From: elmore@rap.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Organization: NCAR, Research Application Program
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:39:41 GMT

In article <742@oscar.UUCP> hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
>In article <19930119.074022.19@almaden.ibm.com>, martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>> 
>> Aerobatics and IFR flying are two different types of skills, and it's
>> my opinion that aerobatics involves the 'raw pilot ability' that you
>> refer to, whereas IFR flying involves cockpit management, and the ability
>> to take in a lot of information at the same time, and still find time
>> to fly the airplane.
>> 
>> Until you've done a 3 turn outside rolling circle, you just can't appreciate
>> 'raw pilot ability' (or inability) :-).
>
>without that instrument ticket your pilot skills are severely limited.

	I gotta disagree with you, Dennis.  I don't have my Fog
Fighter's ticket yet, but I have plans.  My pilot skills may or may
not be severely limited, but they certainly aren't fully developed as
far as instrument work is concerned.  I have no delusions about my
ability to survive a serious encounter with IMC.  But I'd argue that
instrument work is really a very sophisticated excercise in juggling
lots of balls in the air at one time.  That's cockpit management at
it's highest level.  There's nothing magic about the process of flying
with gauges.  It is a skill, but a far different one than aerobatics.

>lookit, plan a trip with your friends to go some place, and then tell
>them you can't go (on the big day) because there is an 800 foot overcast
>(only 100 feet thick), and the weather is prohibitive. they're gonna see
>there's no real weather, and wonder why that 150 hour pilot and his
>friends are going.

	This is an issue of utility, not skill.  Certainly, an
airplane's utility is very limited if it and it's pilot aren't
instrument-capable.  But, I'd argue that a Sukhoi SU-29 is far more
"airplane" than, say, a Beech Bonanza from a raw performance
standpoint whether or not it has an AH or DG.

> don't rationalize the lack of training by another sub-skill of aviation.
> it's like saying you haven't flown until you've landed on a mountain
> lake in canada somewhere, and that real pilots land on floats, or use 2
> engines, or no engines, or hang glide.

	Flying on the gauges *is* a sub-skill, just as is doing
rolling 360's, water landings or soaring.

> flying ifr is more than keeping the gauges stable. please don't create
> a division amongst ifr and non-ifr rated pilots, as if the ifr
> rated pilots lack some basic private pilot skills.

	You make an assertion here, but you don't follow it up with
any supporting argument.  I don't doubt for an instant that IFR flight
is useful beyond my wildest imagination or that it isn't a specialized
skill.  Clearly, successful IFR flight requires superb cockpit
management and knowledge of procedures along with skill in flying the
gauges.  How is it significantly greater than this?

> taking 40 hours of ifr training may give one the basics of ifr flying,
> but everyone i know was scared sh--less the first time they got their
> ticket wet, solo.

	I'd think that anyone with a grain of sense would feel
differently.  *I* certainly wouldn't believe that, after 40 hours of
dual, that I was ready for approaches to anywhere right down to
minimums.

> i'm not saying ifr pilots are better. i'm saying they have more
> capabilities, and i refuse to accept the rationalization from those non
> rated that they are just as good. i think they are lacking an important
> foundation. bite the bullet and finish your training.

	I'm not looking for fights here, but the tone of your post
certainly suggests that pilots lacking an Instrument Rating *are*
somehow deficient.  They are certainly deficient if plopped into IMC.
They are not, by definition, deficient in good weather.  Anyone not
trained in spins is deficient if they enter one.  The list flying
sub-skills needed to avoid fatal deficeincies in certain situations is
pretty long.  Isn't an instrument rating a subset of all flying
skills?  An important one, without question, but a subset
notwithstanding?


					Kim Elmore
					N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
*    Said by NQ0I while working on his shack:                                 *
*		"All these *wires*!  Why do they call it `wireless'!?"        *
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
Replies to: elmore@brightband.rap.ucar.edu (wires)
	    44.20.0.67 n5op@n5op.ampr.org (radio)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/