Are CAP Pilots Flying Enough?

[simon]

How many hours a year does a pilot need to fly to be safe?

Obviously there is no hard and fast answer to this question. Safe in what? A Cessna 182 on a sunny day? A twin in IMC without an autopilot? Clearly different situations demand different levels of proficiency.

Both the FAA and CAP have a list of requirements that a pilot needs to meet in order to attain various flying priviledges. Both have their ongoing periodic requrements.

But none of these include an annual hourly requirement.

Life insurance actuaries take a different view. They don't like to issue policies on pilots that fly less than 26 hours annually. I found this out with my policy. Checking around, I found this was fairly consistent in the industry. They figure any pilot flying less than 26 hours annually put them in a higher risk category.

With the FAA and CAP so focused on the safety, I am wondering why there is no annual minimum. In theory, one could spend 90 minutes on a CAP Form 5, not fly for another 11 months and still be qualified to fly. This is extended to almost two years for non CAP pilots with the BFR. Of course, the 90 day rule applies for taking passengers.

Since the DOD satellites ceased listening on 121.5 a few years ago, the number of hours logged by CAP has decreased considerably, translating to less hours for many CAP pilots. Many CAP pilots do, of course, fly outside of CAP. But it is interesting to look at the typical hours logged in CAP over the year and think about whether a minimum number of hours (Counting hours outside CAP) should be required, especially to take passengers.

So here are some numbers from California Wing: In the last 12 months, 237 CAP pilots logged time in CAP aircraft. Of the pilots that flew at all, the median hours flown was 13. The median pilot age is 51. Only 30% of the pilots logged the 26 hours or more that actuaries feel is important. About a quarter of the pilots logging time were 60+ and their median time logged was a little better at 16 hours. 10% of the pilots were 70+, but their median hours was 9.

Should tracking time logged in the last 3 months and last year be something that is adopted by CAP? Should there be minimums?

Footnote: I should add that my own CAP hours logged is less than 1/10th of my own left seat time last year. So I do want to reinforce that these statistics should not be taken as necessarily representative of pilots' total hours flown. I am just leaning towards what most insurance companies look at when considering a pilot for hull insurance: Time in last 90 days and last year.

[Thrashed]

I average about 15 hours a year in CAP aircraft. I don't have the time, energy or patience for it. I do fly 80 hours/month outside of CAP (and get paid for it).

[Al Sayre]

How could you enforce a minimum unless CAP is going to fund it?  "You must fly an average of 2.166 Hrs per month or you can't fly our airplanes at all"  is going to cost you a lot of pilots, since the training funds just aren't there.  We should do all we can to encourage it, but I can't see any way you can mandate it.  Most wings have enough trouble just trying to hit the 20 Hrs/month mark on the aircraft now.  Telling someone that they are going to have to spend another $200 - $300 a month to maintain their CAP pilot currency, when the FAA has no such requirement is a pretty sure way to drive a lot of them out.  We have the annual CAPF5 over and above the FAA requirements, that is sufficient. 

[simon]

I will put the question another way.

Would you jump in the back of a plane with a pilot you don't know who's total time was 10 hours in the last year?

[simon]

Most wings have enough trouble just trying to hit the 20 Hrs/month mark on the aircraft now.

Sell half the planes.

Southern California has 10 aircraft within a 30 minute flying distance. That is oversupply.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I can't answer your question about safety, but I can recount my personal experience in Northern California CAP Flying.  I volunteer for as much flying as possible.  From SAR, to CD, to DR, to HLS.  Last year I flew 33 CAP hours and this year, so far, I have 30 CAP hours.  That involved 14 Sorties including 10 CD, 1 HLS, 1 Presidentially declared disaster, and 2 Airborne ELT's.  This does not include flying as a mentor pilot at NESA and the Squadron.

I do volunteer for everything possible so YMMV.

[bosshawk]

I certainly concur with Al Sayre: it is virtually useless to legislate that CAP pilots fly a minumum number of hours in CAP aircraft.  As for Simon's question concerning flying with a pilot who has only flown 10 hours i n the last year: I would not fly with ANY pilot whom I did not already know and in whom I had a certain amount of faith.

[Al Sayre]

Most wings have enough trouble just trying to hit the 20 Hrs/month mark on the aircraft now.

Sell half the planes.

Southern California has 10 aircraft within a 30 minute flying distance. That is oversupply.

What qualifies you to make that determination?  Where do you recommend they be reassigned?

Where aircraft are assigned is up to the wing, but the utilization requirements are up to NHQ.  If those 10 aircraft weren't being used, CA would be losing aircraft.

Would I fly in the back with a pilot who only had 10 Hours in the last year, quite possibly.  It depends on the pilot. 

[Thrashed]

Most wings have enough trouble just trying to hit the 20 Hrs/month mark on the aircraft now.

Sell half the planes.

Southern California has 10 aircraft within a 30 minute flying distance. That is oversupply.

I have no planes within one hour driving distance. Send one my way!

[FW]

The need for proficiency is very important in everything we do. At "Angel Flight", there is a requirement to fly 12 hours per quarter or fly 2 hours with an instructor before flying a mission.  Angel Flight has also set an age limit for mission PICs.  From what I've seen (strictly observation), there has been no complaints from the pilots nor has there been a decrease in members.  Of course, Angel Flight pilots pay for everything. 

While tracking our pilot's air time would be good for statistical purposes, CAP's safety record in the air is excellent.  Almost all of our incidents occur on the ground while taxing or ground handling the aircraft.   However, if insurance companies figure flying less than 2 hours/ month is not enough...

Now, if your question really wants to know how we can get more hours on CAP aircraft, we are having a completely different discussion.

[Tubacap]

^Concur

[Cliff_Chambliss]

The question is not 10 hours per year or even 1,000 hours per year but the caliber of those hours.
A pilot with only 10 hours last year but those 10 hours were a CAPF-5, CAPF-91, and proficiency flying including unusual attitudes, emergencies, etc. in my mind would be far better qualified than the pilot who did 1 hour 80 times (80- hours) doing touch-n-gos or cruising out to the lake sightseeing.

[simon]

In regards to proficiency, I reiterate total hours, not CAP hours. It has been pointed out that a given pilot's CAP hours may be a fraction of total hours.

My view is that it would be useful to know the total hours flown annually (We already know CAP hours) by CAP pilots to get a picture of what our pilot population looks like. Whether anything is done with this number, that was my question to the forum.

I do recognize that the point of the F5 is to ensure that the guy up front is fit to fly and the passengers should be able to rely on the check pilot's opinion. At the same time, I also recognize Bosshawk's view: "I would not fly with ANY pilot whom I did not already know..." Flying is a serious business, everyone has their own personal minimums and I have pilot friends that have passed check rides that I will not fly with again. In the pilot community, I think I am not alone here.

With this in mind, getting back to my original question, it is indisputable that frequent flying builds proficiency. The question is whether, say, 5 or 10 hours is too few? It would be interesting to know how often our pilots are flying, in total over a year.

The discussion of aircraft, I agree that belongs in another thread. And I'll bet that would be a lively discussion.

[Eclipse]

I would not fly with ANY pilot whom I did not already know and in whom I had a certain amount of faith.

Must be somewhat a challenge to fly commercially, then.

[PHall]

Most wings have enough trouble just trying to hit the 20 Hrs/month mark on the aircraft now.

Sell half the planes.

Southern California has 10 aircraft within a 30 minute flying distance. That is oversupply.

And how many units are in Southern California?  (I'll give you a clue, there are 24 units in Southern California)
10 aircraft spread among 24 units plus the Wing Headquarters. Sounds pretty fair to me.

[RiverAux]

The Air Safety Foundation's Nall report has had a little bit of data in it relating accident rates to pilot total hours and total time in type and there may be a good reason to require a certain amount of flying by very low-time (total and in-type) pilots so as to get them out of the danger zone (<500 hours and <100 hours in type).  But, they still need to do a little more statistical work before I'd seriously suggest it. 

If the insurance people have any actual data to back up 26 hours a year as some sort of safety standard, I'd like to see it and if there is a convincing case that pilots that fly less than a certain amount have a significantly higher accident rate, it may be worth considering. 

But, I'd support it only if I see the data.  Doing it just because they say so wouldn't be a good enough reason for me. 

[simon]

10 aircraft spread among 24 units plus the Wing Headquarters. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Are you suggesting the number of units should dictate the number of aircraft, even if those aircraft end up as hangar queens?

I would have thought taxpayer dollars on planes should be spent based upon demand, not upon the number of CAP members.

Based upon the missions we fly, how many aircraft do you think a for-profit organization would need?

(I foresee this thread taking a turn)

[simon]

...there may be a good reason to require a certain amount of flying by very low-time (total and in-type) pilots so as to get them out of the danger zone...

Agreed and of course CAP has decided on minimums in for total time which, in my view, combined with the check rides, are reasonable.

If the insurance people have any actual data to back up 26 hours a year as some sort of safety standard, I'd like to see it

It is not my field but I do know that insurance companies tend to pool into one of two categories: (a) A large number of competitors in low risk, well defined risk areas where good actuary information is available and the margins are consequently thinner - they are competing on price with fairly well know levels of risk, then (b) Niche areas of insurance where the numbers are not readily available, the risk is harder to calculate and insurers either don't want to venture there or charge high premiums for insuring a relatively unknown risk. An example of the latter was Warren Buffett underwriting the California Earthquake Authority, where, in his own words, a claim would be pretty much a wipeout.

This understanding has me thinking that most insurers offering life policies on pilots have a set of data that says people who fly 25-125 hours a year are not really in a higher risk profile than the average person. I believe this is so because I have shopped around policies and the companies that actually have the data on pilots (A handful of them) don't charge any higher premiums than your run of the mill life insurance company where you don't mention flying. Interestingly, in the latter case, if you do mention flying, the premium goes up considerably. My thinking on that is that these kinds of companies don't have the pilot data, so it reverts to anything to do with risk: If you can't measure it, jack the premium to cover yourself. So maybe this applies to the situation with pilots who go to take out policies and disclose that they fly, but rarely: The data is so patchy that it is hard to measure the risk and therefore best to cover one's self by jacking the premium. This is speculation but it makes sense. If logic dictates that it is a higher risk, but you can't measure how much higher, the safest bet is not to underwrite it.

[Flyer]

Simon who do you feel as far as Life Insurance companies have good prices for Pilots? I have been looking into it lately. Thank you.

[simon]

I go through Dan Cook at PIC Life. dcook@piclife.com 1-800-380-8376 www.piclife.com

They administer Avemco's program (A brokerage), which is underwritten by Lincoln Benefit.

By memory it was $0.84 per $1000 for a sizable policy. For small policies (<250-350k), you don't need to do the medical. It might depend on your age.

If you do go through with it, the best way is to set up a Life Insurance Trust. That way the proceeds do not form part of your estate and are tax free to the beneficiaries.