In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad

I would not say it's more complicated although there are more things
to consider.

That's a definition of complexity.

I deal with complexity in my day job (software) and have some (mostly
stolen) insights about software complexity and how to manage it. None
of it applies to aviation, but I can recognize complexity when I see it
at least 2 out of 3 times. :-)

As far as the decision-making goes, you need to compare apples to
apples. ISTR being saturated just holding the airplane straight and
level. Eventually, you develop the subroutines to fly the plane
without getting saturated. Add talking on the radio. Throw in a
couple of extra controls (gear lever, prop, cowl flaps), and it's
like starting over.

Roy Smith once posted that he knew he had his instrument rating nailed
when he was able to discuss baseball scores with his instructor while
shooting an ILS (not to debate the merits of a sterile cockpit at that
phase of flight). Not because the ILS becomes less demanding, but
because you develop the subroutines to deal with it more effectively.
IOW, when you fly, there's a point at which you get saturated. With
training and experience you learn to push back that saturation point
(and perhaps how to shed load as you approach it).

Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
more complex than VFR decision making.

Sure, there's no-brainer yes, no-brainer let's go IFR (say, climbing
through a low marine layer into clear and 1e6), and there's obvious
no-go weather (say, Hurricane Andrew). The point at which yes and no
converges is where things become more complex.


Morris