wrote:
IMO that's a dangerous attitude to have. An instrument rated pilot who
does
not regularly use the rating cannot be proficient unless he is
exceptionally
committed to regular training. I don't know any pilots who fit that
description. The ones I know who keep the rating "just to get through a
cloud deck" would be in real danger if unexpectedly forced to fly an
approach to minimums.

Agreed. Obviously a person has to practice regularly to keep the skills
sharp. Most of the IA pilots I know of do this, I'm surprised to hear
you say you don't know of any who do.

I was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, that I don't know any i-rated pilots
who seldom use the rating yet at the same time are exceptionally committed
to regular training.

[snip]
while I agree that a person needs to use the rating to stay proficient,
even going through the training, ground work and testing to get it will
make him/her more competent unless they forget everything once they're
done with the checkride.

Which they often do, in my experience. On the occasions when I've flown in
the right seat with a couple of these guys, it's been obvious to me they
were not proficient, even though they were current by the reg's.

I think she is justifiably worried. Look at it from her side: she knows
zip-all about flying aside from what she sees on TV, which is nearly
100%
bad. How would you feel? I think it shows some good sense that she is
at
least willing to research the subject. We don't know her husband; she
does.
She doesn't know flying; we do (well, some of us do). So she has to
weigh
what she reads here against what she thinks about her husband's
judgement.

I concurred in all of my comments that she had justifiable concern. And
yes, it shows good sense *and* an open mind that she was willing to get
and weigh more info. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything
else?

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Not everything I post is an argument!
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM