Jim Carter writes:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not so much that they are unsafe as that they are unnecessary.

Maybe you could fly a 747 across the country with just a compass and a
map. I don't see any technical obstacle to it offhand. But would you
really want to, when there are so many technical aids to safe
navigation? If all the fancy gadgets fail, is it better to cancel the
flight until the gadgets are fixed, or press on with just the compass?

People lived with simpler instrumentation. But more of them died,
too. Why take the risk?

Indeed, you don't really _need_ IFR. People used to fly without it.
They used to fly without ATC. A lot of the time they survived.
Sometimes they didn't. The current opinion, though, is that the
losses were unacceptably high in those days, and so the risks that
were accepted then cannot be accepted now.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.

It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.

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