The biggest safety investment in GA is...

Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.

Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

If you take your flying seriously, or own your own aircraft, the
the instrument rating is more of a necessity than an option.

Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
and the training *does* make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
far from a necessity. Mary and I have flown for 13 years, coast-to-
coast, from Canada to Mexico, all VFR, without mishap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just to say that having an instrument rating is of no real value
unless currency and proficiency are maintained is addressing half
the problem. I have found that the folks that would let their IFR
proficency go away also have a tendency to take some of their good
ol' VFR proficencies slide as well.

Hmm. I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations. Of the bazillions of GA pilots I talk to
every day, very few are proficient at instrument flying, and a
majority will plainly admit that they are not current. But they may
be very active, outstanding pilots, nonetheless.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

Most pro pilots will tell you that flying every flight under IFR
flight rules is the best way to remain both current and proficient.
On the flip side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life
right out of flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a
compass and a chart on weekends just to regain their flying chops.

Evidently GA flying sucks the life, literally, out of quite a few people
compared to regular, boring flying.

See my other post in this thread quoting the accident rates by types of
flying.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

On 7/6/2007 2:01:49 PM, Jay Honeck wrote:

I know we've covered this before, but your statement does not
match my observations.

Is it possible that perhaps your unscientific observations are extremely
biased due to location? In previous posts you admitted that the only actual
IFR over Iowa are either t-storms or ice-heavy clouds. Hardly conducive
conditions for flying actual IFR and thereby maintaining proficiency, if your
Midwest weather conditions survey is to be believed. I could provide an
entirely different observation from downwind of the Great Lakes of the
Northeast US.

(Caveat: This is true only of the "hobby" pilots, mind you -- which
covers the majority of pilots. Professionals who earn their living
flying are obviously going to be instrument proficient, since every,
single flight is flown "in the system".)

How would you classify GA pilots who use their aircraft every week to travel
for business?

Disagree 100%. An instrument rating is a nice feather in your cap,
and the training does make one a more skillful pilot -- but it is
far from a necessity.

Again, another location-dependent observation, IMO. Foremost, if one desires
to fly for Angel Flight Northeast (US), an instrument rating is *required*.
Additionally, based on my 1100 hours of flying primarily in the Northeast US,
if one desires to use one's aircraft as a viable means of business travel and
one does not have unlimited time, an instrument rating is a necessity
downwind of the Great Lakes. A "bazillion" pilots interviewed up here would
agree.

The issue I take with your opinions on an IFR rating has to do with the fact
that you appear here to be speaking with authority for the entire GA fleet
when in reality you fail to admit/recognize that your conclusion is based on
a relatively limited sample size of flying primarily in the Midwest US.



--
Peter

I would certainly be willing to stipulate that there may
be areas of the country where an instrument rating is
less *needed* simply to make a flight (or get back home)
than others. Here in the southeast its necessary.

My home airport has an ILS and I've used it on a number
of occasions to get back home safe and sound. Couldn't
have been done without ans instrument rating.

Peter,

The issue I take with your opinions on an IFR rating has to do with the fact
that you appear here to be speaking with authority for the entire GA fleet
when in reality you fail to admit/recognize that your conclusion is based on
a relatively limited sample size of flying primarily in the Midwest US.


And (someone has to say it) these opinions are especially weird in the light
of recent experiences of close friends of Jay's.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 7/6/2007 4:50:18 PM, Thomas Borchert wrote:

And (someone has to say it) these opinions are especially weird in the
light of recent experiences of close friends of Jay's.

But, to be fair to both sides the accident that prompted this thread could
have been caused by something unrelated to the weather. While certainly less
likely than weather, it could have been mechanical or pilot/passenger
incapacitation.

--
Peter

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:01:51 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

On the flip
side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life right out of
flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a compass and a chart on
weekends just to regain their flying chops.

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.


If I'm flying into a busy airport, or down the Florida coast I'll always
file. It's safer and makes things easier.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:

On the flip
side, however, many will also admit that it sucks the life right out of
flying, and many fly an old Cub or Luscombe with a compass and a chart on
weekends just to regain their flying chops.

I've heard this, but I don't completely agree. I like IFR flying, esp. in
IMC. But I'll fly any XC under IFR, even in nice weather. It's less for
the practice (I'm not sure how valuable it is, honestly, in VMC), but more
for simplicity.

Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

On the other hand, I suppose that if XCs were all I did then I might get
bored with this.

Nah; not if you're always going different places.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:20:28 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


Exactly. Many VFR-only flyers envision IFR flying as full of nettlesome
complexity. Actually, the reverse is usually true.

The IR written doesn't help dispel the complexity perception. G