Instrument Rating, not needed?

[gismo]

You'll get many differentiating opinions on this when it comes to private/recreational flying. I am IR, have been for a long time. Outside of using it a few times for private use, the rest of the times i have used it were for flying jobs. I have not done a personal flight IFR in over a decade because 2 major factors. I do not like it, to me a flight in the clouds is a waste of time and money, if I don't want to see anything along the way an airliner gets me there way cheaper. I also don't have a plane that I think is safe in most of the IMC conditions I fly in which in the summer is loaded with thunderstorms and in the winter loaded with ice.

The flip side to that is that I still launch VFR in conditions most would not accept to fly VFR in due to the low altitudes I'm comfortable flying at (one of the reasons I pay to fly a twin) and stay visual underneath. There are people who will argue that the risk there is higher than the risk if 'in the system'. I don't really argue back on this as those arguments have validity. We all make our choices of what we are most comfortable with. I have spent most of my career at sea and flying as well below the clouds watch and dodging the weather above. In fact, over half of my 2500+ hours has been spent below 200' AGL, much of it maneuvering at 3' AGL, that I am much more comfortable down where I can see what's coming at me. There have been just a handful of flights that required delays of more than 2-3 hrs to complete, and I have made it through the cross Florida T-Storm line on more than one afternoon that had airliners sitting in Miami and Atlanta waiting.

There is also the matter of maintaining proficiency in IMC. Without SVT, IMO this requires 50hrs a year of dedicated instrument flying (not just flying every trip filed IFR and flown in VMC) with 100+hrs a year total flying minimum. I don't have that time to spend nor the desire to fly that much IMC.

Your points are well taken. While going through IR training does tend to result in improved piloting, ADM, and weather analysis skills one could gain equally valuable experience in other efforts (e.g. upset and/or aerobatic training, a glider rating, commercial ASEL, or even just plain recurrent training). And maintaining IFR currency/competency does require some extra effort and expense (an hour of simulated or actual instrument practice with a CFI every month or two should be sufficient for most) and without that effort the operational value and safety enhancement of an IR diminishes greatly.

I've heard more than one pilot say they did the IR thing so they'd have that ticket in their pocket to pull out if they needed it some day and it just doesn't work that way.

But if you want the ability to take trips when the wx isn't CAVU at night or at least reasonably VFR in the daytime having an IR and keeping current is well worth the effort IMO.

 

[Henning]

I've heard more than one pilot say they did the IR thing so they'd have that ticket in their pocket to pull out if they needed it some day and it just doesn't work that way.

But if you want the ability to take trips when the wx isn't CAVU at night or at least reasonably VFR in the daytime having an IR and keeping current is well worth the effort IMO.

I did the IR because I knew I'd need it for employment at an airline. Once I got there, I knew I didn't want employment at an airline... I don't mind having the IR "in my pocket for when I need it" and don't really worry about my ability to fly instruments on the odd occasion as I do. I find it takes me just a few minutes to get back up to speed on the flying part of it. Regardless of that I don't enjoy it.

The second part of it though, the IR would only be half the picture for me, the other half is having another engine. It's not just about controlling the plane, it's about controlling the plane to a landing spot that won't hurt too bad.

 

[Bob Noel]

No, it's about risk elimination. Too many justify risk based on "calculated risks," and "managing" them.

There are many ways to eliminate risks. It's an unending, ongoing process that is evolutionary and continues from before the flight is conducted until after is is complete.
.

No. It's about risk management. The only way to eliminate flyings risks is to not fly.

 

[spiderweb]

There is also the matter of maintaining proficiency in IMC. Without SVT, IMO this requires 50hrs a year of dedicated instrument flying (not just flying every trip filed IFR and flown in VMC) with 100+hrs a year total flying minimum. I don't have that time to spend nor the desire to fly that much IMC.

Henning, do you mean for what one might call "full IFR competency," meaning down to CAT I mins? If so, I think I'd agree.

But lots of people on the board, including me can't get 50 hours of what I think you mean to be instrument flying with a safety pilot or CFI-IA.

For me, as you know, no matter what flying I do, I always do three hours including IFR work with a CFI-IA every month, as well as airwork--no matter how much or how little I fly at other times. This guarantees at a minimum that 36 hours per year is currency training.

Also, I add cushions to my minimums, as you can see in this thread.

 

[DouglasBader]

The only way to eliminate flyings risks is to not fly.

Spoken like one who embraces risk.

Don't.

 

[gprellwitz]

Spoken like one who embraces risk.

Don't.

Given the distinction you make between Hazard and Risk, it appears that you've done some training in Risk Management. The FAA's "Risk Management Handbook" (FAA-H-8083-2) is available online. Does it talk about eliminating risk or managing/mitigating risk? One of the types of risk they explicitly acknowledge is "Acceptable risk"

Acceptable risk is the part of identified risk that is allowed to persist without further engineering or management action. Making this decision is a difficult yet necessary responsibility of the managing activity. This decision is made with full knowledge that it is the user who is exposed to this risk.

Furthermore, they talk about Residual risk:

Residual risk is the risk remaining after system safety efforts have been fully employed. It is not necessarily the same as acceptable risk. Residual risk is the sum of acceptable risk and unidentified risk. This is the total risk passed on to the user.

It certainly doesn't seem as if the FAA holds that the total risk can be eliminated. Or have you only been talking about eliminating a single, particular risk, and not the total risk?

 

[Henning]

Henning, do you mean for what one might call "full IFR competency," meaning down to CAT I mins? If so, I think I'd agree.

But lots of people on the board, including me can't get 50 hours of what I think you mean to be instrument flying with a safety pilot or CFI-IA.

For me, as you know, no matter what flying I do, I always do three hours including IFR work with a CFI-IA every month, as well as airwork--no matter how much or how little I fly at other times. This guarantees at a minimum that 36 hours per year is currency training.

Also, I add cushions to my minimums, as you can see in this thread.

So, when you are up and ceilings for the region drop to minimums and below and ice is starting to build on your plane, how much less than "full IFR competency" are you comfortable with being? What does your wife think of this lessened competency requirement of yours? (How about your cello?) How do you determine just how partial your competency should be? Heck from reading your posts here when something goes wrong VFR you're not too particularly comfortable with it, I'm surprised you'd be comfortable being partially competent in IMC where you start with 2 links of the accident chain forged before you ever fire up the engine.

Always remember, while you can add margins to your minimums, there is nothing that says nature will allow you those margins for the flight. I have more than once found completely unforcast conditions to develop during my flights.

 

[TMetzinger]

Spoken like one who embraces risk.

Don't.

Wow. Your inability to grasp this concept or apparently even conceive of alternate views to your own diminish the otherwise impressive credentials you claim to possess.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DouglasBader]

It certainly doesn't seem as if the FAA holds that the total risk can be eliminated.

The FAA is largely peopled with bureaucrats and those who couldn't make it in private industry.

Or have you only been talking about eliminating a single, particular risk, and not the total risk?

I'm talking about an ongoing, unending, pervasive look at all risk; first in preventing it from becoming risk, and then handling it when it is.

Risk is unacceptable.

Your inability to grasp this concept or apparently even conceive of alternate views to your own diminish the otherwise impressive credentials you claim to possess.

I fully grasp the concept and thus dismiss it out of hand.

Credentials are irrelevant.

Given the distinction you make between Hazard and Risk, it appears that you've done some training in Risk Management.

Yes, extensively, and up the ying yang. That, however, means exactly squat.

My present assignment involves low altitude flight close to terrain in unfavorable conditions (which are the reason I'm there). Generally low visibility and wind and turbulence are standard. Risk acceptance is out of the question. I don't care about the theory, and training is only as good as the door to the classroom. After that, it's all practical application, and in that respect, given hazards and risk, I've certainly seen my share.

 

[Clark1961]

Risk is unacceptable.

So you claim to have eliminated all risk from your life?

 

[DouglasBader]

I made no such claim. Speak for yourself. Not for me.

Risk elimination is a process; an ongoing process, much like looking for a place to land while flying a single engine airplane.

 

[Bob Noel]

Credentials are irrelevant.

Usually spoken by someone without them.

 

[Clark1961]

I made no such claim. Speak for yourself. Not for me.

Doug, you're the one that typed: Risk is unacceptable. That statement clearly says that you don't accept risk and the logical conclusion is that you claim to have eliminated all risk. Perhaps you don't mean what you type? Why even bother typing then?

Risk elimination is a process; an ongoing process, much like looking for a place to land while flying a single engine airplane.

Looking for a place to land does not eliminate the risk of an engine failure. Having a place to land might reduce the chance of damage to the aircraft but the engine has still failed, the trip is delayed, the schedule is interrupted (to say the least).

 

[Jaybird180]

risk\ˈrisk\
noun
1 : possibility of loss or injury : peril
2 : someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard
3 a : the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract; also : the degree of probability of such loss
b : a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer
c : an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source <war risk>
4 : the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value
risk·less \ˈris-kləs\ adjective
at risk : in a state or condition marked by a high level of risk or susceptibility <patients at risk of infection>
Examples
I prefer not to expose my money to too much risk.
The degree of risk is minimal.
All investments have an element of risk.
Origin: French risque, from Italian risco.
First use: circa 1661
Synonyms: hazard, imminence, menace, peril, pitfall, danger, threat, trouble
Antonyms: safeness, safety, secureness, security

risk
transitive verb
1 : to expose to hazard or danger <risked her life>
2 : to incur the risk or danger of <risked breaking his neck>
risk·er noun
Examples
She risked her life to save her children.
He risked all his money on starting his own business.
He risked breaking his neck.
First use: circa 1687
Synonyms: adventure, chance, gamble (on), hazard, tempt, venture, run the risk of

Do we now have agreement on the use of language?

 

[chemgeek]

A standard six-pack with the analog instrumentation provided in most light airplanes today is minimal, and of poor quality. A typical RC allen mechanical gyro tends to be weak, and subject to degredation and failure. Same for a typical DG or mechanical HSI. Useable, but bottom end of what one ought to consider.

XM weather is nice for VFR, but is no substitute for radar.

There's a lot to be said for a second, third, or fourth engine.

Single engine flight should always take into account finding a place to put the airplane on the ground, in the event of an engine failure. It's inherent to flying with a single engine.

Everyone has their own risk comfort level. Personally, I'm OK with accepting the risk of single-engine IFR with WAAS GPS, XM Weather, 2 portable GPS backups, portable COM backup, autopilot, and vacuum gyros, in weather conditions that are appropriate (no widespread convective activity, and not during icing season with few exceptions.) Single-engine IMC at night is beyond my comfort zone, but IFR in VMC at night is acceptable to me. Heck, I used to do all of this without the WAAS GPS, XM weather, portable GPS units, and autopilots. I don't believe I was taking on inordinate risks to complete my IMC flights. The new technology has only improved safety and awareness. A single-engine piston aircraft is more suitable for my mission than a twin or turbine, for many reasons.

Not everyone can manage flight risks by flying glass-panel, radar-equipped twins or turbines with the enormous increase in operational/acquisition cost and proficiency training these require. Many pilots safely fly single-engine IFR and as a result gain additional utility from their aircraft for business and recreation And pilots still manage to wreck aircraft with multiple engines and systems redundancies. It's all about accepting an appropriate level of anticipated risk for the equipment and training available.

Cheers.

 

[DouglasBader]

It's all about accepting an appropriate level of anticipated risk for the equipment and training available.

Once again: accepting risk is inappropriate and wrong.

Doug, you're the one that typed: Risk is unacceptable. That statement clearly says that you don't accept risk and the logical conclusion is that you claim to have eliminated all risk. Perhaps you don't mean what you type? Why even bother typing then?

I know exactly what I typed. You don't, and you can't seem to use your own words; you can only try to put words in my mouth. I made no such claims. If you make such claims, then speak for yourself. You are unable to speak for me.

Risk is unacceptable.

Risk elimination is an ongoing process of identifying hazards and attempting to prevent them from becoming risks. When they become risks, they are eliminated by changing that behavior or action, changing it, or altering the outcomes from that action to take away the risk.

This isn't done once for each hazard, or each risk. This is done over and over, changing second by second, every moment of the flight, and is an evolving, ongoing process which never stops.

Do we now have agreement on the use of language?

We do not.

A hazard exists before we put it in play. When a hazard is put in play, it becomes a risk. We address it before it becomes a risk, or we address it afterwards. In no case should we embrace it as acceptable.

Looking for a place to land does not eliminate the risk of an engine failure. Having a place to land might reduce the chance of damage to the aircraft but the engine has still failed, the trip is delayed, the schedule is interrupted (to say the least).

If your concern is the risk of a trip interruption, you would probably be better off served addressing that hazard early by taking a commercial flight and having backup options. If your concern is the hazard of aircraft damage, then you can prevent it from becoming a risk by not taking off. You can fly over known landing sites, and do it in the daytime. You can be proficient if off-site landings. You can do a lot of things that address both those concerns, rather than simply accepting them.

Is an engine failure a risk? A risk of what? Does the world stop revolving when the fan or propeller does? It does not. Fly the wing, not the engine. If it's not a risk, there's not a hazard associated with the engine not operating, then it's not a risk, because there's no risk without a hazard first. An engine failure of it's own accord is not a hazard, let alone a risk. An engine failure shouldn't present a risk; if it does, then you've already assumed the risk and done something wrong. If you're not prepared, not sure, not fully confident in your flight, then you need to rethink the flight before you undertake the flight.

There's far more to risk elimination than simply naively waiving one's hand and saying "risk eliminated." In fact, if you ever reach the point where you think risk has been eliminated, then your'e not actively working to eliminate risk, and you've let down your guard. Bad things are about to happen.

 

[Henning]

Doug, I think you are mixing up 'Risk' for 'Danger' in your application of terms. Things are hazardous, people are dangerous, everything is a risk. If no risk were acceptable, then insurance wouldn't cover 'risk'. Risk is a statement with no proportion, risk can be low, risk can be high, risk can be in between, that is why there are 5 levels of risk listed across the top of the risk assessment matrix defining the likelihood of that risk becoming a loss. The consequences of the risk coming to fruition are likewise graded in parts down the side of the matrix ranking from loss time injury/death down to 'no significant consequence' representing damages below a nominal threshold financial value. One asses each risk separately for both factors and enters the matrix to receive an evaluation as to whether the risk is acceptable as is, whether procedure needs to be modified to either reduce the likelihood or consequence of the risk to make it acceptable, or whether to abandon the risk activity and find a different way to go about achieving the required result.

One can never eliminate all risk, one can only manage it to acceptable levels. For example, there is always the risk that the wing will fall off a plane in flight. Since we cannot mitigate the result of that risk in most planes, we mitigate the potential through engineering and continued inspection programs.

As for Danger, danger is part of the thought process usually ignoring risk matrix results in the yellow or red zones, and there I fully agree with you, there is absolutely no place in aviation for that type of thinking, at least not with passengers aboard.

 

[Bob Noel]

Once again: accepting risk is inappropriate and wrong.

reading assignment: MIL-STD-882D

 

[Clark1961]

I know exactly what I typed. You don't, and you can't seem to use your own words; you can only try to put words in my mouth. I made no such claims. If you make such claims, then speak for yourself. You are unable to speak for me.

You're sadly confused. Don't worry about it though, the rest of us aren't. Have a nice life Master Bader, you're a gem if there ever was one. Or restated in southern speak: god bless!

 

[Jaybird180]

Doug, I think you are mixing up 'Risk' for 'Danger' in your application of terms. Things are hazardous, people are dangerous, everything is a risk. If no risk were acceptable, then insurance wouldn't cover 'risk'. Risk is a statement with no proportion, risk can be low, risk can be high, risk can be in between, that is why there are 5 levels of risk listed across the top of the risk assessment matrix defining the likelihood of that risk becoming a loss. The consequences of the risk coming to fruition are likewise graded in parts down the side of the matrix ranking from loss time injury/death down to 'no significant consequence' representing damages below a nominal threshold financial value. One asses each risk separately for both factors and enters the matrix to receive an evaluation as to whether the risk is acceptable as is, whether procedure needs to be modified to either reduce the likelihood or consequence of the risk to make it acceptable, or whether to abandon the risk activity and find a different way to go about achieving the required result.

One can never eliminate all risk, one can only manage it to acceptable levels. For example, there is always the risk that the wing will fall off a plane in flight. Since we cannot mitigate the result of that risk in most planes, we mitigate the potential through engineering and continued inspection programs.

As for Danger, danger is part of the thought process usually ignoring risk matrix results in the yellow or red zones, and there I fully agree with you, there is absolutely no place in aviation for that type of thinking, at least not with passengers aboard.

According to the definition posted, risk and danger are synonyms. The fact that Bader has his own terminology for communicating makes it tough for others to converse with him. Strangely, I think I understand what he is trying to say, but he is putting up barriers to understanding by refusing to acknowledge that his use of words is creating the barrier to transmitting the idea. I offered him an exit ramp, but if he chooses not to take it....

 

[bbchien]

That's hard to do for a guy who is "always right". sigh.

 

[spiderweb]

So, when you are up and ceilings for the region drop to minimums and below and ice is starting to build on your plane, how much less than "full IFR competency" are you comfortable with being? What does your wife think of this lessened competency requirement of yours? (How about your cello?) How do you determine just how partial your competency should be? Heck from reading your posts here when something goes wrong VFR you're not too particularly comfortable with it, I'm surprised you'd be comfortable being partially competent in IMC where you start with 2 links of the accident chain forged before you ever fire up the engine.

Always remember, while you can add margins to your minimums, there is nothing that says nature will allow you those margins for the flight. I have more than once found completely unforcast conditions to develop during my flights.

True enough, but I never said nor did I imply that I was happy with "lessened competency." That is the very reason I train three hours a month, no matter what--in addition to the other flying I do. With that training, I DO feel comfortable flying IFR.

But your point about the weather being fickle is true. That's WHY I have margins. I won't launch in low IFR, icing, widespread Tx, etc. because I know things can get worse. Once having launched, I monitor the weather, and if I don't like what I see, I turn around or land.

I hate how this has turned into me having to "defend myself," but the fact of the matter is the combination of 1) regular training, 2) good judgement, and 3) adding margins makes good sense for the average pilot, who can't fly everyday in hard IFR. That was the point I was trying to make when I asked you about your 50-hour rule.

I play the cello hours every day, and have performed thousands of times--I do know the difference in levels of competency.

 

[Henning]

I did the IR because I knew I'd need it for employment at an airline. Once I got there, I knew I didn't want employment at an airline... I don't mind having the IR "in my pocket for when I need it" and don't really worry about my ability to fly instruments on the odd occasion as I do. I find it takes me just a few minutes to get back up to speed on the flying part of it. Regardless of that I don't enjoy it.

The second part of it though, the IR would only be half the picture for me, the other half is having another engine. It's not just about controlling the plane, it's about controlling the plane to a landing spot that won't hurt too bad.

True enough, but I never said nor did I imply that I was happy with "lessened competency." That is the very reason I train three hours a month, no matter what--in addition to the other flying I do. With that training, I DO feel comfortable flying IFR.

But your point about the weather being fickle is true. That's WHY I have margins. I won't launch in low IFR, icing, widespread Tx, etc. because I know things can get worse. Once having launched, I monitor the weather, and if I don't like what I see, I turn around or land.

I hate how this has turned into me having to "defend myself," but the fact of the matter is the combination of 1) regular training, 2) good judgement, and 3) adding margins makes good sense for the average pilot, who can't fly everyday in hard IFR. That was the point I was trying to make when I asked you about your 50-hour rule.

I play the cello hours every day, and have performed thousands of times--I do know the difference in levels of competency.

I'm not looking for you to defend yourself, (the reduced IFR competency comment came from your admission that "full IFR competency" would indeed take the times I stated and you said you did not put forward, hence, "reduced") I'm looking for you to consider making sure you have the technical options that reduce the time requirements for proficiency when you fly IFR. As you know by now, there is no replacement for SVT when it comes to fast situational awareness and ending confusion. "Having margins and monitoring weather enroute" as you also know is an odds game because weather is fickle and can go from plenty of margin to below minimums for the region in a matter of minutes before you can even decide to do something about it or come down from altitude. Even with margins, it's best to be equipped to make it in below minimums if you have to.

 

[spiderweb]

I'm not looking for you to defend yourself, I'm looking for you to consider making sure you have the technical options that reduce the time requirements for proficiency when you fly IFR. As you know by now, there is no replacement for SVT when it comes to fast situational awareness and ending confusion. "Having margins and monitoring weather enroute" as you also know is an odds game because weather is fickle and can go from plenty of margin to below minimums for the region in a matter of minutes before you can even decide to do something about it or come down from altitude. Even with margins, it's best to be equipped to make it in below minimums if you have to.

OK, fair enough. When you say, ". . . technical options that reduce the time requirements for proficiency when you fly IFR" that sounds very familiar to what I tell my cello students when I remind them not just to count the hours they practice, but also to practice with a plan of action, and work economically.

That is the reason I get monthly, regular training with a CFI who kicks my butt and is intolerant of slop. After all, I'm that way with my students, so it's natural I would want the same type of training!

 

[Henning]

OK, fair enough. When you say, ". . . technical options that reduce the time requirements for proficiency when you fly IFR" that sounds very familiar to what I tell my cello students when I remind them not just to count the hours they practice, but also to practice with a plan of action, and work economically.

That is the reason I get monthly, regular training with a CFI who kicks my butt and is intolerant of slop. After all, I'm that way with my students, so it's natural I'd wanted to be treated the same way!

Just like you wouldn't appear for a performance with cheap cello and no bow, don't show up for an IFR flight with a cheap plane and no SVT. While you can pull off either with skill and a modicum of luck, it's a dumb risk these days.

 

[Everskyward]

But your point about the weather being fickle is true. That's WHY I have margins. I won't launch in low IFR, icing, widespread Tx, etc. because I know things can get worse. Once having launched, I monitor the weather, and if I don't like what I see, I turn around or land.

Nothing wrong with that. Having the appropriate margins, as you call them, is important no matter what your skill level or equipment. You just need to take those factors into consideration when looking at the forecasts and leave yourself an out.

 

[DouglasBader]

Strangely, I think I understand what he is trying to say, but he is putting up barriers to understanding by refusing to acknowledge that his use of words is creating the barrier to transmitting the idea. I offered him an exit ramp, but if he chooses not to take it....

There's not exit ramp to be taken. Risk doesn't exist until a hazard is put in play.

A snake is in a container. The venomous snake represents a hazard. One has no risk of being bitten or poisoned until one sticks one's hand in the container or lets the snake out. Risk doesn't exist until the hazard is put in play.

If one lets the snake out of the container but leaves the room, the risk has been eliminated. If one leaves the door open, but kills the snake, the risk has been eliminated. If one wears protective gear but sticks one's hand in the container with the live snake, the risk has been eliminated. If one has the snake defanged or it's poison glands removed, the risk has been eliminated. Risk elimination.

Risk management might make the assumption that it's not a very aggressive snake, so one could stick one's hand in there and it's unlikely one might be poisoned. Risk management might assume that only a small percentage of the bites actually transfer venom, and therefore there's minimal risk. Risk management might say the person reaching into the snake's container is trained, and therefore it's an "assumed risk."

The smart money is on the person who eliminates the risk.

Bad people are on a given dark street, armed with clubs. They are a hazard. One walks down the street, thus putting the hazard in play; one might get mugged or killed. One could walk down a different street, taking a different route, leaving a little earlier. One could travel the street in an armored car, eliminating the risk of being beaten by clubs. One could arm one's self, enabling one to shoot the person with the club, eliminating the risk. There are many ways to eliminate the risk, from traveling in the daylight to staying home for the night.

 

[Jaybird180]

I still like you anyway

 

[izzydogg]

I'm 22 hours into my iR training and have been reading every post in this thread. I'm also a low time pilot with 225 hrs time. I think everyone who posted comments has valid points. The fact is, it depends on a pilot's personal needs and wants as what ratings they choose to earn. I didnt think I would want or need my IR until I flew to Minnesota a couple times in June. Since I obtained my PPL in 2007 I have consistently flown 3-4 hours a month. I got to the point that I wasn't getting much out of it. So I figured that if I'm going to fly I might as well be working on something. For me it was my IR. John's video that he posted recently is a good example of a flight that I may have filed IFR, only because I could possibly give my wife a smoother ride above the clouds than below. She is not a good flier. John I hope you don't mind me using your video as an example. It's an awesome video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uat9L...e_gdata_player

 

[Gubbins]

John's video that he posted recently is a good example of a flight that I may have filed IFR, only because I could possibly give my wife a smoother ride above the clouds than below. She is not a good flier. John I hope you don't mind me using your video as an example. It's an awesome video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uat9L...e_gdata_player

I think that is an excellent point. I also enjoyed that video, but one of the first things that went through my head was "my wife would not have enjoyed that", especially the parts where it is quite obvious they were being bumped around a lot. I also would have gone above the clouds if she was on board. Maybe not necessarily have filed IFR, but at least I would have climbed about the clouds knowing that if I could not find a gap to get down, I could always get a pop up IFR clearance to get down again.

If you can spare the time and expense, it really is a no-brainer to get it. I don't have any problems staying current. I file IFR for all my long trips, and actually enjoy flying practice approaches so there is no issue there if I don't get enough real ones. The short sight seeing trips I enjoy my VFR flying. So generally I fly IFR to the destination, then VFR checking it out down low.

 

[peppy]

Risk doesn't exist until a hazard is put in play.

Every flight has risk. Just sitting at home you are at risk that a meteor will crash through the roof and kill you. Read the data. Even very competent pilots die although less often than the careless. You can mitigate a lot of the risk with proper training and by flying a well maintained aircraft but you can't eliminate risk. Heck just eating a burger has associated risk. Do you drive? Driving is always risky. You never know when a drunk might come crashing into you. The idea that any flight is completely devoid of risk is crazy and that type of overconfidence is dangerous in and of itself.

 

[Henning]

There's not exit ramp to be taken. Risk doesn't exist until a hazard is put in play.

A snake is in a container. The venomous snake represents a hazard. One has no risk of being bitten or poisoned until one sticks one's hand in the container or lets the snake out. Risk doesn't exist until the hazard is put in play.

If one lets the snake out of the container but leaves the room, the risk has been eliminated. If one leaves the door open, but kills the snake, the risk has been eliminated. If one wears protective gear but sticks one's hand in the container with the live snake, the risk has been eliminated. If one has the snake defanged or it's poison glands removed, the risk has been eliminated. Risk elimination.

Risk management might make the assumption that it's not a very aggressive snake, so one could stick one's hand in there and it's unlikely one might be poisoned. Risk management might assume that only a small percentage of the bites actually transfer venom, and therefore there's minimal risk. Risk management might say the person reaching into the snake's container is trained, and therefore it's an "assumed risk."

The smart money is on the person who eliminates the risk.

Bad people are on a given dark street, armed with clubs. They are a hazard. One walks down the street, thus putting the hazard in play; one might get mugged or killed. One could walk down a different street, taking a different route, leaving a little earlier. One could travel the street in an armored car, eliminating the risk of being beaten by clubs. One could arm one's self, enabling one to shoot the person with the club, eliminating the risk. There are many ways to eliminate the risk, from traveling in the daylight to staying home for the night.

That is an incorrect statement. Risk exists as long as a hazard is present. Let's take Risk Management and your snake. Lets start with looking at it in the cage. The first question one asks is "What is the risk present?" That would be being bitten by the snake. So down the side of the Risk Assesment Matrix one would grade the result of being bitten. Since the result is serious injury or death, we score a 5 on the severity of the result of the risk coming to fruition. Next we score across the top the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition. Since the snake is in a container it cannot escape, the likely hood is very low, so we score it a 1. If we go into the Risk Assesment Matrix we can see a score of 6 which is already in the yellow so we have to give consideration to manage the risk, in this case we'll make sure the container is intact and the snake cannot escape. Let's turn the activity to feeding the snake. The result of the risk,(being bitten) hasn't changed so it still scores a 5. However the likelihood has increased to a 2 because we have opened the container. This scores in in the yellow still so we give greater consideration to prevention and put on Personal Protective Equipment. Next activity is pulling the snake out at church and dancing around with it. Here we still score a 5 on consequence and raise the likelihood to 4. This comes up firmly in the red and we decide to abandon this activity.

All three scenarios contained the same risk, being bitten by the snake, and in all three scenarios the risk is managed by a different method to the same result, not being bitten and not going to the hospital, ie, no loss occurred. This is the principle known as Risk Management. Risk is omnipresent in everything, the only question is if it is an acceptable risk. We do that by comparing the Hazard (what will happen if) with the Danger (how likely is this to happen) and the result gives us the Risk Factor which we asses to either accept, modify, or reject.

Sorry I can't figure out how to put a Risk Assessment Matrix into the post from my iPad but if you Google it I'm sure you'll find plenty of samples.

 

[gprellwitz]

That is an incorrect statement. Risk exists as long as a hazard is present. Let's take Risk Management and your snake. Lets start with looking at it in the cage. The first question one asks is "What is the risk present?" That would be being bitten by the snake. So down the side of the Risk Assesment Matrix one would grade the result of being bitten. Since the result is serious injury or death, we score a 5 on the severity of the result of the risk coming to fruition. Next we score across the top the likelihood of the risk coming to fruition. Since the snake is in a container it cannot escape, the likely hood is very low, so we score it a 1. If we go into the Risk Assesment Matrix we can see a score of 6 which is already in the yellow so we have to give consideration to manage the risk, in this case we'll make sure the container is intact and the snake cannot escape. Let's turn the activity to feeding the snake. The result of the risk,(being bitten) hasn't changed so it still scores a 5. However the likelihood has increased to a 2 because we have opened the container. This scores in in the yellow still so we give greater consideration to prevention and put on Personal Protective Equipment. Next activity is pulling the snake out at church and dancing around with it. Here we still score a 5 on consequence and raise the likelihood to 4. This comes up firmly in the red and we decide to abandon this activity.

All three scenarios contained the same risk, being bitten by the snake, and in all three scenarios the risk is managed by a different method to the same result, not being bitten and not going to the hospital, ie, no loss occurred. This is the principle known as Risk Management. Risk is omnipresent in everything, the only question is if it is an acceptable risk. We do that by comparing the Hazard (what will happen if) with the Danger (how likely is this to happen) and the result gives us the Risk Factor which we asses to either accept, modify, or reject.

Sorry I can't figure out how to put a Risk Assessment Matrix into the post from my iPad but if you Google it I'm sure you'll find plenty of samples.

There's an example in the FAA Risk Management Handbook to which I posted a link earlier.

 

[DouglasBader]

All three scenarios contained the same risk, being bitten by the snake, and in all three scenarios the risk is managed by a different method to the same result, not being bitten and not going to the hospital, ie, no loss occurred.

There is no risk, if the snake stays in the container and the person outside. The snake may as well be dead; there is no risk. The snake represents a hazard, but it's not a risk, and there is no risk of being bitten, until one reaches into the container or lets the snake out.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thesaurus.com shows hazard and risk to be synonymous, sir.

 

[Henning]

There is no risk, if the snake stays in the container and the person outside. The snake may as well be dead; there is no risk. The snake represents a hazard, but it's not a risk, and there is no risk of being bitten, until one reaches into the container or lets the snake out.

Sorry, your non standard use of the English language is a problem here. Please read and understand the word risk before continuing. You are semantically incongruent with the entire industry of risk management and stand alone in your verbiage. I realize you're an old dog, but please try to learn a new trick before embarrassing yourself further.

 

[spiderweb]

So, in conclusion: go get your IR.

 

[DouglasBader]

I realize you're an old dog, but please try to learn a new trick before embarrassing yourself further.

I'm not an old dog, and I'm not embarrassed.

Try to crawl out of your shell and learn something rather than embracing risk.

Thesaurus.com shows hazard and risk to be synonymous, sir.

They are not.

A hazard is not necessarily a risk.

One may use the terms interchangeably. That use is not appropriate in this context.

Risk management presupposes that one accepts risk and manages it. One can't manage it if it isn't accepted in the first place.

Don't accept risk. Don't embrace risk. It's unnecessary, and foolish.

 

[ChrisK]

So you aren't a big fan of ORM then....

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm not an old dog, and I'm not embarrassed.

Try to crawl out of your shell and learn something rather than embracing risk.


They are not.

A hazard is not necessarily a risk.

One may use the terms interchangeably. That use is not appropriate in this context.

Risk management presupposes that one accepts risk and manages it. One can't manage it if it isn't accepted in the first place.

Don't accept risk. Don't embrace risk. It's unnecessary, and foolish.

It's okay to try to usher in a new paradigm, but people have to be willing to follow; otherwise they call you an old kook and lock you in a padded room.