The biggest safety investment in GA is...

"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

??

"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

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

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

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"

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
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

"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

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

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