Time to earn license for professionals

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:54:00 -0700, wrote in
. com:

You make some good points Larry. But I've also been rethinking the
issue of flight proficiency as well. I have come to believe (after
having done some...ahem..."interesting" BFRs) that pilot proficiency
has a lot more to do with a reasonable self-assessment of one's
skills, and self-discipline.

The problem with self-assessments is their subjectivity. I can recall
several instances during my Commercial flight instruction during which
I believed that I had fully mastered various of the required maneuvers
during solo sessions only to have my erroneous self-assessments dashed
by my flight instructor.

I believe it is very possible to be an adequately proficient pilot
flying just one hour per month (for example), IF the kind of flying
one does allows for it.

The issue I have with such a notion of proficiency is that the airmans
certificate permits flying of more than one kind, so there is no
assurance that the examinee will only indulge in one kind of flying.

I flew with a guy for a BFR who flew no more
than 20 hours per year. The first thing I do on BFRs is sit down with
a cup of coffee and chat about flying - what kind of flying do you
do...what do you want out of flying...tell me about your last flying
trip, etc.

This guy just loved to fly by himelf on nice days, VFR only...just
flying around, looking at the beauty, enjoying being in the air. He
usualy flew out of a low-traffic 5000 foot asphalt strip, outside of
ATC-controlled airspace. Always flew on nice days, had personal minima
he (said he) never broke. Just flew a 172. Occasionally flew a 60 mile
XC to get a piece of pie or hamburger. In his BFR, he was adequate;
above PP-ASEL PTS standards, but not much more. Now, this kind of low-
risk, low-difficulty flying is (IMO) certainly reasonable for a guy
who only flys once a month, in great weather, to long fields, in a
simple plane he understands. He knew his limitations, and was
seemingly appropriately managing them.

It is difficult to believe that 20 hours a year is adequate to
maintain a significant level of flight proficiency, but I suppose it
depends on the individual pilot's mental and physical strengths and
weaknesses. But how well would he perform if, for instance,
circumstances conspired to put him on a return flight on a moonless
night?

Another guy I flew with flew a lot. Was much more active, and flew IFR
a lot. His logbook showed about 150 hours in the previous year, with
maybe 60 in the soup. He said his last trip was a long XC in a 182RG,
ending in a localizer approach to minimums at an airport he'd never
been to before. He was also OK in the cockpit...better than the first
guy in terms of maneuvers and technical skill, but sometimes he seemed
to have a hard time multitasking well.

Given the intensives requirements of single-pilot IFR operations, it's
difficult to believe that a pilot who does a significant amount of it
has difficulty multitasking. How did you determine that weakness in
him?

Now, I'm MUCH more concerned that I'll read about the second guy
cashing in his chips in an airplane someday. I don't think he really
will...he 'passed' his BFR, and we did some work on a couple of
things, including multi-tasking. But he IS more likely (IMO) to run
into trouble than the first guy, even tho he's far more 'proficient'
and 'current', simply because of the kind of flying he does.

More demanding flight conditions lead to increased hazard, for sure.

I guess I am saying that I think a professional (or anyone else) who
can only devote an hour a month to flying (or even less) can quite
posibly be a completely safe and proficient pilot, as long as they
understand the limitations imposed on their flying by their
situation.

A lot of things CAN be true, but generally speaking I'd have to
believe that recent experience makes a pilot more competent. If not,
what is the reasoning behind the 90-day currency regulations for
carrying passengers and night flight?