![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ace Pilot wrote:
I assumed the pilot was IFR rated and understood how the system works, but was not necessarily proficient at flying in IMC conditions, but was perfectly capable of flying safely in VMC. One consideration is (discussed in prev. threads), if you are flying IFR, you can not expect to necessarily be able to maintain clear of clouds. If you are flying above a broken layer, you can not, on an IFR flight plan, maneuver to descend through a hole as you could VFR. You can request ATC to accomodate altitude and routing prefs which will keep you VMC, but they may not be able to accomodate you. Basically, I don't think it's a good idea to file IFR if you're not prepared to fly in clouds, unless the wx is truly "bluebird" all the way. CAVU below 12,000 or something. The big question is whether there are any "costs" associated with this proposal, and do those costs outweigh the benefit. Just being illegal is not a cost. I would disagree. I think being illegal is a cost. I think there is a slippery slope in setting out to deliberately break one regulation. Even if you disagree, don't discount the cost of being discovered and facing punative action. As for being a danger to other pilots in the air, I see no difference between a non-current IFR-rated pilot on an IFR flight plan and a VFR-only pilot, as long as it is on a VMC day. Does the VFR pilot understand IFR procedures, or is he going to clog up the system if directed to fly a STAR or given a crossing restriction on altitude? A non-current IFR pilot can be a problem, too, if he's forgotten his basics. I'm now starting to wonder if there are some things that the Feds deem illegal, but are actually safer. There's no question that there are illegal things which are arguably safer. The problem is, who is doing the arguing? Once you set out to break one regulation, you are saying your judgement is superior to the regulations. Maybe it is in this instance. But I see a slippery slope, where it becomes easier to justify breaking another reg in the next instance. And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor, how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement? Cheers, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
ATC says wrong position | Greg Esres | Instrument Flight Rules | 28 | April 30th 04 05:37 PM |
Were the Tuskeegee Airmen Wrong? | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 63 | February 14th 04 07:38 PM |
A Brilliant Idea | nafod40 | Home Built | 4 | September 9th 03 10:33 PM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |