Proficiency Is Perishable: Currency Is Not Competence
Written by: Alexi Stavropoulos
As pilots, we are accustomed to tracking our currency. We carefully document our takeoffs and landings, instrument approaches, flight reviews, and other regulatory requirements. We understand the importance of remaining legally qualified to operate our aircraft, and most of us take considerable pride in maintaining those qualifications.
But there is an important distinction that deserves our attention, particularly as volunteer pilots flying missions for AFW: Being legally current does not necessarily mean being operationally proficient.
Currency is something we can document in our logbooks. Proficiency, on the other hand, is something we must continually develop, evaluate, and maintain. And unlike currency, proficiency doesn’t necessarily come with an expiration date printed in the regulations.
The Difference Between Currency and Proficiency
Consider the familiar requirement to complete three takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days to carry passengers. Satisfying that requirement may make us legally current, but does it necessarily prepare us to handle a challenging crosswind landing, an unexpected go-around, or an engine malfunction shortly after departure?
Similarly, an instrument-rated pilot may satisfy the regulatory requirements for IFR currency by completing the prescribed approaches, holding procedures, and course interception and tracking tasks. Yet that same pilot may not have flown in actual instrument conditions for several months.
Would that pilot be equally comfortable departing into a low overcast, managing an unexpected reroute, or flying an approach to minimums in turbulent conditions?
Perhaps. But perhaps not.
The point is not to question anyone’s qualifications. Rather, it is to recognize that regulatory currency establishes a minimum standard, while proficiency reflects our actual ability to safely manage the challenges of a particular flight.
For AFW pilots, that distinction is especially important. Our passengers generally have little aviation experience and understandably place considerable trust in our judgment and abilities. When we accept a mission, we assume responsibility not only for operating legally but also for ensuring that our skills are appropriate for the conditions we may encounter.
Experience Is Valuable, but It Is Not Immunity
Many AFW volunteer pilots bring decades of flying experience to the organization. Some have accumulated thousands of hours, flown sophisticated aircraft, or enjoyed careers in professional aviation.
That experience is enormously valuable. It provides perspective, judgment, and a foundation of knowledge that cannot be acquired overnight.
However, experience alone does not protect us from the gradual erosion of skills.
A pilot with 5,000 hours who has flown only a handful of hours during the preceding six months may not be as sharp in certain areas as a less experienced pilot who flies regularly and practices challenging scenarios.
Proficiency is perishable, and the rate at which individual skills deteriorate varies. Hand-flying skills, instrument scan, radio communication, aircraft systems knowledge, and the ability to manage unexpected situations can all diminish without regular use.
Perhaps most concerning is that this deterioration can be subtle. We may not recognize a decline until confronted with a situation that demands skills we haven’t exercised in some time.
Confidence, unfortunately, doesn’t always deteriorate at the same rate as proficiency.
Lessons From the Professional Aviation Environment
As I approach my planned early retirement from a career in airline aviation, I have been giving considerable thought to this very subject.
For decades, I have operated within a highly structured training and evaluation environment. Recurrent simulator training, proficiency evaluations, standardized procedures, standards meetings and Check Airman work, and regular exposure to complex operational scenarios have been integral parts of my professional life.
That structure provides something particularly valuable: an ongoing opportunity to identify weaknesses, practice abnormal situations, and receive objective feedback.
As I transition into retirement and continue flying in general aviation, including volunteer missions, I recognize that much of that structure will disappear.
I will no longer have a training department scheduling recurrent evaluations or instructors periodically challenging me with engine failures, system malfunctions, and demanding weather scenarios.
The responsibility for maintaining that level of discipline will rest much more directly with me.
This realization is not unique to retiring professional pilots. It applies to all of us who operate in general aviation, where maintaining proficiency is largely a matter of personal initiative.
We must become our own training departments, establishing realistic standards, identifying weaknesses, and seeking opportunities to improve.
And perhaps most importantly, we must remain willing to acknowledge when our skills need attention.
The Automation Paradox
We discussed this subject at length in a recent article and forum, but its brief mention is applicable again.
Modern general aviation aircraft are extraordinarily capable. Sophisticated avionics, integrated autopilots, advanced navigation systems, and increasingly intuitive cockpit technology have substantially improved our ability to manage complex flights.
These systems can reduce workload, improve situational awareness, and provide important safety benefits.
But they can also introduce an unintended consequence.
When automation performs much of the routine flying, opportunities to exercise fundamental piloting skills may become less frequent.
Consider a pilot who routinely engages the autopilot shortly after departure and disconnects it on short final. That pilot may be exceptionally proficient in managing the avionics but less practiced in manually flying an instrument departure, maintaining a precise instrument scan, or executing a hand-flown missed approach.
Neither skill set should be neglected.
We should be equally comfortable managing the automation and recognizing when it is appropriate to reduce our reliance on it.
Furthermore, automation proficiency itself requires practice. Unexpected autopilot behavior, incorrect mode selections, or confusion regarding flight director guidance can quickly increase workload during an already demanding phase of flight.
A useful question to ask ourselves is: If the automation became unavailable at the least convenient moment, how comfortable would I be completing this flight manually?
