The biggest safety investment in GA is...

Thomas Borchert wrote:

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation.

And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.


True. From the 2006 Nall Report :

"By contrast, instructional flying is relatively safe. While
accounting for nearly one out of every five flight hours,
it resulted in just 13.2 percent of all accidents and only
6.5 percent of fatal accidents. This is due, in part, to the
high level of supervision and structure in the training
environment."

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200707/1

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.


You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare. When we do get them, they're most often related
to winter storms with low icing levels, or thunderstorms. As a result, most
of the IR pilots I know rarely fly in actual IMC. The exceptions are those
that fly to the coast on a regular basis.

One of my friends got his instrument rating in 2001. He maintains his
currency by flying under the hood regularly, but has not flown in IMC since
he was training for the rating.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200707/1

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.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jul 6, 1:56 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.

They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.

I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me post
this.

Thoughts?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.

-Robert, CFII

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:56 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.

They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
that constant and consistent training is the best investment in
safety anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The
have a total of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top
together with training. Only after that comes inflight weather and
the other stuff.

I have to agree - and reading Jay's post about his friends made me
post this.

Thoughts?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.

-Robert, CFII

Let's take an example pilot with 300 total hours flys 50 hours per year VMC.

Version A of this guy has no IR. Version B does have an IR.

I'd think that B is a better VMC pilot even if he doesn't stay current for
IMC.

I agree it takes a lot to stay current for IMC but having the knowledge you
gain while getting an IR helps you in VMC.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:35:13 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:


Insurance companies reduce your premium if you have an IR and/or on-going
training. They don't for any of the "gadgets".
--ron


The insurance companies also crunch numbers and analyze stats, so I
think that says a lot.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
u32749@uwe wrote:

You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare.

Then there's the northeast... Low hanging cloud decks over coastal
areas and islands are great ways to sit on the ground waiting for VFR.

My husband took his instrument check ride with the minimum total time
allowed, I think he said he clocked 200 total during the ride. That
was flying in the Boston area.

We live in the southeast now, and I can't imagine us going anywhere
without him filing an instrument flight rules plan. Maybe it's a
mindset thing, but could anyone explain why a moderate to higher time
pilot would NOT take the additional instruction and become rated?

I think the obvious exception would be the recreational pilot who very
rarely goes far from home, but for everyone else, doesn't it make
sense to go ahead and get the rating?

Even with it we don't fly a small percentage of out planned trips
because of the weather, but still, flying an approach to an airport
when the weather isn't good just seems not to be a big deal, but those
who are trying to maintain VFR had a heck of a time.

It's probably a stupid question from someone who flys in the right
seat, but could someone offer some reasonable answer?

T

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)

Robert,

A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency.


You have the numbers to show that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)