Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating [Archive]

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 01:56 AM

> We'd all like to read the account of his first approach to minimums or the first 4 hour trip saved by 5 minutes of instrument flight.

I'll tell you mine. Ok, not the first, but a recent one. We'd departed
VFR from Seattle, with Santa Rosa as our destination, something like
five and a half hours away. Yreka (Montague) was our fuel stop (a
wonderful place to stop by the way!) and, as we did on the way up, we
got the courtesy car and a drove into Yreka to have a fresh baked pie
and burger before heading south on our final leg. The weather was
perfect, though we did need to go high to stay on top of a broken layer
from Seattle most of the way to Yreka. It was a beautiful flight, and
the departure from Yreka was uneventful, as we pointed the nose towards
the South Pole and climbed out. OF course, by now it was getting late,
and much of the rest of the trip would be at night.

Santa Rosa sits in the valley, quite a ways inland from the coast, but
the fog does roll in. It was expected between 1 AM and 4 AM, but as we
came over the final hills, it was clear that the fog had its own ideas.
STS was reporting 200 foot ceilings. I could see the fog, and were I
not instrument rated, there were other airports I could have gone to.
But Santa Rosa was our destination, and I had the ticket (and the
plates) so I asked the controllers for an IFR clearance into STS. This
was a few minutes in coming, meanwhile the controller vectored us to the
South and around a few hills (maintain VFR for now) to get us set. Soon
we got a hard IFR altitude and our clearance for the ILS. I think we
entered the fog at two thousand feet or less, and after keeping the
needles in the center for four minutes, the runway appeared two hundred
feet below us (and a little bit in front of us :) letting us touch down
right where we wanted to.

We were renting the airplane from STS, so it would have been a real pain
in the tucus if we had to divert and then retrieve the airplane the next
day from someplace maybe fifty miles away. But out of the five hours
and something, we probably spent five minutes in the clouds.

But those were the five minutes that count.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera

September 27th 06, 01:58 AM

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:35:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>>The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>>rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
>>>having an instrument rating.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?
>>
>>
>
>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>

Which clue was it that tipped you to Margy's facetious intent?

While she was obviously needling Mr. Honeck (ostensibly for his own
good), I didn't see any smiley nor find any humor worth a chuckle in
what she wrote.

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 27th 06, 02:29 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
> Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>

No doubt, but why would I want to sell it?

Margy Natalie

September 27th 06, 02:37 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:35:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>>>rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
>>>>having an instrument rating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>>
>
>
> Which clue was it that tipped you to Margy's facetious intent?
>
> While she was obviously needling Mr. Honeck (ostensibly for his own
> good), I didn't see any smiley nor find any humor worth a chuckle in
> what she wrote.
>
You must have missed Jay's comment about ME not needing permission from
MARY (his wife) to pick on him. Typed jabs at friends sometimes fall
flat on when words would have been great.

Margy

Margy Natalie

September 27th 06, 02:37 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>>
>
>
> No doubt, but why would I want to sell it?
>
>
Excellent!!!

Margy

Viperdoc[_1_]

September 27th 06, 02:48 AM

We spent a wonderful weekend at the hotel, and Jay offered only some weak
excuses as to why he didn't have his instrument rating.

He needs to start working on it and share his experiences with the NG (which
will be infinitely more interesting than the latest posts from the idiot arm
chair sim pilot)

Larry Dighera

September 27th 06, 03:15 AM

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:37:32 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote in >:

>You must have missed Jay's comment about ME not needing permission from
>MARY (his wife) to pick on him.

You are correct. I didn't see that comment.

Matt Whiting

September 27th 06, 03:36 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:35:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>>>rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
>>>>having an instrument rating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>>
>
>
> Which clue was it that tipped you to Margy's facetious intent?
>
> While she was obviously needling Mr. Honeck (ostensibly for his own
> good), I didn't see any smiley nor find any humor worth a chuckle in
> what she wrote.

My participation in this group over the years and seeing the prior
conversations between the two of them. And nearly 50 years of walking
on this planet. This wasn't even a hard one to pick up on. I really
feel sorry for you folks that missed it...

Matt

Matt Whiting

September 27th 06, 03:37 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>>
>
>
> No doubt, but why would I want to sell it?

You wouldn't. You couldn't. It doesn't exist. Maybe you can buy one,
however.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 27th 06, 03:40 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> You wouldn't. You couldn't. It doesn't exist. Maybe you can buy one,
> however.
>

You're wrong. I have a wonderful sense of humor.

Matt Whiting

September 27th 06, 03:52 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You wouldn't. You couldn't. It doesn't exist. Maybe you can buy one,
>>however.
>>
>
>
> You're wrong. I have a wonderful sense of humor.

That may be, but you have an impaired ability to detect humor in
comments by others.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 27th 06, 04:00 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> That may be, but you have an impaired ability to detect humor in comments
> by others.
>

You're wrong about that too.

Jim Burns

September 27th 06, 04:03 AM

and my last flight...
Stevens Point, WI KSTE to Fort Lauderdale, FL KFXE and back to KSTE
myself and one of my partners flew alternate legs
Departed 7pm Friday evening
Arrived back home 9:30pm Saturday evening
17 hours of flying
11 hours of night
8 hours of IFR
3 night landings
1 day time ILS due to haze
Plenty of traffic and controllers in southern FL denying VFR flight
following through some very congested airspace.

No hard IFR. With a good handle on the weather, our only ongoing concern
was ground fog. Without our instrument tickets it would have been a very
extended, circumnavigating, and exhausting flight.

Jim

Matt Whiting

September 27th 06, 04:03 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That may be, but you have an impaired ability to detect humor in comments
>>by others.
>>
>
>
> You're wrong about that too.

Hey, now that is a funny one!

Matt

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]

September 27th 06, 04:27 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
>> having an instrument rating.
>>
>
> Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?

Yeah, it makes flying in the clouds so much more interesting.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 04:41 AM

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
>>> having an instrument rating.
>>>
>> Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?
>
>
> Yeah, it makes flying in the clouds so much more interesting.
>
>
>
Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?

Man, that's why I don't have kids.

Jack Allison[_1_]

September 27th 06, 05:46 AM

Margy Natalie wrote:
> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Margy
Does this mean you'll get yours too Margie? :-)

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

Jack Allison[_1_]

September 27th 06, 05:47 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
> Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>
> Matt
ROTFL...good one Matt.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

NW_Pilot

September 27th 06, 06:41 AM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for not
> having an instrument rating.
>
> Margy

An Instrument rating is only good if you keep current and proficient!!! An
IFR rating is a must if you travel beyond the U.S. borders as VFR out side
there USA can be a real pain in the ass! I file IFR just about every where I
go including with-in the U.S. I may forget how to fly VFR one day hahahahaha
once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get to
places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be. You will look
at airways like hi-ways! Jay Honeck is one of the fer good guys on usenet no
need to pick on the guy for not having an IR!!!

M[_1_]

September 27th 06, 07:03 AM

Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
takeoff.

- An instrument current pilot who loves to fly VFR for its freedom.

NW_Pilot wrote:

> An Instrument rating is only good if you keep current and proficient!!! An
> IFR rating is a must if you travel beyond the U.S. borders as VFR out side
> there USA can be a real pain in the ass! I file IFR just about every where I
> go including with-in the U.S. I may forget how to fly VFR one day hahahahaha
> once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get to
> places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be. You will look
> at airways like hi-ways! Jay Honeck is one of the fer good guys on usenet no
> need to pick on the guy for not having an IR!!!

M[_1_]

September 27th 06, 07:15 AM

John Clear

September 27th 06, 07:26 AM

In article . com>,
M > wrote:
>Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
>fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
>takeoff.

A few times I've been flying the pattern at Palo Alto (PAO) under
low ceilings and have had planes in the run-up area that were still
there waiting for their IFR release 45mins later. One day a King
Air was stuck waiting IFR release for ~30mins while Norcal was
flipping the patterns at SFO, OAK and SJC.

I've debated getting my instrument rating for awhile, but most of
my flying is taking friends up to see stuff, and the inside of one
cloud looks like them all. Punching through the bay stratus would
be useful, but the delays would take the fun out of it.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Dylan Smith

September 27th 06, 10:26 AM

On 2006-09-27, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> Yeah, it makes flying in the clouds so much more interesting.

But a whole lot less exciting...

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith

September 27th 06, 10:55 AM

On 2006-09-27, John Clear > wrote:
> I've debated getting my instrument rating for awhile, but most of
> my flying is taking friends up to see stuff, and the inside of one
> cloud looks like them all. Punching through the bay stratus would
> be useful, but the delays would take the fun out of it.

Not quite. Some of those clouds like to go green, flash a lot, and try
and disassemble your aircraft.

Seriously - if you're flying IFR, generally (or at least in my
experience) you don't tend to spend all that much time inside a cloud.
Quite a lot of it between them, above them, flying in and out of them.
Some of the most beautiful flights I've had have been IFR - bursting
from a wall of cloud into majestic canyons and mountains of cloud, all
patterned dappled by the overhead altocumulus. It was almost like being
on another planet.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Bob Noel

September 27th 06, 11:49 AM

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
> flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
> one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?
>
> Man, that's why I don't have kids.

the usefulness of that would depend on whether or not you could
improve the genepool of future generations.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel

September 27th 06, 11:50 AM

In article om>,
"M" > wrote:

> Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
> fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
> takeoff.

more flying time is a GOOD thing.

>
> - An instrument current pilot who loves to fly VFR for its freedom.

understood

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

C. Massey

September 27th 06, 12:24 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:35:55 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>
>>>>The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>>>rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>>>>not
>>>>having an instrument rating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Is there something wrong with not having an instrument rating?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Steven, you might want to check into the price of a sense of humor.
>>Hopefully, you can get a good deal!
>>
>
> Which clue was it that tipped you to Margy's facetious intent?
>
> While she was obviously needling Mr. Honeck (ostensibly for his own
> good), I didn't see any smiley nor find any humor worth a chuckle in
> what she wrote.
>

Imagine that... And from an old sourpuss to boot...

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0639-2, 09/26/2006
Tested on: 9/27/2006 6:24:14 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

William Snow

September 27th 06, 12:42 PM

An Instrument Rating is yet another tool to help avoid weather, simply put.

Practically speaking, it is useful on; warm hazy days; low cloud covers,
non-convective ones & some reasonable ceiling; even on convective days, ifr
can be helpful to avoid buildups. It is quite helpful at night.

It is not a rating to fly into weather especially freezing clouds,
thunderstorms, hurricanes, and anything else not mentioned that might
jeopardize your airframe.

It does, in my opinion make one a better pilot, as subjective as that may
be.

WLS

Maule Driver

September 27th 06, 01:16 PM

I guess I'm in one of those certain parts - Southeast US. I get direct
even when I don't ask for it. The only time I have to use the airways
is around Wash DC and the eastern FL coast where it's just the best way
to do it.

I file almost every flight because it's just easier. I spend less time
managing flight around funky airspace. Seldom is there a delay and
when there is, I usually have the option of going VFR. Fact is, most of
my IFR flights are VFR.

Every aspect of it is better - just takes some effort and money like
everything else.

Ironically, I now find a VFR CC takes more preparation than an IFR CC in
good weather.

C'mon Jay!

