wrote in message
ups.com...
It should be fairly obvious that flying within the IFR system even in
vfr weather would be a way to keep fairly proficient with the
communication and naviagation aspects of instrument flight, even if it
does not help with controlling the airplane by reference to
instruments.

There's a thing called "evidence based medicine" and its principle is
that unless there is a clinical reason to do otherwise one should do
what helps most people with the presenting condition. An example is,
the first medication to try when dealing with hypertension is a
diuretic.

I find thios thread intersting in that so many people say your should use a
sim to keep sharp, but then skip the opportunity to do it _LIVE_.

If sim's were that good, MX would be the next Bob Hoover.


The evidence with respect to general aviation piloting is that gaining
an instrument endorsement is the single most effective way of
improving safety. It's interesting to hear the arguments in opposition
-- seems to be a lot of reasons being offered why it doesn't apply to
so many posters here.

And then, dammit, too often we read of friends who proceed into IMC
without the training to handle those conditions.

And the next worst killer, "Skud Running".


I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
argue the point.

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

Even if you never file another IFR flight plan, the training can only make
you better at VFR.

Ten years ago my wife took a "Pinch Hitter" course, and takes a couple
lessons each year. She will NEVER solo, and doesn't want to, but the
training might be the difference between her living and dying. As such, I
insist on her taking about four or five hours of dual a year...in OUR plane.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY