Prime

When I was active in Fighters in the USAF I ran a study to justify the
dollars to be budgeted for flying hours for Fighter pilots in a year.

I found that 18 hours a month was the sweat spot. Less than that the
accidents were higher due to lack of proficiency. More than the 18
hours the rate went up due to the additional exposure.

I'm sure someone could run a similar analysis for the different GA
type of aircraft to give the sweet spot for them.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:44:49 -0600, Prime
wrote:

Dylan Smith posted the exciting message
:

On 2006-02-04, Prime wrote:
I do actually fly less because I don't want to have too high an
exposure to the risks. I fly when I want to but I don't push it.

You are probably inadvertently *increasing* your risk by doing that.
With driving, risk generally goes up with exposure. With flying, risk
generally goes down with exposure (greater recency of experience).
Most aircraft accidents are not caused by '**** happens', but by pilot
error/misjudgement. The less recency of experience (particularly with
IFR and night flying) you have, the greater your risk is.


I understand what you are saying, but I don't buy that it's that simple. If
I fly rarely, then I am less proficient and probably more dangerous. If I
fly at some reasonable level then I have a certain decent level of
proficiency. If I fly 10x more than that my proficiency gets a bit better,
but my exposure goes up by a factor of 10.

Using your reasoning, I should fly as much as I can and all those hours
will lower my risk.