M wrote:
> Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
> fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
> takeoff.
>
> - An instrument current pilot who loves to fly VFR for its freedom.
>
> NW_Pilot wrote:
>
>
>>An Instrument rating is only good if you keep current and proficient!!! An
>>IFR rating is a must if you travel beyond the U.S. borders as VFR out side
>>there USA can be a real pain in the ass! I file IFR just about every where I
>>go including with-in the U.S. I may forget how to fly VFR one day hahahahaha
>>once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get to
>>places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be. You will look
>>at airways like hi-ways! Jay Honeck is one of the fer good guys on usenet no
>>need to pick on the guy for not having an IR!!!
>
>

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 02:38 PM

> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
> not having an instrument rating.

Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
doesn't have an instrument rating.

;-)

I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
seriousness...)

I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
the same four points:

1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
business we're in.

2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.

The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
out of over 100 flights.

The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
thunderstorms start.

Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
things would be dramatically different. But we don't.

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
the experience.

In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.

In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.

Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
weather.

THAT is not why I fly.

4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
they do, too -- that they are not proficient.

Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
rating.

In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
(and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.

Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.

In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
others.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 03:00 PM

> once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get to
> places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be.

Try that in the Northeast, NWPilot! :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 03:20 PM

> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. [...] Neither of us learned
> to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end.

Well, there you're way wrong. Instrument flight can be the most
beautiful, transcendental experience in the air. Flitting in and out of
the tops of a broken or overcast layer, or even just getting =that=
close to clouds as you brush by (which you can't legally do in most VFR
situations) is also fun.

Most IFR flying is visual, which was frustrating in the days when you
needed six hours and six approaches (now the hours don't matter).

> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.

Ask for a diversion, especially if you are severe clear (why were you
IFR at that point anyway?)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Burns[_1_]

September 27th 06, 03:28 PM

Well put.
Jim

"William Snow" > wrote in message
. ..
> An Instrument Rating is yet another tool to help avoid weather, simply
put.
>
> Practically speaking, it is useful on; warm hazy days; low cloud covers,
> non-convective ones & some reasonable ceiling; even on convective days,
ifr
> can be helpful to avoid buildups. It is quite helpful at night.
>
> It is not a rating to fly into weather especially freezing clouds,
> thunderstorms, hurricanes, and anything else not mentioned that might
> jeopardize your airframe.
>
> It does, in my opinion make one a better pilot, as subjective as that may
> be.
>
> WLS
>
>

Ron Lee

September 27th 06, 03:37 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote:

>> You're wrong. I have a wonderful sense of humor.
>
>That may be, but you have an impaired ability to detect humor in
>comments by others.
>
>
>Matt

Matt, that is a very common occurrence in this type forum. I seldom
add smileys even when joking.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee

September 27th 06, 03:39 PM

Emily > wrote:

>Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
>flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
>one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?
>
>Man, that's why I don't have kids.

Hmmm. No kids. A pilot. This could be love.

Ron Lee

Gary Drescher

September 27th 06, 03:42 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.
>
> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.
>
> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
> thunderstorms start.
>
> Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
> things would be dramatically different. But we don't.
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.
>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
> at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
> fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.
>
> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.
>
> THAT is not why I fly.
>
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.
>
> Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
> often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
> means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
> and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.
>
> In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
> (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.
>
> Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
> The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
> and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.
>
> In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
> touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
> I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
> checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
> others.

I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
(especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
per year.)

--Gary

ktbr

September 27th 06, 03:50 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.

I've never felt that flying IFR 'sucked' any more than flying VFR.
It *is* a little more of a challenge than VFR but that makes it all
that much more rewarding to me. You are required to maintain your
currency to a higher degree and I think that makes you a safer pilot.

A lot of times I will file IFR to a destination (class B for example)
because I know getting in and out will be assured. If you are VFR
and they are busy you might ebd up flying around in circles for a
while until they can give you sufficient slot to land. I consider
that safer.

Finally, even though you might think your destination is (or will be)
VFR, when you get there it might be only allowing Instrument approaches.
You can request a visual but you might not get it. Without the rating
you fly around for a while and hope things improve or divert.

NW_Pilot

September 27th 06, 04:10 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> once you get used to flying under IFR you notice how simple it is to get
>> to places and plan flights and how accurate you planning will be.
>
> Try that in the Northeast, NWPilot! :)

Ummm I do it all the time in the North East!

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 04:15 PM

> Ummm I do it all the time in the North East!

I've been flying in the northeast for years, and almost never get
direct. At least not in the Boston/NY/DC corridor. I suppose if I plan
to go via Albany, Cleveland, and Altoona, I can get what I planned on. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

NW_Pilot

September 27th 06, 04:18 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>
> ;-)
>
> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
> seriousness...)
>
> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
> the same four points:
>
> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.
>
> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.
>
> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
> thunderstorms start.
>
> Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
> things would be dramatically different. But we don't.
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.
>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
> at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
> fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.
>
> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.
>
> THAT is not why I fly.
>
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.
>
> Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
> often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
> means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
> and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.
>
> In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
> (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.
>
> Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
> The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
> and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.
>
> In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
> touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
> I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
> checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
> others.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Great Response Jay!

NW_Pilot

September 27th 06, 04:23 PM

> I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
> instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
> about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
> (especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
> proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
> using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
> currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
> per year.)
>
> --Gary
>
>

Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
not proficient.

Gary Drescher

September 27th 06, 04:25 PM

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
> requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
> not proficient.

I agree. The minimum requirements give you official currency, and frequent
MSFS practice maintains proficiency. When I've practiced recently using
MSFS, I'm comfortable flying in actual IMC even if I haven't done so for a
couple of months.

--Gary

NW_Pilot

September 27th 06, 04:42 PM

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
> fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
> takeoff.
>
> - An instrument current pilot who loves to fly VFR for its freedom.

If I am doing a small hop less than 50 miles I usually don't file IFR unless
the conditions are MVFR as some places it dose take a lot more time but when
your ferrying airplanes across the country like myself I file IFR if
equipped and certified! When they tell me I have a 30 min hold time I will
launch VFR if able and pick up my clearance enroute. In believe on the ICAO
flight plan its called a "Z" flight Works great!

Peter R.

September 27th 06, 04:53 PM

Emily > wrote:

> Man, that's why I don't have kids.

Children are a product of their upbringing. There are still some
excellent children out there, as there are still parents who actually care
to do the proper job in raising them.

--
Peter

Peter R.

September 27th 06, 04:59 PM

Dylan Smith > wrote:

> Seriously - if you're flying IFR, generally (or at least in my
> experience) you don't tend to spend all that much time inside a cloud.

Come to an airport in the Northeast US on the downwind side of the Great
Lakes. :) There are many spring and fall flights where the only visual
flying you do ends three seconds after takeoff and resumes five to eight
seconds before landing.

--
Peter
144 hours of actual and counting

Peter R.

September 27th 06, 05:02 PM

Jose > wrote:

> I've been flying in the northeast for years, and almost never get
> direct. At least not in the Boston/NY/DC corridor. I suppose if I plan
> to go via Albany, Cleveland, and Altoona, I can get what I planned on. :)

Agreed. Into or out of Philadelphia, NY City, and Boston airports, there
is no such thing as a piston aircraft flying IFR direct, at least after
6:00am to 11:00p local. I suspect that the overnight hours might be more
lax.

--
Peter

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 05:27 PM

> Getting near the airport, we
> descended, popped out of the cloud and was rewarded with a Kodak moment
> of a beautiful rainbow over the field.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h54vm

Wow!

Yanno, trying to convince Jay to get an instrument rating is a lot like
Jay trying to convince non-pilots to take a flight.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter R.

September 27th 06, 05:33 PM

Longworth > wrote:

> It sucks because you had only experienced IFR flying in training.
> In our short 5 years of flying, we had enjoyed many beautiful
> sceneries, sunrises, sunsets, breathtaking mountains, valleys, lakes
> etc. in all seasons but many of our most memorable experience were in
> IFR flying. They were like religious experience. You fell closer to
> God while dancing among the clouds with angels. A recent experience
> was our camping trip to Mt. Washington Regional Airport in Whitefield,
> NH. We were in the clouds in light rain. Getting near the airport, we
> descended, popped out of the cloud and was rewarded with a Kodak moment
> of a beautiful rainbow over the field.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h54vm

Very nice! I might buy a coffee mug with that picture on it! :)

--
Peter

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 05:41 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
<snip>
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done.

I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
think it's boring at all.

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 05:41 PM

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
>> flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
>> one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?
>>
>> Man, that's why I don't have kids.
>
> Hmmm. No kids. A pilot. This could be love.
>
> Ron Lee
>
I think I pointed that out a while ago!

(maybe not to you)

Gene Seibel

September 27th 06, 06:50 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
> > rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
> > not having an instrument rating.

Jay, guess you've got a big target on you. ;) I'm also one that didn't
know that all pilots must get an instrument rating. Wish they had
gotten to me before I wasted 30 years and 3000 hours enjoying myself.
;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Bob Noel

September 27th 06, 07:40 PM

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.

One of my three most beautiful memories of flying was possible
because I was IFR. It was popping out of a (benign) cumulus
cloud into the incredible valley of clouds, with the sun streaming
in.

Now that I think about it, one other time was seeomg the moon rise
over the atlantic as I was flying in the northeast. I don't think I would
have made the night flight if I wasn't current for instrument flight
(too much danger of blundering into clouds in this technical
mountainous area).

>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.

I don't understand this. Properly used, an instrument rating will
increase your freedom of flight. An instrument rated pilot is NOT
required to file and fly IFR. An instrument rated pilot can do every
one of your VFR flights and more.

[snip]
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.

I figure that I'm not the one pilot mentioned above, especially since
I haven't been current for over six years.

otoh - who do you think would have a better chance of surviving
a VMC->IMC mistake, the VFR Jay or the IFR Jay even if not current?

> My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.

Jay, you fly so much with Mary, that if you couldn't maintain proficiency...
....well words fail me.

Does anyone think Jay's situation is not almost ideal? Once or twice a month
doing some hood time for a portion of the flight would be so simple.

In any case, you still are going to be heckled.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jon Woellhaf

September 27th 06, 07:51 PM

Jay,

My opinion of instrument flight agrees with what Jose, Emily, and Dylan
wrote:

Jose wrote
> ... Instrument flight can be the most beautiful, transcendental experience
> in the air. Flitting in and out of the tops of a broken or overcast
> layer, or even just getting =that= close to clouds as you brush by (which
> you can't legally do in most VFR situations) is also fun.

Emily wrote
> ... In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention every
> second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't think it's
> boring at all.

Dylan wrote
> ... if you're flying IFR, generally (or at least in my
> experience) you don't tend to spend all that much time inside a cloud.
> Quite a lot of it between them, above them, flying in and out of them.
> Some of the most beautiful flights I've had have been IFR - bursting
> from a wall of cloud into majestic canyons and mountains of cloud, all
> patterned dappled by the overhead altocumulus. It was almost like being
> on another planet.

I am confident that operating in benign IFR will greatly add to your
enjoyment of flying.

Jon

Ben Jackson

September 27th 06, 08:11 PM

On 2006-09-27, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done.

*Training* for instrument flying is some boring flying. Flying in and
out of actual IMC can be spectacular. Flying on top of the clouds because
you have the confidence that you can get back down can make for a much
nicer flight, too.

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
>
http://www.ben.com/

Ross Richardson[_2_]

September 27th 06, 08:13 PM

Bob Noel wrote:

> Does anyone think Jay's situation is not almost ideal? Once or twice a month
> doing some hood time for a portion of the flight would be so simple.
>
> In any case, you still are going to be heckled.
>
You know it is not the hours that is required, but the approachs, holds,
and tracking. On a cross country enjoy the flight. As you approach an
airport put on the foggles and do the approach. Do a missed go to the
hold, hold, do the approach. There - you have tracked, hold, and
approached. And, Mary can get safety pilot time logged.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

John Theune

September 27th 06, 08:28 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>
> ;-)
>
> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
> seriousness...)
>
> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
> the same four points:
>
> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.
>
> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.
>
> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
> thunderstorms start.
>
> Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
> things would be dramatically different. But we don't.
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.
>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
> at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
> fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.
>
> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.
>
> THAT is not why I fly.
>
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.
>
> Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
> often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
> means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
> and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.
>
> In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
> (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.
>
> Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
> The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
> and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.
>
> In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
> touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
> I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
> checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
> others.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
The overwhelming majority of my IFR flights consists of go up thru a
layer at the start of the flight and coming back down at my destination.
The only time I've shot a approach to minimums is during a training
flight. I just don't fly when it's hard IFR but it sure is nice to know
that if I climb up past a scattered to broken layer I'm not going to get
trapped up there. Get the rating and use it that way until you have the
time to stay very proficient.

John

Michael[_1_]

September 27th 06, 08:39 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
> doesn't have an instrument rating.

Now here's one from an ATP. I mostly agree with you.

> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.

All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
never mind staying current. And I got mine with substantially less
than 40 hours of instrument flight training, the balance being hood
time on trips I would have flown anyway.

> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.

And even with an instrument rating, it will never be zero. For a pilot
willing and able to fly MVFR, the utility advantage of an instrument
rating in a light single is minimal.

> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March.

That's not totally true - but it's not all that far from the truth
either. Every time you launch into clouds in subfreezing weather
without deice capability, you're rolling the dice. Your plane, though,
has enough horsepower to make it a fairly good bet at times. If you
were flying a Cherokee 140, I would be in nearly full agreement with
you, but with your airplane you can do some winter IFR flying with
reasonable safety.

Question is, how often will that happen? Most stable winter IMC
features ceilings and visibilities high enough to make low VFR
reasonable out in the flatlands where you live.

> And then the thunderstorms start.

That's the one part where you are wrong. Cockpit weather is now
available at reasonable prices, so you could fly the summer.

Thing is, I don't remember that much IMC associated with thunderstorms
in the Midwest when I flew there. Usually, the weather outside the
cells was decent enough VFR.

So the bottom line is that you will be able to get some utility out of
your instrument rating - but at best your deployability will change
from say 93% to 99%, and the delays you eliminate (be they waiting for
weather to improve or driving) will never make up for the time you
spend getting the rating and keeping it current.

It's important to remember that no form of travel is guaranteed to get
you there on time. Cars break down and traffic jams happen. Airliners
get delayed for weather, maintenance, and other reasons. The
difference is not that private flying is so much less reliable (in my
experience that wasn't the case) but that it's pretty easy to justify
the delays caused by the airlines or the highway system to others.
Delays in private airplanes are seen as being your own fault, for
choosing this oddball method of transportation, by others. The key
here is others. Wives, bosses, etc. Well, in your case your wife is a
pilot and so is your boss, so no problem there. And it's damn rare to
have a situation where a 1% chance of not getting there on time is
acceptable and a 7% chance is not (remember, no airline is 99% on time
for any flight).

I find it truly pathetic that some pilots actually have the nerve to
tell other pilots that VFR flying is not a reliable way to travel - but
getting the instrument rating suddenly makes it OK.

> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done.

Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others. Most people think it sucks. I can certainly
understand them, though I don't agree with them.

> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience

Well, here's the problem. Training flights are mostly under the hood
or in actual, but real IFR flights are usually flown mostly in VMC.
You do get to see some cool stuff doing that.

> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.

That's about what I've seen. When you look at people who have had the
instrument rating for more than a couple of years, most of them fall
into two groups - those who could get the ATP with little trouble if
they so wished, and those who aren't as good flying instruments today
as they were the day they passed the instrument checkride.

No real surprise - either you go forwards or backwards, as there is no
standing still. Most go backwards. The instrument rating standards
are minimum standards, and someone who can't meet them really shouldn't
be flying IFR.

Michael

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 08:56 PM

> All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
> hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
> never mind staying current.

But that's not the point. Not all time is equally valuable. Sometimes
it's better to spend two hours now to save fifteen minutes later.

> Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
> and damn few others.

I don't think that's a fair or true statement.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Doug[_1_]

September 27th 06, 09:08 PM

Dont forget you have to have charts and that means a LOT of expense and
hassle for more than one or two areas. Also, anytime one of your
instruments breaks that has the potential of keeping you from flying
safe IFR.

What I did was get my instrument rating. I wanted to get it so I could
fly in the clouds and you do get to see some things IFR that you
wouldn't VFR. I flew out to California and had some good IFR (low
enough altitudes you dont have ice on the coast and low valleys).

I'm able to get some utility out of my IFR rating around my home base I
flew an ILS to minimums once), but on my cross countries (which are
LONG), it's just not worth it to buy and carry all those charts. Other
than that it's usefulness has been to give me the confidence to fly in
VFR marginal conditions knowing that I could go IFR if needed (not
exactly the safest program in the world). Also, I went on to get my
CFI, so it was a necessity to do that.

I would say, overall, for me the rating was a plus. But I WANTED to fly
in the clouds.

Jay knows how he wants to fly. I think it's best to leave it up to him.
In his case, and IFR rating would be a minimal use (like most of us),
but the bottom line is, it's HIS call.

Ron Natalie

September 27th 06, 09:09 PM

Michael wrote:

>
> All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
> hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
> never mind staying current. And I got mine with substantially less
> than 40 hours of instrument flight training, the balance being hood
> time on trips I would have flown anyway.
>
Well here in the east things might be different. I can't tell you
the number of times when I have been stuck either because the
visibility has been between 1 and 3 miles OR clouds prevented
me from clearing the terrain, when there was no threat of either
freezing or thunderstorms.

Just coming back from my "simulated" checkride put us in mountain
obscuration conditions when both the departure and destination
were P6SN 3000BKN.

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 09:14 PM

> All the time that I have EVER saved by eliminating or reducing delays
> hasn't added up to the time I spent getting the instrument rating,
> never mind staying current.

The thing that prompted me to get my rating was flying to Ithaca in
glorious VMC, and then getting stuck there for several days. I
eventually tried to go out VFR under a low ceiling, but halfway back I
had to divert and spend the night in the airline terminal at Wilkes-Barre.

It only takes once.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Lee

September 27th 06, 10:01 PM

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
>>> flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
>>> one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?
>>>
>>> Man, that's why I don't have kids.
>>
>> Hmmm. No kids. A pilot. This could be love.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>I think I pointed that out a while ago!
>
>(maybe not to you)

Ouch!

Ron Lee

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 27th 06, 10:14 PM

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Except, in certain parts of the country, IFR means burning 1/3 more
> fuel and flying 1/3 more distance, and 20 minutes extra delay in
> takeoff.
>

In those parts of the country not being able to go IFR can mean cancelling
the trip.

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 27th 06, 10:15 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Children are a product of their upbringing. There are still some
> excellent children out there, as there are still parents who actually care
> to do the proper job in raising them.
>

Children are a byproduct.

Matt Whiting

September 27th 06, 10:46 PM

Emily wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
>> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
>> boring things I've done.
>
>
> I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
> boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
> every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
> think it's boring at all.

I agree, especially when flying the same route many times. After seeing
the scenery 10 times, it loses its attraction to some degree. Flying in
a variety of weather and playing "games" like trying to hold altitude
within 10', setting the GPS on the most sensistive course deviation
setting and then trying to keep the needle center, etc., all keep me
engaged.

Matt

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:01 PM

> Children are a byproduct.

Actually, when you get right down to it, children are the reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:06 PM

> Children are a byproduct.

Actually, when you get right down to it, children are the reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:12 PM

> > 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> > discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> > boring things I've done.
>
> I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
> boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
> every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
> think it's boring at all.

Well, okay -- "boring" may be the wrong term for instrument flight.
How about "long periods of monotony (hopefully) broken by short periods
of fulfillment"?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 11:12 PM

> Children are a byproduct.

No, children are a =product= of their upbringing (among other things).
That children are a byproduct is beef byproducts.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:18 PM

<snip>

> playing "games" like trying to hold altitude
> within 10', setting the GPS on the most sensistive course deviation
> setting and then trying to keep the needle center, etc., all keep me
> engaged.

Wow.

Matt, that sounds really, um, fascina....ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:20 PM

> In any case, you still are going to be heckled.

Bob, I would expect no less from this group....

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:31 PM

> The thing that prompted me to get my rating was flying to Ithaca in
> glorious VMC, and then getting stuck there for several days. I
> eventually tried to go out VFR under a low ceiling, but halfway back I
> had to divert and spend the night in the airline terminal at Wilkes-Barre.
>
> It only takes once.

See, that's where flying as a family is totally different.

We had a similar experience, trying to get to Sun N Fun '04. Low
ceilings, low visibility, rain over Tennessee. We landed just south of
Nashville, when we couldn't safely go on -- and were stuck there for
three days, when it turned into freezing rain.

We had the time of our lives! Our time spent in Nashville has receded
into "Honeck Family Lore" as one of our best vacations, ever -- and we
had no intention of ever going there.

Could we have proceeded IFR, with the rating? Certainly, before the
temperatures dropped. But then we would have missed out on one of our
very favorite accidental vacation memories.

It's not the destination, it's the journey.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 11:44 PM

Jose wrote:
>
>> Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
>> and damn few others.
>
> I don't think that's a fair or true statement.

Whoa. I don't know wrote that initially (Jay?), but it's horribly
unfair. I'm one of the most cautious people you'll EVER meet, and
instrument flying, done properly, is NOT unsafe. Pilots makes it
unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
those who think GA is dangerous, period.

(Hmmm...maybe skyloon wrote the initial comment?)

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 11:45 PM

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Emily > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hehehe...I used that line on a student once and his response was, "I've
>>>> flown in the clouds before and lived, so what's wrong with not having
>>>> one?" Got rid of that one real quick. Who needs that kind of liability?
>>>>
>>>> Man, that's why I don't have kids.
>>> Hmmm. No kids. A pilot. This could be love.
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>>>
>> I think I pointed that out a while ago!
>>
>> (maybe not to you)
>
> Ouch!
>
> Ron Lee
>

That was a good thing!

Damn, if I could only find a pilot who was ok with no kids for a very
long while...

Jose[_1_]

September 27th 06, 11:46 PM

> See, that's where flying as a family is totally different.
>
> ...[we] were stuck [south of Nashville] for
> three days, when it turned into freezing rain.
> We had the time of our lives!

Well, you got Nashville, and I got Scranton. Seriously, even travelling
with a family, it could have gone the other way. All you need is an
exhausted and cranky kid starting to come down with a cold.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Emily[_1_]

September 27th 06, 11:46 PM

Bob Noel

September 27th 06, 11:48 PM

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> Damn, if I could only find a pilot who was ok with no kids for a very
> long while...

I'm probably too old for you....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay Honeck

September 27th 06, 11:57 PM

> I firmly belive that we make time for whatever we deem important.
> Since you already had prior training, you probably can finish it up in
> a week of accelerated training. If you counted the vacation days that
> you took per year since starting the hotel business, you probably ended
> up with at least two weeks/year. Substracting one week for the sacred
> Osh trip, this still leaves you with one week for the training.

Precisely.

If we felt a burning need to get the rating, I would sacrifice going to
our daughters' volleyball games, or my son's wrestling meets, or going
out to dinner with fly-in guests, or holding Tuesday Movie Night, or
chairing Friends of Iowa City Airport, or being our airport's AOPA
Support Network volunteer, or organizing fly-outs, or working on the
history of the Iowa City airport, or...

At the moment, our life is full to bursting, and it's wonderful! The
instrument rating will simply have to wait for that idyllic (mythic?)
time when I've got nothing better to do.

> If the trips are important then even one is too many. You may want
> to consider the VFR trips in marginal weather as well.

Just an aside: I failed to mention in my original response that there
are many times we would scrub flights here, whether we were VFR *or*
IFR, even if the conditions were relatively benign-looking IFR. For
example, there are plenty of days here when the sky conditions are
relatively "soft" IFR, but the wind is howling at 20 - 30 knots. We
would not fly in those conditions, period, not because it's unsafe but
because it's awful to fly a light plane in turbulence -- especially
without a defined horizon.

Again, this is a product of our equipment, not our ratings. Even with
Atlas' (relatively) heavy wing loading, the experience of flying inside
a popcorn popper is not one we wish to do again.

> But you don't just fly in the Midwest. It seemed that your family
> had taken quite a few cross country trips.

True enough.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when the IR would have made a trip
or three easier.

> > 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> > discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> > boring things I've done.
>
> It sucks because you had only experienced IFR flying in training.

Mostly, but not entirely, true. I've gone on several long trips in
light GA aircraft that have included actual instrument conditions (when
I was not PIC, obviously). In each case, the instrument portions of
the flights were either stultifyingly boring, risky beyond anything I
would ever attempt (rated or not), or physically uncomfortable due to
turbulence.

Now, in the end, we *were* able to make it to destinations in a
timeframe that would have been impossible to achieve without the IR, so
some would say that makes it all worthwhile.

> In our short 5 years of flying, we had enjoyed many beautiful
> sceneries, sunrises, sunsets, breathtaking mountains, valleys, lakes
> etc. in all seasons but many of our most memorable experience were in
> IFR flying. They were like religious experience. You fell closer to
> God while dancing among the clouds with angels. A recent experience
> was our camping trip to Mt. Washington Regional Airport in Whitefield,
> NH. We were in the clouds in light rain. Getting near the airport, we
> descended, popped out of the cloud and was rewarded with a Kodak moment
> of a beautiful rainbow over the field.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h54vm

That's beautiful, Hai. Thanks for sharing it.

> > In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine,
>
> Just do it, Jay. You will find that the rating is a heck more useful
> and IFR flying a lot more fun that you thought.

Someday.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Margy Natalie

September 28th 06, 12:28 AM

Jack Allison wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>> not having an instrument rating.
>>
>> Margy
>
> Does this mean you'll get yours too Margie? :-)
>
>
I was trying to throw the attention off of me and onto Jay. It doesn't
seem to have worked.

Margy

john smith

September 28th 06, 12:31 AM

Duane Cole didn't have an IFR equipped Taylorcraft, yet he never missed
an airshow because of weather.

john smith

September 28th 06, 01:49 AM

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> Longworth > wrote:
>
> > It sucks because you had only experienced IFR flying in training.
> > In our short 5 years of flying, we had enjoyed many beautiful
> > sceneries, sunrises, sunsets, breathtaking mountains, valleys, lakes
> > etc. in all seasons but many of our most memorable experience were in
> > IFR flying. They were like religious experience. You fell closer to
> > God while dancing among the clouds with angels. A recent experience
> > was our camping trip to Mt. Washington Regional Airport in Whitefield,
> > NH. We were in the clouds in light rain. Getting near the airport, we
> > descended, popped out of the cloud and was rewarded with a Kodak moment
> > of a beautiful rainbow over the field.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/h54vm
>
> Very nice! I might buy a coffee mug with that picture on it! :)

Submit that first photo to AvWeb for picture of the week!!!

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

September 28th 06, 02:02 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Children are a byproduct.
>>
>
> Actually, when you get right down to it, children are the reason.
>

Odd that I was the one accused of not having a sense of humor.

John T[_2_]

September 28th 06, 02:06 AM

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message

>
> Yeah, it makes flying in the clouds so much more interesting.

While flying *in* the clouds may not be very interesting, flying closer to
them still inspires me. :)

<http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/08/07/Greensboro+NC+KGSO+To+Leesburg+VA+KJYO+Leg+3+Of+3. aspx>
<http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/07/08/Clouds+At+9000+Feet+Enroute+To+Trenton+NJ+KTTN.asp x>
<http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/05/06/Dancing+With+Clouds.aspx>

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Jose[_1_]

September 28th 06, 02:11 AM

>>Very nice! I might buy a coffee mug with that picture on it! :)
>
>
> Submit that first photo to AvWeb for picture of the week!!!

I second that.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Margy Natalie

September 28th 06, 02:11 AM

Jose[_1_]

September 28th 06, 02:14 AM

> I've gone on several long trips in
> light GA aircraft that have included actual instrument conditions (when
> I was not PIC, obviously). In each case, the instrument portions of
> the flights were either stultifyingly boring...

Were you the one flying?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

September 28th 06, 02:23 AM

> Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.

Jay, you're going to let a =girl= beat you to an instrument rating?
Pretty soon you'll have to trade Atlas in for a high wing.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ron Lee

September 28th 06, 02:25 AM

Bob Noel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Damn, if I could only find a pilot who was ok with no kids for a very
>> long while...
>
>I'm probably too old for you....
>
>--
>Bob Noel

I agree, but I am not.

Ron Lee

Emily

September 28th 06, 02:37 AM

Ron Lee wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Damn, if I could only find a pilot who was ok with no kids for a very
>>> long while...
>> I'm probably too old for you....
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel
>
> I agree, but I am not.
>
> Ron Lee

Hmmmm...would it be too arrogant and pilot-like to say, "This isn't the
first time this has happened!"?

Matt Whiting

September 28th 06, 02:43 AM

John T wrote:

> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>Yeah, it makes flying in the clouds so much more interesting.
>
>
> While flying *in* the clouds may not be very interesting, flying closer to
> them still inspires me. :)
>
> <http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/08/07/Greensboro+NC+KGSO+To+Leesburg+VA+KJYO+Leg+3+Of+3. aspx>
> <http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/07/08/Clouds+At+9000+Feet+Enroute+To+Trenton+NJ+KTTN.asp x>
> <http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer/2006/05/06/Dancing+With+Clouds.aspx>
>

It all depends on what you find interesting. I'm with you, I find IFR
flying much more interesting than VFR. I like to be challenged, not
just sit around and watch the grass grow (or familiar scenery pass by).
I was getting bored with VFR flying and the instrument rating got my
interest up again. It is far more challenging mentally than VFR flying.
Weather decisions are even more complex (seems ironic, but I find this
true), you use more of the "system", and the flying must be much more
precise.

I also agree that clouds are fascinating as is flying through them. My
most interesting flights by far have been IFR flights. Watching
thunderstorms along the coast of Florida for more than 100 miles as I
flew north just offshore. Flying above a solid overcast on a full moon
night. Rainbows of all sorts as someone already showed. Sunsets and
sunrises over various cloud formations.

Lastly, I get more satisfaction from a tough IFR flight well executed.
I guess I feel that almost anyone can fly a VFR flight successfully, but
it takes a higher level of skill and proficiency to execute well an IFR
flight in IMC. And other than my solo and taking up my first pax as a
private pilot, nothing has given me the raw exhiliration of breaking out
of the dark and rainy clouds and seeing those bright runway lights right
where they should be! Priceless!!! :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting

September 28th 06, 02:44 AM

Margy Natalie wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>>> not having an instrument rating.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
>> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
>> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
>> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
>> seriousness...)
>>
>> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
>> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
>> the same four points:
>>
>> 1. Time. snipped
>
>
>>
>> 2. Utility. snipped
>>
>
>>
>> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. snipped
>
>
>>
>> 4. Safety. snipped
>
>
>
> Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.

And the race is on! :-) (for the humor impaired)

Matt

Matt Whiting

September 28th 06, 02:45 AM

Jose wrote:

>> Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.
>
>
> Jay, you're going to let a =girl= beat you to an instrument rating?
> Pretty soon you'll have to trade Atlas in for a high wing.

Oh, that was a good one! I don't see Jay making either upgrade,
however!! :-)

Matt

Judah

September 28th 06, 03:18 AM

Excuses, excuses...

Just do it.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1159364308.741905.17580
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>
> ;-)
>
> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
> seriousness...)
>
> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
> the same four points:
>
> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.
>
> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.
>
> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
> thunderstorms start.
>
> Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
> things would be dramatically different. But we don't.
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.
>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
> at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
> fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.
>
> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.
>
> THAT is not why I fly.
>
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.
>
> Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
> often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
> means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
> and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.
>
> In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
> (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.
>
> Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
> The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
> and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.
>
> In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
> touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
> I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
> checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
> others.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

john smith

September 28th 06, 03:18 AM

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> We had a similar experience, trying to get to Sun N Fun '04. Low
> ceilings, low visibility, rain over Tennessee. We landed just south of
> Nashville, when we couldn't safely go on -- and were stuck there for
> three days, when it turned into freezing rain.

That's advanced planning. Always pick an enroute divert.

Judah

September 28th 06, 04:05 AM

OK. I'm going to take a different approach to this whole thing...

As a business man, I'm sure you can appreciate ROI...

You say you had gotten all the way to the point where you were about to
take the test. The implication is that you have already met all the
requirements to take the test and just need to get back to a level of
proficiency and knowledge to actually be qualified to take the test.

As you have already seen, the rules and technology change, so keeping up is
hard to do on a long-term basis. And every day that you are away from
working on your IFR skills and knowledge adds to the amount of time (and
money) you will need to spend in order to get the rating. Sure you can
continue to control your plane precisely, but can you still make heads or
tails of an approach plate and fly the approach?

I contend that it's costing you money to not get your rating as quickly as
possible. Every day that goes by is adding time and money to your ability
to achieve your goal.

As far as Safety goes, you are still the PIC, responsible for safety of the
flight. Sure, once you have gotten your rating, there may be things that
you "forget" over time (don't ask me to do an NDB approach...). But you are
the one who will need to decide the safest way to get to your destination.
You are the one who will be most clear of your capabilities and the
capabilities required to complete your flight using the tools at your
disposal. If you are not feeling completely confident, you certainly would
not be using good judgement to fly in conditions where it was Hard IFR for
hundreds of miles in every direction.

However, would you think it's more safe to scud run under a 2000' ceiling
into a front where the ceiling was sinking, or to fly boringly through the
soup for a while, get up on top of it, and fly VFR on top at 8000'?

As far as utility, I wonder how many times you cancelled flying plans in
advance of the actual flight because the forecast was not looking good...
ie: "Hey - wanna fly out to xyz this weekend? Oh, never mind, weather will
be lousy." If getting where you planned to go to is a priority, the
instrument rating will certainly improve your odds. Admittedly, I fly
mostly for my business (meetings, conferences, installations, etc.), so
this is a bigger deal for me than perhaps for the people who fly just for
recreation. My scrubbed-flight ratio pre-IR was much higher than the 9%
that someone else here posted, but I'm pretty conservative when it comes to
MVFR flying. I'm probably not as low as 1% with the IR, either.

Before the IR, I was probably scrubbing 1 out of every 4 or 5 flights. And
if there was any chance of weather, I was making alternate plans way in
advance. I still do that, but my guess is that my decisions affect less
than 1 in 10 flights.

My biggest problem now is that we have recently gotten a lot of business in
areas where it's either too cheap to fly commercially or too far to fly GA
- like Chicago. I can get to Chicago on 2 days notice for like $200 round
trip commercially. Takes 4 hours each way in the Bonanza.

I need to convince the club to buy an Eclipse.

Anyway, having the ability to recover from a scrubbed mission by changing
your family vacation plans is great. But isn't life easier when you get
where you were supposed to and have the family vacation you originally
planned?

More importantly, though, when are you opening the restuarant?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1159364308.741905.17580
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>
> ;-)
>
> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
> seriousness...)
>
> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
> the same four points:
>
> 1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
> signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
> just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
> business we're in.
>
> 2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
> kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
> IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
> cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.
>
> The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
> times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
> out of over 100 flights.
>
> The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
> Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
> in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
> flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
> thunderstorms start.
>
> Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
> things would be dramatically different. But we don't.
>
> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
> the experience.
>
> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
> much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
> flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
> at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
> fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.
>
> Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
> absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
> Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
> Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
> weather.
>
> THAT is not why I fly.
>
> 4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
> pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
> would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
> pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
> they do, too -- that they are not proficient.
>
> Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
> often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
> means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
> and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
> would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
> ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
> rating.
>
> In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
> (and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.
>
> Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
> The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
> and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.
>
> In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
> touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
> I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
> checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
> others.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Brian[_1_]

September 28th 06, 04:14 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > > 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
> > > discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
> > > boring things I've done.
> >
> > I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
> > boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
> > every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
> > think it's boring at all.
>
> Well, okay -- "boring" may be the wrong term for instrument flight.
> How about "long periods of monotony (hopefully) broken by short periods
> of fulfillment"?
>
> ;-)
Well I will have to disagree with the boring and monotonous at least in
a single engine aircraft such as yours. In a properly equipped
instrument aircraft cerified for known icing then yes it is boring and
monotonous. In your aircraft if you are going to go into the clouds it
probably should not be for more than 30 minutes in most cases and most
of the time 10 minutes would probably be the max. There are exceptions
but the possiblity of icing simply restricts most single engine
aircraft to limited amount of IMC. Like take off and climb throught the
fog to VMC or flying on top to your destination to shoot an approach
through the cloud layer to a landing.

The biggest down side to the Instrument rating is that you need to
spend about 30 or 40 minutes a month to shoot a couple approaches to
keep current so that you can fly IMC for 5 minutes to get out of the
airport you are fogged into. On the other handing knowing a good
instrument rated pilot that you can have fly in and fly your airplane
out is much more economical. I have seen airplanes parked at the
airport for over 2 weeks while the pilot waited for a low fog layer to
burn off and watch the IFR pilots leave and arrive at will.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Bob Noel

September 28th 06, 08:44 AM

In article >,
Margy Natalie > wrote:

> > Does this mean you'll get yours too Margie? :-)
> >
> >
> I was trying to throw the attention off of me and onto Jay. It doesn't
> seem to have worked.

Consider: Ron has the rating, Mary does not.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Ron Natalie

September 28th 06, 12:23 PM

Brian wrote:

>
> The biggest down side to the Instrument rating is that you need to
> spend about 30 or 40 minutes a month to shoot a couple approaches to
> keep current so that you can fly IMC for 5 minutes to get out of the
> airport you are fogged into.

We have several nice approaches to our home field and I nearly always
fly with Margy (built in safety pilot) so just flying with the foggles
on for the last few minutes of a flight I'm making otherwise is not
a daunting prospect. Nothing says they have to be done IFR.

Javier[_1_]

September 28th 06, 01:24 PM

Jose wrote:
>> Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.
>
> Jay, you're going to let a =girl= beat you to an instrument rating?
> Pretty soon you'll have to trade Atlas in for a high wing.

HEY!

-jav, 182 owner/operator

Dylan Smith

September 28th 06, 03:13 PM

On 2006-09-27, ktbr > wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
>> discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
>> boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
>> stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
>> we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
>> the experience.
>
> I've never felt that flying IFR 'sucked' any more than flying VFR.
> It *is* a little more of a challenge than VFR but that makes it all
> that much more rewarding to me. You are required to maintain your
> currency to a higher degree and I think that makes you a safer pilot.

The thing that Jay is probably missing is that real world IFR flying is
_much_ different to IFR training. The difference is like night and day.
For the training, you fly perhaps 40 or 50 hours under the hood, doing
nothing but staring at the instruments.

Real world IFR flying, in my experience, has been 95% VMC because you
spend a lot of time on top of clouds or between them. Since you are in
VMC, you don't look at the instruments any more than you do on a VFR
flight (after all, you still have to see and avoid when flying IFR in
VMC).

The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.

Real world IFR flying is seldom staring at the gauges.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Jay Honeck

September 28th 06, 03:15 PM

> In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.
>
> I don't understand this. Properly used, an instrument rating will
> increase your freedom of flight. An instrument rated pilot is NOT
> required to file and fly IFR. An instrument rated pilot can do every
> one of your VFR flights and more.

You've misinterpreted what I mean by "getting there". I don't mean
that getting to the destination is the ultimate goal -- I mean that the
journey is the ultimate goal. Often we don't care *where* we fly, as
long as we're flying.

Let me illustrate this attitude further. As I've mentioned here many
times before, when we plan long, multi-day cross-country vacations by
air, we plan three separate journeys. (This is a luxury afforded to us
by living in the exact center of the continent.) On departure day, we
simply choose the destination that matches the best long-range VFR
weather forecast.

This has worked for us for 12 years, on dozens of trips. Best of all,
my kids get to research and plan 3 separate adventures, and no one
knows which one we'll enjoy until we're in the plane. It's a truly fun
way to travel, adds to the excitement for the family, and usually
ensures excellent flying weather.

In fact, even with the instrument rating, now that I think about it, I
don't think I'd change that planning process. It's become an integral
part of who we are, and how we travel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dylan Smith

September 28th 06, 03:59 PM

On 2006-09-27, Emily > wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>>
>>> Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
>>> and damn few others.
>>
>> I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
>
> unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
> daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
> those who think GA is dangerous, period.

To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks. Also, GA *is*
dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
lives. It's certainly the most dangerous thing I do, and is reflected in
insurance rates. Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft - which puts up
your premiums by a clear order of magnitude.

If people want to fly with me and ask how safe flying a light plane is -
I tell them straight. I tell them it is approximately as safe as riding
a motorcycle on the roads, which is what I've seen so far is the best
comparison. I'm not going to lie to a non-pilot because then they won't
have the best information to judge whether or not it's an activity they
want to participate in. I've not yet had anyone refuse.

I'm a daredevil techogeek and proud of it, too. Life is too short to be
risk averse, and in any case - most of us are fated to die slowly and
horribly over a period of several years. I'd rather live than wait to
die. Additionally - I've got around 1200 hours and *never* hurt an
airplane - but I'm quite aware that however well I plan there is always
the possibility of something going wrong from mechanical failure to my
own fsckup - and try to prevent it and guard against it. That is why I
refused to join the chorus of indignant condemnation about the LEX crash
- I'm more interested in the human factors that caused it so I have a
fighting chance of understanding it and hopefully preventing myself from
making a similar stupid pilot trick. Enjoying doing activities that has
an element of risk involved DOES NOT mean you go ahead and do it with
blatant disregard for safest practice. And I just enjoy doing glider
aerobatics far too much to give it up!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith

September 28th 06, 04:23 PM

On 2006-09-27, john smith > wrote:
> Duane Cole didn't have an IFR equipped Taylorcraft, yet he never missed
> an airshow because of weather.

I bet he scud run quite a bit.

I used to have a Cessna 140. It was SLOW. Scud running in a slow
aircraft can be an acceptable risk so long as you have a planned out.
Amongst owners of ancient, slow aeroplanes, scud running is routine.

The Taylorcraft is an ancient, slow machine. I know very well because I
just bought into an Auster (which is a Taylorcraft derivative).

However, I *never* did scud runs in the Bonanza because it was far too
risky - to fly slowly, forward visibility would be appalling (and the
engine would get too hot too - flaps down, slow flight requires a fair
bit of power). So I'd go IFR in the Bonanza or simply cancel if the IFR
weather was unsuitable.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_3_]

September 28th 06, 04:46 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:
> The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
> mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
> are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
> tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
> through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
> emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.

I have to agree with this. Aside from the tremendous satisfaction in emerging
from the crap to see the runway right in front of me or noting with satisfaction
the looks on the faces of the lesser beings as I transverse the FBO after
flight, the most spectacular sight I have ever seen in my life was at the
beginning of an IFR flight out of Charleston, SC.

I had spent the night after flying in with crappy weather. The early morning
didn't look promising from the ground but Flight Service assured me it was clear
on top and there was improving weather as I moved to the NW towards Charlotte.
I took off in the rain and immediately entered the crap at about 20 feet off the
deck. I tucked in the gear and started my climb. After about another minute or
two I poked out on top of a stratus deck. There to the east was the sun just
starting to poke its way up out of the clouds. The entire sky was lit up a
brilliant vivid orange. I'm not a religious man but the memory still send
shivers down my back. Like Gordo once said, "What a heavenly sight!".

The rest of the flight was in the clear for me. I never could have made it if I
didn't have the rating.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Michelle P

September 28th 06, 05:04 PM

Margy Natalie wrote:
> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
> not having an instrument rating.
>
> Margy

I declare all that declare one should get an instrument rating should
get or already have one in their possession.

Margy?

Michelle P (Yeah I already have one)

Doug[_1_]

September 28th 06, 09:42 PM

I remember being in the area of no clouds, but surrounded on all 4
sides by clouds! Talk about weird! And being between layers where the
bottom layer had shimmering fog on top of the cloud. Yes you see some
amazing stuff in IMC. Also, I remeber literally swooping around small
cumulus like they were big slalom poles in the sky (had a block
clearance on that one).

It's just a matter of priorities and if you want to do it or not. I
also remember ATC making me mad and confused by making mistakes, me
making some mistakes, and NOT being able to proceed IFR because my
equipment was broken or I didn't have the charts or just wasn't
comfortable or current to do it.

Margy Natalie

September 28th 06, 11:39 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>The thing that prompted me to get my rating was flying to Ithaca in
>>glorious VMC, and then getting stuck there for several days. I
>>eventually tried to go out VFR under a low ceiling, but halfway back I
>>had to divert and spend the night in the airline terminal at Wilkes-Barre.
>>
>>It only takes once.
>
>
> See, that's where flying as a family is totally different.
>
> We had a similar experience, trying to get to Sun N Fun '04. Low
> ceilings, low visibility, rain over Tennessee. We landed just south of
> Nashville, when we couldn't safely go on -- and were stuck there for
> three days, when it turned into freezing rain.
>
> We had the time of our lives! Our time spent in Nashville has receded
> into "Honeck Family Lore" as one of our best vacations, ever -- and we
> had no intention of ever going there.
>
> Could we have proceeded IFR, with the rating? Certainly, before the
> temperatures dropped. But then we would have missed out on one of our
> very favorite accidental vacation memories.
>
> It's not the destination, it's the journey.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
If you have the time for such adventures. For years we never flew
anywhere on the weekends if there was a possibility we wouldn't make it
back to work on Monday. Now with Ron's rating it's more likely we can
make it back, but even with the rating we have to be prepared to fly
commercial or rent a car and drive.

Margy

Emily

September 28th 06, 11:45 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-09-27, Emily > wrote:
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
>>>> and damn few others.
>>> I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
>> unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
>> daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
>> those who think GA is dangerous, period.
>
> To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
> all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks.

No, he just implied most.

> Also, GA *is*
> dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
> lives.

Of course. No one's debating that.

Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
> a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft

See, I don't even think that's true. Granted, with no dependents, my
only life insurance is group through work, but it even covers me when I
flight instruct! Obviously not all insurance companies think it's
unsafe. Just for kicks, I checked into extra with USAA, they don't
care, either.

>but I'm quite aware that however well I plan there is always
> the possibility of something going wrong from mechanical failure to my
> own fsckup - and try to prevent it and guard against it.

Well, yes, and it's about risk managment. I simply don't see how with
damn few exceptions, pilots who fly IFR in light aircraft are
daredevils. I'm certainly not, and while most of the IFR flying pilots
I know are 121, they do a certain about of flying in small aircraft.
They aren't daredevils either.

>That is why I
> refused to join the chorus of indignant condemnation about the LEX crash
> - I'm more interested in the human factors that caused it so I have a
> fighting chance of understanding it and hopefully preventing myself from
> making a similar stupid pilot trick.

That's what I said, and you obviously didn't see the flames or you
wouldn't be saying it again.

Margy Natalie

September 29th 06, 12:13 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>> The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
>>>> rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
>>>> not having an instrument rating.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
>>> doesn't have an instrument rating.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
>>> will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
>>> disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
>>> seriousness...)
>>>
>>> I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
>>> reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
>>> the same four points:
>>>
>>> 1. Time. snipped
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Utility. snipped
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Instrument Flying Sucks. snipped
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 4. Safety. snipped
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.
>
>
> And the race is on! :-) (for the humor impaired)
>
>
> Matt

The race of the decade(s)!

Margy

Judah

September 30th 06, 02:28 AM

Emily > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2006-09-27, Emily > wrote:
>>> Jose wrote:
>>>>> Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
>>>>> and damn few others.
>>>> I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
>>> unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
>>> daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
>>> those who think GA is dangerous, period.
>>
>> To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
>> all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks.
>
> No, he just implied most.
>
>> Also, GA *is*
>> dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
>> lives.
>
> Of course. No one's debating that.
>
> Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
>> a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft
>
> See, I don't even think that's true. Granted, with no dependents, my
> only life insurance is group through work, but it even covers me when I
> flight instruct! Obviously not all insurance companies think it's
> unsafe. Just for kicks, I checked into extra with USAA, they don't
> care, either.

I'm going to ask some friends of mine who are actuaries about this. The
bottom line, though, is I think this whole thing is a bunch of crap.

According to the AMA (at
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238 ), 20,000
Americans a year die from having sex, as compared with 43,000 who die in
Automobile Accidents, and 17,000 who die using illicit drugs.

75,000 Americans die from Microbial Agents, and 55,000 die from toxic agents.

Aviation accidents didn't make the list. 820 people per year die in aviation
accidents.

Of course, we know that Smoking and being fat are leading causes of death,
and are also causes for insurance company rate increases. So being fat or
smoking is more dangerous than flying.

I know there are proportion reasons as to why aviation didn't make the list.
However, I personally believe that most modern day Americans spend more than
twice as many hours per month driving than having sex.

So based on the above, having sex is statistically more dangerous than
flying. Why don't the insurance companies rate you based on the frequency
with which you engage in sexual activity? (Then again, this certainly
explains why being married causes a rate reduction!)

Furthermore, there is a seemingly disporportionate number of people who die
from microbial agents. Most microbial agents are passed by exposure in large
numbers. I can't say for sure, but my geuss is that proportionately speaking,
the average American spends fewer than twice as many hours in large groups
(ie: parties, discos, bars, buses, etc.) exposed to microbial agents than
they do driving or flying GA. This would imply that it is more dangerous to
ride a bus or airline than it is to fly privately in a GA aircraft.

According to http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Injury-Mortality.html
approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational injuries. So in
other words, working is more dangerous than flying.

According to http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html and numerous other
sources, falls are the second leading accident fatality behind motor
vehicles, and the leading cause of death in home accidents. So basically,
standing is more dangerous than flying, especially at home.

According to the CIA World Fact Book,
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html about 7 out of
1000 male babies die at childbirth in the US. Slightly less so for females.
If you calculate all the numbers, it's about 24,600 infant fatalities per
year. So basically, being born is more dangerous than flying.

This website is extremely enlightening:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

According to it, 742 people die in Air & Space transport accidents. The odds
of someone dying in a Air & Space accident in their lifetime is 1 in 5,051.
The odds, however, of dying as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident in
ones lifetime is 1 in 626. Basically, it's nearly 10 times more dangerous to
cross the street as it is to fly in an airplane. By the way, the odds of
dying in a motorcycle accident are 1 in 1020, nearly 5x more dangerous than
flying. The closest reasonable match I could find was "pedalcyclist" at 4919.
So basically, flying is about as dangerous as riding your bike.

The odds of dying from choking ("Inhalation and Ingestion of food causing
obstruction of respirator track") is 4284 to 1, so just slightly higher than
flying. So basically, eating is slightly more dangerous than flying.

Accidental drowning in a natural body of water (as opposed to a pool or
bathtub) is 1 in 3060 - substantially more dangerous than flying. Whereas the
odds of dying from exposure to forces of nature is one in 3288. And
accidental poisoning by exposure to gases and vapours is 1 in 5432, just
slightly safer than flying.

So basically, it's safer to stay in a cave than it is to jump in a lake.

To put it in perspective, 2,465,150 die per year. Around 800 of them die in
aviation accidents. Why are we even talking about this? It's so insignificant
it's not even worth talking about!

I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of speed).
And we just sit here and take it.

Well I'm not going to take it anymore! I don't buy it! We don't even affect
the statistics pool! Enough already about dying in GA! Let's just fly safe
and enjoy our life before we get killed crossing the street!

Mxsmanic

September 30th 06, 05:03 AM

Judah writes:

> According to the AMA (at
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238 ), 20,000
> Americans a year die from having sex, as compared with 43,000 who die in
> Automobile Accidents, and 17,000 who die using illicit drugs.
>
> 75,000 Americans die from Microbial Agents, and 55,000 die from toxic agents.
>
> Aviation accidents didn't make the list. 820 people per year die in aviation
> accidents.

How many people have sex each year? How many ride or drive in cars?
How many take illicit drugs? And how many ride or fly planes?

Commercial aviation is quite safe. General aviation, however, is
significantly less so. The great majority of aviation accidents
involve general aviation. The accident rate per flight hour is nearly
40 times higher for general aviation than for commercial airlines; the
number of fatalities per flight hour is almost 82 times higher. There
are more general aviation accidents per week in the U.S. than there
are per year for commercial airlines, and they both have comparable
numbers of flight hours (24 million for GA vs. 19 million for
airlines).

This doesn't necessarily mean that general aviation is intrinsically
less safe. It says more about a lack of discipline in general
aviation: careless pilots, careless maintenance, etc. It is also true
that reciprocating engines are much less reliable than turbine
engines, which contributes to the statistics.

> I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
> combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of speed).
> And we just sit here and take it.

Unfortunately, their fear of GA (in comparison to commercial air
travel) is quite justified, as the numbers above make clear.

You can avoid becoming one of the statistics by being a disciplined
and safe pilot and taking no chances, and by flying only aircraft that
are properly maintained, in the conditions for which they were
designed. But you can be sure that other, careless pilots and poorly
maintained aircraft will continue to keep the accident rates high.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose[_1_]

September 30th 06, 05:48 AM

> 20,000
> Americans a year die from having sex

Is that from having sex, or from the side effects of the lead?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Judah

September 30th 06, 04:02 PM

Jose > wrote in news:uGmTg.6024$TV3.5700
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

>> 20,000
>> Americans a year die from having sex
>
> Is that from having sex, or from the side effects of the lead?
>
> Jose

Lead or latex?

Judah

September 30th 06, 04:27 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> How many people have sex each year? How many ride or drive in cars?
> How many take illicit drugs? And how many ride or fly planes?

How many accidents per sex hour are there? How about per illicit drug use
hour? If you're going to try to compare apples to apples, please do it
properly.

> Commercial aviation is quite safe. General aviation, however, is
> significantly less so. The great majority of aviation accidents
> involve general aviation. The accident rate per flight hour is nearly
> 40 times higher for general aviation than for commercial airlines; the
> number of fatalities per flight hour is almost 82 times higher. There
> are more general aviation accidents per week in the U.S. than there
> are per year for commercial airlines, and they both have comparable
> numbers of flight hours (24 million for GA vs. 19 million for
> airlines).

These numbers are relative to each other. This does nothing to speak to the
number of aviation accidents (GA or commercial) per flight hour or per
mile. It is a load of crap.

> This doesn't necessarily mean that general aviation is intrinsically
> less safe. It says more about a lack of discipline in general
> aviation: careless pilots, careless maintenance, etc. It is also true
> that reciprocating engines are much less reliable than turbine
> engines, which contributes to the statistics.

1) In a GA accident, there is usually between 1 and 4 fatalities. Ina
commercial aviation accident, there are usually between 30 and 300
fatalities. The statistics are irrelevant because it takes just one
commercial aviation accident to match up with 100 GA ones.

2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial aviation
safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of flying when all
of 800 people die a year doing it.

>> I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
>> combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of
>> speed). And we just sit here and take it.
>
> Unfortunately, their fear of GA (in comparison to commercial air
> travel) is quite justified, as the numbers above make clear.

Bullcrapola. Many people are just as afraid of flying commercially as they
are of flying GA. In fact, I know several people who are afraid of flying
commercially but are NOT afraid of flying GA. And one of them is a former
mechanic for an airline.

> You can avoid becoming one of the statistics by being a disciplined
> and safe pilot and taking no chances, and by flying only aircraft that
> are properly maintained, in the conditions for which they were
> designed. But you can be sure that other, careless pilots and poorly
> maintained aircraft will continue to keep the accident rates high.

This may be true, but it's non-sequiter to my question. BTW: The statistic
of 800 people per year seems to include both commercial and GA.

Jose[_1_]

September 30th 06, 04:32 PM

> Lead or latex?

Lead. That's the classic ending to sex. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel

September 30th 06, 04:45 PM

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> How many accidents per sex hour are there?

define "accident" :-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Ron Garret

September 30th 06, 05:47 PM

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> According to http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Injury-Mortality.html
> approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational injuries. So in
> other words, working is more dangerous than flying.

No, because most people work a lot more than they fly.

Take it to the extreme: more people die every year riding in GA planes
than they do, say, jumping off bridges. That doesn't mean that jumping
off a bridge is safer than flying.

rg

Mxsmanic

September 30th 06, 08:18 PM

Judah writes:

> How many accidents per sex hour are there? How about per illicit drug use
> hour? If you're going to try to compare apples to apples, please do it
> properly.

Only if everyone else does the same. I didn't make the original
comparison.

> These numbers are relative to each other. This does nothing to speak to the
> number of aviation accidents (GA or commercial) per flight hour or per
> mile. It is a load of crap.

If only that were true. Why is it so disagreeable to accept the
figures?

> 1) In a GA accident, there is usually between 1 and 4 fatalities. Ina
> commercial aviation accident, there are usually between 30 and 300
> fatalities. The statistics are irrelevant because it takes just one
> commercial aviation accident to match up with 100 GA ones.

GA has more accidents _and_ more fatalities.

