VFR traffic under the approach

Everskyward said:
Looking at a portion of the sectional and comparing it to the approach plate it looks like that at SAMOS, which is abeam the point of the lake to the north, the traffic was in the 700' area.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case, I can't see how the "VFR" traffic was legal. I believe an official opinion has been posted before that essentially states that it isn't legal to fly a long final or pattern below the "congested area" limit under VFR even when that would be required to comply with the "clear of clouds upper limit.
 
I thought some more about this. It's not an issue of IFR being more important, but rather one of safety and consideration.

This pilot clearly just wasn't aware that he was causing issues for others. Given the spotty radar coverage and the marginal VFR conditions, he could have made everyone's life easier and safer had he been in radio contact with approach (just as noted on VFR charts near class B). IMO, it's not a great idea to fly around in busy areas without talking to anyone.

Felix
 
Yes, my intent was to bring this up for folks to understand. Thanks Lance and others. Didn't mean to say anyone was less entitled or better than anyone else. Just wanted folks to know that flying VFR under the IFR approach can cause real problems for the IFR folks when they can't get down. Could lead to an accident where both folks could technically be legal. Doesn't make it smart. It's the reason I broadcast that on tower; not to make anyone feel bad--to make them aware.

Best,

Dave
 
Thanks for the thread Dave. I have been guilty of flying the needles (while keeping my head up) in marginal VFR for situational awareness. Between now and getting my IR I'll be sure to sidestep the approach.
 
Felix came down today and we flew from Gillespie to L08 and back. Did some nice air work. On the way back, he got to fly this approach and saw first hand what a challenge it can be. Don't want to give him a big head, but he squeeked the P-Baron on the runway straight in.

Best,

Dave
 
lancefisher said:
Well if that's the case, I can't see how the "VFR" traffic was legal. I believe an official opinion has been posted before that essentially states that it isn't legal to fly a long final or pattern below the "congested area" limit under VFR even when that would be required to comply with the "clear of clouds upper limit.
Click to expand...
Since there is 3,500 feet of altitude between the ground (1,000') and the stepdown fix altitude (4,500') there's room to be VFR and still maintain Class E cloud clearance.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Yes, my intent was to bring this up for folks to understand. Thanks Lance and others. Didn't mean to say anyone was less entitled or better than anyone else. Just wanted folks to know that flying VFR under the IFR approach can cause real problems for the IFR folks when they can't get down. Could lead to an accident where both folks could technically be legal. Doesn't make it smart. It's the reason I broadcast that on tower; not to make anyone feel bad--to make them aware.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I took it the wrong way. I now have a new tool for the toolbox. Thanks!!
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Felix came down today and we flew from Gillespie to L08 and back. Did some nice air work. On the way back, he got to fly this approach and saw first hand what a challenge it can be. Don't want to give him a big head, but he squeeked the P-Baron on the runway straight in.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks again! Well, maybe that one landing will make up for my excursions below blue line ;)

-Felix
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Yes, my intent was to bring this up for folks to understand. Thanks Lance and others. Didn't mean to say anyone was less entitled or better than anyone else. Just wanted folks to know that flying VFR under the IFR approach can cause real problems for the IFR folks when they can't get down. Could lead to an accident where both folks could technically be legal. Doesn't make it smart. It's the reason I broadcast that on tower; not to make anyone feel bad--to make them aware.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

I think I know you well enough (online) over the last few years to say with certainty that you don't think IFR drivers are more important, but rather that you post kind of gave that air to it.

I really appreciate the insight given from the other side of the puffiness, and it definitely is something else to look out for.
 
Thanks Nick. The trouble with these boards is posts just don't always come across as meant. Sorry if the post sounded terse; it wasn't my intent. I know a lot of folks that can handle a plane better than me; IFR really meant nothing to me except my entire approach is highly chanalized; I just don't have the flexibility of a VFR pilot. In this case, my approach was completely impaired because I could not get down.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave, You're not alone on this one. Far too often, the wrong ideas get read into post that were never intended. I learned this one all too well.

Some would rather assume more than look at the basic information given.
 
KennyFlys said:
Some would rather assume more than look at the basic information given.
Click to expand...

And most, including me, would rather take things as we read them and not try to assume more.

That said, sometimes things get misread by people. I have inadvertantly made posts that somehow came across to some people the wrong way on many occasions.

In my case, it wasn't even the original post that gave me the wrong impression. It was two or three of the followup posts.
 
Ok, for those that aren't familiar with SEE and the environs I can provide a little insight. Just to the northeast, there is a nice big mountain (+500' above the runway)right off the centerline of 27. To the south a few miles is Mt Helix, not as much of a burden but still something to consider. Out by Baret(named for lake Barret), there are mountains over 4000'!

So, our erstwhile VFR pilot is flying the SAFEST approach to that airport in the conditions he met with. If it were me, and I'm not familiar with the area, I'm gonna do exactly what he did, and fly the LOC course right in, just barely legal below the cloud deck. Legal, safe, fast. If I'm familiar with the area, I'm still gonna fly the LOC course cause I know just how much tin graces the hills around El Cajon from guys that tried some angled, off-center, non-stabilized VFR approach to the runway.


I've towed banners out of SEE, gliders, shot the approach many times, and also got a special VFR way back when it was offered. I don't consider this a rude, or stumbling VFR no-brain pilot. I consider him a cautious, and sensible VFR pilot using all the legal tools available to him to get his flight completed safely, and efficiently. As for not being on the radio, well, that's just like me too. Why should I talk with approach, or tower if I don't have to? Too bad he got in your way Dave, but - deal with it.
 
CrashAxe said:
And most, including me, would rather take things as we read them and not try to assume more.

That said, sometimes things get misread by people. I have inadvertantly made posts that somehow came across to some people the wrong way on many occasions.

In my case, it wasn't even the original post that gave me the wrong impression. It was two or three of the followup posts.
Click to expand...

As a new VFR pilot working on her IFR rating, this was a very eye-opening thread to read. Thanks. Is the lesson to take away from this to contact approach in MVFR as a VFR pilot?
 
captvikki said:
As a new VFR pilot working on her IFR rating, this was a very eye-opening thread to read. Thanks. Is the lesson to take away from this to contact approach in MVFR as a VFR pilot?
Click to expand...

That sounds like an excellent idea. Here at my home base, Addison TX, it's required. All aircraft must contact approach at least ten miles out for sequencing. It's very busy airspace under the Class B shelf like KSEE. Even if approach isn't responsive to you, listening will give you better situational awareness.

At Gillespie, in addition to being congested, it has terrain that channalizes traffic and some restrictions as to where one can fly around the airport. All the more reason to work with approach: especially on a day with low ceilings where the IFR folks will be descending.

Best,

Dave
 
captvikki said:
As a new VFR pilot working on her IFR rating, this was a very eye-opening thread to read. Thanks. Is the lesson to take away from this to contact approach in MVFR as a VFR pilot?
Click to expand...

Getting flight following is ALWAYS a good thing for a VFR pilot. However, in the kind of situation we're talking about, you may be too low for radar coverage or even ATC contact.

The only thing the VFR and IFR pilot might have in common in this situation is they MIGHT both be on the CTAF. But maybe not - the IFR pilot may not have been "dropped" by approach and told to switch to CTAF. Both IFR and VFR pilots need to work hard to communicate well when they can (the IFR guy should give his distance from the airport, not rattle off fixes that mean nothing to the VFR guy, and the VFR guy should listen and be helpful if possible, perhaps slowing down or extending a downwind leg).

It's hard on a poor guy like Dave. It's REALLY hard on an airplane with TCAS, as 99 times out of a hundred, those folks MUST comply with a Resolution Advisory ("Climb, Climb!") unless they have the conflict in sight. This situation does indeed cause commercial operators to go missed approach sometimes.

As others have said, it truly is a disconnect in the FAR, and the only reason it's not a bigger problem is that nearly all the air carrier airports have controlled airspace all the way to the ground during their normal hours of operation.
 
Am I being told to learn to read IFR charts and learn the approaches to every airport at which I mean to land legally VFR just in case there is an IFR aircraft they may just want to use the same airspace as me?
 
steingar said:
Am I being told to learn to read IFR charts and learn the approaches to every airport at which I mean to land legally VFR just in case there is an IFR aircraft they may just want to use the same airspace as me?
Click to expand...

What I think we are saying is it would be a good policy to try to listen to the approach frequency when possible if there are low clouds and IFR aircraft may be descending out of those clouds pretty low. The busier the airspace, the more there could be a conflict. Your VFR sectionals do show where IFR approaches come into uncontrolled fields. On controlled fields, monitor approach or tower farther out when weather is an issue.

Even at uncontrolled fields, an IFR aircraft may be discending out of the clouds and may not be able to transmit on CATF until released by approach. Normally, they can monitor CATF and transmit on it, but I have had the approach frequency so congested that I had to listen to every word for a release and couldn't get over to CATF.

If the weather is clear or ceilings and visibility are good, the aircraft should be able to keep visual separation. In poor weather, approach could turn over an IFR aircraft to CATF fairly late in the approach which could cause separation issues. If you are talking or monitoring tower or approach, you will at least get better situational awareness. Nothing wrong with asking tower where IFR aircraft are making approaches so you know. ATIS often calls out the active runway and says which approaches are being used at busy airports.

If you have a transponder and their is radar coverage, approach can see you and warn the IFR aircraft. If no transponder or radar coverage, neitier approach or the descending aircraft will know where you are.

Any help?

Best,

Dave
 
steingar said:
Am I being told to learn to read IFR charts and learn the approaches to every airport at which I mean to land legally VFR just in case there is an IFR aircraft they may just want to use the same airspace as me?
Click to expand...

Nope.

But it might be a good practice, when conditions are such that instrument approaches might be in use (use common sense here- is the ceiling below 2000 AGL?), to go ahead and contact the controlling facility for the airport's area, and ask if they'd provide traffic advisories and/or sequencing assistance.

Odds are, if there's no need, they'll tell you so; on the other hand, if they have IFR traffic inbound to the airport to which you are flying, they'll likely appreciate the ability to better maintain separation and safety... and you will, too!
 
Dave Siciliano said:
What I think we are saying is it would be a good policy to try to listen to the approach frequency when possible if there are low clouds and IFR aircraft may be descending out of those clouds pretty low. The busier the airspace, the more there could be a conflict. Your VFR sectionals do show where IFR approaches come into uncontrolled fields. On controlled fields, monitor approach or tower farther out when weather is an issue.

Even at uncontrolled fields, an IFR aircraft may be discending out of the clouds and may not be able to transmit on CATF until released by approach. Normally, they can monitor CATF and transmit on it, but I have had the approach frequency so congested that I had to listen to every word for a release and couldn't get over to CATF.

If the weather is clear or ceilings and visibility are good, the aircraft should be able to keep visual separation. In poor weather, approach could turn over an IFR aircraft to CATF fairly late in the approach which could cause separation issues. If you are talking or monitoring tower or approach, you will at least get better situational awareness. Nothing wrong with asking tower where IFR aircraft are making approaches so you know. ATIS often calls out the active runway and says which approaches are being used at busy airports.

If you have a transponder and their is radar coverage, approach can see you and warn the IFR aircraft. If no transponder or radar coverage, neitier approach or the descending aircraft will know where you are.

Any help?

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...


I thought so. NOW HEAR THIS.

Lots of guys flying around NORDO. Lots of guys running Scud. Lots of guys flying around sans charts. The latter group is likely to grow since the FAA doesn't wants to limit the chart supply now. And lots of guys flying around clueless about IFR, like me. Like it or not, in clear air you guys are going to HAVE to see and avoid, just like us VFR chumps. Sure, I'll do my best to stay out of everyone's way. I never do straight in approaches anyway. But I'm only one little dude on a internet forum I shouldn't be on. Sorry, get your head out of the panel. Its your six.
 
steingar said:
Lots of guys flying around NORDO. Lots of guys running Scud. Lots of guys flying around sans charts. The latter group is likely to grow since the FAA doesn't wants to limit the chart supply now. And lots of guys flying around clueless about IFR, like me. Like it or not, in clear air you guys are going to HAVE to see and avoid, just like us VFR chumps. Sure, I'll do my best to stay out of everyone's way. I never do straight in approaches anyway. But I'm only one little dude on a internet forum I shouldn't be on. Sorry, get your head out of the panel. Its your six.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing the bolded statement. Read Dave's original post again, this is a situation where an IFR aircraft is in IMC and cannot see the VFR traffic.

As far as those running scud, I hope they realize the reason for cloud clearance requirements is that sometimes metal comes out of the clouds at high speed. *Everyone* needs to keep their heads outside when in clear air.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Nobody is disputing the bolded statement. Read Dave's original post again, this is a situation where an IFR aircraft is in IMC and cannot see the VFR traffic.

As far as those running scud, I hope they realize the reason for cloud clearance requirements is that sometimes metal comes out of the clouds at high speed. *Everyone* needs to keep their heads outside when in clear air.
Click to expand...

If I interpreted everything correctly, the aircraft Dave mentioned was flying legally, it just happened to be in the way. That was the basis of why I asked for clarification...

steingar said:
Am I being told to learn to read IFR charts and learn the approaches to every airport at which I mean to land legally VFR just in case there is an IFR aircraft they may just want to use the same airspace as me?
Click to expand...

...and why I posted my comments. VFR aircraft are allowed to do this sort of thing. Once you guys hit the clear air, it's see and avoid. Now, if someone is up on the clouds with you flying illegally, I can only hope the accident they cause only kills them, and not anyone else. Similar if someone is running with insufficient cloud clearance. Especially in an area with poor radar coverage. But then again, that's why we have the FARs.
 
steingar said:
If I interpreted everything correctly, the aircraft Dave mentioned was flying legally, it just happened to be in the way. That was the basis of why I asked for clarification...



...and why I posted my comments. VFR aircraft are allowed to do this sort of thing. Once you guys hit the clear air, it's see and avoid. Now, if someone is up on the clouds with you flying illegally, I can only hope the accident they cause only kills them, and not anyone else. Similar if someone is running with insufficient cloud clearance. Especially in an area with poor radar coverage. But then again, that's why we have the FARs.
Click to expand...

And the FARs are F-ed up in this case, because they allow two aircraft to be seconds from collision, unable to see each other, and be perfectly legal.
 
steingar said:
VFR aircraft are allowed to do this sort of thing. Once you guys hit the clear air, it's see and avoid. Now, if someone is up on the clouds with you flying illegally, I can only hope the accident they cause only kills them, and not anyone else. Similar if someone is running with insufficient cloud clearance.
Click to expand...

We're allowed to do all sorts of things... That doesn't mean we should. ;)

This thread is about helping VFR pilots to understand an IFR pilot's perspective, and hopefully improve safety in the process, that's all. And remember, only ONE plane has to be in the clouds before neither can see the other.

There are things that a VFR pilot can learn about IFR that will make them a better, safer VFR pilot. For example, obstacle departure procedures (and how to depart even when one isn't printed) can save your bacon as a VFR pilot on a moonless night. While this sort of thing is certainly not required, I don't understand why so many VFR-only pilots seem to have such an aversion to anything IFR (and Steingar, I am NOT pointing this statement at you).
 
We'd all be safer, better pilots, and no doubt better human beings if we all flew IFR. Unfortunately, we don't all have the money, time, aircraft, cajones, strength with the Force, or whatever to be IFR pilots. So once again, you slick professional IFR types should have it in your mind that when you break out of your perfect pattern, especially at an uncontrolled field, there could be some of us amateurish pokey VFR types in the way. Hey, not me, but someone. And be very afraid, because I think there are a lot more of us yutsick sunny-day types than you cloudbusters. And no, I'm not going to go study IFR procedures to make you safer. They won't make me any safer because I can (for the time being) see where I'm going.
 
This kind of post from another board makes this worth posting. Both an IFR and VFR pilot observing and talking about this issue:
Quote:
Much the same between St Paul (STP) and South St Paul (SGS). STP ILS to 34 (2500 MSL)is over the top of departure to the east from SGS. We at SGS typically keep our altitudes at 1700 until out from under the ILS approach (still keeps 500 separation in case the ILS blows the 2500 floor). Also tyical to monitor STP tower to know what is coming in and departing. In this case the VFR traffic may know more about the ILS traffic being there.

​
Interesting, Jim. I have flown the ILS into STP and never given a thought to VFR traffic possibly below me in or out of SGS.

I will next time.

======================================================

Best,

Dave
 
Dave, in your first post you said you got on the radio and asked why a VFR pilot would fly along, under the clouds on the LOC-D path. I explained why before. I spent a lot of time around SEE. It's not a challenging airport, but it does have some challenges from the east. I recall an Apache going down out there near BARET in the 80s. He was VFR, and was trying to stay legal over the eastern range.

I've flown that approach and I know where you can go wrong breaking out early, so it's just not done like it might be done in, say - Kansas. Now, the VFR guy, trying to stay legal, trying to get to his destination, just like you - use every tool available to get in safely. The chart doesn't list the LOC freq, but almost all portable GPS has it. Heck, most GPS have a built in approach that a guy can use without following the step-downs, just staying 500' below.

This is what I would have done. Could he have improved your safety by talking to APP? Prolly, but it's not illegal, and it's not even in the recommendations for the airport. In fact, here's the wording right from the AFD for KSEE:

RWY 27R CLOSE ALIGNMENT TO CENTERLINE NECESSARY, USE OF LOCALIZER RECOMMENDED DUE TO PROXIMITY OF MOUNTAIN.

Can that be any clearer? He followed the rules, he even did what the AFD suggests. You were out of line in chastising him for doing this the right way.
 
steingar said:
Thus you (apparently) think a VFR pilot is not flying safely unless they understand IFR procedures. And we wonder why the pilot population is shrinking.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that at all. What I am saying is just because one may be legally operating in VMC under VFR does not mean they are being safe. I'm looking at applying common sense or... Aeronautical Decision Making, which should be a part of every phase of flight for every flight.

In other words, you can legally cruise along in VMC under VFR just a mere 500 feet below those clouds. Is that a good idea? Certainly not.

Likewise, you can cruise along just a mere 2,000 along that layer of clouds to the side at a measly 90-100 KIAS. Again, is that a good idea? Well, that depends entirely on how well you can maneuver to avoid the Citation booking along at 250 KIAS that certainly won't have much time to miss you, less than a half mile out of the clouds or just a few hundred feet below the clouds in the prior scenario.

In other words, use judgment on where you choose to cruise. And, certainly don't hang out in an area known to have instrument approaches for your airport. You don't have to be an instrument pilot to figure that out. Just listening at our smaller area fields, you can hear what's going on and where you should avoid. I'm sure that's no different at the airports in your area.
 
steingar said:
Thus you (apparently) think a VFR pilot is not flying safely unless they understand IFR procedures. And we wonder why the pilot population is shrinking.
Click to expand...

If you think you're safe flying just under the clouds in class G airspace, then the pilot population needs to shrink more - a plane could pop out of those clouds and kill you at any moment. You'd be legal (and so would he), but you'd both be DEAD.

And let's say you were 500 feet below. If the other pilot's on a non precision approach he may be descending as fast as 1000 feet per minute, leaving a 30 second window for you two to see each other before dying.

Nobody (so far) has said that IFR pilots are "better" then VFR pilots (except when you implied it). Nobody's said the VFR pilots weren't legal. But if you don't understand that what is legal is not always safe, you have no business flying, IFR or VFR. You can't manage risk if you don't know it's there.
 
I can't believe I'm reading much of this. Which moron said flying was safe? Who? I'd like to meet the stupidest pilot ever born.

You guys are telling me that I have to go learn IFR stuff just to putter around my home airport. Has it dawned on any of you that you're more likely to slip and die in the tub than have a midair collision?

And having an IFR pilot complain about a VFR pilot who was where he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing smacks of holier than thou. Sorry, its implicit.
 
500fpm = 1 minute in the clear before the IFR traffic intercepts the legal VFR ceiling, right? Or do y'all not do 500fpm descents under IFR?
 
steingar said:
You guys are telling me that I have to go learn IFR stuff just to putter around my home airport. Has it dawned on any of you that you're more likely to slip and die in the tub than have a midair collision?

And having an IFR pilot complain about a VFR pilot who was where he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing smacks of holier than thou. Sorry, its implicit.
Click to expand...

That is certainly not the implication- rather, the simple expedient of being aware that conditions make instrument approaches likely, and accommodating that awareness into your operational choices. In this instance, take the simple extra step of calling up the controlling entity as you get close into terminal area for the destination airport.

Chairboy said:
500fpm = 1 minute in the clear before the IFR traffic intercepts the legal VFR ceiling, right? Or do y'all not do 500fpm descents under IFR?
Click to expand...


On non-precision approaches, circumstances sometimes call for the "dive & drive," in which you descend at a higher rate to the minimum descent altitude, so you have a little extra time stabilized at that altitude to look for the airport environment and thus successfully complete the approach.
 
Chairboy said:
500fpm = 1 minute in the clear before the IFR traffic intercepts the legal VFR ceiling, right? Or do y'all not do 500fpm descents under IFR?
Click to expand...

Not on a non-precision approach, or even on an ILS in some airplanes.

Non-precision approaches can have descents at 1000 FPM. Nominal is 750, but depending on airplanes and winds, more may be required.
 
steingar said:
You guys are telling me that I have to go learn IFR stuff just to putter around my home airport. Has it dawned on any of you that you're more likely to slip and die in the tub than have a midair collision?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the more you know, the better informed your decisions will be.
 
steingar said:
I can't believe I'm reading much of this. Which moron said flying was safe? Who? I'd like to meet the stupidest pilot ever born.
Click to expand...
No, but you can (and should) be looking for ways to make flying safer. This thread is discussing one of those.
 
steingar said:
I can't believe I'm reading much of this. Which moron said flying was safe? Who? I'd like to meet the stupidest pilot ever
Click to expand...
I won't comment on the other misguided stuff you've posted here.

But it's very telling that you don't think flying is safe. It probably isn't for someone with your attitude. For others, it's the safest form of transportation out there. It takes a lot of training, the right plane for the mission, and a willingness to learn to achieve this level of safety. You don't appear to have any of these factors working in your favor.

Felix
 
Chairboy said:
500fpm = 1 minute in the clear before the IFR traffic intercepts the legal VFR ceiling, right? Or do y'all not do 500fpm descents under IFR?
Click to expand...

There may be many reasons to descend at more than 500fpm while IFR.

For example, let's say I'm cruising at 11,000 feet on top of a layer of clouds. Just about when I wanted to descend, I hear another pilot on frequency who's in those clouds say he's picking up ice (unforecast in this case). I'm gonna ask for a "slam dunk" approach so as to descend through those clouds as fast as possible, both to reduce exposure time and to keep airspeed up, both of which will leave me the best chance of my plane continuing to fly after I'm out of the layer. I may well be doing more than 2000fpm in that descent, and as neither I nor the controller knows for sure where the bottom of the layer is, he's probably going to clear me to his minimum vectoring altitude, or maybe to the altitude at which the approach begins (usually between 1500 and 2000 AGL). I'm going to pop out of the bottom of those clouds descending 2000+ fpm at a high airspeed. If you're 500 below, that's well under 15 seconds, and at that point I'm going to be busy arresting that descent to a more reasonable rate, and trying to see you (far away) after looking up from the panel (very close) that I've been looking at for a while now, all the while trying to maintain heading, not blow through my assigned altitude, and stay on course. (Point being, not that entire 15 seconds is going to be spent looking - And even the VFR guy is probably looking at his altitude).

Also, many instrument approaches require more than 500fpm descent, and really it's feet per nautical mile that matter in that case, so faster planes are going to need faster descent rates.

Another thing to keep in mind is that pressurized airplanes (which are more likely to be flying IFR) can have much faster descent rates.
 
sba55 said:
I won't comment on the other misguided stuff you've posted here.

But it's very telling that you don't think flying is safe. It probably isn't for someone with your attitude. For others, it's the safest form of transportation out there. It takes a lot of training, the right plane for the mission, and a willingness to learn to achieve this level of safety. You don't appear to have any of these factors working in your favor.

Felix
Click to expand...

Utter BS. Look at the record of GA flying versus any other form of transportation. Far more crashes in GA. Its simply the truth. You can go "la la la, I'm not listening" but that won't make it any safer. There are unavoidable situations in aircraft that can easily lead the best pilot to his or her demise. And we're all only human.

As for why I need to know IFR rules to fly VFR? BS. My transponder is on, and I look out the window. I don't run scud, I follow the rules, I live in the flatlands and I maintain my aircraft. Nobody is breaking out 500 feet above my head; I don't fly there.

Why don't I worry so much about midair collisions? Because there were all of 4 of them in 2007, and similar numbers for the years preceding. Mysterious engine failures happen more frequently. Midairs are enormously rare. I do keep my head on a swivel anywhere near an airport, and I am on the radio anywhere near an airport. But I can think of a lot more things to focus on to keep me safe than some mysterious IFR pilot barreling into me from out of nowhere. I'd sooner run engine out drills, it is a more likely occurrence.

If you think that is somehow unsafe then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top