wrote in
oups.com:


Marco Leon (at) wrote:
I'll chime in too.

OK, I'll bite. I agree with Jay's basic statement that an IR is not a
magic wand, but that's not saying much.

The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes.

Apples and oranges, to some degree. Flying a successful XC mission in
the system is an order of magnitude more complex than simply surviving
a VFR-into-IMC encounter. IFR students are typically capable of
holding heading and altitude within a few hundred feet in the first 10
or so hours, while passing the checkride takes 50 or more. At least in
my case, the first things I get rusty on are procedures, like hold
entries. Basic attitude flying (you don't need to pass a checkride,
just survive) will likely last a lot longer between re-training.

Equipment limitations demand
more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people
safer while others become more dangerous.

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Now, the -utility- of the rating is a whole 'nother question on which
I have decidedly mixed feelings.

-cwk.


Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams