What happens in IMC

Denny wrote:

While that pilot may believe that ATC saved his bacon I have a
different take on it... They held his hand on the radio which is
certainly to their credit (99.9% of controllers are good folks)... But
putting a VFR pilot back into the clouds was not the way to go...

Listen again. The FSS guy said "remain VFR if able" and the pilot said
"climbing to 3000" and later that he was in complete IFR. Seems to me
the pilot made the call to go back up.

-cwk.

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
I'll chime in too.

OK, I'll bite. I agree with Jay's basic statement that an IR is not a
magic wand, but that's not saying much.

The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes.

Apples and oranges, to some degree. Flying a successful XC mission in
the system is an order of magnitude more complex than simply surviving
a VFR-into-IMC encounter. IFR students are typically capable of holding
heading and altitude within a few hundred feet in the first 10 or so
hours, while passing the checkride takes 50 or more. At least in my
case, the first things I get rusty on are procedures, like hold
entries. Basic attitude flying (you don't need to pass a checkride,
just survive) will likely last a lot longer between re-training.

Equipment limitations demand
more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people safer
while others become more dangerous.

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Now, the -utility- of the rating is a whole 'nother question on which I
have decidedly mixed feelings.

-cwk.

wrote in
oups.com:


Marco Leon (at) wrote:
I'll chime in too.

OK, I'll bite. I agree with Jay's basic statement that an IR is not a
magic wand, but that's not saying much.

The flying in IMC requires even more practice than a
VFR-only ticket with less room for mistakes.

Apples and oranges, to some degree. Flying a successful XC mission in
the system is an order of magnitude more complex than simply surviving
a VFR-into-IMC encounter. IFR students are typically capable of
holding heading and altitude within a few hundred feet in the first 10
or so hours, while passing the checkride takes 50 or more. At least in
my case, the first things I get rusty on are procedures, like hold
entries. Basic attitude flying (you don't need to pass a checkride,
just survive) will likely last a lot longer between re-training.

Equipment limitations demand
more respect as well. All of this means that an IR makes some people
safer while others become more dangerous.

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Now, the -utility- of the rating is a whole 'nother question on which
I have decidedly mixed feelings.

-cwk.


Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
snip

Taking the cue from your subject line:

"What happens in IMC, stays in IMC."

The second rule of IMC is, you do not talk about IMC

I'd like to know what kind of editing was done on the piece. I find the
transition from dramatic panic to calm to be a little too quick. The
fact that it's part of a campaign doesn't help make me any less
skeptical either.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

ET wrote:
wrote in

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.


All generalizations will fail on an individual level at some time. That
doesn't make them generally invalid. A pilot who obtains his instrument
rating to become a safer pilot is making a wise decision. An instrument
pilot who thinks himself invulnerable tempts the wrath of the gods.

-cwk.

Good point. One second he's screaming like a panicked VFR pilot who
screwed up badly, the next second we have "Iceman."


Just another data point to suggest that flying is not for amateurs. At a
minimum, all should have IRF ticket.

Not sure if we are disagreeing here Colin. Like I stated in my post, some
pilots become safer while others do not. In other words, flying under IFR
requires more precision to stay within the rules. Flying beyond that level
of precision will get you reported by ATC and may even get you killed if
you're in IMC.

I believe that an IR will make more pilots safer than not. It's one of the
main reasons why I got mine. However, there will always be pilots who get
advanced ratings and are not ready or willing to respect its demands on both
skill and risk mitigation.

Marco Leon

wrote in message
ups.com...

ET wrote:
wrote in

Individually, yes. As a population, no. Why does every insurance
company give discounts for IR? Why do they effectively require it for
higher-performance planes? It sometimes seems to me that the only
people suggesting the IR doesn't significantly increase safety are
unrated pilots.

Insurance companies look at statistics. All they actually see is that
as a group, people who have a IR have less accidents, that doesn't
automatically mean every pilot would be safer with an IR.


All generalizations will fail on an individual level at some time. That
doesn't make them generally invalid. A pilot who obtains his instrument
rating to become a safer pilot is making a wise decision. An instrument
pilot who thinks himself invulnerable tempts the wrath of the gods.

-cwk.




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
Not sure if we are disagreeing here Colin. Like I stated in my post, some
pilots become safer while others do not. In other words, flying under IFR
requires more precision to stay within the rules. Flying beyond that level
of precision will get you reported by ATC and may even get you killed if
you're in IMC.

What I'm going after is the sentiment which seems to suggest that
unless an instrument pilot is current and proficient, then he's no
better off than a VFR pilot should he pull a VFR-into-IMC.

OF COURSE flying on an IFR flight plan in actual requires proficiency
as well as currency and that takes regular work to maintain. I make a
point of taking a ride in actual with my CFII every 3-4 months for
that.

However, simply maintaining heading&alt within a country mile, let's
call it "survival proficiency," probably requires a lot less for most
people. It's not quite riding a bicycle for most people but it's not
like you need to remember hold entries either.

This is my point. The rating can increase your risk exposure because it
is a license to go in harm's way. But that has nothing to do with the
rating, just the pilot. An instrument rating doesn't teach you bad
judgment any more than a private license teaches you good judgment.

-cwk.

OK, I gotcha now. Yes, I agree. Someone blundering inadvertently into IMC is
better off if they have an IR. But definitely not a guarantee.

Marco Leon

wrote in message
oups.com...

What I'm going after is the sentiment which seems to suggest that
unless an instrument pilot is current and proficient, then he's no
better off than a VFR pilot should he pull a VFR-into-IMC.

OF COURSE flying on an IFR flight plan in actual requires proficiency
as well as currency and that takes regular work to maintain. I make a
point of taking a ride in actual with my CFII every 3-4 months for
that.

However, simply maintaining heading&alt within a country mile, let's
call it "survival proficiency," probably requires a lot less for most
people. It's not quite riding a bicycle for most people but it's not
like you need to remember hold entries either.
-cwk.




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com