What's wrong with this idea?

One other downside - what if everybody did it? [fly IFR irrespective of the
rating and equipment to attempt to avoid VFR midairs]

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?

Mike
MU-2


"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
"John T" wrote in message
ews.com...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
m

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
(e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

David Megginson wrote:

do controllers ever play tricks
with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
saying "unable," .....

Well, if it can be done, it'll be a New York controller that figures out
how.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:
If you haven't demonstrated that you're able to meet the IR Practical
Test Standards, then one could argue you'd be more of a liability to other
planes in the sky.

I remember reading recently on one of the rec.aviation.* groups of a pilot
who, without an instrument rating, regularly files and flies IFR. That to me
is wreckless and selfish, not to mention inconsiderate, and of course,
illegal. I don't agree with the argument that as long as he doesn't hit
anybody, then it's ok. He's a statistic waiting to happen.

Guy,

I'm rather a "follow the regs" kind of person myself, but I have
to comment:
*I have observed a number of pilots who are instrument rated
and current, but who fail to meet the IR PTS or who no longer
know basic things, like what a low-altitude airway is and what
its MEA means
*I have heard pilots whose radio work and knowledge of IFR
procedures seemd quite lacking. I know for a fact some of
them are IR
*I know some pilots who are not IR whose knowledge of regs and
procedures are extensive, and who are quite able to fly to
tight tolerances on instruments

All that said, it's my opinion that someone who wants to fly IFR
should bite the bullet, take the test, and get the rating, and
I hold to that opinion even when it's frustrating or inconvenient
to me because I'm not IR and we fly w/ one adult in the back
these days.

I suppose this is a verbose way of saying I think it's fallacious
to assume that every non-IR pilot is a liability in the system,
just as it's fallacious to assume that every IR pilot is safe,
or not a liability in the system.

Cheers,
Sydney

Ace Pilot wrote:

I assumed the pilot was IFR rated and understood how the system works,
but was not necessarily proficient at flying in IMC conditions, but
was perfectly capable of flying safely in VMC.

One consideration is (discussed in prev. threads), if you are flying
IFR, you can not expect to necessarily be able to maintain clear of
clouds. If you are flying above a broken layer, you can not, on an
IFR flight plan, maneuver to descend through a hole as you could
VFR. You can request ATC to accomodate altitude and routing prefs
which will keep you VMC, but they may not be able to accomodate you.

Basically, I don't think it's a good idea to file IFR if you're
not prepared to fly in clouds, unless the wx is truly "bluebird"
all the way. CAVU below 12,000 or something.

The big question is whether
there are any "costs" associated with this proposal, and do those
costs outweigh the benefit. Just being illegal is not a cost.

I would disagree. I think being illegal is a cost. I think there is
a slippery slope in setting out to deliberately break one regulation.
Even if you disagree, don't discount the cost of being discovered
and facing punative action.

As for being a danger to other pilots in the air, I see no difference
between a non-current IFR-rated pilot on an IFR flight plan and a
VFR-only pilot, as long as it is on a VMC day.

Does the VFR pilot understand IFR procedures, or is he going to
clog up the system if directed to fly a STAR or given a crossing
restriction on altitude?

A non-current IFR pilot can be a problem, too, if he's forgotten
his basics.

I'm now starting to wonder if there are some things that the Feds deem
illegal, but are actually safer.

There's no question that there are illegal things which are arguably
safer. The problem is, who is doing the arguing? Once you set out
to break one regulation, you are saying your judgement is superior to
the regulations. Maybe it is in this instance. But I see a slippery
slope, where it becomes easier to justify breaking another reg in the
next instance. And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

Cheers,
Sydney

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
...

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?


At least one.

Sydney Hoeltzli writes:

*I have observed a number of pilots who are instrument rated
and current, but who fail to meet the IR PTS or who no longer
know basic things, like what a low-altitude airway is and what
its MEA means
*I have heard pilots whose radio work and knowledge of IFR
procedures seemd quite lacking. I know for a fact some of
them are IR
*I know some pilots who are not IR whose knowledge of regs and
procedures are extensive, and who are quite able to fly to
tight tolerances on instruments

Canada requires instrument-rated pilots to retake the complete IFR
flight test (including the ground portion) every two years. I
understand that the IFR checkride in the U.S. is a once-in-a-lifetime
thing, like the PPL checkride. Would you prefer to use the Canadian
system, or would that seem like unwelcome government interference to
U.S. pilots?


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote
And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

I have a real problem with the idea that legality is a valid sanity
check on your judgment.

1) Yes, of course you do. You've made that clear. You think the
FAA is "evil" and the personal flying should be unregulated. I figured
that statement would elicit pretty much this response from you.

2) I try to use words very carefully. Where did I say anything
to the effect that legality is a valid sanity check on an
individual's judgement?

FTR, I look at it this way. Legal is often a least common denominator.
There are a number of things which are legal, which aren't particularly
safe. Including, for example, instrument-rated pilots who aren't
particularly proficient flying IFR in IMC. But asking "is it legal?"
gives one a first-pass approximation, that someone somewhere thought
that under some circumstances, the operation one proposes wasn't
horrendously unsafe.

There are arguably a number of things which aren't legal, but
probably are relatively safe. Such as, for example, a non-IR pilot
who is proficient and familiar with the system flying IFR in IMC.
But if such a pilot contemplates doing so, who *is* sanity-checking
their judgement? Who *is* judging whether they are as proficient
and familiar as they think they are? And if they are proficient
and familiar enough to fly in the system safely, why not get the
"sanity check" from the system? Why not bone up, hone up, take the
tests and do so legally?

Cheers,
Sydney

In article link.net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
...

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?


At least one.

I can think of at least four.
One in mid USA over the Grand Canyon. Constellation/ DC-7
One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation
One over Yugoslavia Trident/ DC-9
One over Switzerland (or that region) quite recently

Flicking through one of my books I spotted a couple of others. Would
include civil/military accidents?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------

"David" wrote in message
...

One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation


I don't think that one was enroute.