> 2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial aviation
> safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of flying when all
> of 800 people die a year doing it.

Most people are highly subjective and ignore the objective reality.
Even when they are shown the numbers.

> Bullcrapola. Many people are just as afraid of flying commercially as they
> are of flying GA.

They shouldn't be.

> In fact, I know several people who are afraid of flying commercially
> but are NOT afraid of flying GA. And one of them is a former mechanic
> for an airline.

Subjectivity can work in more than one way.

> This may be true, but it's non-sequiter to my question. BTW: The statistic
> of 800 people per year seems to include both commercial and GA.

In 2005, there were 600 fatalities in civil aviation in the US. All
but 40 were in GA accidents. And only 20 were aboard regularly
scheduled commercial flights.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah

September 30th 06, 09:07 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> These numbers are relative to each other. This does nothing to speak to
>> the number of aviation accidents (GA or commercial) per flight hour or
>> per mile. It is a load of crap.
>
> If only that were true. Why is it so disagreeable to accept the
> figures?

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The figures you quoted discussed the
relative safety of GA vs. Commercial flying. That's not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is the relative danger of flying as compared with other
lifetime activities.

>> 1) In a GA accident, there is usually between 1 and 4 fatalities. Ina
>> commercial aviation accident, there are usually between 30 and 300
>> fatalities. The statistics are irrelevant because it takes just one
>> commercial aviation accident to match up with 100 GA ones.
>
> GA has more accidents _and_ more fatalities.

True, but I will point out that the figures are skewed when looked at over
a single year. Your 2005 statistics don't gibe with the statistics for
2001, or 1998, or any other year during which there was an Airline
accident...

Larry Dighera

September 30th 06, 09:10 PM

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:18:04 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>
>In 2005, there were 600 fatalities in civil aviation in the US.

That figure seems a little high. :-)

>All but 40 were in GA accidents. And only 20 were aboard regularly
>scheduled commercial flights.

I know you won't provide any credible evidence to support your
allegations, so I'll cite some statistics that do not agree with your
figures:

--------------------------------------------------------
Total number of GA aircraft: 219,780
Total number of air carrier aircraft: 19,382

GA Hours Flown: 28,100,000
Air Carrier Hours Flown: 19,500,000

2005 U.S. Civil Aviation Accident Data (Preliminary Statistics)

Total %
Total Accidents 1,708 100%
General aviation 1,669 97.7%
Air Carrier[1} 39 2.3%

Total Fatal Accidents 324 100%
General aviation 321 99.1%
Air Carrier[1] 3 0.9%

Total Fatal
Accidents Accidents
Rate per 100,000 hours flown[2] 4.04 0.81
General aviation 6.83 1.36
Air Carrier[1] 0.20 0.11

Rate per 100,000 departures[3] 3.44 1.28
General aviation 0.00 0.80
Air Carrier[1] 0.35 0.21

1- Includes US Scheduled and Unscheduled Part 121 and Part 135
operators

2-Based on NTSB estimated data (25.8 million hours flown by GA
operators and 20.4 million hours flown by the Part 121 scheduled/
nonscheduled and Part 135 scheduled/nonscheduled airlines)

3-Based on FAA data (43.7 million GA departures) and NTSB
estimated data (10.5 million departures by Part 121 scheduled/
nonscheduled and Part 135 scheduled air carriers)
---------------------------------------------------------

Your statistical accident rate analysis fails to appreciate the fact
that departures and landings are generally personally flown by airmen,
as opposed to en route operations that are routinely flown by
autopilot. Because the vast majority of air carrier operations are
spent flying en route, they are not nearly as often exposed to the
hazards posed by landings and takeoffs. GA departures exceed air
carrier departures by four 400%.

Given the fact that GA performs about four times the number of
landings and takeoffs annually as air carriers, is not staffed by
high-time ATP rated professionals, nor is the percentage of turbine
powered, or indeed multi-engine aircraft in the GA fleet any where
near that of air carriers, the figures you cite are meaningless for
comparison purposes.

* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf

Judah

September 30th 06, 09:12 PM

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> According to http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Injury-Mortality.html
>> approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational injuries.
>> So in other words, working is more dangerous than flying.
>
> No, because most people work a lot more than they fly.
>
> Take it to the extreme: more people die every year riding in GA planes
> than they do, say, jumping off bridges. That doesn't mean that jumping
> off a bridge is safer than flying.

I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are plenty
of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than flying. Yet
somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate fear of flying, and
it leads to things like insurance companies asking about it on their
policies.

I didn't see statistics for bungee jumping off bridges. But my guess is that
flying is indeed safer than bungee jumping, especially off bridges. Yet I
don't recall being asked on my insurance forms if I have bungee jumped within
the last 12 months... It's just not an issue.

Judah

September 30th 06, 09:30 PM

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:45:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Judah > wrote:
>>
>>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?
>>
>>define "accident" :-)
>
> I rolled out of bed once, hitting my head on the radiator.
>
> But I don't have any kids. That I know of... <G>
>

The discussion was relating to fatalities, so I am assuming a fatal
accident...

And since this is not a religious discussion, "spilling seed" is not
considered a fatality.

Larry Dighera

September 30th 06, 09:39 PM

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:30:29 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>:

>
>And since this is not a religious discussion, "spilling seed" is not
>considered a fatality.

Even if it was a religious discussion, no PERSON would have died in
that case, as gamete cells are haploid.

Judah

September 30th 06, 09:51 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:30:29 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>And since this is not a religious discussion, "spilling seed" is not
>>considered a fatality.
>
> Even if it was a religious discussion, no PERSON would have died in
> that case, as gamete cells are haploid.

In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted the
opportunity to create a human being, and thus have been equivalent to
committing murder.

But I guess that depends on the religion. Might just be a rumor to save dorm
counselors from having to clean up wank waste.

Larry Dighera

September 30th 06, 10:08 PM

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:51:31 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>:

>In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted the
>opportunity to create a human being,

Without an ovum, there is no opportunity to create anything but a
mess. :-)

>and thus have been equivalent to committing murder.

Unfortunately, irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts
like the killing of a nun in retaliation for characterizing some of
the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as "evil and
inhuman."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/world/main2012335.shtml

Emily

September 30th 06, 11:16 PM

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:45:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Judah > wrote:
>>
>>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?
>> define "accident" :-)
>
> I rolled out of bed once, hitting my head on the radiator.

Hmmm....time for a bigger bed.

Or the floor.

Dana M. Hague

September 30th 06, 11:48 PM

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial aviation
>safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of flying when all
>of 800 people die a year doing it.

Because 800 people are out of a much smaller group of people (pilots)
than the general population, thus it's a much higher statistical
likelihood. Lung cancer isn't a great risk for the population as a
whole, but it IS for smokers, so they charge smokers higher rates...
same with pilots.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Calvin, we will not have an anatomically correct snowman!"

Mxsmanic

October 1st 06, 12:04 AM

Judah writes:

> Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The figures you quoted discussed the
> relative safety of GA vs. Commercial flying. That's not the issue at hand.
> The issue at hand is the relative danger of flying as compared with other
> lifetime activities.

Flying is safer than those with a fear of flying generally believe.
However, it is not as safe as, say, riding in an elevator.

I note that many insurance policies ask subscribers if they are crew
members on aircraft. I doubt that they would do that unless there
were some sort of added risk associated with spending a lot of time in
the air. I don't see how air crews run any significant added risk,
but there must be something special about them or insurance companies
wouldn't ask the questions.

> True, but I will point out that the figures are skewed when looked at over
> a single year. Your 2005 statistics don't gibe with the statistics for
> 2001, or 1998, or any other year during which there was an Airline
> accident...

Nevertheless, the long-term numbers are unfavorable to general
aviation. Why not just accept that reality and be done with it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 1st 06, 12:07 AM

Larry Dighera writes:

> That figure seems a little high.

Be sure to pass your opinion on to the NTSB, the source of that
number.

> I know you won't provide any credible evidence to support your
> allegations, so I'll cite some statistics that do not agree with your
> figures:

I went directly to the horse's mouth, instead of the AOPA:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

> Your statistical accident rate analysis fails to appreciate the fact
> that departures and landings are generally personally flown by airmen,
> as opposed to en route operations that are routinely flown by
> autopilot. Because the vast majority of air carrier operations are
> spent flying en route, they are not nearly as often exposed to the
> hazards posed by landings and takeoffs. GA departures exceed air
> carrier departures by four 400%.
>
> Given the fact that GA performs about four times the number of
> landings and takeoffs annually as air carriers, is not staffed by
> high-time ATP rated professionals, nor is the percentage of turbine
> powered, or indeed multi-engine aircraft in the GA fleet any where
> near that of air carriers, the figures you cite are meaningless for
> comparison purposes.

You can massage numbers all day, but if you do it too much, you give
people the impression that you're trying to hide something. That's
not the way to promote general aviation. GA just isn't as safe as
commercial air travel; it's as simple as that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic

October 1st 06, 12:09 AM

Judah writes:

> I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are plenty
> of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than flying. Yet
> somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate fear of flying, and
> it leads to things like insurance companies asking about it on their
> policies.

I don't think insurance companies ask subscribers if they work for
airlines because the insurance companies are afraid of flying. Nobody
understands risks better than insurance companies.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah

October 1st 06, 02:12 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:51:31 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >:
>
>>In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted the
>>opportunity to create a human being,
>
> Without an ovum, there is no opportunity to create anything but a
> mess. :-)
>
>>and thus have been equivalent to committing murder.
>
> Unfortunately, irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts
> like the killing of a nun in retaliation for characterizing some of
> the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as "evil and
> inhuman."
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/world/main2012335.shtml

Hey - I don't make the rules, or even follow many of 'em. I'm just the
reporter here....

Judah

October 1st 06, 02:14 AM

Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in
:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:27:10 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial
>>aviation safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of
>>flying when all of 800 people die a year doing it.
>
> Because 800 people are out of a much smaller group of people (pilots)
> than the general population, thus it's a much higher statistical
> likelihood. Lung cancer isn't a great risk for the population as a
> whole, but it IS for smokers, so they charge smokers higher rates...
> same with pilots.
>
> -Dana
> --
> --
> If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------ "Calvin, we will not have an anatomically correct snowman!"
>

This argument is negated by the sex and falling argument.

Judah

October 1st 06, 02:16 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. The figures you quoted discussed
>> the relative safety of GA vs. Commercial flying. That's not the issue
>> at hand. The issue at hand is the relative danger of flying as compared
>> with other lifetime activities.
>
> Flying is safer than those with a fear of flying generally believe.
> However, it is not as safe as, say, riding in an elevator.
>
> I note that many insurance policies ask subscribers if they are crew
> members on aircraft. I doubt that they would do that unless there
> were some sort of added risk associated with spending a lot of time in
> the air. I don't see how air crews run any significant added risk,
> but there must be something special about them or insurance companies
> wouldn't ask the questions.

Exactly how many insurance companies ask this question?

Judah

October 1st 06, 02:33 AM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are
>> plenty of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than
>> flying. Yet somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate
>> fear of flying, and it leads to things like insurance companies asking
>> about it on their policies.
>
> I don't think insurance companies ask subscribers if they work for
> airlines because the insurance companies are afraid of flying. Nobody
> understands risks better than insurance companies.

As you stated in your previous message, not all insurance companies ask the
question. Only some of them.

