Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

(Michael) wrote in message om...

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on having the hypothetical choice of
getting an IFR rating while continuing to rent, versus buying and
committing to being VFR-only for the forseeable future.

I think an instrument rating for a renter pilot is a bad joke. Most
rentals are not maintained and equipped well enough to be reasonable
choices for flying IFR in most non-VFR weather.

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.

Most renter pilots
don't even fly enough to maintain VFR proficiency, never mind IFR
proficiency,

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

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

Michael argues this point frequently and with far more reason, logic,
and experience on his side than usually found on Usenet. His is one
viewpoint I never dismiss without serious consideration. That being
said...

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.

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.

engine. Not the ones where there are thunderstorms hiding in those
clouds, because you have no way of knowing where those storms are
unless your club has a plane with spherics.

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. It just means I need to have more
margin for error.

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.

This one is pretty unambiguous. Engine failure while climbing to
altitude:
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?...25X05516&key=1

Now, cautionary note is that I may not be searching correctly so I'm
conceivably missing out on some incidents, but in this sample there
were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation. In any case, engine failure is not what I
worry about in IFR. 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.

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. Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here. So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either. Guess I should just quit flying until I can afford a
big twin Cessna or Eclipse finishes their jet!

Best,
-cwk.