able to effectively deal with a major emergency in that 10 minutes ? I like to think that there is enough residual competence that the answer is yes but make a point of not doing anything sporty until I am comfortable again.

I would also note that flying a very different type after a long break can be just as challenging as not flying at all.

"If I don't practice for a day, I know the difference; if I don't practice for a week, the critics know; if I don't practice for a month, the public knows"

Artur Rubinstein - probably the greatest concert pianist of his time.

Skills erode with time and there's only one way to get them back.....

rans6andrew - I think the fact that you are asking the question is the best indicator that you are still safe - it is those who just crack on regardless without considering skill fade who are the dangerous ones.

I think flying is like riding a bike, you never forget how to do it but the processing of the information can slow down with lack of practice, advancing age or both.

Your experience level is important as the longer you have practiced a skill the more likely it is to be retained.

I retired after 40 years of helicopter flying at the end of last year and have converted to 3-axis microlight - I have flown about once a month and each time worry that my skill level for landing might had dropped right off as I have very few hours on FW - so far I have been pleasantly surprised that it hasn't deserted me.

Hopefully you will get more time in the air as the weather improves but never stop questioning yourself, it is a healthy attribute for a pilot.

BPF. I'm not flying as much for virtually the same reasons as rans6 and, as you mention, it's the EMC situation that concerns me most.
I usually try to fit in a PFLWOP if I get the chance and then realise that I'm not as good as I thought I was ! Pattern's OK but so many variables that I have forgotten.
At the moment the aeroplane is in for it's annual so even more delay AND missing all this fine weather. Maybe it's time.... ?

It all depends. Operating a very simple aircraft out of a deserted strip in benign conditions is not the same as recommencing flying in something more complex out of a busy controlled Airfield.

Even your minor emergency would have escalated at a busy Airfield as they would have alerted the Airfield Fire and Rescue services and you may have been given priority and other traffic so advised. It is easy to see how things could escalate.

Good decision to land at another quiet strip and sort things out!

These days I even forget what I’ve had for breakfast…..

I (PPL) once didn't fly for something like 9 months, then went for a practice flight, including some touching and going. All felt good, and the first landing was one of the better I've ever made, then it went downhill from there. I have no idea how my brain is wired ...

Read the latest Air Accident Investigation Branch reports about blocked pitot systems on Big Jets. Very revealing. They also have other recent reports where they highlight lack of recency as a causal factor. Everyone from magazine articles to CHIRP to GASCo to the new CAA Safety Dissemination outfit are going on about lack of recency.
You can do worse than follow John Farley's checklist.
I think the time to pack up isn't when you feel apprehensive about taking flight, but when you can no longer be bothered. A friend and flying buddy of mine describes it as 'you gotta have the love' and I think he's right.
The other evening, I'd finished a day's flying in the Club aircraft and sitting outside was the C150 I share with him. So, I put the Club aircraft away, did the debrief and the paperwork, then went back to do 30 mins in it. Ah, bliss!

TOO

It is all about keeping checked and up to date.

If you have a spare hour or two each week, just read through any notes you have, watch some Youtube videos or if you're really desperate, read the POH.

Just keeping your brain updated every week or so with checklists, flows, emergencies etc can really help you stay fresh. Obviously XPlane or the new FS2020 can too with regards to navigation and procedures.

For sure some time away from the cockpit will erode some skills but if you are proactive on the ground then it will be like you never had a break in the first place.

Some airline guys didn't fly for months during the pandemic. Most still took advantage of keeping fresh on the ground.

My gliding club near Calgary shuts down when the snow comes (usually October) and starts up again when the snow is gone, the runway is dry and it’s warm enough to be out in the open (usually about now).

As a consequence, most of the members have had a six-month layoff, so we have spring checkouts for all our pilots, which besides general handling and circuits, includes stalling and spinning.

In my experience, the first few flights are a bit like skiing or bike-riding, after a long delay. It all feels familiar but my skills are not as sharp as they should be. After a few flights, it all comes back and I’m grateful I didn’t have to manage any emergencies during those first flights!

I spent an involuntary seven months off flying a few years back. I expected to be rusty, so booked an hour with an instructor. It was like I'd flown the plane three hours the day before, it fit like an old glove. Similar to India Four Two, float flying in seasonal here. My last water landing was in October, my next will be late April or May. And water landings or less forgiving of error than on a runway. So, I'm always extra cautious for my first few water landings, as checkouts are really difficult to get around here.

