Michael wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote
When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

To my mind, easily.

Then spell it out for me. Which am I doing, and why?

I cannot tell you which you're doing laugh. I do that for the training
(it's the model introduced by my CFII). Others may do it precisely for the
"thrill". Yet we end up doing the same thing, which makes discerning the
motive a little tough.

Obviously, you've nothing but my word that I'm not a thrill seeker. And you
can even believe that I'm insufficiently self-aware, and that I've merely
hidden my thrill-seeking tendencies from myself. How could I argue with
that?

But I don't think it the case.

Lacking the direct knowledge you had, I cannot say. Since the pilots
didn't survive in the example I used, we all knew that some guesswork was
involved on that side of things.

But there's a difference between guesswork and outright twisting of
the facts to support a point. John Galban posted an interesting story
about how the latter happened with regard to an accident he was
involved with.

That's true. More, there've been a number of posts on rather...liberal
descriptions in NTSB reports.

Obviously, accuracy is important.


I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year.
I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

I'm not clear on your point, here. What would you call it?

Advanced training? Encouraging dangerous behavior? It all depends on
your point of view.

You'd call the talk given by that guy "encouraging dangerous behavior"? I'd
agree that that would not be a "safety seminar".

Could you also call it "advanced training"? That would imply that it's
providing useful information, but information not applicable to safety.
Okay...I can see that, and I can even see that such things are useful.

Still...anything which helps one fly is going to aid safety, no? I mean, if
you were planning to fly the Gulf anyway, wasn't the information provided -
even if incomplete - useful?

Or is the problem that he made it seem complete, which tempted you to do
something you'd otherwise not?

[...]
Suppose I put on a seminar about how to scud run. I might include
tips like not flying at the bases of the clouds, where the vis is
worst. I might cover route planning - instead of the usual
VFR-direct, how to choose roads to follow for supplemental nav, being
prepared for obstructions, etc. I would likely cover low altitude
diversions - how to get to a nearby airport in a hurry. I might cover
emergency procedures - off field precautionary landings with power and
how to choose a field, an emergency instrument climb and what to
expect from ATC, etc. I might discuss various techniques for slowing
the plane down - when a notch of flaps might be appropriate, for
example. I've been there and done that, and if you're going to scud
run, I assure you that you're way better off going to this seminar
than just doing it cold and figuring it out as you go along. But
would it be a safety seminar?

I'd vote "yes". It's another tool in my belt. It's *my* choice whether or
not to use it, but your seminar would sharpen that tool.

I think of stall practice as similar to this. I've *no* intention of
stalling while (for example) making a base-to-final turn. Practicing so
that I can recover quickly from a stall isn't going to change that.

Or health insurance. I've no plans to get sick, and I do certain things to
preserve my health. Having insurance doesn't alter than behavior.

- Andrew