The biggest safety investment in GA is...

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74c7e25cbce8a@uwe...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

The thing that interests me when I read about GA accidents is how many
occur with student and an instructor on board. You would think this
would be the safest situation.

And it is one of the safest. The statistics bear that out.


True. From the 2006 Nall Report :

"By contrast, instructional flying is relatively safe. While
accounting for nearly one out of every five flight hours,
it resulted in just 13.2 percent of all accidents and only
6.5 percent of fatal accidents. This is due, in part, to the
high level of supervision and structure in the training
environment."

Not to mention that instruction is seldom given in even marginal weather.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
..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?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


After 30 years of flight instruction, I would whole heartedly agree.

Al G

On Jul 6, 1:56 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?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.

-Robert, CFII

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I disagree. A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency. I've probably talked more students
out of the instrument rating than I've given instruction to. The fact
is, unless you really believe you will fly on a regular basis and need
to keep up currency, its not only a waste of money, but gives you a
false sense of ability. I think too many CFII's talk students into
doing the instrument rating because its the most profitable of all
training for the CFII. I've actually known several instrument pilots
who have decided that after decades of spending 99% of their
instrument time in currency (vs. actually flying instrument for a
reason), have dropped their instrument rating and decided that they
will never use it.


You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare. When we do get them, they're most often related
to winter storms with low icing levels, or thunderstorms. As a result, most
of the IR pilots I know rarely fly in actual IMC. The exceptions are those
that fly to the coast on a regular basis.

One of my friends got his instrument rating in 2001. He maintains his
currency by flying under the hood regularly, but has not flown in IMC since
he was training for the rating.

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

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

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:45:00 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
u32749@uwe wrote:

You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare.

Then there's the northeast... Low hanging cloud decks over coastal
areas and islands are great ways to sit on the ground waiting for VFR.

My husband took his instrument check ride with the minimum total time
allowed, I think he said he clocked 200 total during the ride. That
was flying in the Boston area.

We live in the southeast now, and I can't imagine us going anywhere
without him filing an instrument flight rules plan. Maybe it's a
mindset thing, but could anyone explain why a moderate to higher time
pilot would NOT take the additional instruction and become rated?

I think the obvious exception would be the recreational pilot who very
rarely goes far from home, but for everyone else, doesn't it make
sense to go ahead and get the rating?

Even with it we don't fly a small percentage of out planned trips
because of the weather, but still, flying an approach to an airport
when the weather isn't good just seems not to be a big deal, but those
who are trying to maintain VFR had a heck of a time.

It's probably a stupid question from someone who flys in the right
seat, but could someone offer some reasonable answer?

T

On Jul 6, 1:35 pm, wrote:
My husband took his instrument check ride with the minimum total time
allowed, I think he said he clocked 200 total during the ride. That
was flying in the Boston area.

We live in the southeast now, and I can't imagine us going anywhere
without him filing an instrument flight rules plan. Maybe it's a
mindset thing, but could anyone explain why a moderate to higher time
pilot would NOT take the additional instruction and become rated?

I think the obvious exception would be the recreational pilot who very
rarely goes far from home, but for everyone else, doesn't it make
sense to go ahead and get the rating?

People who live in the SW, Florida, and areas of California for
example can fly hundredes of miles without ever seeing a cloud almost
any day of the year. Its very difficult for those pilots to maintain a
level of ability that they are safe to enter the clouds. In addition,
I've noticed that retired guys have so much flexibily in their flying
that, even if they are instrument able, usually just wait the wx out.

-Robert, CFII

wrote:

Even with it we don't fly a small percentage of out planned trips
because of the weather, but still, flying an approach to an airport
when the weather isn't good just seems not to be a big deal, but those
who are trying to maintain VFR had a heck of a time.

It's probably a stupid question from someone who flys in the right
seat, but could someone offer some reasonable answer?


If you own an airplane and take passengers on trips of more than, say,
500 miles or for more than a couple of days at a time, it really doesn't
make a lot of sense *not* to be IFR rated. That's my opinion.

People do it all the time though, and as long as you are able (and
willing) to wait out the weather whenever your briefer says "VFR
not recommended" then there's no problem. I certainly can't do that
because I don;t have endless vacation time available to me. I would
not, however, launch into convective weather... but that's usually
relatively short lived.

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74c8055bd2063@uwe...

You make a good point. The majority of instrument pilots that I know
here
in the southwest fit that profile. Actual instrument conditions in this
region are relatively rare. When we do get them, they're most often
related
to winter storms with low icing levels, or thunderstorms. As a result,
most
of the IR pilots I know rarely fly in actual IMC. The exceptions are
those
that fly to the coast on a regular basis.

Good points IF you only fly in that region, and IF you only fly during the
summer or winter.

The mid-west weather is very different during each of the four seasons.

Going from southwest to mid-west can get rather, shall we say, interesting?

Not to mention when you HAVE to go, rather than when it'd just be "nice" to
go.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY (Much less southwest than I used to be)

Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
there's no such thing as "have to" go. Maybe 1 trip in 20 in the
southeast turns into aborted trips, and this is with a guy who loves
flying IMC to minimums. He even taught me to like it!