The biggest safety investment in GA is...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt, even in our fairly well outfitted single engine airplane,
there's no such thing as "have to" go.

If I miss a trip, it could mean $100k.

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!

My numbers are similar, but 1 in 20, for my business, means about $325k per
year.

That pays for a lot of flying.

Matt Barrow wrote:


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

Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states (west
of the Rockies) and I do it year round.


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

If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.

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

I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft on
the ground.

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

Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest a
commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
during winter when icing is more prevalent.

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

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

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74ca92d6ccc7d@uwe...
Matt Barrow wrote:


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

Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states
(west
of the Rockies) and I do it year round.


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

If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.

My territory reaches from central Montana on the NW corner, to Souix Falls
on the NE corner, to Arizona and Louisiana on the SE corner.


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

I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft
on
the ground.

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

Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest
a
commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
during winter when icing is more prevalent.

Hmmm...in the nine years I've been operating, I've cancelled twelve trips,
tops.
Now, winter is our "off season", but conditions the rest of the time can be
waited out or circumnavigated.

And as the real estate market contracts, that means we have to extend our
"reach" even more, so we're looking for something turbine in the near future
to go with our latest, fully tricked out machine (that Newps said was a
"bloated pig").

Try airlines from Cheyenne to Garden City Kansas! "~(
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:74ca92d6ccc7d@uwe...
Matt Barrow wrote:


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

Which I do. Actually, I fly pretty much all over the Western states
(west
of the Rockies) and I do it year round.


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

If I lived and flew in the midwest a lot (or any coastal area for that
matter) I'd have obtained the rating 20 years ago.

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

I've done it quite often in the spring and summer. The midwest weather
that has kept me on the ground also kept the IR pilots of light aircraft
on
the ground.

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

Unless you're flying a high-end, known-ice, radar equipped bird, that
statement is a bit disturbing. If you HAVE to go somewhere, I'd suggest
a
commercial airline. Their equipment and training is better suited for it.
The average light single is far from an all weather aircraft, especially
during winter when icing is more prevalent.

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

I'll go with that! I credit my longivity as a pilot to one safety feature -
a healthy respect/fear of weather.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

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:
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

Let's take an example pilot with 300 total hours flys 50 hours per year VMC.

Version A of this guy has no IR. Version B does have an IR.

I'd think that B is a better VMC pilot even if he doesn't stay current for
IMC.

I agree it takes a lot to stay current for IMC but having the knowledge you
gain while getting an IR helps you in VMC.

Robert,

A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency.


You have the numbers to show that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Robert,


A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot
who does not maintain competency.



You have the numbers to show that?

Yeah, I'd say that's quite a leap.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, "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.

So you'd rather them not obtain additional dual training? You have
all the opportunity in the world to teach your students personal
minimums, IFR or VFR.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

A VFR only pilot is safer than an instrument rated pilot who
does not maintain competency.

Doesn't this presume that the IR pilot either doesn't know or doesn't care
that he or she is out of currency?

- Andrew