The biggest safety investment in GA is... [Archive]

Hawkeye[_2_]

July 6th 07, 02:32 PM

I have to agree with Dan, an IFR rating is only as good as the
proficiency the pilot has with it. Having a rating or qualification
doesn't mean a pilot is proficient. The once a month IFR jaunt by a
pilot is a loaded gun waiting to be misused.

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation. On one of my check rides, the
instructor conducting it had little experience with smaller aircraft
like the C172 we were in. Fortunately I had tons of time in it, and
was able to show him the capabilities of the aircraft. Had he been
with a student, I wondered how they would have faired in an emergency
situation or just being able to land at a tight field with a short
strip. After the check ride he thanked me for my time and
acknowledged he need more time in lighter aircraft to be proficient as
an instructor. Since then we have flown together several times...on
his dime.

I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
way to teach common sense.

Larry Dighera

July 6th 07, 02:59 PM

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:35:57 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
>
>> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer
>>
>> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
>> this.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>I agree, with a strict qualification. Having the IR is like owning a gun: it
>can be used safely, but used ineptly it can kill you and those you love.
>Pilots who get rated and then do only the minimum work required to stay
>current are at considerable risk when they get into a high workload, IMC
>situation, IMO.
>
>Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that will
>stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly IFR
>frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC, then he
>is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after the checkride.

I agree.

But mere attainment of the IR, whether put to actual or simulated use
or not, is apparently sufficient to qualify it as the most significant
safety investment in GA.

ktbr

July 6th 07, 03:10 PM

Hawkeye wrote:

> I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
> especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
> everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
> the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
> and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
> aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
> 'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
> first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
> way to teach common sense.
>

Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well. So I agree that currency of
_all_ your ratings need to be well maintained or perhaps a flight
be re-considered.

If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option. You
worked hard for the rating... its dumb to let that skill evaporate.
Spend the money to do a IPC with a CFII once a year, even though
you are current; it's cheap insurance.

ktbr

July 6th 07, 03:12 PM

Dan Luke wrote:

>
> Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that will
> stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly IFR
> frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC, then he
> is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after the checkride.
>

I don't think anyone is better off letting any currencies lapse, it
sets a bad precident. Unless, of course you are going to give up
flying....

Thomas Borchert

July 6th 07, 03:27 PM

Hawkeye,

> Having a rating or qualification
> doesn't mean a pilot is proficient.

The training process itself increases a pilot's capability.

> The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
> occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
> would be the safest situation.

And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 04:06 PM

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:56:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>>..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
>>and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>>
>>They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
>>really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
>>that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
>>anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
>>of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
>>training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.
>>
>>I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
>>this.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>
> Insurance companies reduce your premium if you have an IR and/or on-going
> training. They don't for any of the "gadgets".

And the biggest premium reducer is if you fly A LOT, particularly in keeping
IFR current.

The majority of IFR accidents (FR flight plans) occur in clear air
(according to Richard Collins) and IIRC, those are pilots that are only
marginally current.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 04:14 PM

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>>
>> Sure, training is good; a private pilot will learn useful things that
>> will stick with him by getting the rating. But If he's not going to fly
>> IFR frequently and train beyond requirements in actual and simulated IMC,
>> then he is better off letting his currency lapse and staying VFR after
>> the checkride.
>>
>
> I don't think anyone is better off letting any currencies lapse, it
> sets a bad precident. Unless, of course you are going to give up
> flying....
>
Quite righ, the both of you. Currency is your best protector, but note how
many pilots that are quite current (daily flights) lose it?

One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're going
to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
bad, there's no surprises under pressure.

How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up falling
behind when a turn sneaks up on you?

The two biggest killers are, what?, CFIT and LOC (Loss of Control)?
Turns --> LOC
Straight & Level --> CFIT

??

Al G[_2_]

July 6th 07, 04:16 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
> and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>
> They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
> really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
> that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
> anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
> of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
> training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.
>
> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
> this.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

After 30 years of flight instruction, I would whole heartedly agree.

Al G

[email protected]

July 6th 07, 04:22 PM

On Jul 6, 11:14 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
[snip]
> One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're going
> to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
> bad, there's no surprises under pressure.
>
> How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up falling
> behind when a turn sneaks up on you?
[snip]

One thing my instructor told me was that he uses his flight sim
software to fly the planned approach and his alternates before leaving
for an IFR flight. He's got ~8000 hours. I think it's an excellent
idea and a great use of flight sim software.

John
PP-ASEL

Andrew Gideon

July 6th 07, 06:41 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:28:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> At the "soft" end of
> that range, even a less proficient IFR pilot can save the day where a
> VFR-only pilot can't.

I'm not as sure that the line between soft and hard is that hard.

A friend recently experienced an electrical failure in 300' (or worse)
IMC. That's clearly hard.

I'd a flight a couple of days ago where the ceilings were around 4000'
where there were ceilings. 20 or 30 miles from the destination, we left a
bunch of clouds for sudden CAVU.

Definitely soft, right?

But there were times when we were cotton-balled en route. That, plus the
bumping we were getting, could (I think) have caused a less proficient
pilot (not that I'm all that hot an IFR stick myself {8^) to have "lost
it". Sure, dropping below was always an option. But had that
hypothetical pilot not exercised that option...

I can still envision bad things happening.

All that said, I've also been forwarding that article to a number of
friends. I've at least one co-owner that's quite forceful in his belief
that traffic is the ultimate safety device. Of course, he *is* instrument
rated already ...

- Andrew

Jay Honeck

July 6th 07, 07:01 PM

> Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
> unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
> the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
> proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
> ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.

Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

> If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
> the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option.

Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
and the training *does* make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
far from a necessity. Mary and I have flown for 13 years, coast-to-
coast, from Canada to Mexico, all VFR, without mishap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 07:07 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 6, 11:14 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
> [snip]
>> One thing I've been hearing is the advice to fly the approach you're
>> going
>> to use in your mind BEFORE your even take off. That way, good weather or
>> bad, there's no surprises under pressure.
>>
>> How many people just pull out the chart and go at it, then wind up
>> falling
>> behind when a turn sneaks up on you?
> [snip]
>
> One thing my instructor told me was that he uses his flight sim
> software to fly the planned approach and his alternates before leaving
> for an IFR flight. He's got ~8000 hours. I think it's an excellent
> idea and a great use of flight sim software.
>
> John
> PP-ASEL

That would be more better, too :~)

If that opportunity is not available, what one can do is something like
forcing yourself to have an "out of body" experience, where you mentally fly
the entire approach, trying to conjure up every sensation you expect to meet
along the way.

Notice the great golfers, that stand behind the tee before going up to hit
their shot; what they say they are doing is visualizing the swing, the ball
taking off, flying, and landing. Likewise, in baseball, the great hitters
said they would visualize the ball coming out of the pitchers hand and
approaching the plate where they would visualize knocking the hell out of
it. In the same vein, great pitchers have said they could "see" the ball
breaking just they way they wanted and hitting the target (catchers glove)
just they way they wanted. IIRC, the best at this mental game were Roger
Clemens and Steve Carlton.

The best flight sim, I would venture to say, is between your ears.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 07:34 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:28:19 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> At the "soft" end of
>> that range, even a less proficient IFR pilot can save the day where a
>> VFR-only pilot can't.
>
> I'm not as sure that the line between soft and hard is that hard.
>
> A friend recently experienced an electrical failure in 300' (or worse)
> IMC. That's clearly hard.
>
> I'd a flight a couple of days ago where the ceilings were around 4000'
> where there were ceilings. 20 or 30 miles from the destination, we left a
> bunch of clouds for sudden CAVU.
>
> Definitely soft, right?
>
> But there were times when we were cotton-balled en route. That, plus the
> bumping we were getting, could (I think) have caused a less proficient
> pilot (not that I'm all that hot an IFR stick myself {8^) to have "lost
> it". Sure, dropping below was always an option. But had that
> hypothetical pilot not exercised that option...
>
> I can still envision bad things happening.
>
> All that said, I've also been forwarding that article to a number of
> friends. I've at least one co-owner that's quite forceful in his belief
> that traffic is the ultimate safety device. Of course, he *is* instrument
> rated already ...
>
Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but they
fly a LOT.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 07:37 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
>> unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
>> the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
>> proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
>> ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.
>
> Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
> match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
> every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
> majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
> be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.
>
> (Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
> covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
> flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
> single flight is flown "in the system".)
>
> Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
> flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
> On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
> right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
> compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

Evidently GA flying sucks the life, literally, out of quite a few people
compared to regular, boring flying.

