"Flying too High" by Steven Pomper

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.


Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.


Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

It's other than the primary purpose.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

It's other than the primary purpose.


So you don't know the purpose of IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace then?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
*VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for
granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the
details of en route and approach procedures.


So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
Airways Traffic Control was established?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
*VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes
for granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on
the details of en route and approach procedures.


So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
Airways Traffic Control was established?

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?


Same as now, to keep the plane upright in the absence of a visible horizon.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?

Same as now, to keep the plane upright in the absence of a visible
horizon.

Yet the FAA not only allows VFR flying in the absence of a visible horizon,
it even allows you to log instrument time when flying VFR under those
conditions. That's why I conclude that the primary purpose (these days) of
the IFR-VFR distinction concerns separation rather than instrument flying
per se.

--Gary

That's what passes for 'Excellent Journalism' these days.

wrote in message
oups.com...
That article was so full of half-truths and outright distortions as to
be laughable,