The biggest safety investment in GA is...

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

I would certainly be willing to stipulate that there may
be areas of the country where an instrument rating is
less *needed* simply to make a flight (or get back home)
than others. Here in the southeast its necessary.

My home airport has an ILS and I've used it on a number
of occasions to get back home safe and sound. Couldn't
have been done without ans instrument rating.

Peter,

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.


And (someone has to say it) these opinions are especially weird in the light
of recent experiences of close friends of Jay's.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:01:51 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.


If I'm flying into a busy airport, or down the Florida coast I'll always
file. It's safer and makes things easier.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:

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.

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.

Nah; not if you're always going different places.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Jay Honeck wrote:

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, I flew for 25 years without the instrument rating mostly because
I never got around to it (I had taken ground school and let the written
expire several times). While it is far from a necessity, it *HAS* in
my opinion increased our safety. Margy and I used to as a team go off
in 3-5 mile vis and such but since the engine failure are a little more
conservative. Having the IR means we don't even have to think about it.

Nothing is fun sapping about being on an IFR if the conditions merit it.
If you're a slave to going GPS direct it realy doesn't matter if you're
talking to ATC in the process or burning along VFR. Still plenty of
oppurtunity to do random wandering etc... but XC I file because why
not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR anyway.

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

but XC I file because why not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR
anyway.

Have you noticed yet that you get better radar service IFR than you get with
FF?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Hawkeye,

Having a rating or qualification
doesn't mean a pilot is proficient.

The training process itself increases a pilot's capability.

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation.

And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation.

And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.


True. From the 2006 Nall Report :

"By contrast, instructional flying is relatively safe. While
accounting for nearly one out of every five flight hours,
it resulted in just 13.2 percent of all accidents and only
6.5 percent of fatal accidents. This is due, in part, to the
high level of supervision and structure in the training
environment."

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200707/1