A disturbing statistic

Jose wrote:
I was including this kind of business flying as "personal flying". Do
the statistics separate it out?
Yes - and it is MUCH safer.

Does this "business flying" include bizjets?

No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

That would skew the
statistics. I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.

That is how the Nall Report does it.

I would be interested in a rule you
would consider a net good.

Well, it was not my stated position that they existed, merely that the
potential for the other (rules that are not a net good) does. But ok,
let me try to think: (I'm on Usenet; I'm out of practice!)

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.

Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?
Seriously? There are actually quite a few people who fly IFR without
an instrument rating. I don't mean VFR in IMC, either. They file and
fly in the system. These days, we have a lot more IFR in IMC crashes
(loss of control, CFIT) than we have VFR into IMC crashes - but all
those people have instrument ratings. The ones doing it illegally
don't seem to crash.

At least one person I know who used to do it routinely before he
finally got legal and got one is now an airline captain.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

Truth is, a person with no instrument rating isn't going to file and
fly IFR unless he is confident he can do it. Someone with an
instrument rating is likely to assume he can do it (since he has the
rating and is legal).

2: BFR/wings

Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp? Most
BFR's are a joke. Most people who are serious about their flying do a
lot more recurrent training than the BFR.

3: (old?) requirement for minimum VFR hours before pursuing an
instrument rating (learn how to look out before we teach you to look in)

Rule is gone now, but that's not so much the point. Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

4: More stringent requrements for a commercial or ATP rating.

But now we're in commercial territory. With a profit motive, people
will be tempted to do dumb ****. I agree with rules for commercial
activity. I simply think that they don't have a place for private
operators. The marine world actually operates that way. Private boats
have almost no rules (unless they are quite large) but start operating
for hire, and regulation kicks in.

Michael

Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
That is how the Nall Report does it.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

2: BFR/wings
Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard. A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke. A BFR from a responsible CFI for
someone who doesn't, will probably involve more. Sure some will slip
through the cracks - nothing is perfect.

Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

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:
Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
That is how the Nall Report does it.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

Start with the Nall Report. It contains much that is unexpected. In
fact, I formulated my theory of the J-curve as it relates to flight
safety largely on the basis of the results - which I initially found
surprising.

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

Actually, that is what is happening now. The standards for an
instrument rating are inappropriate. They focus too much on what is
unimportant, and too little on what is important. I must admit this is
changing - some relatively unimportant maneuvers were dropped, and some
things having to do with new technology were added. But there are
still major problems.

Much of instrument training still focuses on holds and hold entries -
and while this isn't totally worthless, I would argue that for the
average IFR pilot flying a light single or twin, it's not of much value
either. Lost comm stuff is largely a joke, and goes directly contrary
to what a controller would actually want you to do. On the other hand,
active weather avoidance and planning for partial/gradual engine
failure is not even considered.

When an instrument rated pilot upgrades from a trainer-class airplane
into something actually useful for IFR, I train him very differently
then when I train for the checkride. I can focus on what I know (from
years of experience flying IFR) is important, rather than what's in the
PTS.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

I think the cheaters make their own standards. That's why they're
safer than the rated pilots.

2: BFR/wings
Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard.

There we disagree. I don't think it actually accomplishes this. See
below.

A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke.

It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

Some people get into that habit quickly. Some don't. 100 hours can
easily be enough.

Michael

: A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
: probably going to seem like a joke.

: It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
: my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
: who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
: truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
: are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

Not to pick nits (FWIW I mostly agree with what you are saying), but this logic isn't quite true. Just because someone going
for a BFR is not passing maneuvers as well as a student pilot going for a checkride does not mean that he's not up to checkride PTS
standards. Many a checkride candidate *well* exceeds the PTS standards on most airwork things, but is held up due to other reasons.
A student pilot likely has lots of recent experience, which results in a good "feel."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************