IMO currency is overrated. For instance I sometimes fly a friend’s tiny Menestral. It’s fun easy to get out of the hangar and put it back at the end of a flight. It flies beautifully is very simple and anyone who tenses up when an instructor says let’s do some stalls can begin to enjoy them in this little machine. But as this is a tail wheel aircraft time is often better spent manoeuvring on the ground especially in high cross winds. My type of mission in this aircraft (local vfr) means I use the radio very little and don’t tend to enter CAS. So there is very little transferable benefit, currency wise, when I then fly a DA 42 on a 2 to 3 hour IFR journey
Learning to fly the Menestral, however improved many of my flying skills and got rid of some bad habits which had crept in when flying other aircraft.
So for me the answer for low time pilots is to fly what you can, when you can, to not get fixated on currency, and if you are nervous because of a lack of currency for a particular mission, ask someone who flies those sort of missions on that type of aircraft for advice or to perhaps do a short flight with them.
Better still pay an instructor you like and trust for an hour or two to build up your confidence.
gallois wrote:
So for me the answer for low time pilots is to fly what you can, when you can, to not get fixated on currency, and if you are nervous because of a lack of currency for a particular mission, ask someone who flies those sort of missions on that type of aircraft for advice or to perhaps do a short flight with them.
Better still pay an instructor you like and trust for an hour or two to build up your confidence.
Thank you for these encouraging words, gallois. I often find I beat myself up over my lack of currency, building up unnecessary anxiety before the next flight only to finding out that it all worked out fine. At least for local VFR in benign weather, flying is perhaps indeed more like riding a bicycle, which one “never forgets” how to do once learned…
Thanks for your inputs. Some good stuff in there. I agree with most of it.
The general idea was to bring together what makes a good airplane for this, not specific types, even though it is obvious that this is where it ends.
I agree, the Cessnas with their gear and in some types easy fuel selections are certainly contenders, same as Pipers and e.g. the Grummans.
Fuel systems which include numerous tanks which empty in other tanks and or require transfer pumps and where contents of fuel tanks are not displayed by default or not at all e.t.c. imho are for people who a) only fly that one type and b) fly it a lot so it becomes 2nd nature. I recall a Cessna 210 which had a crash on approach to ZRH because the fuel transfer failed from a baggage tank to some other tank which did not empty into a third, imho that is something which is not really very clever for low time operators.
Another bit which can cause difficulties are e.g. autopilots which non-intuitive functions such as complex mode switching, non intuitive nav coupling and similar stuff.
Or stuff like nav source switching when it isn’t clear which source is actually displayed on a HSI or CDI. This of course is not airplane type dependent but rather installation.
Many of these unnecessarily complex things stem from modifying airplanes for something they were not designed to do. The fuel tank problems are a quite obvious example for this, if the original design had been for a looong range plane, they would have made the original tanks larger. e.g. the Bonanzas with 35 USG usable which end up with tips, aux, baggage tanks which empty into each other in specific sequence or dump the fuel overboard or create wnb problems and where the fuel quantity has to be checked via toggle switches between tanks is asking for mistakes.
My 180 HP Rallye with slats. Difficult to stall. Easier to fly than a 172. Fantastic in cross winds. Amazingly sturdy undercarriage.
Peter wrote:
I reckon that to crash a TB20 you need to disconnect the autopilot and fall asleep.
There is a fellow who got CO poisoning in a Mooney that landed itself and he lived to tell the tale – no chute involved :)
People say that Mooneys are “hard to land” but I didn’t find mine all that hard. You have to pay attention, but that is true for anything one does…
I think it also depends on what kind of aircraft you learned to fly in. Going back to the “roots” is always easy.
gallois wrote:
IMO currency is overrated.
I see it differently. Currency appropriate to what you’re flying is pretty important. If you’re a bit rusty, you go and practice up on your own, and restore your skills, that’s currency, well done. However, if you become so rusty that safely rebuilding your skills solo is not possible, you’re not current, you’re not going to be without some assistance, and you’re not as safe as you should be.
Examples of this would include fuel systems knowledge, as well discussed here, unusual attitude/spin recovery, sideslipping, soft field takeoff and landing, practice forced landing to a touchdown, Vx climbs, and crosswinds up to the demonstrated value of the plane. Each of these are examples of skills I seem lacking in pilots with whom I’ve flown in simple airplanes. All of these are elements of basic training (perhaps not including spins), and you should at least maintain the skills you demonstrated to earn your license. If you could score well on a flight test on your next flight, you’re probably current. If you could fly all of the maneuvers described in the flight manual with confidence, you’re probably current. If you’re not sure, you should consider how to get yourself more current.
I had occasion to take an old friend flying in my C 150. He had trained me in Piper Aztecs years earlier, and was excellent. Then he left GA, and went to the airlines. He had lost his currency in light airplanes, as he entirely botched three attempts to land my 150. It took some practice to make him simply safe. He knew what was needed, but had lost the muscle memory.
Every now and then I’ve either had to check myself out on a new type, or fly a type I have not flown for many years. Generally, I would not consider myself current on that type for my first flight. If I can get a check ride, I will. If I can’t, I will cautiously practice some exercises to build my skills. I agree that a pilot’s general currency will rise somewhat permanently based upon total experience in that class of plane. But, from my experience, when you become that current, complacency becomes a risk, and it’s just about as bad as not being current!
An answer to the original question is without doubt anything that has proven to be a good trainer. That has happened for a reason. So 152, 172, PA28.
There are more, but you get my drift.
As for skills, I like Pilot_DAR’s take, which is something I’ve said for other disciplines.
If you couldn’t go out and pass the initial test, then something is lacking.
It may not be applicable to always conform to operating in ‘Test’ mode but to be good enough to pass one, is a fair measure of skills. Not the only measure but a very good baseline.
Aftet all the skills test no matter how daunting in the beginning, is designed to be suitable but not unachievable.
Same for Car driving and boating.
If you’re good enough to pass those tests without additional training , you’ve more than likely got additional skills too.
