![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Whiting wrote
It all depends. I live in PA and flew my Skylane through the eastern part of the US, summer and winter for more than 6 years. It had a Strikefinder, and was well equipped in avionics-wise. There is a HUGE difference between a well-equipped C-182 and the sort of IFR airplane a pilot might buy of a VFR budget or rent at a typical club that is a 'good deal' - meaning a clapped-out Cherokee or Skyhawk. I flew for both business and pleasure and made a lot of flights that would not have been possible, or at least not wise, VFR. As Lindbergh once said, risk is relative and inexperience can be a magnifying glass. To properly compare the risk factors of making a flight IFR or low VFR under a given set of conditions, you need experience in both. My experience has been that most people do not properly asess the relative risks. With the advent of cell towers, most scud runners I know have raised their minimums - to about 500 ft. I believe the instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it later on. Weren't you arguing in another thread to fly as you train and train as you fly? Actually, I agree that an instrument rating is valuable cross training for a VFR pilot - just not nearly as valuable as many other, less expensive forms of training. I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns Then clearly you were willing to fly IMC when there were airmets for icing in clouds. This is of course counter to regulation - the one about not operating contrary to POH/AFM, since Skylanes all prohibit flight into known icing conditions. Even if the airplane has no such prohibition, this is generally considered careless and reckless. This is not a gray area - it has been well established and litigated, and an airmet for ice means known icing conditions regardless of PIREPs. Nonetheless, it is commonly done. In a Skylane, it's actually not so bad. The plane carries ice relatively well due to the big engine and fat wing, so you have some time to escape. Assuming you plan the outs carefully and don't encounter anything too ugly, you will probably be OK. Every year we lose a few planes that encounter something ugly. Anyway, my point is that while this isn't in compliance with the regs, it is a manageable risk, much like flying single engine IFR. But conditions that a Skylane-class airplane will escape with often bring down a Skyhawk-class airplane - just not enough power. and never cancelled for t-storms, even a couple of flights to Florida in the summer were not a big deal. The Strikefinder made this possible. Yes, exactly. How many rental planes have one? How likely is it that you will find one in a budget-priced IFR plane bought on a VFR budget? Most IFR rentals are instrument trainers, flown mostly under the hood rather than in actual. They tend to be Skyhawks and Cherokees these days, and they very rarely have spherics. In fact, they usually have a couple of nav-coms, an ADF and/or DME, and maybe some POS LORAN or VFR GPS. How many of your trips could have been completed in one of those? Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
Get your Glider Rating - Texas | Burt Compton | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 1st 04 04:57 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |