"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

What an engine failure has to do with an IR is rather puzzling.


So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
current enough to handle it.)

While ANY skill must be maintained, you're more likely to fly into IMC than
have an engine failure. Then, too, how much more COULD you fly if you could
cast off during IMC rather than waiting for VMC? If you have no IR and don't
maintain your basic flying skills, you're asking for trouble that way as
well.

Last spring I returned to flying after more than a dozen years on the
ground. Even through I had nearly 2000 hours (1976-1991) I took a damn long
time getting back into things (lots of right seat time) before I felt
comfortable and proficient.

The question I'd ask is: What is your current flying profile (business or
just pleasure) and what changes do you anticipate? I'd sure consider taking
the lessons just to have a better sense of handling the aircraft, but will
you really make use of an IR? Would you be willing to expend the time and
money to stay current? Can you're flying profile justifiy the expense?

Thoughts on this??

As John Deakin (32,000 hours) said in one of his articles :

"Over 32,000 hours." Well, yeah, I've watched in fascination over 40
years of professional flying, as that total has grown to a number
that surprises even me, particularly in light of some of the dumb things
I've done. But, consider; 747 time accounts for well over half of
it, and since the 747 is almost exclusively a very long range
aircraft with supplemented or double crews, several thousand of those hours
were spent sleeping in the crew bunk, and more than a few in the
seat, peacefully snoozing on duty (which I encourage on long flights,
preferably one at a time!) Many thousands more were spent in the
cockpit, boring along (and bored) at FL370, on 12 and 14-hour flights,
above most of the weather. More to the point, since there are so few
takeoffs and landings, by the time the other pilots get their share,
I'm lucky to get 2 takeoffs, and 2 landings per month. That's 24 per year,
for 25 years, for about 300, total. Ok, maybe 500, because some of that time
was on short-range flights of nine hours, or less, with a "normal" crew.
Folks, this is not a lot of experience, relative to the total time!

If the guy retired that long ago, it seems he's to the point of life where
he's become very cynical. Number of hours means relatively little.