Guy Elden Jr. wrote:
If you haven't demonstrated that you're able to meet the IR Practical
Test Standards, then one could argue you'd be more of a liability to other
planes in the sky.

I remember reading recently on one of the rec.aviation.* groups of a pilot
who, without an instrument rating, regularly files and flies IFR. That to me
is wreckless and selfish, not to mention inconsiderate, and of course,
illegal. I don't agree with the argument that as long as he doesn't hit
anybody, then it's ok. He's a statistic waiting to happen.

Guy,

I'm rather a "follow the regs" kind of person myself, but I have
to comment:
*I have observed a number of pilots who are instrument rated
and current, but who fail to meet the IR PTS or who no longer
know basic things, like what a low-altitude airway is and what
its MEA means
*I have heard pilots whose radio work and knowledge of IFR
procedures seemd quite lacking. I know for a fact some of
them are IR
*I know some pilots who are not IR whose knowledge of regs and
procedures are extensive, and who are quite able to fly to
tight tolerances on instruments

All that said, it's my opinion that someone who wants to fly IFR
should bite the bullet, take the test, and get the rating, and
I hold to that opinion even when it's frustrating or inconvenient
to me because I'm not IR and we fly w/ one adult in the back
these days.

I suppose this is a verbose way of saying I think it's fallacious
to assume that every non-IR pilot is a liability in the system,
just as it's fallacious to assume that every IR pilot is safe,
or not a liability in the system.

Cheers,
Sydney