-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:06 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?
....
I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any
situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often
get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.


Better facilities, paved surface, closer to civilization, lots of
reasons.

It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?


There's nothing wrong with landing and fixing the problem. Your premise
however was that without an autopilot, every IFR flight was an emergency
and if the autopilot failed the flight should land immediately at the
nearest airport. That's just not the case.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment
for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.


That's the point: in your estimation. If we've bred a generation of
pilots that can't or won't fly IFR without an autopilot then why not
just fly commercial and have a drink?