Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-09-27, Emily wrote:
Jose wrote:
Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others.
I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
those who think GA is dangerous, period.

To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks.

No, he just implied most.

Also, GA *is*
dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
lives.

Of course. No one's debating that.

Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft

See, I don't even think that's true. Granted, with no dependents, my
only life insurance is group through work, but it even covers me when I
flight instruct! Obviously not all insurance companies think it's
unsafe. Just for kicks, I checked into extra with USAA, they don't
care, either.

but I'm quite aware that however well I plan there is always
the possibility of something going wrong from mechanical failure to my
own fsckup - and try to prevent it and guard against it.

Well, yes, and it's about risk managment. I simply don't see how with
damn few exceptions, pilots who fly IFR in light aircraft are
daredevils. I'm certainly not, and while most of the IFR flying pilots
I know are 121, they do a certain about of flying in small aircraft.
They aren't daredevils either.

That is why I
refused to join the chorus of indignant condemnation about the LEX crash
- I'm more interested in the human factors that caused it so I have a
fighting chance of understanding it and hopefully preventing myself from
making a similar stupid pilot trick.

That's what I said, and you obviously didn't see the flames or you
wouldn't be saying it again.