The biggest safety investment in GA is...

"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 Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:54:43 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

It would seem that JFK Jr. demonstrated that quite evidently.

Without that, I can admit that IFR can keep you really busy at
times, but its not that daunting.

There is one indicant that occurred during my IFR training that taught
me just how daunting IFR operation can be:

Two dripping wet flight instructors burst into the FBO office
loudly remarking about their turbulent flight in the storm
going on overhead that afternoon. They were exuberantly remarking
about how bad the weather was, and how it had been nearly
impossible to remain in control of their little Cessna 152. My
flight instructor, Dan, looked at me and asked if I still wanted
to fly our scheduled lesson. Not knowing any better, I thought it
was a good opportunity to get some more actual IMC experience, so
I said yes. We'd be flying the Archer with a little heavier wing
loading then the C-152, so it should be a bit more stable. Dan
was game, and I trusted his judgment, so we got a SID and
launched.

The ceiling was low, and there was a lot of convective activity,
but we managed to bounce along in the gray-black clag through KLAX
Class B. The KLAX approach controller sounded like a non-stop
auctioneer without waiting for pilot acknowledgements to his
calls. His intensity added to the tumult all flights in the area
were experiencing.

I was fighting to keep within 30 degrees of our assigned heading
as the turbulence tossed us back and forth. It was the roughest
flight I had ever experienced, and I was clammy with perspiration
from trying to retain control. Dan was cool, and let me keep at
it without interfering.

That flight taught me what it meant to be saturated by IFR operation
requirements. It was all I could do to keep the instrument scan
going, fight to remain on course, while attempting to recognize and
respond to my transmissions from ATC, and remain reasonably aware of
my position and situation.

I did all my instrument training without any auto-pilot whatsoever.
It was difficult but I mastered it to acceptable standards.

Me too.

Now with an auto pilot I can't believe how much easier it is.

True, but if 'George' should happen to hiccup, you'd better be
prepared to start working hard again in a jiffy.

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).

Right.

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


Don't see any nuke plant restricted area. I don't think there is any such thing. TFR, maybe, and they only say not to
loiter...

I see the Semour MOA to the east and R5311 to the south...

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

On Jul 10, 8:14 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
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).

Don't see any nuke plant restricted area. I don't think there is any such thing. TFR, maybe, and they only say not to
loiter...

Right, there is no restricted area but we are not to loiter.
Actually, what they tell us on briefings is the same thing they say
about sports events -- when VFR stay at least 3000 feet over it when
within 3 miles, which does make approaching from the east VFR a bit
more complicated. Most pilots who come in from the east VFR make an
effort to stay well south of it, while also worrying about the 2150
foot antenna just south of the river there. Between the plant and the
antenna, the corridor you can use to comfortably approach VFR from the
east is a bit narrow.

I'm much more comfortable coming in IFR and knowing if I fly "too"
close to the plant, they know I'm OK because I'm under ATC control and
following their directions. If conditions are VFR, I usually cancel
when clear of the plant by 3 miles.

I see the Semour MOA to the east and R5311 to the south...

The Seymour MOA isn't that big a deal, the Seymor and Fayetteville
controllers are very good. The R5311 is a pain in the butt when
coming in VFR from the southeast.

xyzzy wrote:

Right, there is no restricted area but we are not to loiter.
Actually, what they tell us on briefings is the same thing they say
about sports events -- when VFR stay at least 3000 feet over it when
within 3 miles, which does make approaching from the east VFR a bit
more complicated.

Do you believe everything "they" tell you? The nuclear TFR is very clear.
There is nothing in it about remaining above 3,000 ft. within 3 miles. Do
not circle or loiter. That's it. If you wish to treat it as a stadium TFR
that's up to you, but it's not.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200707/1

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Not really; see below.

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.

I agree with you in kind,, but perhaps not in detail. IBME, that those who
use aircraft for business generally are better equiped, have gotten more
training, put more $$ into better and more frequent maintenance, are much
more likely (not exclusively, though) have IR's and Commercial tickets.

Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.


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.

Perhaps not, but it is significant.

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.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

I think the real issue is risk management.

Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

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.

Not sure, but I think you're misstating risk/gain assessment, but otherwise,
I think you're pretty much dead on.


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.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.


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.

Conditional (contextual) "Agree".

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.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.


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.

Hmmm???

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

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.

Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

Good flight to you!

(Before someone jumps in with anecdotal examples, know that these are wide
generalizations and not 100% empirical)
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

On Jul 11, 12:00 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
Also, not the category includes all levels, and that would include SP
Citations and other bizjets that are single pilot/owner flown.

Yes, which is why the difference is so dramatic here. But in the Nall
report those Citations are excluded, and the difference is still
huge. Self-flown business flyers are still safer than recreational
flyers even when flying pistons.

I would like to know how they manage to distinguish business trips from
personal flights.

Self-reporting, I assume. There is no incentive to misreport, as
there is nothing illegal or insurance-affecting about it.

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.

How many folks flew for years as pleasure pilots before using aircraft for
business. I'd sat quite a few.

In my experience, none. Those willing to use a personal aircraft for
business usually start right away - because they can.

I think the real issue is risk management.
Wholeheartedly agree. Under any conditions of weather, equipment, anything,
better pilots handle risks better. As most business pilots are _probably_
entrepreneaurs, might they have a better grasp of RM?

Less than half of the ones I know are entrepreneurs. Most are
professional employees. But your larger point - that the business
flyers have a better grasp of RM - is true in my experience.

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.

Ummm...no? I think they take risks not understanding all the potential
factors involved.

Well, sort of. They don't realize that they are being too
conservative, are failing to develop their skills, and are thus adding
more risk through failure to develop their skills then they avoid by
reducing exposure.

If they're as conservative as you imply, they'd (pretty much) never fly,
PERIOD.

Most private pilots fly less than 25 hours a year.

On the other hand, knowing there's an elevated risk for that flight, proper
precautions are taken. I also tend to think that business people (of the fly
yourself variety) have a better grasp of this than the average Joe/Betty.

Agree. But there is a difference between proper prior planning (which
allows you to experience the difficult conditions, learn, and survive
the experience) and not going (which merely allows you to survive, but
not learn anything)

I also submit that most of personal GA operates on the wrong side of
the optimum - more conservative, less risky. Those who fly themselves

I meant more conservative but more risky. Sorry.

How about this: the point of Risk Management is managing risk BEFORE the
fact, not after the stuff has hit the fan.

But really, it's both. It is said that the superior pilot uses his
superior judgment to avoid situations that will require the use of his
superior skills, and this is true MOST of the time. But eventually,
the **** will hit the fan no matter how careful you are - and then, if
you have not developed the skill, you are done. If you avoid all
exposure to risky situations, you never develop the skill.

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.

Most likely, you're going to do a sh&tl*!d of planning before hand, as as
things unfold, not just go barrel off into the wild blue yonder.

I will do (actually, did - the trip was yesterday) relatively little
planning. I fly in crappy weather, and into busy airports,
routinely. I've been doing it for years, and I don't get many
surprises anymore. But when I started, I did a whole lot of
planning. I never managed to cover EVERY eventuality, but I covered
enough to survive and learn. The point is not to launch unprepared -
don't go looking for adventure, it will find you soon enough. And I'm
not against instrument ratings - that would be silly, given that I'm
an ATP and CFII. I just don't think it's the important factor - I
think that willingness to fly more often in a broader range of
conditions is much more important.

Michael

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message news:75047a0ac151e@uwe...
xyzzy wrote:

Right, there is no restricted area but we are not to loiter.
Actually, what they tell us on briefings is the same thing they say
about sports events -- when VFR stay at least 3000 feet over it when
within 3 miles, which does make approaching from the east VFR a bit
more complicated.

Do you believe everything "they" tell you? The nuclear TFR is very clear.
There is nothing in it about remaining above 3,000 ft. within 3 miles. Do
not circle or loiter. That's it. If you wish to treat it as a stadium TFR
that's up to you, but it's not.

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


Yup, the 'stadium tfr' is not as nice. STAY OUT they say...