The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:41:43 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote in
:

I would not rely on the control tower to keep me separated from VFR
traffic, however.

Right. That would be contrary to § 91.113

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, he based his "opinion" on some rather lengthy and deep digging into
the NDSB records.



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 Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
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 Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, he based his statement on some rather lengthy and in-depth research in
the the NTSB records.... (maybe you've had some revelation?).



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.

Not eveyone lives in that weather ******** folks call the "East" or the
"Atlantic Seaboard".


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

Do you comprehend the meaning of the words "As much as possible"?

It should be fairly obvious that flying within the IFR system even in
vfr weather would be a way to keep fairly proficient with the
communication and naviagation aspects of instrument flight, even if it
does not help with controlling the airplane by reference to
instruments.

There's a thing called "evidence based medicine" and its principle is
that unless there is a clinical reason to do otherwise one should do
what helps most people with the presenting condition. An example is,
the first medication to try when dealing with hypertension is a
diuretic.

The evidence with respect to general aviation piloting is that gaining
an instrument endorsement is the single most effective way of
improving safety. It's interesting to hear the arguments in opposition
-- seems to be a lot of reasons being offered why it doesn't apply to
so many posters here.

And then, dammit, too often we read of friends who proceed into IMC
without the training to handle those conditions.

I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
argue the point.

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

wrote in message
ups.com...
It should be fairly obvious that flying within the IFR system even in
vfr weather would be a way to keep fairly proficient with the
communication and naviagation aspects of instrument flight, even if it
does not help with controlling the airplane by reference to
instruments.

There's a thing called "evidence based medicine" and its principle is
that unless there is a clinical reason to do otherwise one should do
what helps most people with the presenting condition. An example is,
the first medication to try when dealing with hypertension is a
diuretic.

I find thios thread intersting in that so many people say your should use a
sim to keep sharp, but then skip the opportunity to do it _LIVE_.

If sim's were that good, MX would be the next Bob Hoover.


The evidence with respect to general aviation piloting is that gaining
an instrument endorsement is the single most effective way of
improving safety. It's interesting to hear the arguments in opposition
-- seems to be a lot of reasons being offered why it doesn't apply to
so many posters here.

And then, dammit, too often we read of friends who proceed into IMC
without the training to handle those conditions.

And the next worst killer, "Skud Running".


I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
argue the point.

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

Even if you never file another IFR flight plan, the training can only make
you better at VFR.

Ten years ago my wife took a "Pinch Hitter" course, and takes a couple
lessons each year. She will NEVER solo, and doesn't want to, but the
training might be the difference between her living and dying. As such, I
insist on her taking about four or five hours of dual a year...in OUR plane.

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

I submit we have too many examples of "evidence based" NTSB reports to
argue the point.

Couldn't agree more.

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

You should have a look at the reactions to new planes/engines/concepts
if you want another interesting psychological effect at work.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

For what it's worth, I have no intention of becoming a PPSEL but get
about 50 hours a year of 'dual' flying cross country in our Mooney.
Nearly all of that is under IFR, and a third or so is in IMC. My PIC
insists I land the thing after flying it to minimums a few times a
year as well. I am usually the communications officer as well.

I have, of course, the strangest instrument scan you ever saw. The
engine gauges are in front of me, the nav stuff way over on the left.
The saving grace is, the Mooney is fairly small inside.

Husband has not taught me how to make sure if something happens to him
he doesn't slump over the yoke, though. The seat belts and shoulder
straps are inertial locking, they wouldn't help.

Hammerhead?






Ten years ago my wife took a "Pinch Hitter" course, and takes a couple
lessons each year. She will NEVER solo, and doesn't want to, but the
training might be the difference between her living and dying. As such, I
insist on her taking about four or five hours of dual a year...in OUR plane.

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

wrote:

As a psychologist it's interesting to hear the justifications for not
taking the training, One would think the training might cause harm!

I stated mine above. You see posts from pilots who fly quite a few hours a
year in IMC. Honestly, I would be lucky to see a couple of hours a year.
Frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable flying into actual IMC with so little
exposure. As has been stated before in this thread, flying under the hood is
not the same. Particularly if that hood time is done during the day, when
sunlight provides cues.

That doesn't mean I don't get training. I spend several hours every year
flying under the hood at night with instructors. A practice I've followed
for the last decade or so. I'm quite confident that I can control my
aircraft solely by reference to instruments (full or partial panel) and
extricate myself from an inadvertent IMC encounter. I just don't see the
point in going through the time and expense of becoming qualified to fly "in
the system" (not a trivial cost). It's not a system that I really need,
plus I don't feel I'd get much return on the expense of upgrading my simple
VFR panel.

I've been flying 19 yrs. and average about 120 hrs. per year. Being
stranded by the weather is a fairly rare occurance for me. As I said
before, if I lived and flew in an area that exposed me to IMC on a regular
basis, I'd get the rating in a heartbeat.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Jul 6, 7:20 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"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.

Yes. Especially if you are going to be flying in or near ADIZ's,
restricted airspace etc. Do what you're told by ATC and you'll never
bust a TFR or ADIZ -- or if you do, it isn't your fault. And "doing
what you're told" isn't bad, the controllers I fly with are pretty
accomodating and flexible.

For example, there is a restricted airspace over a major military base
near my airport that frequently requires circumnavigation when coming
fhome rom the south VFR, and also a nuke plant just to the east of
the field with similar restrictions. But when I file IFR, I often get
to fly right through the restricted airspace or over the plant. I also
get some nice views of military hardware flying under me or nearby
during those flights. I never got to fly through the restricted
airspace until I was IFR rated and now I do it routinely, under ATC
guidance.

Also, when flying to the coast there are several restricted areas to
dodge, but I file, go through or around them with ease under ATC and
then once I'm east of the last one, cancel IFR and have a nice VFR
flying day at the coast. ATC is cool with this, when they give me the
usual hint by telling me to "report cancellation on this frequency,"
I reply I will cancel as soon as I am clear of the restricted area/
nuke plant/ whatever, and they understandand are very helpful and
cooperative.

Going to an airport in the DC ADIZ is much easier on an IFR flight
plan too.

So IOW, there is significant utility to the IFR rating besides just
flying in bad weather.