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