On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:22:46 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

He didn't call it a hazzard (you're reading in thigs that are not there), he
infered it was the point when things start leading up to botched approaches.
Just doing final approaches is not adequate. If the setup is wrong, more
than likely the whole deal is going to have problems.

What I am reading is what *YOU* wrote. You were the one who used the term
hazard when you wrote about Collins opinion:

According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

So tell me how flying VFR during CAVU helps?

I never claimed that flying VFR in CAVU would help with IFR skills.

You are the one who has made the claim that flying IFR in CAVU would help
those who have problems with the "SHOCK" of IMC.

... fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

To repeat what I previously wrote, I do believe that flying within the
system, and using the IFR system, is helpful (even in VMC) in polishing
communication skills, dealing with ATC, and perhaps in dealing with some of
the regulatory issues. But that's all.

This is getting utterly ridiculous. [My take: Ron made a silly statement and is now trying to rationalize it -
if I'm wrong, I appologize, but iot seems all too much, as I mentioned, lame attempts at rationalization]

Your apology is accepted.
--ron