Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

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).