Andrew Gideon wrote
You wouldn't feel nearly as good making that approach/landing
in calm winds/CAVU.

In fact, I do feel pretty damned good making an excellent approach under the
hood too. There's less risk, which I like, and there's also the same
satisfaction of having met well the challenge.

Ah - but do you feel AS good? Is it really the same? Sure, it's
still a challenge - but I don't think you can compare the feeling you
get after you land out of an ILS in 200 and 2000 RVR, where you roll
out and still can't see the far end of the runway, and doing it under
the hood - even to 100 ft.

I enjoy when I nail a simulated power failure landing too...but I don't long
for real opportunities to test my skills.

I doubt anyone does - but when it happened to me, I did feel really
good about having nailed it - much more so than when I do a practice
one. Of course I also felt like a real idiot for having put myself in
that situation too, since I had no options. The approach to mins
didn't bother me at all because I knew I had plenty of fuel to reach
much better conditions.

Here's the difference - an engine failure is a genuine emergency, and
nobody I know wants one of those. A real approach to minimums? We
all know it's an increased-risk operation, but I know more than a few
people who seek it out, for "training value" and we think nothing of
it. In fact, we consider it good training. When I intentionally
choose the lowest local ceilings and visibilities for instrument
training, is that about enjoying a bit of danger or providing the
best, most challenging training available? And how do you separate
the two?

I think that many don't "spoon feed" this, true. For example, I attended
one seminar which was a dissection of a midair. There was no conclusion
with a set of rules that would reduce risk, but I think that the
presentation and discussion provided useful information.

Did it? Did it even provide correct information? I once went to a
seminar that dissected a crash. I knew the pilot, and I knew how it
happened. The seminar was very interesting, in the sense that a work
of fiction can be interesting. It had nothing at all to do with what
really happened.

That's almost beside the point, though. Assuming the information
presented was accurate, there is clearly value in examining past
accidents. But is a safety seminar the best venue for this? I would
suggest that it is not - that the optimal venue is hangar flying.

I think I'm seeing what you mean. In your experience, seminars often
present rules of the form "thou shall not".

Either that or quite obviously imply them.

I've been to some, but I've
also been to some which draw no such simple conclusions, and that simply do
provide knowledge (perhaps from the mistakes of others).

I've been to a couple like that. There was one on flying over the
Gulf and the Caribbean by a guy who does it every year. I learned a
lot. But flying over the Gulf has inherent risks, and while I suppose
if you're going to go anyway you're better off going to the seminar
than doing it cold, I can honestly say that all his seminar did was
encourage me to cut across the Gulf when the opportunity presented
itself. Turned out that there were things he didn't cover and there
were a few tense moments there. I suppose he did a good enough job,
since I'm still here and would go again (doing it a bit differently
this time) but I can't in good conscience call it a safety seminar.

Michael