I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
wrong

There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
thing I've done in a while.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you
aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way
that
you look forward to the trip.