The biggest safety investment in GA is...

On Jul 6, 4:56 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
..an instrument rating, says Aviation Consumer in a very interesting
and thought-provoking (to me) article in the current issue.

They say collision avoidance gear and all those other gadgets are
really nice, but looking at the accident records, it's pretty clear
that constant and consistent training is the best investment in safety
anyone could make, with the IR at the top of the list. The have a total
of ten items, and a fuel totalizer is at the top together with
training. Only after that comes inflight weather and the other stuff.

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

Thoughts?

I enjoyed and learned a lot from that article. But I about fell out
of my chair when they asserted that you can get a commercial rating
for $1500, including airplane time. WTF??? Maybe if you already have
all the required aeronautical experience, including the long solo
cross country and the 2 long cross country training flights, and all
the solo night t/o and landings at towered airports (and/or are based
at a towered airport so you don't have to fly x-c to get this), and
already have the 10 hours of complex time because you own a Mooney or
something, and all you need to do is learn the manuevers and take the
checkride, but I found that asssertion to be surprisingly out of touch
with reality, considering how good they usually are about being
realistic with costs.

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

On Jul 6, 1:34 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:
Yet, the GA crowd, which is overwhelmingly (?) non-IR, has the highest
accident rates. Nealy 3 1/2 times their nearest "competitors".

Accident Rate Comparisons (U.S. Fleet)
Accidents per 100,000 hours (For 2005)
Corporate aviation(1) 0.08
Fractional jets 0.14
Scheduled airlines 0.17
FAR 91 business jets(2) 0.32
FAR 135 business jets 0.47
Business aviation(3) 0.73
Non-scheduled airlines 0.94
FAR 91 & 135 business turboprops 1.61
All air taxis 2.0
Regional airlines (4) 2.01
General aviation 6.6

1. All aircraft types flown by salaried crews for business purposes.
2. Business jets professionally and non-professionally flown.
3. All aircraft types, owner flown.
4. Regional airlines were re-classified in 1997 by the FAA causing rate
increase.
Source: Robert E. Breiling Associates

--------------------------

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

Business aviation and personal aviation make a very good comparison.
In both cases, we're talking about the same training, the same
equipment, the same reporting requirements, etc. In other words, even
if the hours are misrepresented, there is no reason to believe they
are misrepresented DIFFERENTLY in the two groups. Yet both this
source (which I have not previously seen) and the Nall report indicate
that business aviation (self-flown) is dramatically safer than
personal flying. The difference is less pronounced in the Nall
report, most likely because this set of stats includes turbine
equipment (which implies both better and more regular training AND
better and more capable equipment) but the difference is still
striking in the Nall report.

Note that here, where the turbine equipment is lumped in, the numbers
look a lot better than a lot of professionally flown categories. Even
the non-sched airlines, with professional crews and likely better
equipment (on the whole - there are probably a dozen Barons and
Saratogas for every Gulfstream in the business aviation segment) look
worse. Something to think about - being professional without the
support structure of a scheduled airline seems to matter little. So
what does matter? Why is personal flying so dangerous?

I would suggest that the instrument rating isn't the key difference.
I know plenty of people doing self-flown business flying without one.
I used to do it all the time. Most eventually break down and get the
instrument rating eventually - after flying more hours than the
average recreation-only pilot flies in a lifetime. I think the real
issue is risk management.

Anyone who has done any investing knows about the Laffer curve (or J-
curve) knows that maximum conservatism does not equal minimum risk.
Put all your money into the most conservative investments, and you get
minimum return - but not minimum risk. Minimum risk comes somewhere
at about an 80-20 mix - the best compromise between investment risk
and inflation risk. Many people operate on the less conservative side
of the minimum - more risk, but higher return. There is an argument
to be made for this. There is NO argument to be made for operating on
the more conservative side - you get lower return AND higher risk.
It's just dumb.

I suggest that something similar is at work in aviation. The problem
is not that most private pilots are not instrument rated - it is that
they are too conservative.

In aviation, you balance exposure risk with incompetence risk.
Competence comes less from training and more from flying a lot in a
variety of conditions. When you fly strictly for fun, there is a huge
tendency not to fly because there is some elevated risk (maybe not
much) due to conditions (weather, fatigue, airspace, etc.) and the
flight won't be great fun. When you fly on business, you don't cancel
unless there is an obvious and significantly elevated risk - fun
doesn't enter into it, as you need to go. This will, of necessity,
make you less conservative - and will make you run afoul of GA
'wisdom.'

Time to spare, go by air
Don't ever fly yourself someplace you HAVE TO be
Don't ever fly when you're not 100%
The blue card with a hole - when color of card matches color of sky,
go fly

I submit that the wisdom is not so wise. Competence is what you need
to handle the unexpected, and the unexpected will eventually happen no
matter how conservative you are.

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves
on business are significantly less conservative about weather,
airspace, and fatigue than those who fly only for fun - they have to
be, or they would never get enough reliability to make it worthwhile.
They are also dramatically safer. That can ONLY happen if the
pleasure flyers are on the wrong side of the minimum.

Tomorrow, I'm going to fly myself on a business trip. I KNOW the
weather is going to be pretty crappy, and I will be going into a busy
primary Class B airport during the busy time. And I think I'll be
safer than the guy who is very careful and won't fly in bad weather.
And the statistics seem to agree with me.

Michael

wrote in message ps.com...
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?


You should be a CFII! It is 'interesting' flying with a student in actual conditions...

wrote in message ups.com...

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



I like that!

:-o

"xyzzy" wrote in message oups.com...

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.

Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?

xyzzy wrote in
oups.com:


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.

Many, many times I've been cleared into restricted airspace while VFR.
All I needed to do was call ATC and ask. This includes military air bases
(both Air Force and Navy), nuclear sites and a TFR as well as Bravo
airspace. Conversely, while IFR I've been vectored around Bravo airspace
and restricted airspace.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

xyzzy wrote:

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

Not to mention, how many times have you heard this while VFR and waiting
to depart or arrive at a busy field?

"Hold on for a few minutes, guys. We need to get an IFR departure out,
then we'll work you guys in..."

On Jul 9, 8:02 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

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.

Nuke plant? Restricted area? Where?

KTTA. Nuke plant about 7 miles to the east, several military bases to
the south (Ft. Bragg, Pope AFB, etc).

On Jul 10, 7:35 am, B A R R Y wrote:
xyzzy wrote:

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

Not to mention, how many times have you heard this while VFR and waiting
to depart or arrive at a busy field?

"Hold on for a few minutes, guys. We need to get an IFR departure out,
then we'll work you guys in..."

Yup, before I was IFR rated I flew in a club trip to IAD. I was VFR,
three other airplanes of the exact same type were IFR. I took off
first, landed last. I got bottom priority and vectored all over the
place in the DC area, while the IFR guys just went right in. The plane
I was in, flying VFR, put 1 hour more on the hobbes than the IFR
planes that were the same type and took the same trip at the same
time.