Is there an optimum amount to fly?

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
What do you think is the optimum amount to fly? I'm coming at this from both a airplane owner (not letting the plane sit) standpoint as well as from a pilot perspective in staying maximally proficient. If you factor in general aviation safety statistics, at what point is there diminishing returns to safety? Let's assume that you're actually going to fly some and not safely sit on a couch. /me rubs his hands together anticipating the replies to this one.

Kylepa28 appears to have posted a very similar thread. I promise I posted this before I even looked at the forums this evening. Doesn't look like I can delete a thread once there are comments? Sorry for the double up.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t there just a thread on this exact topic?
 
Didn't someone already start a similar thread? :D

For me, it's an hour per week. I seem to stay sharp that way and the engine is getting use. But I'm shooting for two hours per week, average, this year. So far, I'm behind.
 
Man, just saw the other thread. How strange. Can I delete a thread once there are comments?
 
This is POA, asking same question over and over again is what we do .

I am kidding, recently I have been told that people don't understand when I am kidding. Seems like they are talking to my ex

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Twice a week. Each trip 3 hours house to back to house with 1 hour of flying and an hour lunch sounds about right.
 
Deju vu

Man feel like I been here before...
 
If there is an optimum number of hours to fly in a year, I haven't gotten to it yet.
 
All your money divided by the hourly cost to fly airplane. Multiply by two if you really like flying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ghery said:
If there is an optimum number of hours to fly in a year, I haven't gotten to it yet.
Click to expand...

I have.

1387 one year. All in 49 weeks in the 49th state. Which only averages about 4 hours a day. 13 days off during the 100 days of summer. Winter a little slower.
 
Somewhat arbitrary goal of 100hrs a year for my plane equals 2 hrs per week. That sounds adequate for staying in practice.

I’ve found I need a reason to fly. I love planes, I love aviation, I love being airborne...but for some really really weird reason I can’t explain, I have to be in the mood to prioritize to just go bore holes in the sky; I can make an excuse to go visit someone or take someone flying, and that works fine, it’s just the solo local flight that I need special motivation for. So 2hrs per week is tough if I don’t plan for something to do or someone to see.
 
Challenged said:
Kylepa28 appears to have posted a very similar thread. I promise I posted this before I even looked at the forums this evening. Doesn't look like I can delete a thread once there are comments? Sorry for the double up.
Click to expand...

His question was slightly different but a lot more pertinent. Yours seems focused on quantity while his frequency. Flying 52 hours in 1 week followed by a 51 week break would seem to me to be less productive than a consistent 1 hour per week.
 
I think there is already a thread I on this try the search button. 12
 
The other thread was similar, but not identical to what I'm interested in knowing: Is there some point in which you're unnecessarily endangering yourself and/or harming your plane instead of keeping yourself proficient and your plane in good working order? I imagine some of you would just say: "Don't worry about it and just go fly if you like flying." I think you could be equally dismissive about most anything: "if you like unprotected sex with prostitutes, just do it and stop worrying so much", but that doesn't really tell us anything except that your tolerance for risk is different than mine.
 
Challenged said:
The other thread was similar, but not identical to what I'm interested in knowing: Is there some point in which you're unnecessarily endangering yourself and/or harming your plane instead of keeping yourself proficient and your plane in good working order? I imagine some of you would just say: "Don't worry about it and just go fly if you like flying." I think you could be equally dismissive about most anything: "if you like unprotected sex with prostitutes, just do it and stop worrying so much", but that doesn't really tell us anything except that your tolerance for risk is different than mine.
Click to expand...

I was just messing with you. As I said in the other thread it's really up to you, to a point. But if you've had a layoff and you are not sure about going back book an hour with a CFI, piece of cake.
 
I imagine the truth is that nobody really knows. I can probably accept that for the pilot proficiency portion, since all pilots are different and it's hard to quantify, but it seems like there would be some sort of maximum longevity study at least for the engines.
 
Challenged said:
I imagine the truth is that nobody really knows. I can probably accept that for the pilot proficiency portion, since all pilots are different and it's hard to quantify, but it seems like there would be some sort of maximum longevity study at least for the engines.
Click to expand...

I would think a few hours a week would be ideal for the engine, flying hours, not sitting on the ground idling hours.
 
Challenged said:
The other thread was similar, but not identical to what I'm interested in knowing: Is there some point in which you're unnecessarily endangering yourself and/or harming your plane instead of keeping yourself proficient and your plane in good working order? I imagine some of you would just say: "Don't worry about it and just go fly if you like flying." I think you could be equally dismissive about most anything: "if you like unprotected sex with prostitutes, just do it and stop worrying so much", but that doesn't really tell us anything except that your tolerance for risk is different than mine.
Click to expand...

For pilot currency, it's going to depend on what you're doing with those hours and how efficiently you turn practice into skill. When I was young and hungry for hours, I might only get an hour or so per month, but I'd treat that hour like a workout, practicing airwork (including steep turns at 60 degrees of bank), landings, and spins if appropriate for the airplane. I'd seek out crosswind runways, and every landing and take off was one to practice a skill. Short field, soft field, etc.

Consequently, my skills stayed sharp with a small amount of hours in my logbook. Now that I'm in my 40s, it probably takes some more practice than it did in my 20s. I've known pilots who fly 100+ hours in a year, but hardly practice anything that taxes their skills at all. Those guys are highly proficient at their milk run, but not at much else and are way behind the curve if they get thrown a curveball.

So you're going to have to figure out for yourself how much flying it takes for you to be proficient. List out the skills you want to be able to perform well, and make sure you get enough practice to stay sharp at those.
 
Challenged said:
I'm coming at this from both a airplane owner (not letting the plane sit) standpoint as well as from a pilot perspective in staying maximally proficient.
Click to expand...
Those are different objectives.
If the primary objective as an owner is getting maximum hours out of the airplane, then a few flights per week of a few hours each while on auto pilot would be the ticket.
If the objective as an owner is minimal annual cost, then pickle it.
If the objective is to trade off statistical risk vs. proficiency, then clearly, it depends on a number of things. A couple hours per week practicing things like slow flight, engine failures at random places not near airports, instrument failures, simulated VFR into IMC etc. will significantly boost your proficiency as compared to the same hours on auto pilot. But a couple hours on auto pilot only landing at large airports with 10000x200 runways during hard VMC will help you beat the statistics when it comes to accidents per hour without the need for significant proficiency.

So, to define "optimal" we first need to develop a cost function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_control Then, and only then, will the fun begin.
 
Thanks for the thorough response Capt., as well as the link. My objective would probably be to sit somewhere in the middle of the plane/pilot proficiency issue if those are at odds. I do recognize that even an engine longevity study would have variables that would need to be taken into account (hangar or no, desert location, type of flying, as you mentioned, etc...). This is also more academic than anything else as I've been able to fly a lot this week, but life gets in the way most of the time, so it's really more a thought exercise and simple curiosity. I did also think that perhaps the military or the airlines would have studies that might help answer the pilot proficiency question at least in part.
 
This has worked for me:

40/year keeps solid vfr proficiency. Can't be the same 1 hour repeated 40 times though. Gotta get out in the xwinds, do some longer leg xcountry, etc.

80-100/year keeps ifr proficiency. Again, lots of safety pilot flights under the hood if imc only presents itself occasionally (or for short periods like coastal low clouds). Way, way more than currency requirements, in my mind, to be safe.

I found myself drop below 20 one year and I hung it up for the next 3 years. Sure you can do less, but it's far from optimal and unless you're looking at no wind, cavu, etc. you're taking on risk.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top