The biggest safety investment in GA is...

wrote

VFR into IMC iisn't too far from the most risky, isn't it, Jay? A
casual reading the NTSB reports would suggest that, anyway.

Perhaps he should have said, "some of the most risky *legal* flying you can
do."
--
Jim in NC

If it's the number with the rating, I would submit that only a small
percentage of them are both current and proficient.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this. Got a cite?

I know Richard Collins (Flying mag's ancient wag) has discussed this
many times, and I know that of my personal instrument pilot
acquaintances, very few, indeed, are current and proficient. (Most
fly VFR only, or very, VERY "soft" IFR.)

What we need, however, are statistics -- and I don't have any. How
could one track this?

It surely won't be in the insurance company statistics, since every
pilot has an incentive to claim to be the Ace of the Base on those
forms -- and the FAA is almost useless when it comes to hours flown
each year, IFR or VFR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

On Jul 7, 11:55 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:

Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?

Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.

I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

B,

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


Ah. Have a look at the European JAA written requirements. The FAA test
is child's play in comparison. WHich is to say, the JAA one is totally
overblown.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:32:04 -0000, wrote:

I seem to remember reading somewhere in this newsgroup that some
instrument rated pilots felt IFR was in fact easier than VFR. My
limited experience, some 10s of hours a year in IMC, with a rated and
current pilot is that his workload is very much under control. Most
times in IMC controller instructions come at most every few miles in
an approach, ditto departure. I'd enjoy hearing the opinions of others
who fly single pilot single engine instruments a lot.

I think it very much depends on the mission. I believe I fly a fair amount
of IFR (30-40 logged hrs/year in actual) for a GA pilot. I rarely require
an IPC for currency, although I do them from time to time.

For local flights, in familiar terrain, VFR is easier and less hassle.

For longer flights, especially in unfamiliar areas, IFR is a lot easier.

In certain situations, the plan is to do part of the flight VFR, and
perhaps the approach IFR.

Operationally, VFR may be "better" if you can go on a shorter route, or at
a more desireable altitude.

However, the ability to quickly obtain an IFR clearance removes virtually
all of the stress from flying VFR in marginal conditions.

Example: A trip from KEPM to N66 a week or so ago. Ground stations were
generally reporting 2-5 miles visibility in haze. The tops of the haze was
about 8,000'. Headwinds increased as one went higher. It was
uncomfortable flying in the haze (occasional turbulence, and warmer).

8,500' was an ideal altitude; as was a straight route rather than airways.
The plan was to fly VFR, and obtain an IFR clearance for the approach if
necessary.

About 100 miles short of the destination, it became apparent that I would
require an instrument approach at the destination.

I obtained my IFR clearance with an altitude of OTP, so I could remain at
8,500'.

At an appropriate point, I requested my return to a "hard" IFR altitude,
and received my approach clearance in due course.
--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message

I think it very much depends on the mission. I believe I fly a fair
amount
of IFR (30-40 logged hrs/year in actual) for a GA pilot. I rarely require
an IPC for currency, although I do them from time to time.

For local flights, in familiar terrain, VFR is easier and less hassle.

For longer flights, especially in unfamiliar areas, IFR is a lot easier.

In certain situations, the plan is to do part of the flight VFR, and
perhaps the approach IFR.

According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

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

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:34:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

According to Richard Collins, the biggest harzard in IFR is the transition
to the approach. IOW, fly the whole thing IFR.

One of several things I would disagree with RC about.


Also, fly as much IFR as you can; even in CAVU, it keeps you sharp and
provides some practice so that IMC is not such a SHOCK!

I suppose you should if IMC is a SHOCK to you.

However, your generality breaks down when applied to any number of specific
instances when it is operationally preferable to operate under VFR.
--ron

Ron, in general, though (second hand experience speaking) if you're
going to a controlled airport, especially if it's not one you've used
much, aren't you better off flying an instrument approach, even if
it's circle to land? There's never a question of 'where is the
airport?" or of the tower not knowing where you are, known traffic
seperation, all that stuff, even in VMC? Maybe I've been exposed to
one style of general aviation for too long, but I'd be shocked after
engine start I didn't hear my personal PIC say "Clearance, Mooney N
xyz, instruments to . . ."

It could be he (we?) are mostly operating from controlled airports and
he considers himself 'professional'. In fact, he argues IMC is his
favorite weather since it keeps the unrated (and therefore less
experienced, or at least less qualified?) pilots on the ground.

As a professional shrink, I suppose I would agree with the REBUTTABLE
assumption that those who file IFR are better trained. Note the caps,
please. It's like saying those who hold a doctorate in psychology are
better qualified than those who stopped with an MS or MA. It may not
be true in all cases, but it's not a bad first (and rebuttable)
assumption. Hey, it's better than the hiring authority who only wanted
to hire lucky candidates, so he'd throw their CVs (resumes, for those
not in academia) down the stairs and hire the one whose documents went
the farthest.

Like all general rules, I freely admit there are many exceptions, and
in this newsgroup will even more freely admit as a non pilot my
observations hold only a little more weight than, say, MX whatever (I
claim more credibility because I can actually fl an ILS to minimums
from the right seat and land a real airplane pretty well, most of the
time). Hey, don't laugh until you land controlling the yoke with your
right hand and the thottle with your left, or for that matter, dance
backwards wearing high heels.

T.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:18:34 -0000, wrote in
. com:


Why would anyone with a few hundred hours of time or more resist doing
the little extra training?


Lack of ability and self-confidence?

Single-pilot IFR can be one of the most difficult tasks a person can
perform.


A simple wing-leveler/heading hold auto pilot works wonders, and gives
you and extra 'set of hands' to do the other tasks involved with flying
IFR. Without that, I can admit that IFR can keep you really busy at
times, but its not that daunting.

I did all my instrument training without any auto-pilot whatsoever.
It was difficult but I mastered it to acceptable standards. Now with
an auto pilot I can't believe how much easier it is.

One should not take for granted the auto pilot however. I still
fly all approaces manually (don't have the luxury of a coupled AP).

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:45:58 -0000, wrote:

Ron, in general, though (second hand experience speaking) if you're
going to a controlled airport, especially if it's not one you've used
much, aren't you better off flying an instrument approach, even if
it's circle to land? There's never a question of 'where is the
airport?" or of the tower not knowing where you are, known traffic
seperation, all that stuff, even in VMC? Maybe I've been exposed to
one style of general aviation for too long, but I'd be shocked after
engine start I didn't hear my personal PIC say "Clearance, Mooney N
xyz, instruments to . . .

What do you mean by an "instrument approach"? "familiar"?

Here's what I do.

I generally fly IFR to busy airports (e.g. KBOS, KFRG, KHPN) especially if
they are unfamiliar or at the end of long trips. And I do so because of
the ease of communication handoffs, and not having to worry about
controlled airspace issues.

I would not rely on the control tower to keep me separated from VFR
traffic, however. You'll probably be OK at a place like KBOS, or other
major airports in a CBA. And the tower will warn you if they see a
conflict, but separating you from VFR traffic is not a primary
responsibility.

Much of the time, when I operate under IFR to a controlled field, the
approach clearance is for a Visual Approach, locating the airport visually
is still required.

The two controlled airports to which I operate most frequently are KBGR and
KASH. I have no qualms about going VFR into either.

KFRG, because of the airspace/communications issues, I prefer IFR.

KBOS, because of familiarity, I will frequently go VFR (unless on an Angel
Flight mission).
--ron