From: elmore@rap.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Organization: NCAR, Research Application Program
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:32:39 GMT

In article <1192.180.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>
>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.

	I do stand corrected on the point of precision: flight in IMC
demands far more precision than typical VMC flight.  But, we all land
by looking out the window and gauging our didtance from the runway, so
a generic statement like IFR pilots are more precise than VFR pilots
is essentially false.  But, I will yield the point that IFR operations
in general and instrument *approaches* in particular, are extremely
precision-oriented activities.  I won't have the option of using the
steep slips and S-turns available to me in VMC while on an intstrument
approach!


>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.

	True enough, but isn't that essentially a utilitarian
requirement?  If the aircraft can't be used in poor weather or in a
very precise way when there are minimal visual references, such as at
night, then it's utility is severely limited.  It can't do it's job,
which is to keep the bad guys from hurting the good guys.  I recently
read the book "The First and the Last" by Adolf Galland who had been
the General of Fighters in Nazi Germany during WWII.  He lamented the
fact that most of their fighter pilots were *not* trained for
instrument operations and often had to sit on the ground during bad
weather as Allied bombers flew overhead to their targets.  I forget
the statistics, but he noted that many excellent pilots were lost when
they launched in good weather but, low on fuel, returned in poor
weather.  His point was that the German fighter force would have been
far more effective if it could have been an all-weather force.  Isn't
that the primary reason (*not* the only reason!) for instrument
capability in our miltary?

>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.

	I've heard this both ways; my gut feeling is that I'm not
ready for the full spectrum of operations to minimums while the ink on
my ticket is still drying.  But, I also recognize the fact that I'll
have to be pretty sharp to pass the checkride.  Perhaps I'll feel
differently about this after I get the rating.  I reserve the right to
change my mind :-)

>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.

	Agreed.

>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.  <~>

	Yup, that's not what the doctor orders.  But then, spins and
their training are a whole different flame-fest, er, I mean topic.  I
only used it as an example.  However, I see your point concerning
precision and attentiveness.  Of course, *anny* approach in the
secnario you pose with such a result would be... interesting.


>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.

	I'll bet that I'll hold instrument skills to still be a subset
of all flying skills.  I'll no doubt have a much greater appreciation
for them, but I simply don't see all flying skills as subset of
instrument skills (the obvious alternative) by which I mean that safe
flight of any kind would be impossible *without* instrument skills.  I
contend that safe flight *is* possible without instrument skills,
though aircraft *utility* (for the purpose of going from A to B) is
drastically reduced without instrument capability.

>KE> .*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _
>
>(What are you, some kind of snob?  Won't talk to locals???  <~> )

	Ah!  A kindred spirit!  

> . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Now *there's* an idea!  My dad has some old sectional charts
and the A-N airways are still on them.  I treasure those old things!


			Kim Elmore, [N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456]
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
*    Said by NQ0I while working on his shack:                                 *
*		"All these *wires*!  Why do they call it `wireless'!?"        *
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *




Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc