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

"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.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:35:13 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:


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


The insurance companies also crunch numbers and analyze stats, so I
think that says a lot.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:05:20 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:

The insurance companies also crunch numbers and analyze stats, so I
think that says a lot.

Exactly my point.
--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)

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

"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

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Like we need an excuse, right grin?

- Andrew