wrote:

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

I stated mine above. You see posts from pilots who fly quite a few hours a
year in IMC. Honestly, I would be lucky to see a couple of hours a year.
Frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable flying into actual IMC with so little
exposure. As has been stated before in this thread, flying under the hood is
not the same. Particularly if that hood time is done during the day, when
sunlight provides cues.

That doesn't mean I don't get training. I spend several hours every year
flying under the hood at night with instructors. A practice I've followed
for the last decade or so. I'm quite confident that I can control my
aircraft solely by reference to instruments (full or partial panel) and
extricate myself from an inadvertent IMC encounter. I just don't see the
point in going through the time and expense of becoming qualified to fly "in
the system" (not a trivial cost). It's not a system that I really need,
plus I don't feel I'd get much return on the expense of upgrading my simple
VFR panel.

I've been flying 19 yrs. and average about 120 hrs. per year. Being
stranded by the weather is a fairly rare occurance for me. As I said
before, if I lived and flew in an area that exposed me to IMC on a regular
basis, I'd get the rating in a heartbeat.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com