"Flying too High" by Steven Pomper

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
The author's main point was that a moron like JFK Jr. can fly legally
(LEGALLY, that is the point!) with VFR at night in hazy conditions,
unsupervised.

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take responsibility
for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to see and avoid
visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were entirely adequate for
visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a *VFR*
skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic private-pilot
curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for granted the
basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the details of en
route and approach procedures.

As with any other aspect of flying, it's possible for a pilot who hasn't
done it enough (and recently enough) to be less than adequately proficient
at it. Pilots have a responsibility is to assess the recency of their
experience and their current proficiency at various tasks, including the
task of flying at night with marginal visibility.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.


Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.


Is it? Then what's the purpose in IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

It's other than the primary purpose.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

It's other than the primary purpose.


So you don't know the purpose of IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace then?

Bob Moore wrote:

ET wrote

Ah, your in the wrong thread, this belongs in the "Troll of the year
award" thread.

And perhaps your's belongs in the English Challenged thread! "You're"
is the correct contraction for "you are".

Bob Moore

Then again, there's no apostrophe in "yours"! g

USENET rule: Any post correcting spelling or grammer must contain at
least one such mistake.

I'm safe.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to understand
is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
*VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes for
granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on the
details of en route and approach procedures.


So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
Airways Traffic Control was established?

I'm not going to bight.

"alexy" wrote in message
...
Bob Moore wrote:

USENET rule: Any post correcting spelling or grammer must contain at
least one such mistake.

I'm safe.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Yes, and that's perfectly appropriate. What the author fails to
understand is that the primary purpose of flying IFR is to have ATC take
responsibility for aircraft separation if visibility isn't good enough to
see and avoid visually. The conditions during JFK Jr.'s flight were
entirely adequate for visual separation.

Flying IFR does not help you use instruments to keep the plane upright in
the absence of a visible horizon. Contrary to naive opinion, that's a
*VFR* skill, and it's taught (in the US anyway) as part of the basic
private-pilot curriculum. The bulk of instrument-rating training takes
for granted the basic ability to fly by instruments, and concentrates on
the details of en route and approach procedures.


So why is it that US airlines were flying IFR in the US for years before
Airways Traffic Control was established?

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

I don't know. I haven't studied that history. What was the purpose of IFR
before ATC was established?


Same as now, to keep the plane upright in the absence of a visible horizon.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" plucked another fig (after all,
he IS the Fig Plucker's son), wet the bed and scribbled incoherently:

Who administered the breath test to the pilot?

I'm not really suggesting it is needed before each flight (except maybe in
Orville's case, who also needs a random pee test), I'm just suggesting that
standards to obtain your ticket should be much tougher than they are now.
And, a standard annual drug test should be required -- that is a no
brainer.

I would be happy to take the pee test, if "Skyloser" acts as the
receptacle! We already have the drug test when we get our medical.

The only no-brainers I have seen in this NG are "Skyloser," "jgrove" and
Bill Mulcahy.

BTW "Skyloser" is such a loser that he can't even copy my name right.
No wonder he washed out of pilot school!