Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

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.

CriticalMass wrote:



"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?

Yes it does and you are wrong. Not all units require a current database.



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.

The 155 costs $120 for a single update and $285 per year for an update
every 28 days of the entire US.

CriticalMass wrote in message ...
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?

It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.

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.

OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
for IFR chart legality - priceless.

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".

I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???

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.

I live near and fly around class B's a lot. Having an accurate
altimeter is important to me and not something I consider to be an
incremental cost of IFR capability, so no, I'm not including that.
(However, in 4 years, I've never had anything but the inspection fee)

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.

All the flights kept, time and stress saved knowing that I can launch
in MVFR conditions, can easily pick up IFR on the way....I'll not get
into quantifying that here again. But from a cost standpoint for a
high performance single (Mooney) my costs are something like:

Hangar $1300
Maint $3000
Annual $1500
Insure $1300
Taxes $0
Total $7100

Variable costs are about $50 per hour.
The $400-500 that goes into IFR *is* a pittance to me, and can even be
argued that some of it is not really incremental anyway.

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.

The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.
Maybe you fly purely for pleasure. It seems you are projecting the
assumptions that are valid for you on others. The reason for my post
is to ensure that anyone who reads this thread sees another side to
the story, namely that it is practical, useful and desirable for many
(maybe not all) situations to maintain the IFR rating.

Bob Miller wrote:

It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches.

Let's say you have an aircraft with a LORAN, a NAV/COM with glide slope receiver, and
a marker beacon receiver. The radio stack is full, but you have a spare 3.5" hole in
the panel. Would you -

a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the MBR with a NAV
unit or slim NAV/COM.
d. Something else.

As always, money's tight, so I would pick b, though c also is attractive. Your
choice? Panel can be seen at
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...rson/panel.jpg

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

PInc972390 wrote:

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

Good idea, but that still leaves me with the problem of handling approaches in which
the FAF is the intersection of radials from two VORs. Any solution I can think of
fills that hole with either a radio or a CDI.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

(PInc972390) wrote in message ...
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

It's always been my impression that installing an autopilot is a
big-money proposition. I'd love to have even a 1-axis unit in my 172
but I've been led to believe that's talking 10k range by the time it's
all done.

-cwk.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
Let's say you have an aircraft with a LORAN, a NAV/COM with glide
slope receiver, and
a marker beacon receiver. The radio stack is full, but you have a
spare 3.5" hole in
the panel. Would you -

a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the
MBR with a NAV
unit or slim NAV/COM.
d. Something else.

a.

GPS is a Swiss Army knife WRT approaches.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM