Can one be a safe, occasional pilot?

[Baked Potato]

After a few years with no change, I've discovered at this point in my life that my pattern of frequently going a month (or two) without being AGL is inescapable.

My non-aviation career, family, weather (Mid-Atlantic), and the maintenance realities of the fleet at the flight school all collude together to make cancellations and long calendar blocks the norm instead of the exception. It also doesn't help that the airfield is 45 minutes away.

I do have a good (unofficial) sim setup at home, which helps me plan and practice navigating and the VFR sight picture for upcoming jaunts, checklist items, instrument scans, patterns at unfamiliar airports, and emergency procedures, but does not help with talking to ATC or situational awareness IRL.

I imagine my struggles with this are not unique on this board. What are your thoughts on the reality of wanting to be a safe pilot who can likely only fly a couple dozen hours in a year? As I grow older and more risk averse, sadly I'm beginning to think these two things are not compatible.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Unfortunately I would say that’s something that’s going to be 1-very individual, and 2-not something that can be evaluated over the internet.

I’d suggest more frequent instructor evaluations.

 

[TCABM]

Maybe. Flying with a CFI during those occasional flights would probably lower the risk/improve safety.

 

[Bob Noel]

know your limitations. (with apologies to Clint Eastwood)

 

[MountainDude]

I think it's perfectly doable, but depends on the complexity of your plane and airspace, and how challenging the runways are (runway length, cross winds...).
If you:
- stick to a simple plane, like C172
- only fly on clear VFR days (not nights)
- do not enter the JFK/EWR airspace (for example)
- land on paved runways >3,000 ft
- land with less than 10 knot cross-wind,
you should be as safe as anyone.

 

[SFDukie]

Many of us are in a similar situation, to a greater or lesser extent.
Not to blow smoke up your behind-but the fact that you're asking is a good sign that you're "safe". Agree that occasionally going up with an instructor (for me\/ many 2X a year) helps me feel proficient as I'm flying about 50 hrs/yr, in several different airplanes. For me I try to fly in actual Instrument conditions once a year or so with an instructor (I'm not rated, keep finding it hard to devote the time, have taken ground school, etc)

 

[GeorgeC]

After a few years with no change, I've discovered at this point in my life that my pattern of frequently going a month (or two) without being AGL is inescapable.

My non-aviation career, family, weather (Mid-Atlantic), and the maintenance realities of the fleet at the flight school all collude together to make cancellations and long calendar blocks the norm instead of the exception.

I did not like the feeling that came with flying that infrequently. My solutions were to:
* switch to an airport with better availability; nobody flew the 162 at Freeway, so I flew the heck out of it.
* join a club; similar dollars, better plane, more predictable.
* buy a plane. Get a Luscombe/Ercoupe/140/whatever and have fun.

It also doesn't help that the airfield is 45 minutes away.

Enh, everything is 45 minutes away in this area.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Any chance you can find a flying buddy? If you can, there can be a lot of benefit.

 

[RyanShort1]

If you maximize those few flying hours for proficiency, maybe. Otherwise, you will find that it's a perishable skill. I think if you have a ton of time it can be less-so. There was a time I had an injury and didn't fly for about 2 months, and it came back pretty quickly, but that was after 2-3000 hours and a ton of daily flying. Right now I think I could maybe go three months and pick it back up, but after a while I'd be rusty for sure.

 

[Shepherd]

Being safe is not necessarily the same as being skilled.

 

[172andyou]

Any chance you can find a flying buddy? If you can, there can be a lot of benefit.

This.

We had a few people at my flight club (real one, not a school or business pretending to be a club) that were in a similar position. They would pair up keep each other honest. Like 80% of the benefit of flying with a CFI, but the costs get cut in half instead of adding in the cost of the CFI.

 

[Bob Noel]

This.

We had a few people at my flight club (real one, not a school or business pretending to be a club) that were in a similar position. They would pair up keep each other honest. Like 80% of the benefit of flying with a CFI, but the costs get cut in half instead of adding in the cost of the CFI.

I'm pretty sure the CFIs out there will add: just as long as they don't pretend to be instructors.

 

[Steamflyer]

Not, not really; an occasional pilot really isn't a proficient pilot. It's something that really requires intellectual and physical proficiency. Can one perhaps do it for a while on the best of days under the easiest of circumstances? Perhaps. But probably better to take a full lay off, then requalify if/when interest/time/finances/location permit.

if you fly with a pilot who's in the 30-50 hours a year category, and then with one in the > 150 hours per year, you can sense the difference. Like all generalizations, this one may not apply to all comers - for example, someone who has regularly flown 100s of hours per year for decades may be perfectly safe taking the J3 around the neighborhood for only 10s of hours per year.

 

[Bob Noel]

I'd love to see an actual study of pilot proficiency as a function of time off.

Take some pilots that have flown regularly (for values of "regularly") and give them a mock private pilot checkride.

Take some pilots that haven't flown for m number of years and some that haven't flown for n number of months and give them a mock checkride.

Compare and contrast.

I'm willing to bet that some of the pilots that haven't flown for some time will still be able to pass the checkride.

 

[172andyou]

I'm willing to bet that some of the pilots that haven't flown for some time will still be able to pass the checkride.

I bet the ones that pass are also the ones that are most worried that their skills have diminished.

 

[Baked Potato]

Any chance you can find a flying buddy? If you can, there can be a lot of benefit.

This is a good idea. There's a club not too far away (though in the DC SFRA) that seems like a good fit that I'm eyeing. I haven't gone to any meetings yet though

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm willing to bet that some of the pilots that haven't flown for some time will still be able to pass the checkride.

I’m willing to bet that a large number of current pilots wouldn’t be able to pass a Private Pilot checkride.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is a good idea. There's a club not too far away (though in the DC SFRA) that seems like a good fit that I'm eyeing. I haven't gone to any meetings yet though

Before I moved to North Carolina, a friend of mine and I would, about once a month or so, fly together after work. We'd go up, do some stuff (in our case instrument work), and then go have dinner and a beer. We did it for years and It's one of the things I miss most after moving away.

 

[DJTorrente]

I’m willing to bet that a large number of current pilots wouldn’t be able to pass a Private Pilot checkride.

Presumably, they are good enough (perhaps with a bit of remedial instruction) to pass a flight review.

 

[DJTorrente]

I think it's perfectly doable, but depends on the complexity of your plane and airspace, and how challenging the runways are (runway length, cross winds...).
If you:
- stick to a simple plane, like C172
- only fly on clear VFR days (not nights)
- do not enter the JFK/EWR airspace (for example)
- land on paved runways >3,000 ft
- land with less than 10 knot cross-wind,
you should be as safe as anyone.

I agree these are prudent risk-management steps. And for better or worse, they have led (alone or in concert with other factors) to the inexorable shrinking of the personal pilot population.

Very few people are enamored with flying for its own sake (raises hand). The way to grow GenAv is to increase its utility. Part of that can be lowering the barriers to using personal flying. Nassau/Suffolk is 1): affluent enough to reduce the barrier that the current price structure presents; and 2) 2.5 MM people. If it were an MSA, it would be ~25th largest of 350 US census MSAs. Would you like to include Brooklyn and Queens, because those people are more likely to fly out of Long Island? That's 5MM more people. Where are 7.5MM people supposed to go in a GenAv airplane if they eschew crossing JFK/LGA/EWR airspace? People will not pursue personal flying until doing so presents a benefit that outweighs the roadblocks (some natural or unavoidable; many manufactured) to engage in it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Presumably, they are good enough (perhaps with a bit of remedial instruction) to pass a flight review.

If if they need a little remedial instruction, it would presume that they couldn’t pass a checkride, wouldn’t it?

