The biggest safety investment in GA is...

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

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Robert,


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



You have the numbers to show that?

Yeah, I'd say that's quite a leap.

On Jul 6, 1:35 pm, wrote:
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?

People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
any day of the year. Its very difficult for those pilots to maintain a
level of ability that they are safe to enter the clouds. In addition,
I've noticed that retired guys have so much flexibily in their flying
that, even if they are instrument able, usually just wait the wx out.

-Robert, CFII

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, "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.

So you'd rather them not obtain additional dual training? You have
all the opportunity in the world to teach your students personal
minimums, IFR or VFR.

The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Jul 6, 3:56 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.
......

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

Thoughts?

from all the books and stuff i've glanced at (not a pilot), I would
have guessed safety wire. Cripes, i mean you guys have it tieing down
EVERYthing.

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74c8055bd2063@uwe...

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.

Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
summer or winter.

The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.

Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say, interesting?

Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice" to
go.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY (Much less southwest than I used to be)

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74c7e25cbce8a@uwe...
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."

Not to mention that instruction is seldom given in even marginal weather.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:34:48 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Notice the numbers and notes for "Business Aviation". Mostly IR'ed, but
they fly a LOT.

The problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of variables.
There's the number of hours flown, the IR, the commercial cert, possibly
an ATP, the support staff, and probably other differences of which I'm
unaware. Any one of these would, I expect, help. Which helps more? I
don't see how we can determine that via this comparison.

Of course, the solution then is to do as many of these as possible. IR.
Commercial. Lots and lots of flying.

Like we need an excuse, right grin?

- Andrew

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:07:46 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

The best flight sim, I would venture to say, is between your ears.

I'm experiencing a memory leak and my application just crashed.

- Andrew

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