Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote
So I've been thinking of buying a plane for the sole purpose of
improving my availability & flexibility.

Which is indeed the sole purpose. If you're in a club that's a good
deal, you won't come out ahead financially by owning.

Since this is a philosophical discussion, assume if I buy on my own I
will have to buy a VFR airplane to get a decent one that's affordable.

The difference between a VFR airplane and a minimal-IFR one is often
small, but OK.

If I buy a VFR airplane that would rule out getting an instrument rating
because I'm obviously not going to rent airplanes for over 40 hours of
IFR training if I just bought one.

Well, if your VFR airplane has a gyro panel and a VOR (and most do)
you could probably do most of your training in it, and just rent
something for about 10 hours. But what would you do with an
instrument rating owning a VFR-only airplane?

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. Most renter pilots
don't even fly enough to maintain VFR proficiency, never mind IFR
proficiency, and the problems you describe are part of the reason. To
me, this is a no-brainer. Buy the VFR airplane.

Realize that the number of times you will be able to complete the trip
in a typical club/rental airplane with the instrument rating when you
couldn't do it without will be fairly small - much smaller than the
number of times you will be able to complete the trip by adjusting the
schedule a bit with your own airplane when you can't do the same with
a rental/club airplane. You will fly a lot more as a VFR owner than
you will as an IFR renter.

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.
Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating? 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 with no way to get rid
of it, unless your club has a plane with boots or at least a big
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. And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

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

Michael

Respectfully Disagree.
We fly about 1x per week, about 250 hrs/year on business trips in an
Mooney.
Average number of flights per year cancelled due to icing: 2-3.
Typical layer is thin stratus. We can rent a booted C210/C310 if
absolutely necessary.
As to Tstorms, there have been a lot of days/nights using eyeballs and
the simple WX900 plus Treo with internet Nexrad, we'll beat often the
airlines. They get backed up; we wait a couple of hours and launch
behind the front.
As to low ceilings...in the Midwest we stay up high for cruise, near
airports typically know places to land. You know on average, I'll see
IFR ceilings on 1/20 of flights.
Truth be told, 80% of our flying is VFR with flight following.
Sometimes don't get enough approaches in. Half of that, I'd sweat out
the forecasts if I was VFR only and VFR equipped only. Is (the IR)
useful.......you betcha. If you regularly need to get over mountains
or vast cold water...that's another story.



Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.
Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating? 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 with no way to get rid
of it, unless your club has a plane with boots or at least a big
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. And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

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

Michael

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


This is just plain nonsense. That they do not *choose* to use it does not make
it "not useful".


www.Rosspilot.com

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



This is just plain nonsense. That they do not *choose* to use it does not make
it "not useful".


Yes, I'd like to know where those "statistics" came from. I make a diligent
effort to maintain my IFR currency (over and above the minimum) and file IFR
on about half of the flights I make in my airplane.

If I were not going to bother staying IFR current then I don't think I'd
bother getting the rating after all.

(Michael) wrote

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

Agreed. I am an instrument-rated but not instrument-current pilot.
This is so for the reason you say, and also because I don't have
sufficient confidence in my equipment or abilities to feel safe flying
my plane in any but the easiest IMC. The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof. Yeah they teach you partial-panel
procedures as part of your IFR training. But I just don't think I'm
good enough, or don't have the time/money to get good enough, to feel
comfortable handling partial-panel in real IMC.

The new Cessnas have dual vacuums, which I think is an excellent
safety feature.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

On 28-Aug-2004, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:

The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof.

Yes, that is the nature of a vacuum pump failure. What warning were you
expecting?


The new Cessnas have dual vacuums, which I think is an excellent
safety feature.

In my opinion, a better alternative (and one available for virtually any
airplane) is a standby electric AI. Also, most GPS units provide an "HSI"
functon that will provide a workable backup for a vacuum DG.

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote:

On 28-Aug-2004, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:


The vacuum pump in my Skyhawk
went belly up just like that a couple years ago while flying VFR. No
warning. No nothing. Just poof.


Yes, that is the nature of a vacuum pump failure. What warning were you
expecting?

Personally, I'd like a sweet voice to say to me "You have 10 hours until
vacuum pump failure," "You have 9 hours until vacuum pump failure," etc.
:-)

I solved the problem by owning a Skylane with a wet pump. Never had a
failure of the pump. I did have a vacuum loss caused by a T fitting
installed as part of the Precise Flight standby system. How ironic...


Matt

Michael wrote:

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

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

Michael

You nailed it.

My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.

OK, I'll bite again:

Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
your handheld 1x per year: $50.

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts.

Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
backup vacuum prior to T/O.

Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
to maintain the plane.


My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.

Bob Miller wrote:
OK, I'll bite again:

Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
your handheld 1x per year: $50.

"current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know.
But, in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the
phrase "legal" ring any bells?

The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts

I keep the "Aircharts Atlas" current, in my plane, to stay legal. IFR
currency would entail more cost.

Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
backup vacuum prior to T/O.

OK. Good for you. Hope all your stuff keeps working, "prior to T/O".

What you conveniently choose to overlook in your pie-in-the-sky
"analysis" of the costs to fly IFR is those pesky instrument failures -
when your altimeter fails the biennial test, and you need a
new/overhauled one. Not included in your "$150/yr" test, and it
happens, not infrequently.

Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
to maintain the plane.

I think I'll depart this discussion given that you've chosen to define
what constitutes a "pittance", which is a relative term.

You've assumed what databases I have to keep current, you've assumed my
equipment will continue to pass all the IFR checks, you've assumed what
it costs me to "maintain the plane", and you've made your own assumption
about which charts I'll be using.

Too many assumptions for me to take you seriously.