Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:21:02 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [216.99.186.50] (HELO swpr-drf-01.Ceg.Corp.Net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2630541 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:14:41 -0400 Received: from ex-drf-m01.powersrc.com (unverified) by swpr-drf-01.Ceg.Corp.Net (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:14:40 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: by ex-drf-m01.powersrc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0GR977>; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:15:10 -0400 From: "Romeo, Frank A" X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: IFR training in a IV-P? X-Original-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:11:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bryan J. Burr wrote: "My personal opinion is that IFR is only for professional pilots who receive a lot of recurrent training, flying multi-engine high altitude, = with the best deice equipment and have an equally rated and trained = co-pilot. Actual (IMC) IFR is not for single engine, low time pilots who dream of going IMC. These Lancair airplanes, although capable, are = really only meant for enjoyment, fun, and convenience. Nothing more." I think it=92s a good thing for each pilot to operate within his = "comfort zone" for safety reasons. However, it would also good if Bryan lived = in Arizona. Here, in central NY state, if you don=92t have an instrument rating, you can=92t legally fly half the time. (well, maybe I=92m = exaggerating a little...) But, I know I=92d have had many a vacation trip messed up = if I couldn=92t fly an instrument approach to complete an otherwise = beautiful flying trip. My Legacy will be full IFR :-) (and, yes, I will avoid ice...) Frank Romeo Syracuse, NY area