3 lives lost

Gene, you cited a 1954 Stonecipher report in an earlier post. Is this the
current Boeing chairman?

I admire your attitude regarding flying, and your remarks about this tragic
case. I'm a PP-ASEL with about 220 hrs and want to get my instrument
rating. What do you think of the accelerated programs? I'm thinking in
particular about PIC.

Joe,

I suspect the two Stoneciphers are not the same person, but they might
be related.

I have worked with several people that went thru PIC, and I was not
displeased with the results. You must be aware, however, that any 7-14
day instrument rating will have limitations. By that I mean that after
you get home, you should consider yourself an instrument-rated novice.
This is not a bad thing, I just think you want to build your experience
and confidence gradually after getting the rating.

There is another short course I can recommend, and that is Maury's West
Coast Adventures. A couple of clients of mine have gone through the
program, and they were very happy. This program takes a group of three
students in a T182RG on a cross-country IFR adventure that is kind of a
tour of the western US. In the process you get a lot of experience in
a variety of weather, terrain and ATC environments.

Maury's course requires that you have your attitude instrument flight
skills and your written test report before you report for the course.
I believe the PIC course requires only the written test done prior.

Those are the only two short courses I can recommend. There are a lot
of others, but I have not seen another that I had any confidence in.

I have done a fair amount of business taking some of the people that
come out of some of the other short courses and bringing their
(deficient) skills up to the point that they could actually use their
rating without scaring themselves to death...

In all cases, I find the weakest area in most instrument courses, and
the short ones in particular, is the basic attitude instrument flying
skills. They act like the foundation of a great pyramid; use weak
stones in the foundation and as you add weight onto the upper courses,
the foundation crumbles and it all falls down.

Regards,

Gene

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Using google, I found the citation for
the article to which you referred on the FAA web site:

Bryan, L.A., Stonecipher, J.W., and Aron, K. (1954). 180-degree turn
experiment. University of Illinois Bulletin, Aeronautics Bulletin Number 11.

The current Boeing chairman is Harry C. Stonecipher, not the same person but
possibly related as you said.

It's a cliche, but I really regarded the private certificate as a license to
learn. I got it at 70 hours, and have had no passengers until recently (a
little over 200 hours). I've spent the intervening time practicing all the
various PTS maneuvers (solo stalls were a little intimidating at first!),
becoming more comfortable with talking to ATC, studying navigation,
building the 50 hrs of cross country time for the instrument rating,
attending FAA safety seminars, etc. My field is only 10 minutes away, so I
can usually schedule a plane at the last minute. Nonetheless, I've
cancelled due to marginal weather conditions on a number of occasions, and
have not regretted even the instances when the weather actually improved.
All this is a long winded way of agreeing with you that I think the IR is
also merely a license to learn. I wouldn't be eager to attempt an approach
at minimums the day after getting IR, accelerated or not. I'll check out
Maury's West Coast Adventures--thanks for the tip.

Wow! Good research. I've got a hard copy of it around here somewhere,
but after three moves, only God knows *where* around here.

You will find that the conditions used in the study were actually a
little extreme; the test aircraft was a high-perf retract, (Bonanza, i
think), and the did not give them an AI. The theory was to develop a
survival procedure that would work in any airplane, including those not
equipped with an AI.

I suspect that if the experiment were repeated using a 172 with an AI
you would get better results--but not that much better, maybe a 30%
survival rate rather than 0%. However, those results would, I think,
be unrealistically optimistic; the uncontrolled variable is the stress
factor. A private pilot in a study, under the hood, in VMC, with an
instructor next to him knows that if he really screws it up the worst
that is going to happen is he 'fails' the test. His life is not really
at risk, and he knows it.

Put that same private pilot in a 172, solo, or with non-pilot
passengers, in IMC, with a little turbulence and I think the stress
level will be *enormous.* If you could do a study where the pilot was
convinced that it was real IMC, with real rocks below, no instructor,
and no help available, then you might see some results that have
validity.

Listen to the guy's voice on the 17 ways tape and tell me what you
think.

Gene

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
...
I'll check out
Maury's West Coast Adventures--thanks for the tip.


Actually, it's Morey...Field Morey. His site is he
http://www.ifrwest.com/