The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:59:57 -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?).

No revelations. Only common sense.

My own reviews, and the opinions of others, have indicated an increased
hazard during the transition, at the *TERMINATION* of an approach, from IMC
to the visual phase.

If Collins actually stated that there is a hazard in the "transition TO the
approach", it is difficult to understand why that transition would be any
more difficult if the preceding segment were flown under visual versus
instrument flight rules.

So far as the transition from IMC to visual conditions at the end of an
approach is concerned, as with any other facet of flying, practice of THAT
phase of flight is a good way to help the problem.

I do believe that flying within the system, and using the IFR system, is
helpful (even in VMC) in polishing communication skills, dealing with ATC,
and perhaps in dealing with some of the regulatory issues. But that's all.

In my personal opinion, the most critical part of any flight in IMC is the
pre-flight planning, and the go/no-go decision. Do that properly and the
flight becomes simple. Part of that planning is an honest assessment of
the pilot and his abilities at that particular time.

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

What you wrote was "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!"

Explain to me how flying IFR in CAVU conditions makes you better able to
execute an approach to minimums, perhaps followed by a miss and a diversion
to your alternate, and also deal with the transition from IMC to VMC at the
end of the approach?

Again, if IMC is a "such a SHOCK", the cure is to fly in IMC -- either real
or simulated (using a simulator or safety pilot and a GOOD view-limiting
device) -- until it is not such a SHOCK.

If the problem is communication and procedures, then using the system in
CAVU may have some benefit.
--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:59:57 -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?).

No revelations. Only common sense.

My own reviews, and the opinions of others, have indicated an increased
hazard during the transition, at the *TERMINATION* of an approach, from
IMC
to the visual phase.

What Collins was refering to was in getting disjointed during the transition
from enroute to approach.

Think about the people that have overrun the ILS or the IAP.


If Collins actually stated that there is a hazard in the "transition TO
the
approach", it is difficult to understand why that transition would be any
more difficult if the preceding segment were flown under visual versus
instrument flight rules.

He didn't call it a hazzard (you're reading in thigs that are not there), he
infered it was the point when things start leading up to botched approaches.
Just doing final approaches is not adequate. If the setup is wrong, more
than likely the whole deal is going to have problems.


So far as the transition from IMC to visual conditions at the end of an
approach is concerned, as with any other facet of flying, practice of THAT
phase of flight is a good way to help the problem.

I do believe that flying within the system, and using the IFR system, is
helpful (even in VMC) in polishing communication skills, dealing with ATC,
and perhaps in dealing with some of the regulatory issues. But that's
all.

In my personal opinion, the most critical part of any flight in IMC is the
pre-flight planning, and the go/no-go decision. Do that properly and the
flight becomes simple. Part of that planning is an honest assessment of
the pilot and his abilities at that particular time.

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

What you wrote was "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!"

Explain to me how flying IFR in CAVU conditions makes you better able to
execute an approach to minimums, perhaps followed by a miss and a
diversion
to your alternate, and also deal with the transition from IMC to VMC at
the
end of the approach?

Does the concept "practice" mean anything to you?

How does practice on a driving range prepare you for a round of golf?

How does driving on dry, clear roads, rather than venturing out in rain,
help you to drive on snow?

If you can't comprehend that (or need to cover your ego), I can't help you.


Again, if IMC is a "such a SHOCK", the cure is to fly in IMC -- either
real
or simulated (using a simulator or safety pilot and a GOOD view-limiting
device) -- until it is not such a SHOCK.

If it's available, numbnuts. Otherwise,

If the problem is communication and procedures, then using the system in
CAVU may have some benefit.

Sigh!!!

So tell me how flying VFR during CAVU helps?

This is getting utterly ridiculous. [My take: Ron made a silly statement and
is now trying to rationalize it - if I'm wrong, I appologize, but iot seems
all too much, as I mentioned, lame attempts at rationalization]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:22:46 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

He didn't call it a hazzard (you're reading in thigs that are not there), he
infered it was the point when things start leading up to botched approaches.
Just doing final approaches is not adequate. If the setup is wrong, more
than likely the whole deal is going to have problems.

What I am reading is what *YOU* wrote. You were the one who used the term
hazard when you wrote about Collins opinion:

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

So tell me how flying VFR during CAVU helps?

I never claimed that flying VFR in CAVU would help with IFR skills.

You are the one who has made the claim that flying IFR in CAVU would help
those who have problems with the "SHOCK" of IMC.

... 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!

To repeat what I previously wrote, I do believe that flying within the
system, and using the IFR system, is helpful (even in VMC) in polishing
communication skills, dealing with ATC, and perhaps in dealing with some of
the regulatory issues. But that's all.

This is getting utterly ridiculous. [My take: Ron made a silly statement and is now trying to rationalize it -
if I'm wrong, I appologize, but iot seems all too much, as I mentioned, lame attempts at rationalization]

Your apology is accepted.
--ron