The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

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

Doesn't this presume that the IR pilot either doesn't know or doesn't care
that he or she is out of currency?

- Andrew

wrote:

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?


If you own an airplane and take passengers on trips of more than, say,
500 miles or for more than a couple of days at a time, it really doesn't
make a lot of sense *not* to be IFR rated. That's my opinion.

People do it all the time though, and as long as you are able (and
willing) to wait out the weather whenever your briefer says "VFR
not recommended" then there's no problem. I certainly can't do that
because I don;t have endless vacation time available to me. I would
not, however, launch into convective weather... but that's usually
relatively short lived.

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

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.

Eh?

Is there another Florida besides the one I fly in? The one down at the SE
corner of the country, I mean.

--
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

"B A R R Y" 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


That ain't no lie.

I hated studying for that frickin' thing. My best advice is to get a computer
that allows yoy to take practice tests. Keep taking them until you always get
a solid passing score, go take the test and be done with it.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Jay Honeck wrote:

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, I flew for 25 years without the instrument rating mostly because
I never got around to it (I had taken ground school and let the written
expire several times). While it is far from a necessity, it *HAS* in
my opinion increased our safety. Margy and I used to as a team go off
in 3-5 mile vis and such but since the engine failure are a little more
conservative. Having the IR means we don't even have to think about it.

Nothing is fun sapping about being on an IFR if the conditions merit it.
If you're a slave to going GPS direct it realy doesn't matter if you're
talking to ATC in the process or burning along VFR. Still plenty of
oppurtunity to do random wandering etc... but XC I file because why
not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR anyway.

Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
there's no such thing as "have to" go. Maybe 1 trip in 20 in the
southeast turns into aborted trips, and this is with a guy who loves
flying IMC to minimums. He even taught me to like it!

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

but XC I file because why not. I almost always tried to get FF when VFR
anyway.

Have you noticed yet that you get better radar service IFR than you get with
FF?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM