However, Jason, you are flying a business jet. They have strict currency requirements for commercial ops and this has improved safety a lot. Most GA is flying much simpler stuff and at a much lower frequency. A 20-30hr/year pilot might not be much affected after 90 days, and equally a 200hr/year SEP pilot might not be a safety issue doing his first night landing of the autumn with passengers. I think these things are just not known, but the regs have been there since for ever. Maybe they are in ICAO?
But I am not talking about regulations, just flying ability.
It was the same flying the Mirage, when winter comes around and you haven’t landed at night in a while, it is noticeably harder. If I haven’t flown at all in a month, I make more mistakes when I next fly.
I would be very surprised if a 20-30 hour per year pilot is not quite rusty after a three month break.
Maybe it is just me.
I think the biggest thing is risk compensation. The 20-30hr pilot would perhaps be quite rusty after a 90 day break, but he will be aware of this (consciously or otherwise) and will lose confidence to do the flights he might have done if more current. Hence one doesn’t see the dramatic increase in accident rate with low time pilots that some would expect.
Peter wrote:
Hence one doesn’t see the dramatic increase in accident rate with low time pilots that some would expect.
I think that is why people struggled to show that statistically low hour pilots are not safe (the peak of accidents is actually around 500h but we are talking low data points here anyway to suggest anything), you have to assume similar mission/exposure profile to be able to get that signal, hours alone are worthless
For “passenger taking mission”, the common view is that it exposes the pilot to take more risk and poor decision making (opposite to what he would do if alone), so I guess hours do count in this case IMHO
JasonC wrote:
It was the same flying the Mirage, when winter comes around and you haven’t landed at night in a while, it is noticeably harder. If I haven’t flown at all in a month, I make more mistakes when I next fly.
Sure, so do I but where do you draw the line? As Peter said, low currency PPLs are good at risk compensation.
When I got my license back after the 17 year break in flying, my night qualification was automatically renewed without any further training. At my first attempt at a night landing I managed to scare myself rather badly although nothing worse than a slightly hard touchdown happened. In retrospect it was not smart to attempt this without an instructor.
90 days is a long time. You can get back up to speed alone in a simple plane after 2-3 hours, I would guess.
Legality aside, I fly both: for a living in a multi crew environment and privately alone and with friends that have papers ranging from ppl to atpl.
I personally prefer to fly with another pilot. There is a clear divide who is pic, but it always helps to have a second set of eyes watching and ears listening. Task sharing eg radios/atc, avionic set up during ifr etc… it is a safety increase compared to doing it alone. Especially single pilot ifr in imc – that’s the highest level of flying if you ask me!
EASA should encourage pilots to team up and incentivize flying together instead of first issuing people easa licenses and then legally define them as passengers because it’s not an airbus.
Flight instruction and real world flying can be different. Peter mentioned somewhere that many fresh ppls have not been prepared at all to actually go someplace a few hours away. They do the same old coffee run, lack the confidence and prep for more, get bored and quit flying. And all that right after they were exposed to training and instruction.
For my trips I’d prefer any 300 hour experienced touring pilot who has seen a good variety of complex/hpa planes, weather, atc, approaches etc.. over a local vfr instructor with thousands of hours in basic trainers.
Maybe your experiences differ and that explains why you’d rather be the only pilot aboard.
Snoopy wrote:
Peter mentioned somewhere that many fresh ppls have not been prepared at all to actually go someplace a few hours away
This is in essence nonsense IME. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. Flying a SEP with a private license is all about being PIC in a single pilot aircraft. All pilots are trained to fly x-country. It’s basically what the entire PPL course leads up to. It has nothing to do with lack of competence in this particular aspect of flying. X-country is about flying from A to B. Implicitly this also means you have to have a business of some kind at B, and there is the main issue. Few people fly x-country just for the sake of flying x-country, but many fly just for the sake of flying, and would like to use the time in the air as best as possible, not just flying straight and level.
I would rather see people got into more, lets say entertaining kind of flying. Flying that isn’t learned at PPL at all. Acro, short field, towing, tail wheel. And also maintenance, homebuilding, restoring, experimental, vintage. There will be more than enough x-country in any case, flying to meet ups, fly ins, flying to glider fields, trying new short fields and so on.
If you want to fly x-country, IFR, then do it for real. Get an ATPL and get a job as a pilot. The airlines are crying for pilots. Then you can use your spare time doing fun stuff mentioned above 
Le Sving, I actually enjoy flying IFR and I have done ever since a CRE first introduced me to it when travelling to a suitable area of VMC to do my MEP revalidation.
I get a buzz everytime I break through the clouds at 200 feet and see the runway in front of me.
On short trips from say Pontoise to Toussus I enjoy being vectored over Paris, I never tire of seeing the Palace of Versaille below me or the Eiffel Tower peaking through the clouds, then flying directly overhead Orly.
And yes I do enjoy the time that the autopilot gives me to plan ahead and think a little on longer journeys.
I do agree with Peter that many PPL’s do just fly locally or to the same places, it doesn’t mean they are not having fun.
As you say aerobatics, homebuilding, tail wheel are also fun.
I like to enthuse about the type of flying I like to do and I am delighted if someone asks to share that but I am well aware that everyone has different ideas of the aviation they enjoy so I am careful not to indicate to them that what they are doing is not real flying and they should try something else. After all they might just decide to take up golf instead, or buy an Aston Martin instead of a Cirrus.
Peter wrote:
That was what I remembered, and I recall seeing a proposal to change this. In fact I recall @bookworm writing about it, several years ago, somewhere… It is silly to require a pilot regaining his passenger carrying privilege by having to do solo flights. Allowing a qualified pilot in the RHS is much better risk management.
You might mean this:
GM1.NCO.OP.180 Simulated situations in flight
DESIGNATION OF PERSONS AS CREW MEMBERS
(a) The operator may designate any person as a crew member (including a task specialist) provided that:
(1) the role, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, will enhance the safety of the flight or achieve an operational objective of the flight;
(2) the person, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, is capable of fulfilling the role;
(3) the person has been briefed on the role as a crew member and informed that they are crew, not a passenger; and
(4) the person agrees to the role as a crew member.
(b) Crew members are not considered to be passengers.
(c) Crew members may be required, by specific provisions of this Regulation and other Implementing Rules, to hold licences, ratings or other personnel certificates to fulfil certain roles such as instructor, examiner or flight engineer in certain circumstances.