If you're attentive to possibly being rusty, that's an excellent first step. Another worthwhile habit, as India Four Two says, is to fresh up on not only flying, but airwork as well. Too many pilots I fly with admit that their last airwork was many years ago. It should be months, or at very most within a year ago, not many years ago!

Every spring I spend a few hours doing a full review of the BGA Safe Winch Launching web page and videos.

I think the right question would be "when do you loose the ability to fly your aircraft with an acceptable degree of safety?"
A standard flight could be managed by many even after quite an extended period of not flying. But could they still handle an in-flight engine failure? Sudden and unforecast inclement weather?

Following up on my previous post, I did my Spring Check today, in a Bellanca Scout.

It went well, in fact better than I expected. I did three three-pointers and two wheelers, with nary a bounce.

I reported that I was current again, on my club’s Slack channel.

The Chief Tow Pilot, who I don’t think follows PPRuNe, responded: “Like riding a bike?” :)

Being current is important. Getting the feel of the controls usually is best done with some pilot proficiency exercises at a safe altitude in a safe practice area . Going through a drag demonstration can help , slow flight exercise is one of the best exercise to increase pilot control feedback during changes of airspeed . The aircraft goes through the slow flight range twice in every flight during take off and landings . Most accident occur in the take off and landing phase . Their is a tendency to rush through the slow flight handling characteristics of aircraft in trying to get to the faster more comfortable parts of training . It has been my experience when training pilots that have difficulty landing that I go out and practice slow flight . The difference after is night and day .
Landing the airplane at different air speeds can be fun as well , some pilots try to hold it off the runway until they have no energy left , sometimes you need a lot of energy in the aircraft to have any control . I like to always fly it onto the runway with extra energy to prevent a gust of wind making me look stupider. To much energy can cause a bounce if you get the timing of the transfer of the weight of the aircraft from the wings to the wheels wrong . Timing of that transition improves with pilots familiar with the control pressures and movements during different speed ranges .
The economic benefits of basic aircraft control during the slow flight transition in creating smooth landings show up in tire wear .
Once a pilot learns how to kiss it on the runway , those tires will last a long time , assuming they land with their feet off the brakes :)

Really? In that case you're starting off looking pretty stupid. It would take quite a lot to make you look stupider.
FTAOD you should always land at the minimum airspeed you can, even if you need full control deflections to keep your line. If you can't do that then find another runway.
Flying it on with extra energy is one reason why there are landing accidents. Because the aeroplane still has sufficient energy to fly, even though you've planted the wheels on the ground, the transition to rolling on the wheels with the wheels supporting the weight is even trickier to manage.

When you can and when you should are two completely different things.
Same as being legal doesn’t equal being safe.

vs.
I think we could have a good long debate on that whole issue -- maybe in a new thread!

Yes one doesn't want to start landing way too fast, especially if talking about a larger heavier aircraft that might be more runway length limited. Or forcing the plane to the ground, leading to bounces or porpoising.

[Edit: what I wrote below isn't that different from the first time, but I guess I'm trying to describe the whole process again to try to get the explanation through.]

But normally in a light plane I don't want land at absolute minimum speed either. In typical cases just flare, let it descend slowly to the runway at a rate acceptable to the aircraft's landing gear, plant it firmly but not hard, and transition to rolling out on the runway. One doesn't want to be eking out more and more flare, nose getting way high, with stall horn blaring (in a certified aircraft), more likely to get drifted by crosswinds -- especially if one has already straightened out, as one might not know whether it will be 1 or 4 more seconds before for the plane runs out of lift and drops the last couple inches to the ground. Going for the absolute minimum speed leaves the plane susceptible to every little bit of turbulence or gust. Fun to do in very calm or zero turbulence conditions, but not for everyday.
(Obviously there are going to be variations by aircraft type, how much the gear absorb any landing shock, whether it is a regular tri gear landing or crosswind one-wheel landing by a tail dragger, etc. so I'm not trying to cover every possible situation.)

Rick Durden explained it well in this Avwebb post, so I'll just link to it
https://www.avweb.com/features/the-pilots-lounge-102-the-last-10-feet/
(Sorry I can't work out how to do it!)

Aircraft with low mass and high drag are different from larger aircraft such as the C150 and Pa38, especially if they have a nthin wing section.The loss of airspeed and lift is sudden. Microlites and near-microlites need a different technique to do smooth landings.

