Mike Spera wrote:
[stuff deleted]

Although some of what Bret said is pretty outrageous, I do believe
that general aviation would be better off if flight training emphasized
the "sport" aspect more and the "travel" aspect less.

I agree completely.

When I started out, I had the impression that light airplanes were much
more capable than they really are. I think this is an important point.
The flight schools are trying to stay afloat and emphasize the "utility"
of flying light airplanes. Their instructors have their sights on flying
big iron. Both do a disservice to students when they don't stress the
limitations of these planes. Pilots tempt fate by challenging weather
that is inappropriate for their skills and these airplanes perhaps in
part because the school and the instructors don't do enough to stress
these limits. Neither one wants to scare away students and be put out of
business. It is a fine line.

Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument
rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did
nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing
and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets
may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed
their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the
weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure,
you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in
your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high
possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For
those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for
several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball.

I have had lively discussions about the above view. Usually it is with
those who are in denial and want to keep the dream alive of a "personal
airliner" in their mind's eye. After all, if you cannot really look
forward to USING these things, what would be the point in the time and
expense to fly? The answer is: you better love flying for its own sake
(which some call "sport flying").

I got my instrument rating recently and while I think you have a good
point, I don't agree completely. The instrument rating does add to the
utility of the plane. It doesn't make you able to fly the same
conditions the airliners do, but it does increase the utility to some
extent. You have more flexibility because you don't have to worry
about getting trapped on top of an undercast. You can fly someplace
with less worry that you can't get home in three days' time. In the
summer you can get above the cumulous layer that hangs out at 4000 ft
and makes flight under it miserable (in the southeast). A small area
of instrument conditions you have to fly though won't cancel your whole
flight. If I take a 2.5 hour flight and of that 0.2 hours is IMC, that
flight is relatively easy and does not push the limits but may not have
been doable staying purely VFR.

an example is a recent flight I took from NC to GA. It was about 2.5
hours of severe clear but at the destination there was a thin overcast
layer at 1000 with another one at 4000. It was relatively easy to get
in with 0.5 hours actual logged ending in a GPS approach where I broke
out at 1000 AGL, plenty of margin. Without the instrument ticket
however, that flight would have required landing about 50 miles short
of the destination and guessing when to try to get there because the
destination did not have an AWOS. Or most likely, not taking off at
all.

On the return flight I was in and out of clouds, logging about 0.3
actual but once again a flight that either would have have been
impossible, or would have been a lot less convenient without the
ticket.

Also by being able to file IFR I get much better ATC service than I
would have on a VFR flight, including in severe clear conditions. ATC
can't say no to me, like they can to VFR flight following requests (or
at least they are much less likely to). I sometimes get routed/cleared
through restricted areas that I would have had to avoid as a VFR pilot.
That's important in an area with lots of military bases nearby.

You don't have to challenge hard IFR conditions to get utility out of
the instrument ticket. Now, if I didn't enjoy the challenge of the
training, would it have been worth it if I totalled up the cost of the
training versus the practial utility? No. It still requires a love of
flying and challenge to do and may not be justifiable on purely
practical grounds. But really, neither is flying GA aircraft in the
first place.