Jose wrote:
Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

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.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

Start with the Nall Report. It contains much that is unexpected. In
fact, I formulated my theory of the J-curve as it relates to flight
safety largely on the basis of the results - which I initially found
surprising.

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

Actually, that is what is happening now. The standards for an
instrument rating are inappropriate. They focus too much on what is
unimportant, and too little on what is important. I must admit this is
changing - some relatively unimportant maneuvers were dropped, and some
things having to do with new technology were added. But there are
still major problems.

Much of instrument training still focuses on holds and hold entries -
and while this isn't totally worthless, I would argue that for the
average IFR pilot flying a light single or twin, it's not of much value
either. Lost comm stuff is largely a joke, and goes directly contrary
to what a controller would actually want you to do. On the other hand,
active weather avoidance and planning for partial/gradual engine
failure is not even considered.

When an instrument rated pilot upgrades from a trainer-class airplane
into something actually useful for IFR, I train him very differently
then when I train for the checkride. I can focus on what I know (from
years of experience flying IFR) is important, rather than what's in the
PTS.

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.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

I think the cheaters make their own standards. That's why they're
safer than the rated pilots.

2: BFR/wings
Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard.

There we disagree. I don't think it actually accomplishes this. See
below.

A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke.

It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

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.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

Some people get into that habit quickly. Some don't. 100 hours can
easily be enough.

Michael