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.

C Kingsbury wrote:

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.

That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating?

I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
postponed, and it's not a problem.

For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.

Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

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, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either.

Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

CriticalMass wrote:



C Kingsbury wrote:
For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.


Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

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. 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. I never found staying current a
problem in the northeast. I filed IFR for almost every flight,
regardless of the weather. I found IFR to be helpful at night in
particular, as I live in the northcentral region of PA where there are
large expanses of state forest with few lights on the ground. On a
moonless night, with an overcast, if was pretty much IMC. 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.

I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns 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.
Without it, I agree that thunderstorms and IMC can be a dangerous mix.

Matt

In article ,
wrote:

I found IFR to be helpful at night in
particular,

ah, right. Being IFR at night is a big help - very little
worrying about blundering into clouds like you would if
you were only VFR.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

ah, right. Being IFR at night is a big help - very little
worrying about blundering into clouds like you would if
you were only VFR.

I just returned from a day trip to Seattle at night, IFR. Most of the
time I was on top with a full moon. As ATC was vectoring me over SEA
(after departing BFI) they were working a VFR Archer that wanted to make
some kind of transition (I never figured out where they were) and getting
in to trouble with airspace and clouds. I was really glad I had decided
to file...

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
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.


This is actually the best argument for getting the IFR rating IMO (and
in my situation).

CriticalMass wrote in message ...
C Kingsbury wrote:

That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

That's the plus side to being in a large metorpolitan area. The
downside is cost- $90+/hr for a basic Warrior/172, more for
newer/bigger.

I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
postponed, and it's not a problem.

Again, I think you have to figure in geography here. Even in the
Northeast there are relatively few true IFR-only days, but there are a
lot of MVFR days where the prognosis for what's going to happen is
unclear. As a VFR pilot you lose a lot of those days, and that can be
30%+ of the time in Spring and summer.

For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.

Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

People in Atlanta don't put snow tires on their cars. Ever see what
happens when it snows there? The point is that there's a lot of
"gentleman's IFR" or safer-flying-IFR-than-MVFR weather up here that
you don't need a big powerful plane with 100k in avionics to use the
system to your advantage. I agree completely that it's not true
everywhere. Down South you have to think a lot more about dodging the
boomers, out West MEAs and such are an issue, and around here ice can
easily ground you, but most of the time it's not a factor. Light scud
and thin low overcasts often are. These are conditions that make IFR
in a 172 useful, and that's why probably half or more of the planes
and pilots at my field are rated and equipped.

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either.

Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
That's 5 months of the year around here.

Best,
-cwk.

C Kingsbury wrote:



My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
That's 5 months of the year around here.


Aww, jeez, don't remind me. It did happen once, and, trust me, I really
wished I was "IFR current".

(C Kingsbury) wrote
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.

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.

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

Don't bet on it. As I said before,

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.

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.

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.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued? If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Issue #2 - most people I know won't fly much low IFR in a single.

were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation.

No doubt. Pilot error is the biggest cause of all accidents. I never
really understood that until I started giving IFR recurrent training
dual to owners of complex airplanes. The skill level out there is,
well, scary. In fact, I've noticed that there really isn't an average
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.

In any case, engine failure is not what I worry about in IFR.

Well, I've already had one, IFR. You could say it was fuel related -
a component in the fuel servo rusted, and the rust dislodged in
turbulence and clogged two fuel injectors. I would call it bad
design, but of course it's a certified component so I can't redesign
it.

Of course it was in a twin, so no big deal.

That doesn't mean I won't fly single engine IFR. I have, and do, and
will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either. Of course when you watch a
student in a Bonanza struggle to hold in IMC and routinely exceed 45
degrees of bank, you don't tell him that moving up to a TravelAir or
Baron will make him safer. You just try to get him to a level where
he won't kill himself, and when it comes to engine failure you hope
for the best.

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.

Like I said - for the non-proficient pilot you're right, and given my
experience most IFR pilots are non-proficient.

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.

But why leave them out? They ARE technically VFR current, where these
IFR pilots are not IFR current. And they are adequately proficient
for the kind of flying they do - hundred dollar hamburgers on bluebird
days. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. We're creating a
whole new certificate for these guys - sport pilot. That's what these
guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

A much higher level of training and proficiency is required for IFR
flight. 20 hours a year won't cut it. In fact, I would say IFR is
not for the pilot who won't fly at least 100 hours a year. Few
renters do.

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. It takes as much
training, skill, and knowledge - maybe more. It takes as much
planning to execute a low VFR flight as it does an IFR flight in
equivalent conditions, maybe more. If your VFR XC flight training
began and ended with XC flights flown only under basic VFR, you are no
more prepared to fly low VFR than someone who got 3 hours of
instruments for the private is prepared to fly IFR. Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. 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.

Michael