Instrument rating??

Thomas Borchert wrote
I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
ceilings of less than 1000 ft

Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
need to rationalize having a twin g)? I just don't see it reflected
in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.

I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
statistics much.

Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
flying singles.

I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of
flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
care of.

So the bottom line is that you should not expect to see a lot of
accidents where engine or system failure brings someone down - just a
few. And there have been a few.

Statistical risk asessment doesn't work too well when you've
intentionally placed yourself in a very small group.

Michael

Just to throw my 2 cents in.

Odds are you can do that kind of flying and get away with it. Maybe for a long time. You might never have a gyro fail or the fan
stop.

But when or if it happens, do you want to be that guy that ends up in the news? Purely your choice.

Early this winter we lost one somewhere in Lake Michigan at night. He had made that trip a lot of times.

Personally, the older I get, the better I like my odds to be and the more outs I want.

Mike Z


"Michael" wrote in message om...
Thomas Borchert wrote
I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
ceilings of less than 1000 ft

Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
need to rationalize having a twin g)? I just don't see it reflected
in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.

I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
statistics much.

Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
flying singles.

I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of
flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
care of.

So the bottom line is that you should not expect to see a lot of
accidents where engine or system failure brings someone down - just a
few. And there have been a few.

Statistical risk asessment doesn't work too well when you've
intentionally placed yourself in a very small group.

Michael

On 12 Mar 2004 07:38:38 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote
I take a pretty dim view of single engine IFR over mountains, or with
ceilings of less than 1000 ft

Serious question: What's the basis of that dim view (apart from the
need to rationalize having a twin g)? I just don't see it reflected
in accident numbers, but maybe I am missing something.

I think what you're missing is that most people are just not doing
these things much, so they're not showing up in the accident
statistics much.

Only about one sixth of private pilots are instrument rated to begin
with. The majority of those are not current. The majority of those
who are technically current are not proficient, and have personal
minimums on the order of 800-2. A large chunk of those who are
proficient have similar personal minimums anyway - because they're
flying singles.

I don't know ANYONE who flies single engine low IFR (or IFR over
mountains) a lot. The people I know who do a lot of that kind of

When I was flying a lot and staying proficient, I flew single engine
IFR right down to minimums on a regular basis and had no problem with
it.

flying all have twins. Once in a while you find someone with a
complex single doing it, but that kind of operator usually has
everything redundant but the engine - gyros and their power sources,
electrical, radios, etc. And the one engine he has, he REALLY takes
care of.

I did/do although I no longer fly enough to stay proficient at that
level and pretty much stay out of the soup.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com