182 crash at GON

I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past that
in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did not have
dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew your recent
experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally different than
the current world where an "instrument rating" is a license to dispatch
oneself as well as to fly the mission.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...


As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past
that in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did
not have dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew
your recent experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally
different than the current world where an "instrument rating" is a
license to dispatch oneself as well as to fly the mission.

That might have been the theory, but in practice, if your name was
on the schedule, you went flying.

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...


Did you have any question in your mind what he was talking about when he
wrote "IFR Rating"? No, I din't think so and neither did anyone else who
read it.

Hell, one of the books you quoted said IFR Rating.

That might have been the theory, but in practice, if your name was
on the schedule, you went flying.

OK so you are now making my point even better than I did regarding the
difference in acceptable risk vs. reward standards between military and
civilian flying. Certainly you will agree that the above weather assessment
strategy is not acceptable for a civilian pilot and that a military pilot
transitioning to civilian aviation would benefit from some sort of training
regarding the differences in military and civilian risk management...do you
not agree?

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote
I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...

Bob, I'm all for using correct terminology; I can be as pedantic as the next
person. But there's nothing incorrect about "IFR rating"--it's a
perfectly accurate description of the rating.

Similarly, there's nothing incorrect about "private pilot license".
"License" is even one of the terms that the issuing agency uses (though it
would be correct even if not); see, for example,
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/change/.

--Gary