Jose wrote:
I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?
Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

Does this "business flying" include bizjets?

No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

That would skew the
statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.

That is how the Nall Report does it.

I would be interested in a rule you
would consider a net good.

Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the
potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok,
let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!)

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.

Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?
Seriously? There are actually quite a few people who fly IFR without
an instrument rating. I don't mean VFR in IMC, either. They file and
fly in the system. These days, we have a lot more IFR in IMC crashes
(loss of control, CFIT) than we have VFR into IMC crashes - but all
those people have instrument ratings. The ones doing it illegally
don't seem to crash.

At least one person I know who used to do it routinely before he
finally got legal and got one is now an airline captain.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

Truth is, a person with no instrument rating isn't going to file and
fly IFR unless he is confident he can do it. Someone with an
instrument rating is likely to assume he can do it (since he has the
rating and is legal).

2: BFR/wings

Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp? Most
BFR's are a joke. Most people who are serious about their flying do a
lot more recurrent training than the BFR.

3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an
instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in)

Rule is gone now, but that's not so much the point. Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating.

But now we're in commercial territory. With a profit motive, people
will be tempted to do dumb ****. I agree with rules for commercial
activity. I simply think that they don't have a place for private
operators. The marine world actually operates that way. Private boats
have almost no rules (unless they are quite large) but start operating
for hire, and regulation kicks in.

Michael