See my other post in this thread quoting the accident rates by types of
flying.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Robert M. Gary

July 6th 07, 07:38 PM

On Jul 6, 1:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
> and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>
> They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
> really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
> that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
> anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
> of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
> training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.
>
> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
> this.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.

-Robert, CFII

Peter R.

July 6th 07, 07:41 PM

On 7/6/2007 2:01:49 PM, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
> match my observations.

Is it possible that perhaps your unscientific observations are extremely
biased due to location? In previous posts you admitted that the only actual
IFR over Iowa are either t-storms or ice-heavy clouds. Hardly conducive
conditions for flying actual IFR and thereby maintaining proficiency, if your
Midwest weather conditions survey is to be believed. I could provide an
entirely different observation from downwind of the Great Lakes of the
Northeast US.

> (Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
> covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
> flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
> single flight is flown "in the system".)

How would you classify GA pilots who use their aircraft every week to travel
for business?

> Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
> and the training does make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
> far from a necessity.

Again, another location-dependent observation, IMO. Foremost, if one desires
to fly for Angel Flight Northeast (US), an instrument rating is *required*.
Additionally, based on my 1100 hours of flying primarily in the Northeast US,
if one desires to use one's aircraft as a viable means of business travel and
one does not have unlimited time, an instrument rating is a necessity
downwind of the Great Lakes. A "bazillion" pilots interviewed up here would
agree.

The issue I take with your opinions on an IFR rating has to do with the fact
that you appear here to be speaking with authority for the entire GA fleet
when in reality you fail to admit/recognize that your conclusion is based on
a relatively limited sample size of flying primarily in the Midwest US.

--
Peter

JGalban via AviationKB.com

July 6th 07, 08:29 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
>> occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
>> would be the safest situation.
>
>And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.
>

True. From the 2006 Nall Report :

"By contrast, instructional flying is relatively safe. While
accounting for nearly one out of every five flight hours,
it resulted in just 13.2 percent of all accidents and only
6.5 percent of fatal accidents. This is due, in part, to the
high level of supervision and structure in the training
environment."

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com

July 6th 07, 08:45 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
>who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
>out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
>is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
>to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
>false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
>doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
>training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
>who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
>instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
>reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
>will never use it.
>

You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare. When we do get them, they're most often related
to winter storms with low icing levels, or thunderstorms. As a result, most
of the IR pilots I know rarely fly in actual IMC. The exceptions are those
that fly to the coast on a regular basis.

One of my friends got his instrument rating in 2001. He maintains his
currency by flying under the hood regularly, but has not flown in IMC since
he was training for the rating.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

ktbr

July 6th 07, 08:45 PM

I would certainly be willing to stipulate that there may
be areas of the country where an instrument rating is
less *needed* simply to make a flight (or get back home)
than others. Here in the southeast its necessary.

My home airport has an ILS and I've used it on a number
of occasions to get back home safe and sound. Couldn't
have been done without ans instrument rating.

ktbr

July 6th 07, 08:47 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jul 6, 1:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
>>..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
>>and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>>
>>They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
>>really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
>>that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
>>anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
>>of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
>>training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.
>>
>>I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
>>this.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>--
>>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
>
> I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
> who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
> out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
> is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
> to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
> false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
> doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
> training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
> who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
> instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
> reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
> will never use it.
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

Gig 601XL Builder

July 6th 07, 08:52 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
>> and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>>
>> They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
>> really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
>> that constant and consistent training is the best investment in
>> safety anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The
>> have a total of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top
>> together with training. Only after that comes inflight weather and
>> the other stuff.
>>
>> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me
>> post this.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
> who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
> out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
> is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
> to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
> false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
> doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
> training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
> who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
> instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
> reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
> will never use it.
>
> -Robert, CFII

Let's take an example pilot with 300 total hours flys 50 hours per year VMC.

Version A of this guy has no IR. Version B does have an IR.

I'd think that B is a better VMC pilot even if he doesn't stay current for
IMC.

I agree it takes a lot to stay current for IMC but having the knowledge you
gain while getting an IR helps you in VMC.

B A R R Y

July 6th 07, 09:05 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:35:13 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>
>Insurance companies reduce your premium if you have an IR and/or on-going
>training. They don't for any of the "gadgets".
>--ron

The insurance companies also crunch numbers and analyze stats, so I
think that says a lot.

B A R R Y

July 6th 07, 09:10 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote:

> You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
>in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
>region are relatively rare.

Then there's the northeast... Low hanging cloud decks over coastal
areas and islands are great ways to sit on the ground waiting for VFR.

[email protected]

July 6th 07, 09:35 PM

My husband took his instrument check ride with the minimum total time
allowed, I think he said he clocked 200 total during the ride. That
was flying in the Boston area.

We live in the southeast now, and I can't imagine us going anywhere
without him filing an instrument flight rules plan. Maybe it's a
mindset thing, but could anyone explain why a moderate to higher time
pilot would NOT take the additional instruction and become rated?

I think the obvious exception would be the recreational pilot who very
rarely goes far from home, but for everyone else, doesn't it make
sense to go ahead and get the rating?

Even with it we don't fly a small percentage of out planned trips
because of the weather, but still, flying an approach to an airport
when the weather isn't good just seems not to be a big deal, but those
who are trying to maintain VFR had a heck of a time.

It's probably a stupid question from someone who flys in the right
seat, but could someone offer some reasonable answer?

T

Thomas Borchert

July 6th 07, 09:50 PM

Peter,

> The issue I take with your opinions on an IFR rating has to do with the fact
> that you appear here to be speaking with authority for the entire GA fleet
> when in reality you fail to admit/recognize that your conclusion is based on
> a relatively limited sample size of flying primarily in the Midwest US.
>

And (someone has to say it) these opinions are especially weird in the light
of recent experiences of close friends of Jay's.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 6th 07, 09:50 PM

Robert,

> A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
> who does not maintain competency.
>

You have the numbers to show that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter R.

July 6th 07, 10:11 PM

On 7/6/2007 4:50:18 PM, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> And (someone has to say it) these opinions are especially weird in the
> light of recent experiences of close friends of Jay's.

But, to be fair to both sides the accident that prompted this thread could
have been caused by something unrelated to the weather. While certainly less
likely than weather, it could have been mechanical or pilot/passenger
incapacitation.

--
Peter

kontiki

July 6th 07, 10:16 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Robert,
>
>
>>A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
>>who does not maintain competency.
>>
>
>
> You have the numbers to show that?
>
Yeah, I'd say that's quite a leap.

Robert M. Gary

July 6th 07, 10:47 PM

On Jul 6, 1:35 pm, wrote:
> My husband took his instrument check ride with the minimum total time
> allowed, I think he said he clocked 200 total during the ride. That
> was flying in the Boston area.
>
> We live in the southeast now, and I can't imagine us going anywhere
> without him filing an instrument flight rules plan. Maybe it's a
> mindset thing, but could anyone explain why a moderate to higher time
> pilot would NOT take the additional instruction and become rated?
>
> I think the obvious exception would be the recreational pilot who very
> rarely goes far from home, but for everyone else, doesn't it make
> sense to go ahead and get the rating?

People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
any day of the year. Its very difficult for those pilots to maintain a
level of ability that they are safe to enter the clouds. In addition,
I've noticed that retired guys have so much flexibily in their flying
that, even if they are instrument able, usually just wait the wx out.

-Robert, CFII

B A R R Y

July 6th 07, 10:48 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:
>
>I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
>who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
>out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
>is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
>to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
>false sense of ability.

So you'd rather them not obtain additional dual training? You have
all the opportunity in the world to teach your students personal
minimums, IFR or VFR.

Tater

July 6th 07, 10:56 PM

The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Jul 6, 3:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
> and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
......
>
> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
> this.
>
> Thoughts?

from all the books and stuff i've glanced at (not a pilot), I would
have guessed safety wire. Cripes, i mean you guys have it tieing down
EVERYthing.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 11:18 PM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:74c8055bd2063@uwe...
>
> You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know
> here
> in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
> region are relatively rare. When we do get them, they're most often
> related
> to winter storms with low icing levels, or thunderstorms. As a result,
> most
> of the IR pilots I know rarely fly in actual IMC. The exceptions are
> those
> that fly to the coast on a regular basis.

Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
summer or winter.

The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.

Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say, interesting?

Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice" to
go.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY (Much less southwest than I used to be)

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 6th 07, 11:21 PM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:74c7e25cbce8a@uwe...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>> The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
>>> occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
>>> would be the safest situation.
>>
>>And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.
>>
>
> True. From the 2006 Nall Report :
>
> "By contrast, instructional flying is relatively safe. While
> accounting for nearly one out of every five flight hours,
> it resulted in just 13.2 percent of all accidents and only
> 6.5 percent of fatal accidents. This is due, in part, to the
> high level of supervision and structure in the training
> environment."

Not to mention that instruction is seldom given in even marginal weather.

Andrew Gideon

July 6th 07, 11:35 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
> they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Like we need an excuse, right <grin>?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 6th 07, 11:36 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:07:46 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> The best flight sim, I would venture to say, is between your ears.

I'm experiencing a memory leak and my application just crashed.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 6th 07, 11:39 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:01:51 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> On the flip
> side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life right out of
> flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a compass and a chart on
> weekends just to regain their flying chops.

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 6th 07, 11:45 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot who
> does not maintain competency.

Doesn't this presume that the IR pilot either doesn't know or doesn't care
that he or she is out of currency?

- Andrew

kontiki

July 6th 07, 11:58 PM

wrote:
>
> Even with it we don't fly a small percentage of out planned trips
> because of the weather, but still, flying an approach to an airport
> when the weather isn't good just seems not to be a big deal, but those
> who are trying to maintain VFR had a heck of a time.
>
> It's probably a stupid question from someone who flys in the right
> seat, but could someone offer some reasonable answer?
>

If you own an airplane and take passengers on trips of more than, say,
500 miles or for more than a couple of days at a time, it really doesn't
make a lot of sense *not* to be IFR rated. That's my opinion.

People do it all the time though, and as long as you are able (and
willing) to wait out the weather whenever your briefer says "VFR
not recommended" then there's no problem. I certainly can't do that
because I don;t have endless vacation time available to me. I would
not, however, launch into convective weather... but that's usually
relatively short lived.

kontiki

July 7th 07, 12:12 AM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
> IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
> the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
> for simplicity.
>
> On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
> bored with this.
>

If I'm flying into a busy airport, or down the Florida coast I'll always
file. It's safer and makes things easier.

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 12:20 AM

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:

>> On the flip
>> side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life right out of
>> flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a compass and a chart on
>> weekends just to regain their flying chops.
>
> I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
> IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
> the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
> for simplicity.

Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

> On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
> bored with this.

Nah; not if you're always going different places.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 12:24 AM

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
> example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
> any day of the year.

Eh?

Is there another Florida besides the one I fly in? The one down at the SE
corner of the country, I mean.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

B A R R Y

July 7th 07, 12:33 AM

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:20:28 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
>complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

The IR written doesn't help dispel the complexity perception. <G>

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 12:56 AM

"B A R R Y" wrote:

>>
>>Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
>>complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.
>
> The IR written doesn't help dispel the complexity perception. <G>

That ain't no lie.

I hated studying for that frickin' thing. My best advice is to get a computer
that allows yoy to take practice tests. Keep taking them until you always get
a solid passing score, go take the test and be done with it.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Ron Natalie

July 7th 07, 01:03 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
> and the training *does* make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
> far from a necessity. Mary and I have flown for 13 years, coast-to-
> coast, from Canada to Mexico, all VFR, without mishap.

Jay, I flew for 25 years without the instrument rating mostly because
I never got around to it (I had taken ground school and let the written
expire several times). While it is far from a necessity, it *HAS* in
my opinion increased our safety. Margy and I used to as a team go off
in 3-5 mile vis and such but since the engine failure are a little more
conservative. Having the IR means we don't even have to think about it.

Nothing is fun sapping about being on an IFR if the conditions merit it.
If you're a slave to going GPS direct it realy doesn't matter if you're
talking to ATC in the process or burning along VFR. Still plenty of
oppurtunity to do random wandering etc... but XC I file because why
not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR anyway.

[email protected]

July 7th 07, 01:06 AM

Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
there's no such thing as "have to" go. Maybe 1 trip in 20 in the
southeast turns into aborted trips, and this is with a guy who loves
flying IMC to minimums. He even taught me to like it!

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 01:10 AM

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

> but XC I file because why not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR
> anyway.

Have you noticed yet that you get better radar service IFR than you get with
FF?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

JGalban via AviationKB.com

July 7th 07, 01:37 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
>Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
>summer or winter.

Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states (west
of the Rockies) and I do it year round.

>
>The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.

If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.
>
>Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say, interesting?

I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft on
the ground.
>
>Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice" to
>go.

Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest a
commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
during winter when icing is more prevalent.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 07, 02:06 AM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:20:28 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> Nah; not if you're always going different places.

I think I'd miss playing at my crosswind envelope, or trying to get those
lazy 8s actually 8-like, or practicing a spiral descent and then spiraling
up for another try, or ...

- Andrew

Peter Dohm

July 7th 07, 02:12 AM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
> > they fly a LOT.
>
> The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
> There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
> an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
> unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
> don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.
>
> Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
> Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.
>
> Like we need an excuse, right <grin>?
>
> - Andrew
>
There is also a question regarding how much of the personal flying is
actually logged or reported. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no
requirement and little incentive to log much more than is required to prove
currency. Therefore, if it turned out that there was twice as much actual
flying as reported flying, then the statistic would not seem nearly as bad.

Peter

Ron Rosenfeld

July 7th 07, 03:05 AM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:05:20 -0400, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>The insurance companies also crunch numbers and analyze stats, so I
>think that says a lot.

Exactly my point.
--ron

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 7th 07, 04:19 AM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:07:46 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> The best flight sim, I would venture to say, is between your ears.
>
> I'm experiencing a memory leak and my application just crashed.
>
> - Andrew

Did you do a "Mind Meld" with Bill Gates?
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 7th 07, 04:22 AM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
>> they fly a LOT.
>
> The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.

Indeed there are...and those variables are what sets each group apart.
Hopefully, one can grasp what those variables are and how they effect the
stats.

> There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
> an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
> unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
> don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Yes.

Now compare GA with Business Av. - those are the two closest in terms of
equipage, etc.

>
> Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
> Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.

>
> Like we need an excuse, right <grin>?
>
Like we need a hole in the head! :~(

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 7th 07, 05:05 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
> there's no such thing as "have to" go.

If I miss a trip, it could mean $100k.

> Maybe 1 trip in 20 in the
> southeast turns into aborted trips, and this is with a guy who loves
> flying IMC to minimums. He even taught me to like it!

My numbers are similar, but 1 in 20, for my business, means about $325k per
year.

That pays for a lot of flying.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 7th 07, 05:12 AM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:74ca92d6ccc7d@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
>>summer or winter.
>
> Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states
> (west
> of the Rockies) and I do it year round.
>
>>
>>The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.
>
> If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
> matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.

My territory reaches from central Montana on the NW corner, to Souix Falls
on the NE corner, to Arizona and Louisiana on the SE corner.

>>
>>Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say,
>>interesting?
>
> I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
> that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft
> on
> the ground.
>>
>>Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice"
>>to
>>go.
>
> Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
> statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest
> a
> commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
> The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
> during winter when icing is more prevalent.

Hmmm...in the nine years I've been operating, I've cancelled twelve trips,
tops.
Now, winter is our "off season", but conditions the rest of the time can be
waited out or circumnavigated.

And as the real estate market contracts, that means we have to extend our
"reach" even more, so we're looking for something turbine in the near future
to go with our latest, fully tricked out machine (that Newps said was a
"bloated pig").

Try airlines from Cheyenne to Garden City Kansas! "~(
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[email protected]

July 7th 07, 09:04 AM

On Jul 7, 12:05 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
> > there's no such thing as "have to" go.
>
> If I miss a trip, it could mean $100k.
>
> > Maybe 1 trip in 20 in the
> > southeast turns into aborted trips, and this is with a guy who loves
> > flying IMC to minimums. He even taught me to like it!
>
> My numbers are similar, but 1 in 20, for my business, means about $325k per
> year.
>
> That pays for a lot of flying.

kontiki

July 7th 07, 10:32 AM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
>
>>People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
>>example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
>>any day of the year.
>
>
> Eh?
>
> Is there another Florida besides the one I fly in? The one down at the SE
> corner of the country, I mean.
>
Yeah, where is that in Florida? I think one time I flew down to Naples
in clear weather. The rest of the time we are dodging buildups all over
the place.

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 01:48 PM

"kontiki" wrote:

>>
>>>People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
>>>example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
>>>any day of the year.
>>
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> Is there another Florida besides the one I fly in? The one down at the SE
>> corner of the country, I mean.
>>
> Yeah, where is that in Florida? I think one time I flew down to Naples
> in clear weather. The rest of the time we are dodging buildups all over
> the place.

The only time I ever had to go missed on an ILS was in Florida.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 07, 03:19 PM

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:22:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>> Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
>> Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.
>
> Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.
>

Oh? A number of the members of my club do. I was working on mine until
a combination of work and child pressure ate up too much time.

>> Like we need an excuse, right
<grin>?
>>
> Like we need a hole in the head! :~(

I still practice the maneuvers when I can. They're the fun part. The
rating as a whole was just a fun goal to aim towards with otherwise
aimless flying time.

- Andrew

[email protected]

July 7th 07, 04:18 PM

It seems to me those who argue against getting the rating are
rationalizing. They are claiming their specific circumstances are
different enough from that represented in the OPs data to make the
findings not apply to them. Maybe they are right, but as a
professional shrink I'd surely want them to rethink their positions.

I think there would be fewer "Godspeed" notes here if the pilot in
command could have, on firing up the engine, been able to say
"November whatever, instruments to Podunk" instead of scud running.
Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?

> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:22:54 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
> >> Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
> >> Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.
>
> > Very few BA types (owner flown) have Comm tickets.
>
> Oh? A number of the members of my club do. I was working on mine until
> a combination of work and child pressure ate up too much time.
>
>
>
> >> Like we need an excuse, right
> <grin>?
>
> > Like we need a hole in the head! :~(
>
> I still practice the maneuvers when I can. They're the fun part. The
> rating as a whole was just a fun goal to aim towards with otherwise
> aimless flying time.
>
> - Andrew

Larry Dighera

July 7th 07, 04:55 PM

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
om>:

>Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
>the little extra training?

Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.

I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

birdog

July 7th 07, 05:06 PM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:74ca92d6ccc7d@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>>Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
>>summer or winter.
>
> Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states
> (west
> of the Rockies) and I do it year round.
>
>>
>>The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.
>
> If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
> matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.
>>
>>Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say,
>>interesting?
>
> I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
> that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft
> on
> the ground.
>>
>>Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice"
>>to
>>go.
>
> Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
> statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest
> a
> commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
> The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
> during winter when icing is more prevalent.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

I'll go with that! I credit my longivity as a pilot to one safety feature -
a healthy respect/fear of weather.

[email protected]

July 7th 07, 10:16 PM

Something like a quarter or so of pilots seem to do it all right. My
husband claims he'd rather fly IFR when tired then VFR, especially at
night. This, in a Mooney 201 without an altitude hold on the
autopilot. Of course he has several thousand hours in it, that
probably makes a big difference.

On Jul 7, 11:55 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
> >the little extra training?
>
> Lack of ability and self-confidence?
>
> Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
> perform.
>
> I once wrote in 1998:
>
> "For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
> blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
> running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
> mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
> continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
> and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
> while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
> intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
> this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
> (death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
> turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
> tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)
>
> Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
> without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
> auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
> the most demanding things you will ever do."

Jay Honeck

July 7th 07, 10:25 PM

> Something like a quarter or so of pilots seem to do it all right.

Is this the number of pilots with an instrument rating, or the number
of current instrument pilots?

If it's the number with the rating, I would submit that only a small
percentage of them are both current and proficient.

>My
> husband claims he'd rather fly IFR when tired then VFR, especially at
> night. This, in a Mooney 201 without an altitude hold on the
> autopilot. Of course he has several thousand hours in it, that
> probably makes a big difference.

Flying single pilot IFR at night when tired is statistically one of
the most dangerous things you can do with an airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dan Luke[_2_]

July 7th 07, 10:45 PM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> If it's the number with the rating, I would submit that only a small
> percentage of them are both current and proficient.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this. Got a cite?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[email protected]

July 7th 07, 11:00 PM

VFR into IMC iisn't too far from the most risky, isn't it, Jay? A
casual reading the NTSB reports would suggest that, anyway.

On Jul 7, 5:25 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Something like a quarter or so of pilots seem to do it all right.
>
> Is this the number of pilots with an instrument rating, or the number
> of current instrument pilots?
>
> If it's the number with the rating, I would submit that only a small
> percentage of them are both current and proficient.
>
> >My
> > husband claims he'd rather fly IFR when tired then VFR, especially at
> > night. This, in a Mooney 201 without an altitude hold on the
> > autopilot. Of course he has several thousand hours in it, that
> > probably makes a big difference.
>
> Flying single pilot IFR at night when tired is statistically one of
> the most dangerous things you can do with an airplane.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel

July 7th 07, 11:45 PM

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Flying single pilot IFR at night when tired is statistically one of
> the most dangerous things you can do with an airplane.

Flying single pilot VFR at night when tired isn't the safest activity either.
In fact, any flying when tired isn't a good idea.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Morgans[_2_]

July 8th 07, 12:53 AM

> wrote

> VFR into IMC iisn't too far from the most risky, isn't it, Jay? A
> casual reading the NTSB reports would suggest that, anyway.

Perhaps he should have said, "some of the most risky *legal* flying you can
do."
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck

July 8th 07, 02:57 AM

> > If it's the number with the rating, I would submit that only a small
> > percentage of them are both current and proficient.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this. Got a cite?

I know Richard Collins (Flying mag's ancient wag) has discussed this
many times, and I know that of my personal instrument pilot
acquaintances, very few, indeed, are current and proficient. (Most
fly VFR only, or very, VERY "soft" IFR.)

What we need, however, are statistics -- and I don't have any. How
could one track this?

It surely won't be in the insurance company statistics, since every
pilot has an incentive to claim to be the Ace of the Base on those
forms -- and the FAA is almost useless when it comes to hours flown
each year, IFR or VFR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

July 8th 07, 03:32 AM

I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

On Jul 7, 11:55 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
> >the little extra training?
>
> Lack of ability and self-confidence?
>
> Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
> perform.
>
> I once wrote in 1998:
>
> "For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
> blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
> running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
> mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
> continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
> and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
> while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
> intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
> this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
> (death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
> turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
> tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)
>
> Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
> without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
> auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
> the most demanding things you will ever do."

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 07, 10:47 AM

B,

> The IR written doesn't help dispel the complexity perception. <G>
>

Ah. Have a look at the European JAA written requirements. The FAA test
is child's play in comparison. WHich is to say, the JAA one is totally
overblown.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ron Rosenfeld

July 8th 07, 12:25 PM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:32:04 -0000, wrote:

>I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
>instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
>limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
>current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
>times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
>an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
>who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

I think it very much depends on the mission. I believe I fly a fair amount
of IFR (30-40 logged hrs/year in actual) for a GA pilot. I rarely require
an IPC for currency, although I do them from time to time.

For local flights, in familiar terrain, VFR is easier and less hassle.

For longer flights, especially in unfamiliar areas, IFR is a lot easier.

In certain situations, the plan is to do part of the flight VFR, and
perhaps the approach IFR.

Operationally, VFR may be "better" if you can go on a shorter route, or at
a more desireable altitude.

However, the ability to quickly obtain an IFR clearance removes virtually
all of the stress from flying VFR in marginal conditions.

Example: A trip from KEPM to N66 a week or so ago. Ground stations were
generally reporting 2-5 miles visibility in haze. The tops of the haze was
about 8,000'. Headwinds increased as one went higher. It was
uncomfortable flying in the haze (occasional turbulence, and warmer).

8,500' was an ideal altitude; as was a straight route rather than airways.
The plan was to fly VFR, and obtain an IFR clearance for the approach if
necessary.

About 100 miles short of the destination, it became apparent that I would
require an instrument approach at the destination.

I obtained my IFR clearance with an altitude of OTP, so I could remain at
8,500'.

At an appropriate point, I requested my return to a "hard" IFR altitude,
and received my approach clearance in due course.
--ron

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 8th 07, 07:34 PM

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
>
> I think it very much depends on the mission. I believe I fly a fair
> amount
> of IFR (30-40 logged hrs/year in actual) for a GA pilot. I rarely require
> an IPC for currency, although I do them from time to time.
>
> For local flights, in familiar terrain, VFR is easier and less hassle.
>
> For longer flights, especially in unfamiliar areas, IFR is a lot easier.
>
> In certain situations, the plan is to do part of the flight VFR, and
> perhaps the approach IFR.

According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Ron Rosenfeld

July 8th 07, 08:11 PM

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:34:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
>to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

One of several things I would disagree with RC about.

>
>Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
>provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

I suppose you should if IMC is a SHOCK to you.

However, your generality breaks down when applied to any number of specific
instances when it is operationally preferable to operate under VFR.
--ron

[email protected]

July 8th 07, 08:45 PM

Ron, in general, though (second hand experience speaking) if you're
going to a controlled airport, especially if it's not one you've used
much, aren't you better off flying an instrument approach, even if
it's circle to land? There's never a question of 'where is the
airport?" or of the tower not knowing where you are, known traffic
seperation, all that stuff, even in VMC? Maybe I've been exposed to
one style of general aviation for too long, but I'd be shocked after
engine start I didn't hear my personal PIC say "Clearance, Mooney N
xyz, instruments to . . ."

It could be he (we?) are mostly operating from controlled airports and
he considers himself 'professional'. In fact, he argues IMC is his
favorite weather since it keeps the unrated (and therefore less
experienced, or at least less qualified?) pilots on the ground.

As a professional shrink, I suppose I would agree with the REBUTTABLE
assumption that those who file IFR are better trained. Note the caps,
please. It's like saying those who hold a doctorate in psychology are
better qualified than those who stopped with an MS or MA. It may not
be true in all cases, but it's not a bad first (and rebuttable)
assumption. Hey, it's better than the hiring authority who only wanted
to hire lucky candidates, so he'd throw their CVs (resumes, for those
not in academia) down the stairs and hire the one whose documents went
the farthest.

Like all general rules, I freely admit there are many exceptions, and
in this newsgroup will even more freely admit as a non pilot my
observations hold only a little more weight than, say, MX whatever (I
claim more credibility because I can actually fl an ILS to minimums
from the right seat and land a real airplane pretty well, most of the
time). Hey, don't laugh until you land controlling the yoke with your
right hand and the thottle with your left, or for that matter, dance
backwards wearing high heels.

T.

kontiki

July 8th 07, 08:54 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
> om>:
>
>
>>Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
>>the little extra training?
>
>
> Lack of ability and self-confidence?
>
> Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
> perform.
>

A simple wing-leveler/heading hold auto pilot works wonders, and gives
you and extra 'set of hands' to do the other tasks involved with flying
IFR. Without that, I can admit that IFR can keep you really busy at
times, but its not that daunting.

I did all my instrument training without any auto-pilot whatsoever.
It was difficult but I mastered it to acceptable standards. Now with
an auto pilot I can't believe how much easier it is.

One should not take for granted the auto pilot however. I still
fly all approaces manually (don't have the luxury of a coupled AP).

Ron Rosenfeld

July 8th 07, 09:41 PM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:45:58 -0000, wrote:

>Ron, in general, though (second hand experience speaking) if you're
>going to a controlled airport, especially if it's not one you've used
>much, aren't you better off flying an instrument approach, even if
>it's circle to land? There's never a question of 'where is the
>airport?" or of the tower not knowing where you are, known traffic
>seperation, all that stuff, even in VMC? Maybe I've been exposed to
>one style of general aviation for too long, but I'd be shocked after
>engine start I didn't hear my personal PIC say "Clearance, Mooney N
>xyz, instruments to . . .

What do you mean by an "instrument approach"? "familiar"?

Here's what I do.

I generally fly IFR to busy airports (e.g. KBOS, KFRG, KHPN) especially if
they are unfamiliar or at the end of long trips. And I do so because of
the ease of communication handoffs, and not having to worry about
controlled airspace issues.

I would not rely on the control tower to keep me separated from VFR
traffic, however. You'll probably be OK at a place like KBOS, or other
major airports in a CBA. And the tower will warn you if they see a
conflict, but separating you from VFR traffic is not a primary
responsibility.

Much of the time, when I operate under IFR to a controlled field, the
approach clearance is for a Visual Approach, locating the airport visually
is still required.

The two controlled airports to which I operate most frequently are KBGR and
KASH. I have no qualms about going VFR into either.

KFRG, because of the airspace/communications issues, I prefer IFR.

KBOS, because of familiarity, I will frequently go VFR (unless on an Angel
Flight mission).
--ron

Larry Dighera

July 9th 07, 01:15 AM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:41:43 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote in
>:

>I would not rely on the control tower to keep me separated from VFR
>traffic, however.

Right. That would be contrary to § 91.113

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 9th 07, 02:46 PM

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:34:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
>>to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.
>
> One of several things I would disagree with RC about.

Well, he based his "opinion" on some rather lengthy and deep digging into
the NDSB records.

>
>>
>>Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
>>provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!
>
> I suppose you should if IMC is a SHOCK to you.
>
> However, your generality breaks down when applied to any number of
> specific
> instances when it is operationally preferable to operate under VFR.
> --ron

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 9th 07, 02:47 PM

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 9th 07, 02:59 PM

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:34:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
>>to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.
>
> One of several things I would disagree with RC about.

Well, he based his statement on some rather lengthy and in-depth research in
the the NTSB records.... (maybe you've had some revelation?).

>
>>
>>Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
>>provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!
>
> I suppose you should if IMC is a SHOCK to you.

Not eveyone lives in that weather ******** folks call the "East" or the
"Atlantic Seaboard".

>
> However, your generality breaks down when applied to any number of
> specific
> instances when it is operationally preferable to operate under VFR.

Do you comprehend the meaning of the words "As much as possible"?

[email protected]

July 9th 07, 03:28 PM

It should be fairly obvious that flying within the IFR system even in
vfr weather would be a way to keep fairly proficient with the
communication and naviagation aspects of instrument flight, even if it
does not help with controlling the airplane by reference to
instruments.

There's a thing called "evidence based medicine" and its principle is
that unless there is a clinical reason to do otherwise one should do
what helps most people with the presenting condition. An example is,
the first medication to try when dealing with hypertension is a
diuretic.

The evidence with respect to general aviation piloting is that gaining
an instrument endorsement is the single most effective way of
improving safety. It's interesting to hear the arguments in opposition
-- seems to be a lot of reasons being offered why it doesn't apply to
so many posters here.

And then, dammit, too often we read of friends who proceed into IMC
without the training to handle those conditions.

I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
argue the point.

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 9th 07, 03:42 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> It should be fairly obvious that flying within the IFR system even in
> vfr weather would be a way to keep fairly proficient with the
> communication and naviagation aspects of instrument flight, even if it
> does not help with controlling the airplane by reference to
> instruments.
>
> There's a thing called "evidence based medicine" and its principle is
> that unless there is a clinical reason to do otherwise one should do
> what helps most people with the presenting condition. An example is,
> the first medication to try when dealing with hypertension is a
> diuretic.

I find thios thread intersting in that so many people say your should use a
sim to keep sharp, but then skip the opportunity to do it _LIVE_.

If sim's were that good, MX would be the next Bob Hoover.

> The evidence with respect to general aviation piloting is that gaining
> an instrument endorsement is the single most effective way of
> improving safety. It's interesting to hear the arguments in opposition
> -- seems to be a lot of reasons being offered why it doesn't apply to
> so many posters here.
>
> And then, dammit, too often we read of friends who proceed into IMC
> without the training to handle those conditions.

And the next worst killer, "Skud Running".

>
> I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
> argue the point.
>
> As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
> taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

Even if you never file another IFR flight plan, the training can only make
you better at VFR.

Ten years ago my wife took a "Pinch Hitter" course, and takes a couple
lessons each year. She will NEVER solo, and doesn't want to, but the
training might be the difference between her living and dying. As such, I
insist on her taking about four or five hours of dual a year...in OUR plane.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Thomas Borchert

July 9th 07, 04:38 PM

> I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
> argue the point.

Couldn't agree more.

> As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
> taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

You should have a look at the reactions to new planes/engines/concepts
if you want another interesting psychological effect at work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[email protected]

July 9th 07, 04:39 PM

For what it's worth, I have no intention of becoming a PPSEL but get
about 50 hours a year of 'dual' flying cross country in our Mooney.
Nearly all of that is under IFR, and a third or so is in IMC. My PIC
insists I land the thing after flying it to minimums a few times a
year as well. I am usually the communications officer as well.

I have, of course, the strangest instrument scan you ever saw. The
engine gauges are in front of me, the nav stuff way over on the left.
The saving grace is, the Mooney is fairly small inside.

Husband has not taught me how to make sure if something happens to him
he doesn't slump over the yoke, though. The seat belts and shoulder
straps are inertial locking, they wouldn't help.

Hammerhead?

> Ten years ago my wife took a "Pinch Hitter" course, and takes a couple
> lessons each year. She will NEVER solo, and doesn't want to, but the
> training might be the difference between her living and dying. As such, I
> insist on her taking about four or five hours of dual a year...in OUR plane.
>
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performance Homes, LLC.
> Cheyenne, WY

JGalban via AviationKB.com

July 9th 07, 04:58 PM

wrote:
>
>As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
>taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

I stated mine above. You see posts from pilots who fly quite a few hours a
year in IMC. Honestly, I would be lucky to see a couple of hours a year.
Frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable flying into actual IMC with so little
exposure. As has been stated before in this thread, flying under the hood is
not the same. Particularly if that hood time is done during the day, when
sunlight provides cues.

That doesn't mean I don't get training. I spend several hours every year
flying under the hood at night with instructors. A practice I've followed
for the last decade or so. I'm quite confident that I can control my
aircraft solely by reference to instruments (full or partial panel) and
extricate myself from an inadvertent IMC encounter. I just don't see the
point in going through the time and expense of becoming qualified to fly "in
the system" (not a trivial cost). It's not a system that I really need,
plus I don't feel I'd get much return on the expense of upgrading my simple
VFR panel.

I've been flying 19 yrs. and average about 120 hrs. per year. Being
stranded by the weather is a fairly rare occurance for me. As I said
before, if I lived and flew in an area that exposed me to IMC on a regular
basis, I'd get the rating in a heartbeat.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

xyzzy

July 9th 07, 10:39 PM

On Jul 6, 7:20 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" wrote:
> >> On the flip
> >> side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life right out of
> >> flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a compass and a chart on
> >> weekends just to regain their flying chops.
>
> > I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
> > IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
> > the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
> > for simplicity.
>
> Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
> complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

Yes. Especially if you are going to be flying in or near ADIZ's,
restricted airspace etc. Do what you're told by ATC and you'll never
bust a TFR or ADIZ -- or if you do, it isn't your fault. And "doing
what you're told" isn't bad, the controllers I fly with are pretty
accomodating and flexible.

For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
the field with similar restrictions. But when I file IFR, I often get
to fly right through the restricted airspace or over the plant. I also
get some nice views of military hardware flying under me or nearby
during those flights. I never got to fly through the restricted
airspace until I was IFR rated and now I do it routinely, under ATC
guidance.

Also, when flying to the coast there are several restricted areas to
dodge, but I file, go through or around them with ease under ATC and
then once I'm east of the last one, cancel IFR and have a nice VFR
flying day at the coast. ATC is cool with this, when they give me the
usual hint by telling me to "report cancellation on this frequency,"
I reply I will cancel as soon as I am clear of the restricted area/
nuke plant/ whatever, and they understandand are very helpful and
cooperative.

Going to an airport in the DC ADIZ is much easier on an IFR flight
plan too.

So IOW, there is significant utility to the IFR rating besides just
flying in bad weather.

xyzzy

July 9th 07, 10:44 PM

On Jul 6, 4:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> ..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
> and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
>
> They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
> really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
> that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
> anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
> of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
> training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.
>
> I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
> this.
>
> Thoughts?

I enjoyed and learned a lot from that article. But I about fell out
of my chair when they asserted that you can get a commercial rating
for $1500, including airplane time. WTF??? Maybe if you already have
all the required aeronautical experience, including the long solo
cross country and the 2 long cross country training flights, and all
the solo night t/o and landings at towered airports (and/or are based
at a towered airport so you don't have to fly x-c to get this), and
already have the 10 hours of complex time because you own a Mooney or
something, and all you need to do is learn the manuevers and take the
checkride, but I found that asssertion to be surprisingly out of touch
with reality, considering how good they usually are about being
realistic with costs.

Ron Rosenfeld

July 9th 07, 11:37 PM

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:59:57 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>>>According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
>>>to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.
>>
>> One of several things I would disagree with RC about.
>
>Well, he based his statement on some rather lengthy and in-depth research in
>the the NTSB records.... (maybe you've had some revelation?).

No revelations. Only common sense.

My own reviews, and the opinions of others, have indicated an increased
hazard during the transition, at the *TERMINATION* of an approach, from IMC
to the visual phase.

If Collins actually stated that there is a hazard in the "transition TO the
approach", it is difficult to understand why that transition would be any
more difficult if the preceding segment were flown under visual versus
instrument flight rules.

So far as the transition from IMC to visual conditions at the end of an
approach is concerned, as with any other facet of flying, practice of THAT
phase of flight is a good way to help the problem.

I do believe that flying within the system, and using the IFR system, is
helpful (even in VMC) in polishing communication skills, dealing with ATC,
and perhaps in dealing with some of the regulatory issues. But that's all.

In my personal opinion, the most critical part of any flight in IMC is the
pre-flight planning, and the go/no-go decision. Do that properly and the
flight becomes simple. Part of that planning is an honest assessment of
the pilot and his abilities at that particular time.

>> Do you comprehend the meaning of the words "As much as possible"?

What you wrote was "Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it
keeps you sharp and provides some practice so that IMC is not such a
SHOCK!"

Explain to me how flying IFR in CAVU conditions makes you better able to
execute an approach to minimums, perhaps followed by a miss and a diversion
to your alternate, and also deal with the transition from IMC to VMC at the
end of the approach?

Again, if IMC is a "such a SHOCK", the cure is to fly in IMC -- either real
or simulated (using a simulator or safety pilot and a GOOD view-limiting
device) -- until it is not such a SHOCK.

If the problem is communication and procedures, then using the system in
CAVU may have some benefit.
--ron

Michael[_1_]

July 10th 07, 12:10 AM

On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
> accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".
>
> Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
> Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
> Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
> Fractional jets 0.14
> Scheduled airlines 0.17
> FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
> FAR 135 business jets 0.47
> Business aviation(3) 0.73
> Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
> FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
> All air taxis 2.0
> Regional airlines (4) 2.01
> General aviation 6.6
>
> 1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
> 2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
> 3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
> 4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
> increase.
> Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates
>
> --------------------------
>
> Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but they
> fly a LOT.

Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc. In other words, even
if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
striking in the Nall report.

Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?

I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.
I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime. I think the real
issue is risk management.

Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
It's just dumb.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
variety of conditions. When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
'wisdom.'

Time to spare, go by air
Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
go fly

I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
matter how conservative you are.

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Michael

Blueskies

July 10th 07, 12:58 AM

> wrote in message ps.com...
> For what it's worth, I have no intention of becoming a PPSEL but get
> about 50 hours a year of 'dual' flying cross country in our Mooney.
> Nearly all of that is under IFR, and a third or so is in IMC. My PIC
> insists I land the thing after flying it to minimums a few times a
> year as well. I am usually the communications officer as well.
>
> I have, of course, the strangest instrument scan you ever saw. The
> engine gauges are in front of me, the nav stuff way over on the left.
> The saving grace is, the Mooney is fairly small inside.
>
> Husband has not taught me how to make sure if something happens to him
> he doesn't slump over the yoke, though. The seat belts and shoulder
> straps are inertial locking, they wouldn't help.
>
> Hammerhead?
>

You should be a CFII! It is 'interesting' flying with a student in actual conditions...

