Run-in with Chicago Center

for an Angel Flight you absolutely HAD to go at
that
time.

You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.


Well, of course . . . that's the whole point of having the rating. Because I
have it, I *can* fly the mission. I don't have to cancel it because VFR flight
is "not recommended".

Lots of IFR time is spent on top, where the sun is shining brightly and the sky
is deep blue. And you look down and see the gray muck that is the reason
nobody wants to go to the beach. :-) All you have to do is get up through it,
and then back down with the runway in front of your airplane where it belongs.
Sometimes you can depart IFR and fly 20 minutes away and be in perfect VFR
conditions for the rest of your route and destination. But you can't depart
without the rating.



www.Rosspilot.com

Bob Noel wrote:

You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.

Yeah, but my experience has been that you *have* to have an IFR rating to fly one.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in
:



Bob Noel wrote:

You never HAVE to fly an Angel Flight.

Yeah, but my experience has been that you *have* to have an IFR rating
to fly one.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the
people he gives it to.


Angel Flight West does not require an IFR rating. The various Angel Flight
regions each have their own pilot criteria.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I appreciate the contibutions that you have made to these aviation
groups, but I don't really understand your position here. It seems to
me that if you spent half the time you must spend reading and posting
to Usenet you'd have the rating done very quickly.

Probably true. However, one difference is that I *enjoy* this kind of
educational exercise, while I find training for instrument flight to be like
watching paint dry.

In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like high
school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no apparent
reward at the end.

It also helps that I can do Usenet in 5 minute chunks here and there
throughout the day. I am not the type who can retain complex material by
studying in such a haphazard way -- and I simply don't have any open 30
minute (or greater) chunks of time in my day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like
high school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no
apparent reward at the end.

Well, that should pretty well end the discussion. I found the rating fun
(if work), so I did it. If I'd not found it fun, I doubt I'd have kept
going.

Why bother, unless one is doing (or planning on doing) this for a living?

- Andrew

"Michael" wrote:
The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
use.

You know, lots of people are going to try to convince you that's not
true - only it is.

Aw, jeez; I was biting my keyboard but now you force me to post, Mike.

Jay does not need a more capable aircraft to make the i rating useful to
him, he just needs to change his flying needs.

By no means am I urging that he do this; he seems to have reached an
accomodation with his circumstances that works well for him.

But what if he opens another couple of inns 300 miles away in opposite
directions? In that case the airplane could become a useful business tool
and, IMO, the rating would make it a more reliable one. Would he need to
replace the -235 to make this so? I don't think so. There would always be
those days when he'd need to be at the other hotel but marginal conditions
would make a VFR flight highly inadvisable, yet such conditions are no sweat
for an IFR flight.

Yes, if he wants to fly over CBs or through ice he needs a lot more
airplane, but there's plenty of IMC and near-IMC flying to be done when
those things aren't factors. Oh, yeah, and there's the inescapable fact
that one gets better radar service when flying IFR, viz. Jay's recent
experience with Chicago Center.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

In article ygmVc.22648$Fg5.7581@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck
wrote:

I appreciate the contibutions that you have made to these aviation
groups, but I don't really understand your position here. It seems to
me that if you spent half the time you must spend reading and posting
to Usenet you'd have the rating done very quickly.

Probably true. However, one difference is that I *enjoy* this kind of
educational exercise, while I find training for instrument flight to be like
watching paint dry.

In short, this is fun, while training for the instrument rating is like high
school geometry -- a chore that must be slogged through, with no apparent
reward at the end.

It also helps that I can do Usenet in 5 minute chunks here and there
throughout the day. I am not the type who can retain complex material by
studying in such a haphazard way -- and I simply don't have any open 30
minute (or greater) chunks of time in my day.

Ok, so in light of that I can certainly understand you not going for
the rating.

I found my instrument training very challenging and very rewarding. For
me, it was always an interesting test to see how well i could maintain
my positional awareness while under the hood. I found it fascinating
that in spite of the fact that I could not see where I was going I
usually always knew exactly where I was. And when the hood comes off
and the runway is right there in front of me I always get a charge out
of that. I would not have made it to OSH this year without the rating
as I had to fly through an area of rain and low ceilings in
Pennsylavania on the way out. And whenever I make a cross country
flight of any length of more than about an hour I will file IFR even in
VFR weather because I enjoy working within the system. I find it keeps
me on my toes and gives my flying skills the excercise that keeps them
sharp.

Keeping abreast of the Usenet threads, OTOH, is a chore for me. I do
it though because every once in a while there is a choice thread that I
either find very interesting or learn something from.

I agree with previous 2 posts in that if it ain't fun, at this point in your
life, why do it?

But I loved it. I had already done it when I was 25 in UH-1s, so I had a
strong foundation. But I couldn't wait to get another lesson. I loved the
Frasca, too . . . seeing the line plotted over a chart or approach plate . . .
seeing my holding patterns, etc.

I started having fun when I got Trevor Thom's "Instrument Flying".
Once I picked it up and started reading it, everything just flowed. I couldn't
put it down.

And I have to echo this comment:

when the hood comes off
and the runway is right there in front of me I always get a charge out
of that.


So do I . . . and the only BIGGER charge is when you are on the ILS for real,
and you get down to 300-500 ft before those lights are right before your eyes
where they belong. It's WAY up there in the gratification dept.




www.Rosspilot.com

One other comment then I'll shut up about it . . .

Achieving the Instrument Rating will make you a better VFR pilot. It will
improve your communication skills, your concentration and discipline in the
cockpit, your multi-tasking ability, and (IMO one of the most essential
components of being a good pilot) your self-confidence.

www.Rosspilot.com

Rosspilot wrote:

One other comment then I'll shut up about it . . .

Achieving the Instrument Rating will make you a better VFR pilot.

Not universally true. It certainly will if you start right after
getting your private, hell any flying will make you better. But if
you're sitting there with about 1000 hours of VFR time and then get your
rating you will gain nothing for VFR purposes and actually lose some
skills as the two are different types of flying.