How Quickly Flying Skills Fade!

Learning theory has long supported the necessity of reinforcement and “overlearning” for solid skill retention after initial learning. We used to casually refer to this as “marinating” in the flight school I managed. We insisted on some trips and real flight experience after PPL before starting the instrument rating, or forgetting was inevitable. New skills are amazingly perishable. This is why examples like the Popular Mechanics experiment from years ago terrify me. Our current accelerated flight training market is in this category.

Most learners can perform adequately to an objective standard if a test is administered immediately after learning (before the “magic” disappears).  But without continuous repetition and reinforcement, those skills erode almost immediately with forgetting and interference. This was proven by an FAA/ERAU study back in the 1980s:

Of 27 tested private-pilot skills, all of the tested skills deteriorated, some significantly, during the two years after the tested pilots earned their Private Pilot certificates. Recently certificated private pilots who do not fly regularly can be expected to undergo a relatively rapid and significant decrement in their flight skills.”

Not only did all skills deteriorate, this study also emphasized the danger of test subjects being unaware of the deterioration of their skills. This is partly a result of the human overconfidence bias, but also reinforced with the common cultural meme about the retention of simpler skills; “like riding a bicycle” 🤮

The proven perishability of skills has obvious implications for every part of aviation. Any complex learned skill is perishable without reinforcement. That goes for those crosswind skills, which were once sharp, the instrument approaches that were so easy, or the UPRT course that made being inverted almost comfortable (five years ago?). Safety requires a mandate of continuous review and lifetime learning.

For everyday recreational pilots, this study highlights the woefully inadequate FAA minimum of a one-hour flight review (CFR 61.56) every two years. This requirement should be understood as an absolute minimum appropriate only for an exceptionally active professional pilot – not for the occasional flier. Every conscientious pilot should embrace the standard required for active professional pilots; a required six-month review.  The higher 135 standard for IFR operations is also a worthy target (no zero/zero takeoffs or approaches below minimums). Our free SAFE Webinar on Sunday, August 10th, will consider these subjects more fully (Register here).

This process of forgetting is actually part of the “learning process” at accelerated aviation academies. Newcomers progressing from “Discovery Flight” to CFI in only 8 months to a year have no time to adequately reinforce their newly learned (and tested) VFR skills and knowledge. The impermanent skills of a private pilot are immediately forgotten and “paved over” with an immediate instrument rating. Consequently, during instrument flight tests, very few applicants can remember the definition (or critical significance) of E/G airspace for IFR/VFR separation at non-towered airports. And one of the weakest skills on instrument checkrides is the ability to fly visually and  land the plane safely (scary!) Fly safely out there (and often)!

Register for our next SAFE Webinar at 8pm EDT, Sunday August 10th, on conducting Effective Flight Reviews (Focus on “The Killers!“)

Author: David St. George

David St. George. David took his first flying lesson in 1970. Flying for over 50 years, he began instructing full-time in 1992. A 26-year Master Instructor, David is the Executive Director of SAFE (The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators). He has logged >21K hours of flight time with >16K hours of flight instruction given (chief instructor of a 141 school with a college program for > 20 years). He is currently a charter pilot flying a Citation M2 single-pilot jet. View all posts by David St. George