Question to the IFR Pilots Out There

If you feel that you can fly to the edge of the envelope (fully utilize
everything legally available to you in IMC conditions) at day one, what
is left to gain from experience? I'm not being facetrious (sic) here, I'm
really curious as to what value you feel that experience will bring?
Generally, it brings additional capabilities beyond what you had at the
start. But since you can't legally fly in worse weather after 500 hours
than you can after 0 hours (I'm talking post rating here), what is left
to gain from your experience?

What "edge of the envelope?" We are only talking about legal flying and
nothing that wasn't covered in training. The approach minimums give plenty
of safety if they are flown right and my training has given me all I need to
fly IMC safely. Apparently there are those out there who don't think that
is true. I question the training in that case. (And the DE who passed
them)

Once again, I never said experience is not a good thing or that you will not
get better, however, the bottom line is, you should be able to fly IMC and
do an approach to minimums on the day you take your checkride (if the DE
isn't testing that and if you weren't doing that in training, then something
is definitely wrong) Please don't say it is not practical to do an approach
to minimums during training or on a practical.

Why do you keep bringing the argument back to experience? That is not
relevant. The fact is, one should be able to fly to the standards and
safely fly IMC with an approach after you are properly trained.


I don't think anyone is claiming that you need to learn to do the
approach. It is a question of precision, confidence, and the ability to
handle the unforeseen that comes with experience. I believe any new
insrument pilot should have the knowledge to fly an approach to
minimums. They shouldn't need to learn anything from a "mechanical"
perspective. That isn't what experience usually brings. It is the
ability to recognize and deal with the non-mechanical aspects (fatique,
etc.) that occur in real flying much more so than during training.


If you don't have the confidence after training and passing the practical,
then sure, don't fly, but I would consider the quality of the training and
the practical then.



As to your question: would you want a doctor who had just graduated from
medical school perform his/her first
quadruple bypass on you without a more experienced surgeon in the
operating room?


Totally different and your example is not even close in so many ways.

Such as?


Just graduating from medical school does not qualify one to do a bypass.
We are talking about flying, not surgery. On the other hand, by
definition, passing the practical means you are qualified to fly IFR. A
single doctor doing a bypass is not likely from my limited knowledge of
medicine. I am open to examples, but this one doesn't do anything for your
argument. (neither does the P.E. one)

You have still not given a reason why a recent IFR pilot shouldn't be able
to fly what he was trained to do and what the DE said he could do. All your
arguments talk about experience years afterwards and about professional
engineers and doctors.

It appears that after this many postings neither of us is going to change
views, nor does it appear that you will answer the question about why it is
not good for a pilot to (foolishly, according to some) fly IMC and do
approaches to minimums as soon as he gets the rating. Perhaps it is best to
let it lie.