If the answer isn't an unreserved 'yes', then the flying training, regulation and revalidation system has failed miserably.
That would have been an interesting thread then.
I can precise the whole thread for you:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe (some one being really controversial).
I dont know (that one would be your answer).
Yes
Yes
In all cases when I have demonstrated to an IMC rated pilot an instrument approach 'for real' it has proved beyond their capabilities - and understandably so.
If you demonstrated, how do you know it was beyond their capabilities?
.. .. .. and if you let these amateurs have a go, that would be a statistically representative sample of how many?
oh, and why we are on the topic, the last time I did an approach in the right seat with an IR pilot I had to take control - which proves - not a lot.
The IMC rating test requires the pilot to demonstrate an approach to the satisfaction of the examiner. There has been some adverse comment about the quality of the examiners - to which I personally dont subscribe. Just like any instrument pilot the skills were up to scratch at the point of test, and just like any instrument pilot, if those skills lapse the pilot should no longer be flying in instrument conditions.
PS: Any reference to aerobatics or other applications of flying skill in this context seems absurd?!
Thanks, I do apologise for the absurdity of my previous posts, I will try and refrain in future.
However, here are some qutoes you might find helpful:
The integration of aerobatic training concepts and carefully selected aerobatic maneuvers at flight schools providing upset recovery flight courses are critical to the development of a properly aware and self-reliant pilot graduate.
Before I move on to the specific benefits of aerobatics flight training, let me emphasize that all airplanes, from a Boeing 777 to an F-16, to a Cessna 150 are essentially “all-attitude” aircraft. That doesn’t mean that it’s smart to intentionally perform aerobatic maneuvers in a non-aerobatic certified aircraft, but any airplane can end up upside down, or vertical, or anywhere in between. You may not have a choice in the matter, either. Whether due to wake or other turbulence, wind shear, pilot distraction, flight into IMC or other conditions beyond a pilot’s experience level, mechanical failure, or some other cause, you may find yourself and your airplane in an unusual attitude. Airliners and other aircraft with pitch and bank limiters are not necessarily an exception. The first time an unusual attitude situation happens, perhaps with a load of passengers on board or low to the ground, should not be your first exposure to “aerobatic” flight.
In low visibility conditions, or in IMC, a pilot must rely on the instruments to maintain orientation. In VMC, the horizon is available to assist in orientation, and is the only completely reliable “attitude indicator.” Yet pilots who have not received aerobatic training typically do not know where to look to find the horizon when in an extreme unusual attitude.
(In respect of the last you might want to give some thought to how that quote developed).
I appreciate you will disagree. However, what worries me is an inability to think outside the box. It is not so much that you disagree, but you offer no reasons why.
In fact I dont even mind that you disagree with the perceived wisdom of at leats one FAA commercial check pilot, but I do mind that you havent explained why.
Oh, and I guess you are aware of one of the possible responses to a hijack of one of the major airlines - but I would have to shoot myself if I told you.