From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:02:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KE> .   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.

It's a bit more than just "juggling lots of balls in the air at one
time."  It's also knowing that if you drop one of those balls your
probability of survival goes down considerably.  It's like doing
acrobatics at a low altitude.  If you finish your loop 200 ft. above the
ground, you're in great shape.  If you make your loop a bit larger
inadvertently, you're gonna buy it.  Ditto for doing an NDB approach in
moderate to severe turbulence, with gusting crosswinds.  If you mess up
a bit, you're in deep doo-doo.

KE> .   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.

And military pilots MUST be instrument qualified, even in an F-16, which
has a V.ref speed higher than my cruise speed!  In any given aircraft
instrument flight demands more from the pilot.

KE> .   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.

You'd better!  You're probably sharpest right when you get your rating.
You tend to lose some skills thereafter, since few people do the variety
of flying necessary to keep _all_ the skills honed.

KE> .   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.

Few non-IFR rated pilots fly as precisely, even on VFR flights, as IFR
pilots do.  One can argue that it's an unnecessary skill, since
deviating by a few degrees or changing your groundspeed by a few knots
isn't really significant.  But, it's a skill, nevertheless, that
IFR-rated pilots develop, and continue to use, whether it's absolutely
required or not.

You reference spin training.  Definitely a "good thing" to have in your
repertoire.  But if you enter a spin at 200AGL, all the spin training
isn't likely to help much.  Spin _avoidance_ is the name of the game.
Wanna do an IFR approach to minimums at 1.3 Vso with some gusts?  If you
drop one of those balls that you were juggling, you might be at 0.8 Vso
alluvasudden.  Contraindicated.  <~>

KE> .              Isn't an instrument rating a subset of all flying
  > .skills?  An important one, without question, but a subset
  > .notwithstanding?

I'd be interested in your opinions after you get your rating.

KE> .*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _

(What are you, some kind of snob?  Won't talk to locals???  <~> )

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                                   
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc