The biggest safety investment in GA is...

...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)

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:56:01 +0200, 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?


Insurance companies reduce your premium if you have an IR and/or on-going
training. They don't for any of the "gadgets".
--ron

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer

I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
this.

Thoughts?

I agree, with a strict qualification. Having the IR is like owning a gun: it
can be used safely, but used ineptly it can kill you and those you love.
Pilots who get rated and then do only the minimum work required to stay
current are at considerable risk when they get into a high workload, IMC
situation, IMO.

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.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan,

Having the IR is like owning a gun: it
can be used safely, but used ineptly it can kill you and those you love.


I agree. OTOH, I've learned in IFR training that there is a huge
difference between "soft" IMC which is way hard enough to kill you as a
VFR pilot (see probably Jay's example, from what was posted) and "hard"
IMC which is borderline in any single-engine piston. At the "soft" end of
that range, even a less proficient IFR pilot can save the day where a
VFR-only pilot can't.

Also, as you say, having the IFR training helps you in your overall
flying, not just in the clouds.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I have to agree with Dan, an IFR rating is only as good as the
proficiency the pilot has with it. Having a rating or qualification
doesn't mean a pilot is proficient. The once a month IFR jaunt by a
pilot is a loaded gun waiting to be misused.

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. On one of my check rides, the
instructor conducting it had little experience with smaller aircraft
like the C172 we were in. Fortunately I had tons of time in it, and
was able to show him the capabilities of the aircraft. Had he been
with a student, I wondered how they would have faired in an emergency
situation or just being able to land at a tight field with a short
strip. After the check ride he thanked me for my time and
acknowledged he need more time in lighter aircraft to be proficient as
an instructor. Since then we have flown together several times...on
his dime.

I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
way to teach common sense.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:35:57 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
:


"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer

I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
this.

Thoughts?

I agree, with a strict qualification. Having the IR is like owning a gun: it
can be used safely, but used ineptly it can kill you and those you love.
Pilots who get rated and then do only the minimum work required to stay
current are at considerable risk when they get into a high workload, IMC
situation, IMO.

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 agree.

But mere attainment of the IR, whether put to actual or simulated use
or not, is apparently sufficient to qualify it as the most significant
safety investment in GA.

Hawkeye wrote:

I've never had an IFR rating, there are times when I wish I had one,
especially when the weather turns nasty faster than predicted. Before
everyone runs out to get one, become as proficient as possible with
the ratings they have. Fundamentals of flying, knowledge of equipment
and basic common sense go a long ways in safe operation of an
aircraft. The one thing one of my first instructors taught me was
'never be in a rush...haste kills'. Take the time to do it right the
first time...you may not have a second chance. Too bad there wasn't a
way to teach common sense.


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. So I agree that currency of
_all_ your ratings need to be well maintained or perhaps a flight
be re-considered.

If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option. You
worked hard for the rating... its dumb to let that skill evaporate.
Spend the money to do a IPC with a CFII once a year, even though
you are current; it's cheap insurance.

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....

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)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:56:01 +0200, 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?


Insurance companies reduce your premium if you have an IR and/or on-going
training. They don't for any of the "gadgets".


And the biggest premium reducer is if you fly A LOT, particularly in keeping
IFR current.

The majority of IFR accidents (FR flight plans) occur in clear air
(according to Richard Collins) and IIRC, those are pilots that are only
marginally current.