The answer may reveal an area deserving additional practice.
Practice With Purpose
Simply accumulating flight hours does not necessarily translate into improved proficiency.
Flying the same familiar route, in good weather, using the same procedures and automation, may provide valuable experience. But it may do little to prepare us for situations outside our normal routine.
Meaningful proficiency training requires deliberate practice.
That might include scheduling periodic flights with a qualified instructor, practicing instrument approaches under simulated conditions with an appropriately qualified safety pilot or instructor, reviewing aircraft systems, or rehearsing abnormal and emergency procedures.
It might also mean deliberately practicing tasks we find uncomfortable, rather than repeatedly exercising skills we already perform well.
When was the last time you practiced a go-around from short final? How recently have you executed a missed approach while managing an unexpected change in clearance? Are you comfortable hand-flying your aircraft without flight director guidance? When did you last review the immediate-action procedures for an engine failure or other critical malfunction?
These are not questions intended to create doubt. They are opportunities for honest self-assessment.
And whenever we practice challenging scenarios, particularly simulated emergencies, we should do so in an appropriate environment with adequate safety margins and qualified instruction when warranted.
The goal is not to introduce unnecessary risk during training. It is to develop the skills and confidence necessary to manage risk when an actual emergency occurs.
Establishing Personal Proficiency Standards
One of the most valuable habits we can develop is establishing personal proficiency standards that go beyond the regulatory minimums.
These standards should reflect the type of flying we actually conduct.
A pilot who regularly flies IFR missions through mountainous terrain may need a different proficiency program than someone who primarily flies short VFR missions in familiar airspace.
Similarly, transitioning to a new aircraft, flying less frequently, or returning to aviation after an extended absence should prompt an honest reassessment of our capabilities.
Before accepting a mission, consider asking yourself:
- Have I flown recently enough to feel genuinely comfortable in this aircraft?
- Am I proficient in the type of weather, terrain, and airspace this mission may involve?
- Have I recently practiced the abnormal and emergency procedures most relevant to this flight?
- Am I comfortable operating the aircraft both with and without automation?
- Would additional instruction or practice improve my readiness for this particular mission?
These questions aren’t intended to create additional administrative requirements or discourage participation. They are simply tools to help us evaluate our readiness beyond the legal minimums.
We should also remember that proficiency is not a fixed achievement. It changes with time, frequency of flight, aircraft complexity, and the demands of our operating environment.
A pilot who was exceptionally proficient six months ago may need some additional practice today.
Recognizing that reality is a sign of professionalism, not weakness.
Our Responsibility to Our Passengers
Angel Flight West passengers often face significant challenges in their lives. Many are traveling for medical treatment, appointments, or other important needs, and they rely on the generosity and professionalism of our volunteer pilots.
They generally do not know whether we have flown five hours or fifty hours during the preceding month. They don’t know when we last practiced an instrument approach, reviewed emergency procedures, or received instruction.
Nor should they be expected to.
They place their trust in us, and with that trust comes an obligation to continually evaluate our own readiness.
That obligation extends beyond maintaining a valid certificate, medical qualification, or regulatory currency.
It means recognizing that our experience, however extensive, does not eliminate the need for practice. It means being willing to seek instruction, acknowledge limitations, and occasionally decline a mission when our proficiency does not match its demands.
Most importantly, it means approaching every flight with the understanding that our passengers deserve a pilot who is not merely qualified, but genuinely prepared.
A Final Thought
In a past article, I had mentioned the fact that a lot of us in general aviation might not ever “need” to be exposed to a thorough evaluation ever again to meet our regulatory compliance. The only thing that we might be required to do is a Flight Review every two years, and we might very well have a “buddy” that does it and as such we feel no unique pressure. There is therefore an unequivocal potential for complacency. I am committing for myself to avoid that threat as best as I can. I hope to do that by seeking opportunities for evaluations and training with folks that I am not super familiar with and therefore increase the likelihood of some ego bruising and humiliation, but with the intention of truly learning and improving. I’ll keep you all posted on how it is going… :-)
Let’s make it an ask for all of us to exit our comfort zone, as it applies to training, and seek training and evaluation opportunities that challenge us. Please, share those commitments during our next forum.
Here are some additional resources for recurrent training:
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/training/fits/training/recurrent.pdf
And of course, all the Owners and Pilots Associations of specific aircraft.
In professional aviation, recurrent training is often described as an investment in safety rather than simply a regulatory obligation.
I believe we should embrace that same philosophy in general aviation.
We don’t need elaborate simulator programs or formal checking departments to maintain high standards. But we do need discipline, humility, and a willingness to continually challenge ourselves.
As volunteer pilots, we have already demonstrated a commitment to helping others. Maintaining our proficiency is another expression of that commitment.
After all, the most important measure of our readiness isn’t what our logbook says we are permitted to do. It’s what our knowledge, judgment, and skills have prepared us to do safely.
Currency allows us to fly. Proficiency prepares us to fly safely. Professionalism demands that we understand the difference.
Thank you for everything you do for Angel Flight West.
In Safety,
Alexi Stavropoulos
AFW Safety Officer
AlexiosS@angelflightwest.org