LeSving wrote:
You need an acro rating or 2000h or whatever to be “safe”, just nonsense of course, but it makes us feel good (important, better, special) saying it
Totally agree.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
After the JU crash we had, there were screamers in our Swiss forum who declared that any airline pilot would be disqualified to fly a JU on principle, non withstanding that the crew in question had 1k and 300 hrs respectively on type and were also former military. Stuff like that is really what the beancounter brigade in the CAAs are waiting for… taking this to the extreme will more or less mean nobody is qualified for anything anymore, as flying is such a science, it can’t be mastered by poor mortals.
Government tests and qualifications have little to do with learning, beyond the most basic level. Qualification is one thing, learning is another. I actually do think that a pilot can learn more and more about any plane by flying it and exploring its character over many hours. I don’t think there is any reason that his increased skill needs to be reflected in a ‘qualification’, or that people with less experience should have a lesser qualification… Learning is an individual activity that can only really be assessed by real world results, that in themselves aren’t always measurable. Is it better to kill yourself flying every 200 years or every 500 years?
For the anecdote, I asked at Duxford on an airshow a display pilot how many hours one needs to fly solo on a Spitfire, he quoted me 1000TT and some 50PIC on TWs
I replied ironically, I hope they did not need that much during WW2 
I would guess the same applies when you ask some people about TPs or Jets, they will come up with a random number that make it special…
One could convert to fly TPs/Jets with as low as 30h in SEPs (can show proof of people doing that), still it does not make you a “skilled pilot” to manage the stress coming out of a low level VFR navigation in busy airspace and marginal VMC conditions or give you wisdom not to be up in the first place …
Ibra wrote:
One could convert to fly TPs/Jets with as low as 30h in SEPs
I have zero hours flying jets. In Sweden a few years back, I was offered the opportunity to “fly” the original simulator used to train Saab Viggen pilots. I was asked my flying experience and briefed. The briefing took about three minutes, and was mostly how to start it, the use of the flap/landing gear lever, and a surprising amount about how to fire weapons. It seemed pretty important to my mentor that I strafe some things and make fire on the ground. With that, I “flew” for more than an hour. No problem whatever, including a mach 1.2 dash, stalls at altitude and reverse after landing. I did not need to use the pedals at all, once airborne – I nearly felt I could be lazy! I certainly did not rise to the level of “competent” during that time, but I’m confident that with a proper ground school about systems and high altitude flying, and a few dozen more hours, I would have happily flown the real thing. I wonder if any Swedish pilots ever attained 2,000 hours flying a Viggin?
Ibra wrote:
I replied ironically, I hope they did not need that much during WW2
Well, at that time, I would think the risk of losing a Spitfire due to enemy action would totally overshadow any risk of losing it due to poor handling. And even in that case, there was no shortage of aircraft. The situation is rather different today — particularly as regards the number of aircraft.
That is not to say that the numbers you quoted are necessarily reasonable — but 50 hours PIC on TW does seem reasonable. I’m not so sure about the 1000 hours TT.
I think there isn’t really a reason for irony, as I have heard a great number of lives were lost, not to enemy fire, but due to loss of life and aircraft because of the incredibly limited experience on type.
I’m sure there are numbers out there somewhere?
Pilot_DAR wrote:
In my opinion, a pilot who only flew one or two types, and had accumulated 2,000 plus hours on a type, would have plateaued in skills development on that type, and probably has become more an increasing risk in complacency and not practicing emergencies. When I felt complacency creeping in many years back, I took helicopter training, that sure opened my eyes!
That’s why I still agree with the statement
Archie wrote:
you need at least 2,000-3,000 on type to really know the aircraft
I like your methodical approach to exploring the corners of the envelope in the first few flights though! Most type ratings don’t cover a lot of these items. Of course one would never fly 110% Vne other than in official test pilot capacity.
I admit that I always stay well away from Vne as forces increase exponentially with speed – and thus the loads on the let’s say decades old frame of the aircraft… So there’s a corner I’m yet to explore with my 1,900 hours on type…!
I know it’s different in commercial aviation but AFAIK a first officer become captain after about ten years in the right seat (confirmed by FI/IR instructor who is about to become captain at Air France).
So it’s about 5000 hours in CAT.
Of course one would never fly 110% Vne other than in official test pilot capacity.
Ordinary PPL pilots test Vne in every homebuilt aircraft that is built.
I admit that I always stay well away from Vne as forces increase exponentially with speed
Not exponentially, but by the square of the speed. It’s usually flutter that limits the speed though.
Archie wrote:
the pilot thinks he has plateaud in skills development and “has seen it all” where there are still a few unexplored corners out there.
Of course at 2,000 hours a pilot has not seen it all. But, going the heart of the question, if a 172 pilot with 1950 hours on type, were to plot their next 50 hours of flying, will they be a better pilot if they fly that next 50 hours in a 172? Or another type? If the 172 pilot is planning to finally hone their skills to perfection in a 172 at 1950 hours on type, something’s been missing for a long time in their flying thus far!
There are remarks referencing flying spam cans, or otherwise substandard aircraft. In terms of building my flying skills (excluding things like learning avionics, or practicing radio work and navigation), some of my greatest skills development has come when flying a really odd, or defective plane, that’s where to learn ‘cause you had to work at it! Taking a G1000 172 for a hundred dollar hamburger really won’t build your handling skills as fast as flying a plane which is out of rig, has poor nose or tailwheel steering, poor braking, or an engine control which is misbehaving. Yes, you may find one or more of these challenges in your “only fly this” plane, but you’ll get them faster flying a selection of planes!
Examples: I learned the really poor directional stability at cruise speed of a Cessna 310, which was required to be ferry home gear down. I learned the really gentle touch required to ferry home a Cessna 150, with one exhaust valve stuck open (so running on only three cylinders – could not be fixed where it was). I learned the ease with which a Piper Cheyenne 2 will fly home on one engine following an emergency shut down. I learned (twice) that you can land an amphibious floatplane in ice with one side’s gear up, and the other side’s gear down, and not damage it. I learned the sound that a float cross bracing wire makes just before it breaks in flight, and how to land later without the plane collapsing off the floats. I learned the altered pitch stability of a 172 whose tail was damaged having hit a deer on takeoff, and had to be patched to be ferried back for proper repair. I learned the terrible instability of a pre mod Cessna 303 which had accumulated some ice on the tail (that was nearly life ending!). I learned the startling feeling of control force reversal in pitch in both the turbine DC-3 and Siai Marchetti 1019. I learned the effects of a stalled stabiliator in a Piper Arrow. I learned the huge control forces required when the pitch trim is rigged to the wrong limits on a Cessna 206. I learned fuel management when a flush fuel cap on a Cessna 177RG was replaced carelessly, and fuel was streaming out. And, I learned that I’d lost a fuel cap from my C 150 the day before, and not lost any fuel!
I think back to the things I have learned on “other” types, which I simply could not have learned on one type. Of the foregoing types, I only have more than 2,000 hours on the 150, but even a dozen hours on something else, or in a defective condition taught me valuable flying skills.