 

[DJTorrente]

If if they need a little remedial instruction, it would presume that they couldn’t pass a checkride, wouldn’t it?

My point was that the flight review regime seems to address your concern about deterioration of skills.

Also, realistically speaking, do you still drive with your hands at 10-o'clock & 2 o'clock like we were taught and had to practice to pass that checkride? Are you really less safe for it?

 

[MauleSkinner]

My point was that the flight review regime seems to address your concern about deterioration of skills.

Also, realistically speaking, do you still drive with your hands at 10-o'clock & 2 o'clock like we were taught and had to practice to pass that checkride? Are you really less safe for it?

My only statement was that a checkride wouldn’t provide the differentiation that Bob seemed to assume.

I made no statements about whether being able to pass a checkride presumes safety. But for the record, it doesn’t.

I also made no statements about the flight review regime addressing my concern about deterioration of skills, but it also doesn’t.

 

[Brad Z]

There was once a period of time in my life where my time and budget limited me to about 12-15 flight hours in a year, flying once a month. That was limited to about four short 1.5 hour XC flights and about eight 45 minute proficiency flights. I tried to mix of the proficiency flying and expose myself to various conditions. It got the job done but I wouldn’t want to do less than that.That said, those 6 hours of proficiency flying are probably 5.5 hours more than most pilots do on an annual basis.

 

[Bob Noel]

My only statement was that a checkride wouldn’t provide the differentiation that Bob seemed to assume.

I made no statements about whether being able to pass a checkride presumes safety. But for the record, it doesn’t.

I used passing the checkride as one possible measure of "proficient" or "safe"

If current pilots couldn't pass a checkride, are they really proficient? I'm not suggesting the answer to that is yes or no.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I used passing the checkride as one possible measure of "proficient" or "safe"

If current pilots couldn't pass a checkride, are they really proficient? I'm not suggesting the answer to that is yes or no.

I would suggest that being able to pass a checkride or not isn’t an indication of “safe.” “Proficient” would have to be qualified as “proficient at what?” Proficient at checkride tasks, or proficient at day-to-day flying tasks?

 

[172andyou]

Also, realistically speaking, do you still drive with your hands at 10-o'clock & 2 o'clock like we were taught and had to practice to pass that checkride? Are you really less safe for it?

Fun fact: That's not taught by anyone who has kept current because 10 and 2 can result in broken arms, shoulders and/or punching yourself in the face when airbags deploy. 9 and 3, or 8 and 4 is the new hotness.

 

[Randomskylane]

This is a good idea. There's a club not too far away (though in the DC SFRA) that seems like a good fit that I'm eyeing. I haven't gone to any meetings yet though

SFRA is no big deal after the first time.

That’s not to say it’s not annoying to stay out of the B all the time because of those pesky jets.

ETA-it can be more expensive if you are traveling with a cfi all the time

 

[frfly172]

Well according to the lnsursance companies the more you fly the more proficient you are.

 

[DJTorrente]

SFRA is no big deal after the first time.

Neither is the NYC airspace, including the Hudson River SFRA. My first time solo in the former was <100 hrs, @ 500' over the shore of the Rockaways because I was denied a Bravo entry.

That’s not to say it’s not annoying to stay out of the B all the time because of those pesky jets.

ETA-it can be more expensive if you are traveling with a cfi all the time

 

[schmookeeg]

Weird parallel with a debate on another forum about whether 80 hours/yr is enough to be proficient in a jet as an owner/operator. These same folks claim the slow jets like 501, etc are sooooo much easier to fly than, say, a medium piston twin, making me wonder if they would assume I need 200/yr to rock a baron adequately.

I feel like "the number" is highly individual. I've had plenty of pauses for a few months and not made aluminum rain when i jumped back in.

 

[Wagondriver]

There are plenty of pilots out there that fly regularly that still aren't safe. It all depends on the person, the plane, the environment.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well according to the lnsursance companies the more you fly the more proficient you are.

