Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

(Michael) wrote in message om...

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.

3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.

If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.

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.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

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

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

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.

Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
HPN

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.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.

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.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
these in the records I pulled.

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.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either.

Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.

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?

Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.

guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

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...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

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.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.

Best,
-cwk.