Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

I remember being in the area of no clouds, but surrounded on all 4
sides by clouds! Talk about weird! And being between layers where the
bottom layer had shimmering fog on top of the cloud. Yes you see some
amazing stuff in IMC. Also, I remeber literally swooping around small
cumulus like they were big slalom poles in the sky (had a block
clearance on that one).

It's just a matter of priorities and if you want to do it or not. I
also remember ATC making me mad and confused by making mistakes, me
making some mistakes, and NOT being able to proceed IFR because my
equipment was broken or I didn't have the charts or just wasn't
comfortable or current to do it.

Jay Honeck wrote:
The thing that prompted me to get my rating was flying to Ithaca in
glorious VMC, and then getting stuck there for several days. I
eventually tried to go out VFR under a low ceiling, but halfway back I
had to divert and spend the night in the airline terminal at Wilkes-Barre.

It only takes once.


See, that's where flying as a family is totally different.

We had a similar experience, trying to get to Sun N Fun '04. Low
ceilings, low visibility, rain over Tennessee. We landed just south of
Nashville, when we couldn't safely go on -- and were stuck there for
three days, when it turned into freezing rain.

We had the time of our lives! Our time spent in Nashville has receded
into "Honeck Family Lore" as one of our best vacations, ever -- and we
had no intention of ever going there.

Could we have proceeded IFR, with the rating? Certainly, before the
temperatures dropped. But then we would have missed out on one of our
very favorite accidental vacation memories.

It's not the destination, it's the journey.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If you have the time for such adventures. For years we never flew
anywhere on the weekends if there was a possibility we wouldn't make it
back to work on Monday. Now with Ron's rating it's more likely we can
make it back, but even with the rating we have to be prepared to fly
commercial or rent a car and drive.

Margy

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-09-27, Emily wrote:
Jose wrote:
Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others.
I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
those who think GA is dangerous, period.

To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks.

No, he just implied most.

Also, GA *is*
dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
lives.

Of course. No one's debating that.

Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft

See, I don't even think that's true. Granted, with no dependents, my
only life insurance is group through work, but it even covers me when I
flight instruct! Obviously not all insurance companies think it's
unsafe. Just for kicks, I checked into extra with USAA, they don't
care, either.

but I'm quite aware that however well I plan there is always
the possibility of something going wrong from mechanical failure to my
own fsckup - and try to prevent it and guard against it.

Well, yes, and it's about risk managment. I simply don't see how with
damn few exceptions, pilots who fly IFR in light aircraft are
daredevils. I'm certainly not, and while most of the IFR flying pilots
I know are 121, they do a certain about of flying in small aircraft.
They aren't daredevils either.

That is why I
refused to join the chorus of indignant condemnation about the LEX crash
- I'm more interested in the human factors that caused it so I have a
fighting chance of understanding it and hopefully preventing myself from
making a similar stupid pilot trick.

That's what I said, and you obviously didn't see the flames or you
wouldn't be saying it again.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Margy Natalie wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
not having an instrument rating.




Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
doesn't have an instrument rating.

;-)

I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
seriousness...)

I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
the same four points:

1. Time. snipped




2. Utility. snipped



3. Instrument Flying Sucks. snipped




4. Safety. snipped




Ok Jay, I concede. I'll get mine before you get yours.


And the race is on! :-) (for the humor impaired)


Matt

The race of the decade(s)!

Margy

Emily wrote in
:

Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-09-27, Emily wrote:
Jose wrote:
Instrument flying in light airplanes appeals to daredevil technogeeks,
and damn few others.
I don't think that's a fair or true statement.
unsafe. To say that those of who who fly IFR in light airplanes are
daredevils to a great disservice, and plays right into the hands of
those who think GA is dangerous, period.

To nitpick here, he did say '...and damn few others', implying that not
all light plane IFR people are daredevil technogeeks.

No, he just implied most.

Also, GA *is*
dangerous, period, in comparison to most things we do in our daily
lives.

Of course. No one's debating that.

Most insurance forms here don't even *ask* if you ride
a motorcycle, but they ask if you fly in GA aircraft

See, I don't even think that's true. Granted, with no dependents, my
only life insurance is group through work, but it even covers me when I
flight instruct! Obviously not all insurance companies think it's
unsafe. Just for kicks, I checked into extra with USAA, they don't
care, either.

I'm going to ask some friends of mine who are actuaries about this. The
bottom line, though, is I think this whole thing is a bunch of crap.

According to the AMA (at
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/291/10/1238 ), 20,000
Americans a year die from having sex, as compared with 43,000 who die in
Automobile Accidents, and 17,000 who die using illicit drugs.

75,000 Americans die from Microbial Agents, and 55,000 die from toxic agents.

Aviation accidents didn't make the list. 820 people per year die in aviation
accidents.

Of course, we know that Smoking and being fat are leading causes of death,
and are also causes for insurance company rate increases. So being fat or
smoking is more dangerous than flying.

I know there are proportion reasons as to why aviation didn't make the list.
However, I personally believe that most modern day Americans spend more than
twice as many hours per month driving than having sex.

So based on the above, having sex is statistically more dangerous than
flying. Why don't the insurance companies rate you based on the frequency
with which you engage in sexual activity? (Then again, this certainly
explains why being married causes a rate reduction!)

Furthermore, there is a seemingly disporportionate number of people who die
from microbial agents. Most microbial agents are passed by exposure in large
numbers. I can't say for sure, but my geuss is that proportionately speaking,
the average American spends fewer than twice as many hours in large groups
(ie: parties, discos, bars, buses, etc.) exposed to microbial agents than
they do driving or flying GA. This would imply that it is more dangerous to
ride a bus or airline than it is to fly privately in a GA aircraft.

According to http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/...Mortality.html
approximately 50,000 Americans per year die in occupational injuries. So in
other words, working is more dangerous than flying.

According to http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html and numerous other
sources, falls are the second leading accident fatality behind motor
vehicles, and the leading cause of death in home accidents. So basically,
standing is more dangerous than flying, especially at home.

According to the CIA World Fact Book,
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/us.html about 7 out of
1000 male babies die at childbirth in the US. Slightly less so for females.
If you calculate all the numbers, it's about 24,600 infant fatalities per
year. So basically, being born is more dangerous than flying.

This website is extremely enlightening:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

According to it, 742 people die in Air & Space transport accidents. The odds
of someone dying in a Air & Space accident in their lifetime is 1 in 5,051.
The odds, however, of dying as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident in
ones lifetime is 1 in 626. Basically, it's nearly 10 times more dangerous to
cross the street as it is to fly in an airplane. By the way, the odds of
dying in a motorcycle accident are 1 in 1020, nearly 5x more dangerous than
flying. The closest reasonable match I could find was "pedalcyclist" at 4919.
So basically, flying is about as dangerous as riding your bike.

The odds of dying from choking ("Inhalation and Ingestion of food causing
obstruction of respirator track") is 4284 to 1, so just slightly higher than
flying. So basically, eating is slightly more dangerous than flying.

Accidental drowning in a natural body of water (as opposed to a pool or
bathtub) is 1 in 3060 - substantially more dangerous than flying. Whereas the
odds of dying from exposure to forces of nature is one in 3288. And
accidental poisoning by exposure to gases and vapours is 1 in 5432, just
slightly safer than flying.

So basically, it's safer to stay in a cave than it is to jump in a lake.

To put it in perspective, 2,465,150 die per year. Around 800 of them die in
aviation accidents. Why are we even talking about this? It's so insignificant
it's not even worth talking about!

I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of speed).
And we just sit here and take it.

Well I'm not going to take it anymore! I don't buy it! We don't even affect
the statistics pool! Enough already about dying in GA! Let's just fly safe
and enjoy our life before we get killed crossing the street!

Judah writes:

According to the AMA (at
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/291/10/1238 ), 20,000
Americans a year die from having sex, as compared with 43,000 who die in
Automobile Accidents, and 17,000 who die using illicit drugs.