Blueskies

July 10th 07, 12:59 AM

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
> taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!
>
>

I like that!

:-o

Blueskies

July 10th 07, 01:02 AM

"xyzzy" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
> For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
> near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
> fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
> the field with similar restrictions.

Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?

Marty Shapiro

July 10th 07, 01:11 AM

xyzzy > wrote in
oups.com:

>>
>> Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of
>> nettlesome complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.
>
> Yes. Especially if you are going to be flying in or near ADIZ's,
> restricted airspace etc. Do what you're told by ATC and you'll never
> bust a TFR or ADIZ -- or if you do, it isn't your fault. And "doing
> what you're told" isn't bad, the controllers I fly with are pretty
> accomodating and flexible.
>
> For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
> near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
> fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
> the field with similar restrictions. But when I file IFR, I often get
> to fly right through the restricted airspace or over the plant. I also
> get some nice views of military hardware flying under me or nearby
> during those flights. I never got to fly through the restricted
> airspace until I was IFR rated and now I do it routinely, under ATC
> guidance.
>
Many, many times I've been cleared into restricted airspace while VFR.
All I needed to do was call ATC and ask. This includes military air bases
(both Air Force and Navy), nuclear sites and a TFR as well as Bravo
airspace. Conversely, while IFR I've been vectored around Bravo airspace
and restricted airspace.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

B A R R Y[_2_]

July 10th 07, 12:35 PM

xyzzy wrote:
>
> So IOW, there is significant utility to the IFR rating besides just
> flying in bad weather.

Not to mention, how many times have you heard this while VFR and waiting
to depart or arrive at a busy field?

"Hold on for a few minutes, guys. We need to get an IFR departure out,
then we'll work you guys in..."

xyzzy

July 10th 07, 03:13 PM

On Jul 9, 8:02 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
> > near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
> > fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
> > the field with similar restrictions.
>
> Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?

KTTA. Nuke plant about 7 miles to the east, several military bases to
the south (Ft. Bragg, Pope AFB, etc).

xyzzy

July 10th 07, 03:15 PM

On Jul 10, 7:35 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
>
> > So IOW, there is significant utility to the IFR rating besides just
> > flying in bad weather.
>
> Not to mention, how many times have you heard this while VFR and waiting
> to depart or arrive at a busy field?
>
> "Hold on for a few minutes, guys. We need to get an IFR departure out,
> then we'll work you guys in..."

Yup, before I was IFR rated I flew in a club trip to IAD. I was VFR,
three other airplanes of the exact same type were IFR. I took off
first, landed last. I got bottom priority and vectored all over the
place in the DC area, while the IFR guys just went right in. The plane
I was in, flying VFR, put 1 hour more on the hobbes than the IFR
planes that were the same type and took the same trip at the same
time.

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 10th 07, 03:22 PM

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:59:57 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>>>According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the
>>>>transition
>>>>to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.
>>>
>>> One of several things I would disagree with RC about.
>>
>>Well, he based his statement on some rather lengthy and in-depth research
>>in
>>the the NTSB records.... (maybe you've had some revelation?).
>
> No revelations. Only common sense.
>
> My own reviews, and the opinions of others, have indicated an increased
> hazard during the transition, at the *TERMINATION* of an approach, from
> IMC
> to the visual phase.

What Collins was refering to was in getting disjointed during the transition
from enroute to approach.

Think about the people that have overrun the ILS or the IAP.

>
> If Collins actually stated that there is a hazard in the "transition TO
> the
> approach", it is difficult to understand why that transition would be any
> more difficult if the preceding segment were flown under visual versus
> instrument flight rules.

He didn't call it a hazzard (you're reading in thigs that are not there), he
infered it was the point when things start leading up to botched approaches.
Just doing final approaches is not adequate. If the setup is wrong, more
than likely the whole deal is going to have problems.

> So far as the transition from IMC to visual conditions at the end of an
> approach is concerned, as with any other facet of flying, practice of THAT
> phase of flight is a good way to help the problem.
>
> I do believe that flying within the system, and using the IFR system, is
> helpful (even in VMC) in polishing communication skills, dealing with ATC,
> and perhaps in dealing with some of the regulatory issues. But that's
> all.
>
> In my personal opinion, the most critical part of any flight in IMC is the
> pre-flight planning, and the go/no-go decision. Do that properly and the
> flight becomes simple. Part of that planning is an honest assessment of
> the pilot and his abilities at that particular time.
>
>>> Do you comprehend the meaning of the words "As much as possible"?
>
> What you wrote was "Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it
> keeps you sharp and provides some practice so that IMC is not such a
> SHOCK!"
>
> Explain to me how flying IFR in CAVU conditions makes you better able to
> execute an approach to minimums, perhaps followed by a miss and a
> diversion
> to your alternate, and also deal with the transition from IMC to VMC at
> the
> end of the approach?

Does the concept "practice" mean anything to you?

How does practice on a driving range prepare you for a round of golf?

How does driving on dry, clear roads, rather than venturing out in rain,
help you to drive on snow?

If you can't comprehend that (or need to cover your ego), I can't help you.

>
> Again, if IMC is a "such a SHOCK", the cure is to fly in IMC -- either
> real
> or simulated (using a simulator or safety pilot and a GOOD view-limiting
> device) -- until it is not such a SHOCK.

If it's available, numbnuts. Otherwise,

> If the problem is communication and procedures, then using the system in
> CAVU may have some benefit.

Sigh!!!

So tell me how flying VFR during CAVU helps?

This is getting utterly ridiculous. [My take: Ron made a silly statement and
is now trying to rationalize it - if I'm wrong, I appologize, but iot seems
all too much, as I mentioned, lame attempts at rationalization]

Larry Dighera

July 10th 07, 04:32 PM

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:54:43 GMT, kontiki >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
>> perform.
>>
>
>A simple wing-leveler/heading hold auto pilot works wonders, and gives
>you and extra 'set of hands' to do the other tasks involved with flying
>IFR.

It would seem that JFK Jr. demonstrated that quite evidently.

>Without that, I can admit that IFR can keep you really busy at
>times, but its not that daunting.

There is one indicant that occurred during my IFR training that taught
me just how daunting IFR operation can be:

Two dripping wet flight instructors burst into the FBO office
loudly remarking about their turbulent flight in the storm
going on overhead that afternoon. They were exuberantly remarking
about how bad the weather was, and how it had been nearly
impossible to remain in control of their little Cessna 152. My
flight instructor, Dan, looked at me and asked if I still wanted
to fly our scheduled lesson. Not knowing any better, I thought it
was a good opportunity to get some more actual IMC experience, so
I said yes. We'd be flying the Archer with a little heavier wing
loading then the C-152, so it should be a bit more stable. Dan
was game, and I trusted his judgment, so we got a SID and
launched.

The ceiling was low, and there was a lot of convective activity,
but we managed to bounce along in the gray-black clag through KLAX
Class B. The KLAX approach controller sounded like a non-stop
auctioneer without waiting for pilot acknowledgements to his
calls. His intensity added to the tumult all flights in the area
were experiencing.

I was fighting to keep within 30 degrees of our assigned heading
as the turbulence tossed us back and forth. It was the roughest
flight I had ever experienced, and I was clammy with perspiration
from trying to retain control. Dan was cool, and let me keep at
it without interfering.

That flight taught me what it meant to be saturated by IFR operation
requirements. It was all I could do to keep the instrument scan
going, fight to remain on course, while attempting to recognize and
respond to my transmissions from ATC, and remain reasonably aware of
my position and situation.

>I did all my instrument training without any auto-pilot whatsoever.
>It was difficult but I mastered it to acceptable standards.

Me too.

>Now with an auto pilot I can't believe how much easier it is.

True, but if 'George' should happen to hiccup, you'd better be
prepared to start working hard again in a jiffy.