I used to work with actuaries. Actuaries are people too. They run the
numbers that they are supposed to run. But they're still people, with
emotions and phobias like everyone else. If being a pilot or aircrew were
really a risk, every Actuary would agree, and every insurance company would
charge a premium except for a select few "specialty" companies, as is the
case with smoking and with being overweight. However, to my knowledge,
several insurance companies that are very mainstream don't ask about being
a pilot. So clearly it's a subjective decision, not based on numbers...

Mxsmanic

October 1st 06, 02:55 AM

Judah writes:

> Exactly how many insurance companies ask this question?

Every time I've filled out an insurance application I've been asked if
I were a member of an airline crew.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Montblack[_1_]

October 1st 06, 03:18 AM

("Bob Noel" wrote)
>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?

> define "accident" :-)

Accident is easy enough

....but what the #$%* is a "sex hour?"

Montblack :-)

Montblack[_1_]

October 1st 06, 03:25 AM

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> Even if it was a religious discussion, no PERSON would have died in that
> case, as gamete cells are haploid.

Well that was 20 minutes at Wikipedia I hadn't planned on tonight.

My new word for today:
spermatozoon

Montblack

Montblack[_1_]

October 1st 06, 03:41 AM

("B A R R Y" wrote)
>>In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted the
>>opportunity to create a human being, and thus have been equivalent to
>>committing murder.

> I saw "Monty Pyton's Meaning of Life", so I fully understand... <G>

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-04-i-2.htm
[music]
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL: [singing]
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/mol.htm
Main page

Montblack
5 of 7

Emily

October 1st 06, 04:36 AM

Montblack wrote:
> ("Bob Noel" wrote)
>>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?
>
>> define "accident" :-)
>
>
> Accident is easy enough
>
> ...but what the #$%* is a "sex hour?"

Not going to say it...
Not going to say it...
Not going to say it...

Newps

October 1st 06, 04:57 AM

Montblack wrote:

> Accident is easy enough
>
> ...but what the #$%* is a "sex hour?"
>

A years worth, for you.

Ron Garret

October 1st 06, 08:17 AM

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Judah > wrote:
> >
> >> According to http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Injury-Mortality.html
> >> approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational injuries.
> >> So in other words, working is more dangerous than flying.
> >
> > No, because most people work a lot more than they fly.
> >
> > Take it to the extreme: more people die every year riding in GA planes
> > than they do, say, jumping off bridges. That doesn't mean that jumping
> > off a bridge is safer than flying.
>
> I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are plenty
> of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than flying. Yet
> somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate fear of flying, and
> it leads to things like insurance companies asking about it on their
> policies.
>
> I didn't see statistics for bungee jumping off bridges. But my guess is that
> flying is indeed safer than bungee jumping, especially off bridges. Yet I
> don't recall being asked on my insurance forms if I have bungee jumped within
> the last 12 months... It's just not an issue.

I wasn't referring to bungee jumping. When I said "jumping off a
bridge" I meant it literally.

The reason a lot more people die on the roads than in the air is not
that driving is more dangerous than flying, it's that more people drive
than fly. Likewise, the reason more people die flying than (let's use a
different example) playing Russian Roulette is not that flying is more
dangerous than RR.

It's very hard to do an apples-to-apples risk comparison among two
different activities. What do you comapre? Deaths per year? Per
vehicle hour? Per passenger mile? Do you count the "avoidable" deaths
where someone just did something stupid (like take off without enough
fuel or jump off a bridge)?

rg

Greg Farris

October 1st 06, 12:13 PM

In article om>,
says...

>
>Let me illustrate this attitude further. As I've mentioned here many
>times before, when we plan long, multi-day cross-country vacations by
>air, we plan three separate journeys. (This is a luxury afforded to us
>by living in the exact center of the continent.) On departure day, we
>simply choose the destination that matches the best long-range VFR
>weather forecast.
>
>This has worked for us for 12 years, on dozens of trips. Best of all,
>my kids get to research and plan 3 separate adventures, and no one
>knows which one we'll enjoy until we're in the plane. It's a truly fun
>way to travel, adds to the excitement for the family, and usually
>ensures excellent flying weather.
>

Interesting philosophy.
Kind of breaks down for the return trip though.

GF

Matt Barrow

October 1st 06, 06:57 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?
>
> define "accident" :-)
>
Premature...oh, you know!

Grumman-581[_3_]

October 2nd 06, 01:38 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> How many accidents per sex hour are there?

More so for Catholics than others... That damn "rhythm method" is just an
accident waiting to happen...

Grumman-581[_3_]

October 2nd 06, 01:38 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Yet somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate
> fear of flying

Or an innate fear of falling, crashing, or dying... Or perhaps it's just a
fear of heights... Personally, I find it interesting that if I look over the
railing of a building from a few hundred feet up, I feel different than if
I'm in a plane (at any altitude) and looking down... Even if I'm in a very
steep bank angle, it doesn't make a difference... Even if I was in a
gyrocopter where there is basically nothing around you, it didn't feel the
same... On the other hand, if I'm in a climbing harness and getting ready to
rapel down a clift, it doesn't bother me... Haven't quite figured out the
logic in that... Innate fear of buildings, perhaps? <grin>

Grumman-581[_3_]

October 2nd 06, 01:38 AM

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hmmm....time for a bigger bed.
>
> Or the floor.

Or a softer radiator...

Grumman-581[_3_]

October 2nd 06, 01:38 AM

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> However, it's quite difficult to fall out of a car seat! <G>

Hmmm... Never had a car upside down before, eh?

Montblack[_1_]

October 2nd 06, 01:52 AM

("Newps" wrote)
>> ...but what the #$%* is a "sex hour?"

> A years worth, for you.

Operating at the speed of light, that should maybe be presented in light
years.

Better yet, the boiled egg conversion might also work here:

Lets see, there's "50"+ weeks per year.... <g>

Montblack

Emily

October 2nd 06, 02:07 AM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> However, it's quite difficult to fall out of a car seat! <G>
>
> Hmmm... Never had a car upside down before, eh?
>
>
Well, then you'd be on the floor of the car...

Dana M. Hague

October 2nd 06, 02:15 AM

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:17:03 -0700, Ron Garret >
wrote:
>It's very hard to do an apples-to-apples risk comparison among two
>different activities. What do you comapre? Deaths per year? Per
>vehicle hour? Per passenger mile? Do you count the "avoidable" deaths
>where someone just did something stupid (like take off without enough
>fuel or jump off a bridge)?

Depends on what you're comparing. If you're trying to convince your
relatives about flying safety vs., say, motorcycle riding, deaths per
flight (riding) hour is appropriate, or perhaps per mile. If you're
an insurance company figuring rates, deaths per year for pilots vs.
deaths per year for the general population is appropriate.

Hell, for all I know it may be that flying itself is very safe, but
pilots are 400% more likely to die from falling, or having sex, or
whatever else we've discussed. I don't really believe that, of
course, but if it were true then pilots would still, from an insurance
company's standpoint, be a greater risk.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember when a trojan was a warrior?

Dylan Smith

October 2nd 06, 01:42 PM

On 2006-09-30, Judah > wrote:
> The odds of dying from choking ("Inhalation and Ingestion of food causing
> obstruction of respirator track") is 4284 to 1, so just slightly higher than
> flying. So basically, eating is slightly more dangerous than flying.

You mentioned proportionality, and then threw it out of the window.

270 million Americans eat probably at least twice a day. There are only
600,000 pilots - with only 300,000 estimated as being active GA pilots.
A very active GA pilot will probably fly perhaps around 3 times a week.

To say eating is slightly more dangerous than flying is so wrong it
isn't even wrong. Your position seems to be one of denial (incidentally,
one of the hazardous attitudes we are all taught about in training)
rather than level-headed knowledge.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Judah

October 2nd 06, 04:01 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Exactly how many insurance companies ask this question?
>
> Every time I've filled out an insurance application I've been asked if
> I were a member of an airline crew.
>

Exactly how many times have you filled out an insurance application? How many
different insurance companies?

Judah

October 2nd 06, 04:03 PM

For the record, the Jewish law is similar. They just never made a song
about it.

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("B A R R Y" wrote)
>>>In a religious discussion, the act of spilling seed would have wasted
>>>the opportunity to create a human being, and thus have been equivalent
>>>to committing murder.
>
>> I saw "Monty Pyton's Meaning of Life", so I fully understand... <G>
>
>
> http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-04-i-2.htm
> [music]
> I'm a Roman Catholic,
> And have been since before I was born,
> And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
> They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
>
> You don't have to be a six-footer.
> You don't have to have a great brain.
> You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
> A Catholic the moment Dad came,
>
> Because
>
> Every sperm is sacred.
> Every sperm is great.
> If a sperm is wasted,
> God gets quite irate.
>
> CHILDREN: [singing]
> Every sperm is sacred.
> Every sperm is great.
> If a sperm is wasted,
> God gets quite irate.
>
> GIRL: [singing]
> Let the heathen spill theirs
> On the dusty ground.
> God shall make them pay for
> Each sperm that can't be found.
>
> CHILDREN: [singing]
> Every sperm is wanted.
> Every sperm is good.
> Every sperm is needed
> In your neighbourhood.
>
> http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/mol.htm
> Main page
>
>
> Montblack
> 5 of 7
>

Judah

October 2nd 06, 04:04 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in news:12huap6gg0q9095
@corp.supernews.com:

> ("Bob Noel" wrote)
>>> How many accidents per sex hour are there?
>
>> define "accident" :-)
>
>
> Accident is easy enough
>
> ...but what the #$%* is a "sex hour?"
>
>
> Montblack :-)

About 30 sex accidents...

Judah

October 2nd 06, 04:11 PM

I know you werent referring to bungee jumping, but it was an excellent
example.

My point is exactly that it's impossible to make an apples-to-apples risk
comparison of two activities, as you say. Yet somehow GA is labelled as
being very dangerous as compared with other activities. And since there is
not an apples-to-apples comparison as evidence, it must be based on
people's fear of heights, speed, and lack of control more than any
statistic.

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Judah > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Judah > wrote:
>> >
>> >> According to
>> >> http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Injury-Mortality.html
>> >> approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational
>> >> injuries. So in other words, working is more dangerous than flying.
>> >
>> > No, because most people work a lot more than they fly.
>> >
>> > Take it to the extreme: more people die every year riding in GA
>> > planes than they do, say, jumping off bridges. That doesn't mean
>> > that jumping off a bridge is safer than flying.
>>
>> I'm not trying to say it is. All I'm trying to say is that there are
>> plenty of things in life that are substantially more dangerous than
>> flying. Yet somehow, an extraordinary number of people have an innate
>> fear of flying, and it leads to things like insurance companies asking
>> about it on their policies.
>>
>> I didn't see statistics for bungee jumping off bridges. But my guess is
>> that flying is indeed safer than bungee jumping, especially off
>> bridges. Yet I don't recall being asked on my insurance forms if I have
>> bungee jumped within the last 12 months... It's just not an issue.
>
> I wasn't referring to bungee jumping. When I said "jumping off a
> bridge" I meant it literally.
>
> The reason a lot more people die on the roads than in the air is not
> that driving is more dangerous than flying, it's that more people drive
> than fly. Likewise, the reason more people die flying than (let's use a
> different example) playing Russian Roulette is not that flying is more
> dangerous than RR.
>
> It's very hard to do an apples-to-apples risk comparison among two
> different activities. What do you comapre? Deaths per year? Per
> vehicle hour? Per passenger mile? Do you count the "avoidable" deaths
> where someone just did something stupid (like take off without enough
> fuel or jump off a bridge)?
>
> rg
>