If you can’t measure anything of value, you value what you can measure.

 

[Jim K]

When I was a freshly minted PPL, if I went more than a week, I felt rusty. After a couple hundred hours, it took two weeks. It's pretty rare for me to go that long between flights even now, but when my plane was down for ~6 months, I only flew two or three times in a 172 during that period, and I was very nervous to get back in my Lance. Bonus: brand new engine to break in. To my surprise, it felt very natural. At that time I had around 900 hours, with 600 being in that plane. It took a few hours to get back to being as comfortable as I was before. Point being, experience level and familiarity play a big role.

There was once a period of time in my life where my time and budget limited me to about 12-15 flight hours in a year, flying once a month. That was limited to about four short 1.5 hour XC flights and about eight 45 minute proficiency flights. I tried to mix of the proficiency flying and expose myself to various conditions. It got the job done but I wouldn’t want to do less than that. That said, those 6 hours of proficiency flying are probably 5.5 hours more than most pilots do on an annual basis.

Excellent point...intentional, meaningful training, even solo, is obviously more valuable sitting with the autopilot on. Going up and doing all the PPL maneuvers takes maybe an hour? Add a power off 180 and you'd have a pretty good base in probably 12 hours/year. Nobody wants to do just training though.

There is some value too in "keeping your head in the game". Podcasts, Youtube, books, even POA keeps your brain engaged. Looking at charts, thinking about scenarios.

 

[SebIp]

1 to 2 months is just reality in southern ontario in winter. Although, I did find if I am willing to wake up at ungodly hours I can usually fit a bit of flying in on Saturday or Sunday without impacting other aspect of family life.

When I was a student it made a difference, everything felt out of place after 4 week or so away. Now, not as much the flying part but it does impact the flow a bit.

I think we all know when we do it regularly it is better and safer. I try to do every few months one session of air works and such. It gets harder when I am training like now to keep up with those basic cause if it's a flying day on a weekend, I am training with my instructor.

Post IFR training I will have another issue, do I practice the IFR skills or basics? Again only so much time I can spare. I did update my computer to plan for doing some IFR related stuff virtually it's funny I can't log it but the very crappy Redbird at the school I can. I am going to see if I can get a setup as close to my plane over this year as I can with fake G5s and such. The familarity with the buttons is going to matter.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Proficiency is not black & white, yes/no, or pass/no-pass. It’s a spectrum.

In my opinion, so is safety. Sure, you can think of it as incident vs no incident, but then you need to define incident relevant to YOUR standard. Is it a missed radio call or instruction or a “minor” but reportable incident or worse?

Putting all of that together, it’s no different than doing a risk assessment. Flying (poorly) is the hazard. How you choose to approach it adjusts the probability. Haven’t flown in 5 months? One might grab an instructor until comfortable enough. Flying hard IFR after 5 months of no flying? We can all say that might be extreme, but it also illustrates the spectrum.

Lower flying hours, less proficiency, then fly more conservatively with WX, airspace, and equipment. Personal minimums are not just an IMC ceiling thing.

 

[MIFlyer]

I have a couple hundred hours and notice that I get psyched out when I haven't flown in a month or so, but am fine as soon as I'm done with preflight and taxiing. I just try to push myself through the first stages of nervousness.

I also agree with others that htere is nothing wrong with taking a very proficient friend or more frequent flights with CFIs. Reminds me I need to find a CFI in my new town to help show me what I don't know in my new area.

 

[texasclouds]

In a SEL Cessna, yes. In a turbo Duke, prob not!

 

[Baked Potato]

In a SEL Cessna, yes. In a turbo Duke, prob not!

I actually fly a surplus RAF Sea Harrier, does that change anything?

(Just kidding, I am assuming I'll be simple and VFR forever)

 

[Clip4]

If you seldom fly, minimally you need to do recurrent ground and flight training annually with a CFI. You also have to narrow the risks you are willing to accept for each flight.