>One should not take for granted the auto pilot however. I still
>fly all approaces manually (don't have the luxury of a coupled AP).

Right.

Blueskies

July 11th 07, 01:14 AM

"xyzzy" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On Jul 9, 8:02 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> > For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
>> > near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
>> > fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
>> > the field with similar restrictions.
>>
>> Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?
>
> KTTA. Nuke plant about 7 miles to the east, several military bases to
> the south (Ft. Bragg, Pope AFB, etc).
>

Don't see any nuke plant restricted area. I don't think there is any such thing. TFR, maybe, and they only say not to
loiter...

I see the Semour MOA to the east and R5311 to the south...

Ron Rosenfeld

July 11th 07, 01:58 AM

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:22:46 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>He didn't call it a hazzard (you're reading in thigs that are not there), he
>infered it was the point when things start leading up to botched approaches.
>Just doing final approaches is not adequate. If the setup is wrong, more
>than likely the whole deal is going to have problems.

What I am reading is what *YOU* wrote. You were the one who used the term
hazard when you wrote about Collins opinion:

> According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
> to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

> So tell me how flying VFR during CAVU helps?

I never claimed that flying VFR in CAVU would help with IFR skills.

You are the one who has made the claim that flying IFR in CAVU would help
those who have problems with the "SHOCK" of IMC.

> ... fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
> provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

To repeat what I previously wrote, I do believe that flying within the
system, and using the IFR system, is helpful (even in VMC) in polishing
communication skills, dealing with ATC, and perhaps in dealing with some of
the regulatory issues. But that's all.

> This is getting utterly ridiculous. [My take: Ron made a silly statement and is now trying to rationalize it -
> if I'm wrong, I appologize, but iot seems all too much, as I mentioned, lame attempts at rationalization]

Your apology is accepted.
--ron

xyzzy

July 11th 07, 02:58 PM

On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> > On Jul 9, 8:02 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >> "xyzzy" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
> >> > near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
> >> > fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
> >> > the field with similar restrictions.
>
> >> Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?
>
> > KTTA. Nuke plant about 7 miles to the east, several military bases to
> > the south (Ft. Bragg, Pope AFB, etc).
>
> Don't see any nuke plant restricted area. I don't think there is any such thing. TFR, maybe, and they only say not to
> loiter...

Right, there is no restricted area but we are not to loiter.
Actually, what they tell us on briefings is the same thing they say
about sports events -- when VFR stay at least 3000 feet over it when
within 3 miles, which does make approaching from the east VFR a bit
more complicated. Most pilots who come in from the east VFR make an
effort to stay well south of it, while also worrying about the 2150
foot antenna just south of the river there. Between the plant and the
antenna, the corridor you can use to comfortably approach VFR from the
east is a bit narrow.

I'm much more comfortable coming in IFR and knowing if I fly "too"
close to the plant, they know I'm OK because I'm under ATC control and
following their directions. If conditions are VFR, I usually cancel
when clear of the plant by 3 miles.

> I see the Semour MOA to the east and R5311 to the south...

The Seymour MOA isn't that big a deal, the Seymor and Fayetteville
controllers are very good. The R5311 is a pain in the butt when
coming in VFR from the southeast.

JGalban via AviationKB.com

July 11th 07, 04:09 PM

xyzzy wrote:
>
>Right, there is no restricted area but we are not to loiter.
>Actually, what they tell us on briefings is the same thing they say
>about sports events -- when VFR stay at least 3000 feet over it when
>within 3 miles, which does make approaching from the east VFR a bit
>more complicated.

Do you believe everything "they" tell you? The nuclear TFR is very clear.
There is nothing in it about remaining above 3,000 ft. within 3 miles. Do
not circle or loiter. That's it. If you wish to treat it as a stadium TFR
that's up to you, but it's not.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

Matt Barrow[_4_]

July 11th 07, 06:00 PM

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>> Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
>> accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".
>>
>> Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
>> Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
>> Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
>> Fractional jets 0.14
>> Scheduled airlines 0.17
>> FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
>> FAR 135 business jets 0.47
>> Business aviation(3) 0.73
>> Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
>> FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
>> All air taxis 2.0
>> Regional airlines (4) 2.01
>> General aviation 6.6
>>
>> 1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
>> 2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
>> 3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
>> 4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
>> increase.
>> Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
>> they
>> fly a LOT.
>
> Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
> In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
> equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc.

Not really; see below.

> In other words, even
> if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
> are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
> source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
> that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
> personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
> report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
> equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
> better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
> striking in the Nall report.

I agree with you in kind,, but perhaps not in detail. IBME, that those who
use aircraft for business generally are better equiped, have gotten more
training, put more $$ into better and more frequent maintenance, are much
more likely (not exclusively, though) have IR's and Commercial tickets.

Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.

> Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
> look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
> the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
> equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
> Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
> worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
> support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
> what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?
>
> I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.

Perhaps not, but it is significant.

> I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
> I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
> instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
> average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

> I think the real issue is risk management.

Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

> Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
> curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
> Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
> minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
> at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
> and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
> of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
> to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
> the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
> It's just dumb.

Not sure, but I think you're misstating risk/gain assessment, but otherwise,
I think you're pretty much dead on.

>
> I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
> is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
> they are too conservative.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.

> In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
> Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
> variety of conditions.

Conditional (contextual) "Agree".

> When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
> tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
> much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
> flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
> unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
> doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
> make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
> 'wisdom.'
> Time to spare, go by air
> Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
> Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
> The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
> go fly
>
> I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
> to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
> matter how conservative you are.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.

> I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
> the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
> on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
> airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
> be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
> They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
> pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Hmmm???

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

> Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
> weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
> primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
> safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
> And the statistics seem to agree with me.
>
Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

Good flight to you!

(Before someone jumps in with anecdotal examples, know that these are wide
generalizations and not 100% empirical)
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

Michael[_1_]

July 11th 07, 09:58 PM

On Jul 11, 12:00 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
> Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

Yes, which is why the difference is so dramatic here. But in the Nall
report those Citations are excluded, and the difference is still
huge. Self-flown business flyers are still safer than recreational
flyers even when flying pistons.

> I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
> personal flights.

Self-reporting, I assume. There is no incentive to misreport, as
there is nothing illegal or insurance-affecting about it.

> > I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
> > I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
> > instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
> > average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime.
>
> How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
> business. I'd sat quite a few.

In my experience, none. Those willing to use a personal aircraft for
business usually start right away - because they can.

> > I think the real issue is risk management.
> Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
> better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
> entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

Less than half of the ones I know are entrepreneurs. Most are
professional employees. But your larger point - that the business
flyers have a better grasp of RM - is true in my experience.

> > I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
> > is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
> > they are too conservative.
>
> Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
> factors involved.

Well, sort of. They don't realize that they are being too
conservative, are failing to develop their skills, and are thus adding
more risk through failure to develop their skills then they avoid by
reducing exposure.

> If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
> PERIOD.

Most private pilots fly less than 25 hours a year.

> On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
> precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
> yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.

Agree. But there is a difference between proper prior planning (which
allows you to experience the difficult conditions, learn, and survive
the experience) and not going (which merely allows you to survive, but
not learn anything)

> > I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
> > the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves

I meant more conservative but more risky. Sorry.

> How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
> fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

But really, it's both. It is said that the superior pilot uses his
superior judgment to avoid situations that will require the use of his
superior skills, and this is true MOST of the time. But eventually,
the **** will hit the fan no matter how careful you are - and then, if
you have not developed the skill, you are done. If you avoid all
exposure to risky situations, you never develop the skill.

> > Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
> > weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
> > primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
> > safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
> > And the statistics seem to agree with me.
>
> Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
> things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

I will do (actually, did - the trip was yesterday) relatively little
planning. I fly in crappy weather, and into busy airports,
routinely. I've been doing it for years, and I don't get many
surprises anymore. But when I started, I did a whole lot of
planning. I never managed to cover EVERY eventuality, but I covered
enough to survive and learn. The point is not to launch unprepared -
don't go looking for adventure, it will find you soon enough. And I'm
not against instrument ratings - that would be silly, given that I'm
an ATP and CFII. I just don't think it's the important factor - I
think that willingness to fly more often in a broader range of
conditions is much more important.

Michael