75,000 Americans die from Microbial Agents, and 55,000 die from toxic agents.

Aviation accidents didn't make the list. 820 people per year die in aviation
accidents.

How many people have sex each year? How many ride or drive in cars?
How many take illicit drugs? And how many ride or fly planes?

Commercial aviation is quite safe. General aviation, however, is
significantly less so. The great majority of aviation accidents
involve general aviation. The accident rate per flight hour is nearly
40 times higher for general aviation than for commercial airlines; the
number of fatalities per flight hour is almost 82 times higher. There
are more general aviation accidents per week in the U.S. than there
are per year for commercial airlines, and they both have comparable
numbers of flight hours (24 million for GA vs. 19 million for
airlines).

This doesn't necessarily mean that general aviation is intrinsically
less safe. It says more about a lack of discipline in general
aviation: careless pilots, careless maintenance, etc. It is also true
that reciprocating engines are much less reliable than turbine
engines, which contributes to the statistics.

I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of speed).
And we just sit here and take it.

Unfortunately, their fear of GA (in comparison to commercial air
travel) is quite justified, as the numbers above make clear.

You can avoid becoming one of the statistics by being a disciplined
and safe pilot and taking no chances, and by flying only aircraft that
are properly maintained, in the conditions for which they were
designed. But you can be sure that other, careless pilots and poorly
maintained aircraft will continue to keep the accident rates high.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

20,000
Americans a year die from having sex

Is that from having sex, or from the side effects of the lead?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in news:uGmTg.6024$TV3.5700
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

20,000
Americans a year die from having sex

Is that from having sex, or from the side effects of the lead?

Jose

Lead or latex?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

How many people have sex each year? How many ride or drive in cars?
How many take illicit drugs? And how many ride or fly planes?

How many accidents per sex hour are there? How about per illicit drug use
hour? If you're going to try to compare apples to apples, please do it
properly.

Commercial aviation is quite safe. General aviation, however, is
significantly less so. The great majority of aviation accidents
involve general aviation. The accident rate per flight hour is nearly
40 times higher for general aviation than for commercial airlines; the
number of fatalities per flight hour is almost 82 times higher. There
are more general aviation accidents per week in the U.S. than there
are per year for commercial airlines, and they both have comparable
numbers of flight hours (24 million for GA vs. 19 million for
airlines).

These numbers are relative to each other. This does nothing to speak to the
number of aviation accidents (GA or commercial) per flight hour or per
mile. It is a load of crap.

This doesn't necessarily mean that general aviation is intrinsically
less safe. It says more about a lack of discipline in general
aviation: careless pilots, careless maintenance, etc. It is also true
that reciprocating engines are much less reliable than turbine
engines, which contributes to the statistics.

1) In a GA accident, there is usually between 1 and 4 fatalities. Ina
commercial aviation accident, there are usually between 30 and 300
fatalities. The statistics are irrelevant because it takes just one
commercial aviation accident to match up with 100 GA ones.

2) I'm not trying to compare general aviation safety to commercial aviation
safety. I'm trying to find out why people are so scared of flying when all
of 800 people die a year doing it.

I think people's fear of GA is not based on fact, but it's based on a
combination of Acrophobia (fear of heights) and Tachophobia (fear of
speed). And we just sit here and take it.

Unfortunately, their fear of GA (in comparison to commercial air
travel) is quite justified, as the numbers above make clear.

Bullcrapola. Many people are just as afraid of flying commercially as they
are of flying GA. In fact, I know several people who are afraid of flying
commercially but are NOT afraid of flying GA. And one of them is a former
mechanic for an airline.

You can avoid becoming one of the statistics by being a disciplined
and safe pilot and taking no chances, and by flying only aircraft that
are properly maintained, in the conditions for which they were
designed. But you can be sure that other, careless pilots and poorly
maintained aircraft will continue to keep the accident rates high.

This may be true, but it's non-sequiter to my question. BTW: The statistic
of 800 people per year seems to include both commercial and GA.

Lead or latex?

Lead. That's the classic ending to sex.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.