Aero Advantage closing shop.

"David Megginson" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

statistics -- we're still looking for even one example of a fixed-gear
plane
getting into a fatal accident flying IFR after a vacuum pump failure.

Such an accident may not be listed with vacuum failure as the cause because
the cause may not ever be determined as such.

There are certainly examples of airplanes flying along in IMC which
experience an in-flight breakup; it is quite plausible to think this type of
accident occured due to a vacuum failure or AI failure, but if the wreckage
is damaged enough there may not be any way to tell for sure.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(Martin Kosina) wrote
I elected to install the backup AI instead of a fancier GPS

I can see that making sense. After all, if you already have a GPS,
the incremental improvement from getting a fancier one is pretty
small.

and already
take regular IPCs whether I need them or not (I'd love to be able to
say I am so virtous, but in reality there just isn't enough low WX
around here to stay proficient).

Well, I don't know about virtuous - but I will tell you that despite
the fact that I fly IMC a lot and never really go out of currency (I
bat cleanup for Angel Flight SC and generally take the missions other
pilots cancel for weather) I still take regular ICC's. Still, I'm not
perfect either. I try to do it on a six month cycle but it never
works out that way - something always gets in the way and the reality
is that I go as much as 9 months between.

I don't bother with normal approaches - I fly enough IMC to stay
proficient on those - but I don't normally do my approaches single
engine, partial panel, or without RNAV so I consider recurrent
training in those operations to be a necessity.

Good to hear some real-world experiences, too, there tends to be a lot
of opinion floating around on this from people that have never had a
problem (myself included ;-)

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and they all stink.
My opinion is that the biggest problem in the world of personal IFR
isn't the equipment we fly (though thanks to the FAA's stranglehold on
new technology that's not a minor problem) and not the weather (though
of course that's what challenges us) but the absolutely ****-poor
training, both initial and recurrent. When I took my initial IFR
training, I tried to find an experienced instructor. He simply wasn't
available - though I will admit that since I had no idea what I was
really looking for I set the requirements too high in some areas, and
had I known what I was talking about I would probably have been able
to find what I was looking for. But what are the odds that someone
who has yet to start instrument training will know what to look for in
a CFII? Right, nil.

So I flew with a very nice kid. He was conscientious (he always
showed up on time and was always prepared), he was enthusiastic, he
truly wanted to do a good job, and he did his level best. And I got
my rating, in just about the minimum hours (and a lot of those were
safety pilot time) and went out into the IFR world. And I almost
killed myself. Not because I couldn't fly an approach to minimums - I
could and did, and frankly that was about all that saved me. But I
scared myself so badly that I decided that the plane I had was
completely unfit for IFR. Well, it was unfit for the flights I made
in the way I made them, and truly it was poorly suited to IFR and
totally unsuited to the demands I made on it - but I have flown IFR in
it recently, without scaring myself - because I now know its
limitations and how to operate within them. But how did I learn?

When I bought my twin, an airline captain took me under his wing and
taught me how to fly it. There are places you can go to get a multi
rating in 4 hours; we took 25. But that was when I actually learned
to fly IFR - not just to go through the mechanics of approaches and
holds, which I could do just fine, but how to think about the problems
and solve them. You don't buy a twin to fly day-VFR, so he taught me
instrument flying from the ground up. It was a priceless education -
and it made me understand exactly where my prior education had been
remiss. It wasn't the kid's fault. He just didn't know what he
didn't know. He did the best he could with what he had, but no way
was it good enough. It was good enough to pass the checkride - but in
the real world of flying weather that can't be flown VFR, even by an
experienced VFR pilot, it was just good enough to nearly get me killed
- without a single equipment failure. What's more, I doubt any amount
of experience would really have helped - I just didn't have the tools
to progress without killing myself.

It wasn't that the airline captain taught me all there was to know -
you can't do that in 25 hours, and I'm not sure you can do it in 2500.
But he did give me the necessary tools to progress without killing
myself.

I've flown with a fair number of instrument pilots, often in an
instructional capacity, and I've had a chance to evaluate the quality
of the training they got. Unfortunately, it's the training I got with
the timebuilder kid that seems to be the norm, not the training I got
with the airline captain. I suppose that's unsurprising - there are a
lot more timebuilder kids teaching instruments than airline captains.
I think that is the absolute biggest cause of the absolutely horriffic
accident rate in personal IFR flying. Most of the accidents involve
no equipment failure at all, and the vast majority of the rest involve
equipment failures the pilot not only should have been able to handle
but supposedly demonstrated the ability to handle, at least once upon
a time. Sure, weather is usually a factor - but if an instrument
rating is not for being able to go where you want to go when you want
to go there even if the weather is bad, then what is it for?

So why do I think recurrent training will fix the problem? Well, let
me be a bit specific. If you are already flying instruments
regularly, I don't think recurrent training where you just pick a
random CFII at the local flight school and have him give you a repeat
of the instrument ride (which is all the IPC really is) will do a huge
amount of good. I think it will do some, because now a partial panel
non-precision approach is required, and that's probably something
you're not doing as part of regular IFR flying. But that's about all,
and just squeaking by with PTS tolerances on a partial panel localizer
with the moving map going is probably not going to make a huge
difference.

On the other hand, the kind of recurrent training done by a CFII who
is an experienced instrument pilot, flies in weather regularly, has
had **** happen and dealt with it, knows where the problem areas are,
and will take the time to discuss your mission and equipment, asess
your skill level, and set you up with realistic scenarios that push
your ability and challenge you to solve problems - that kind of
recurrent training is going to pay big dividends when the **** hits
the fan - and not just the particular problem you covered. It's an
opportunity not only to sharpen your skills to but to fill gaps in
your knowledge. It's the opportunity to be surprised under controlled
conditions. Done right, it's pretty close to what the airline guys
get in the sim.

Training like that is available. Sometimes it's a matter of knowing
someone and being willing to work around his schedule. Sometimes it's
a matter of going to one of the specialized schools - but generally
that means paying a daily rate of hundreds of dollars, not $35 per
flight hour for the local CFII. Is it worth it? Someone will pipe up
with "How much is your life worth" but I think that's intellectually
dishonest at best. Nobody can afford every possible safety edge.
Instead of comparing it to the value of your life, compare it to what
the money will otherwise get spent on in the aviation game.

That backup attitude gyro was worth $1600 plus accessories and
installation, and it won't last forever. That would probably have
paid for 3 or 4 years worth of very high grade annual recurrent
training - the kind that will prepare you for a lot more than just
vacuum/AI failure. That's what I'm talking about when I say that
training represents better bang for the buck than backup
instrumentation. OF COURSE if you can have both, that's best.

Michael