​​​​

Heston,

Thanks for the link to that excellent article:
https://www.avweb.com/features/the-p...-last-10-feet/

Sorry pchapman but airspeed = lift: too high an airspeed assists any gust and will not prevent it albeit the controls are very marginally more effective.. At some point you must land; the aeroplane need not be kicked straight early. a little late will do no harm to a safe landing. Once in contact with the runway then the aircraft is most vulnerable to gusts if the speed is too fast. You need to be as heavy as possible on touchdown and this will be at the lowest speed and with the most effective braking. Landing too early, too fast and the aircraft is light and the application of brakes will be unpredictable and may be asymmetrical in effect should the weight from the wheels not be equal.

Sorry, I disagree with that entirely. I fly a C42 and the landing technique is no different, the wing doesn't suddenly stop producing lift - stalls are ridiculously benign whether clean or with full flap.

You do notice and feel gusts more on final approach due to the low inertia and mass but the response to power is so quick there is no problem.

Agree that the article Heston linked to is excellent.

"Microlites and near-microlites need a different technique to do smooth landings."

Absolutely Spot On, true microlites, e.g. Rans S4 need power on through landing if one is to avoid falling heavily. The 'standard' power off and glide the last bit is not any good, uness of course in an engine out case when a steep dive and excess of speed will let you get away with it. [Reference RansMail articles).
Even as an 'aeroplane' the Rans S6-116 model can run out of lift quite suddenly, likewise the Reality Escapade needs care (viz. u/c write off by a very experienced Jodel pilot when executing a classic gliding final and falling the last bit.

Let's not forget that angle of attack is in there somewhere too! Getting the nose down for tri gear should make a big difference (depending on all the angles and incidence and wing sections involved).

The Avweb article sounds interesting although will take a while to read through. Sounds like it involves someone who was touching down 20 mph faster than stall. Different from the, say, <5 mph that I was thinking about.

If you want to land shorter, plant the aircraft down on the ground at a light descent rate after the flare, get the nose down (for tri gear) to kill lift so you can start using brakes. (Unless its some aircraft where aerodynamic braking were better than wheel brakes.)
Don't keep the nose way up in the air, floating along another few hundred feet, trying to eke out just another few mph less airspeed, right to the minimum, while floating along along inches above the ground, waiting for an unpredictable stall point (because you can't look at the airspeed at this point and or its effectively off the clock anyway), possibly exposed to unexpected ground contact from any gust that moves you a few inches down, while you are also unsure of when to take out any crosswind correction, because you don't know when that stall will come and you'll touch down.

I thought in larger aircraft and the military they also tend to like planting the aircraft down instead of getting to the very minimum possible airspeed. And that's in aircraft where approach speed control is more important, and too fast touchdowns may lead to undesirably long landings.

Anyway, it's a good agree-to-disagree sort of topic. Hopefully we are talking about issues that don't totally overlap -- minimum speed vs. a reasonable speed slightly faster vs. way too fast touchdowns.

That is just so bad it's not even wrong!
- you risk breaking the nose leg- you shouldn't need to "kill lift" because you should be slow enough that there's sufficient weight on the wheels anyway- if you can float another few hundred feet then your approach speed was too fast

And anyway, what do I do in a Piper Cub or other taildragger? And don't tell me they need a different technique. They aren't called 'conventional gear' for no reason.

I strongly advise you against this. Pushing the nose down will mean that you become a wheelbarrow, the main wheels kept light on the ground by the main plane above. you are very vulnerable to gusty conditions by doing this especially if the surface is wet. Braking will not become fully effective until the aircraft has slowed. By holding the nose up you induce aerodynamic braking plus with the downforce from the tail plane also increasing the weight of the main wheels and friction and therefore the braking when it becomes appropriate.

You can be assured that aerodynamic braking is many times more effective than the wheel brakes during the early stages of the landing.

Every SEP instructor's mantra is 'MORE RIGHT RUDDER'.
Second to this is 'DON'T PUSH'.

TOO

It is tough to argue the subtleties of these situations; one gets buffeted on all sides.
One person says the plane might have too much lift after touchdown and still be light on its wheels. So I say, lower the nose to reduce the angle of attack. Which isn't supposed to be the same as slamming the nose down to wheel barrow, or slamming it down so hard to risk structural damage. Or I get told that despite lowering the nose to reduce lift, I'll still have so much lift that the plane will STILL be light on its main wheels. I do like aerobraking too, and discussing aerobraking vs. wheel brakes at different speeds is a good topic. But of course at some point you do have to lower the nose -- otherwise on some aircraft if you aerobrake too long you run out of elevator effectiveness all of a sudden... and the nose slams down harshly. And while I explicitly say I'm only talking about tri gear, I'm also challenged about why taildraggers should be any different. Yes, I do suggest a different technique....don't try to lower the nose on a taildragger all the way to the ground after landing, that gets expensive on props! (Hmm, for those who debate taildragger wheel landings vs. 3-point landings, how can the actual touchdowns possibly differ if everyone should be landing at minimum possible speed?) While there are some good points to debate in all this, sometimes it seems that no statement can be made that can't be over-interpreted. If I say to pull up from cruise flight, someone will say that'll pull the ruddy wings off!

Then we also have issues of terminology: I never used the term "push" but then someone else used it and then someone else complains about that! Clearly lowering the nose after landing may just require a relaxation of back pressure and is not likely to require any push on the stick, which could indeed be detrimental to the nose gear. An instructor in particular would want to be careful with terminology.

Anyway, I'm always willing to learn and re-evaluate the interplay of different factors in handling an aircraft, but I'm not seeing enough to convince me that keeping on going to the very stall is particularly useful on landing.

The C42 is a true microlight and is used extensively as a trainer - you do not need power on through the landing.
Hold the speed with attitude and maintain the sight picture with power - basic stuff - but when you come to round out/flare you want the throttle closed. A gentle flare will reduce the speed and RoD and as the main wheels touch, keep the nose coming up to wash of the speed before allowing the nose wheel to contact the ground.

BTW I learned on Jet Provost back in the day and the RAF aimed for a threshold speed and flared with the throttle closed to land about 85 Kts. The only reason to plant the landing was if the runway was very wet in order to prevent aquaplaning.

Weeell...
In the sense that it was meant above, a C42 is not a "true"microlight specifically because it can be landed more like a slightly heavier GA aircraft; that is with the throttle closed. Yes of course it is a microlight and it is widely used as a trainer, but folk who learn on it can come a cropper once qualified if they try to use the same landing technique in older designs like, say, an Xair, which definitely do need a different technique.
In any case it depends on what you mean by landing with the throttle closed. Yes flare with it closed in a C42 if you must, but don't close it a 50 feet as you come over the hedge - that might work for you in a C150 but not in a C42. I've never flown a jet so I've no idea about the correct technique in a JP.
If the only microlight you've flown is a C42 I strongly recommend getting some differences training before moving to other types (doesn't have to be an instructor, just someone you trust who knows the type).
As a general comment - it's microlight not microlite.

I think some of you don't understand the difference between low inertia and low speed. It's entirely possible to land (for example) an x-air engine stopped. The round out is more dramatic if you like, as the angle through which you need to rotate is quite large, and the hold off (deacceleration) won't last very long, due to the low inertia. It does require some precision and, dare I say, skill. Practice helps.
Likewise, a cub can be plonked on the runway at quite a high speed ( for a cub) and kept there as long as you a) put it on the mainwheels and b) keep it rolling on the mainwheels with a moderately firm stick forward. Flying conventional gear does not always require a three point landing. Sometimes it's better to land one wheel at a time. Again, practice helps.

I've done exactly that many times, so thank you ;)

The point is that in a low inertia draggy machine if you close the throttle at a height at which everything would work well in a spam can, you will quickly slow down and hit the ground earlier than you expected with a high descent rate. It's the change in power that catches you out, not having no power. How would we do PFLs and real engine out landings?

So the only bone of contention is when you actually close the throttle - surely that depends on your approach angle and airspeed.

If you have the correct angle and airspeed - shallow = more power and steeper = less - then you will still want to close the throttle just before you flare, regardless.

The idea of holding power on all the way to the ground is anathema to most people's idea of correct technique.

A glide approach is just a steeper version - not by much - and works on microlights and heavier aircraft so what is the issue?

No-one is advocating closing the throttle at 50' as a practice - you use the throttle for as long as you need to to maintain the approach angle but you still close it before you flare.

Heston, I think we are singing from the same hymn book here. I honestly can't think of any heavier than air flying machine that can't be landed without use of the engine.

Should be noted that the POH/FM landing distances given are calculated from 50 ft above the threshold with the throttle closed. Other than noting this there cannot be a rule with regard to the throttle closed or not. Some types nose weight can be heavy and therefore retaining additional power can help. Certainly in gusty conditions the extra slipstream is invaluable by enhancing the effectiveness of the rudder and elevator for single engine types.

Space-X Rocket?