(C Kingsbury) wrote
The field I used to rent at (BED) had 2 FBOs with about 3 dozen
planes, at least 20 of which wranged from acceptably-equipped to
cadillac (e.g. new 172SP/182). All were well-maintained and flown
regularly in IFR.

This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.

Regular pilots who were IFR probably stayed more current since they
didn't cancel nearly as many flights.

Don't bet on it. As I said before,

Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating?

Geography has everything to do with this. Here in the Northeast, I'd
say at least half as a rule of thumb.

While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.

Not the ones
in winter, because now you're flying in clouds that are subfreezing
and can leave you with a load of ice any time

We get a lot of low-overcast winter days out here where that just
isn't a factor.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued? If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

For me, trying mostly to fly to destinations within about 300 miles or
so, the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited. Frankly on those days the whole Northeastern airway
system goes down the tubes anyway.

Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope. I
was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles. But I got where I was
going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
if headed East.

And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

Did an NTSB search for records with IFR, engine, and failure for the
past 5 years. Out of 60 records, I found two in IFR conditions where a
non fuel-related engine failure of some kind figured in.

Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
write them all off.

Issue #2 - most people I know won't fly much low IFR in a single.

were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation.

No doubt. Pilot error is the biggest cause of all accidents. I never
really understood that until I started giving IFR recurrent training
dual to owners of complex airplanes. The skill level out there is,
well, scary. In fact, I've noticed that there really isn't an average
skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
on an IFR trip.

In any case, engine failure is not what I worry about in IFR.

Well, I've already had one, IFR. You could say it was fuel related -
a component in the fuel servo rusted, and the rust dislodged in
turbulence and clogged two fuel injectors. I would call it bad
design, but of course it's a certified component so I can't redesign
it.

Of course it was in a twin, so no big deal.

That doesn't mean I won't fly single engine IFR. I have, and do, and
will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either. Of course when you watch a
student in a Bonanza struggle to hold in IMC and routinely exceed 45
degrees of bank, you don't tell him that moving up to a TravelAir or
Baron will make him safer. You just try to get him to a level where
he won't kill himself, and when it comes to engine failure you hope
for the best.

Pilot failure is a lot more likely, and a twin
isn't going to prevent that. Some would even argue the added
complexity increases the odds.

Like I said - for the non-proficient pilot you're right, and given my
experience most IFR pilots are non-proficient.

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
sightseer types.

But why leave them out? They ARE technically VFR current, where these
IFR pilots are not IFR current. And they are adequately proficient
for the kind of flying they do - hundred dollar hamburgers on bluebird
days. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. We're creating a
whole new certificate for these guys - sport pilot. That's what these
guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

A much higher level of training and proficiency is required for IFR
flight. 20 hours a year won't cut it. In fact, I would say IFR is
not for the pilot who won't fly at least 100 hours a year. Few
renters do.

Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here.

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR. It takes as much
training, skill, and knowledge - maybe more. It takes as much
planning to execute a low VFR flight as it does an IFR flight in
equivalent conditions, maybe more. If your VFR XC flight training
began and ended with XC flights flown only under basic VFR, you are no
more prepared to fly low VFR than someone who got 3 hours of
instruments for the private is prepared to fly IFR. Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
and money is better spent on other things.

Michael