Instrument rating??

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
ink.net...
I had always planned on getting my instrument rating- within the next
year, probably. But last weekend I had a chat with someone who really
got me thinking about it.

This guy is a friend of a friend and is a retired 20,000 hour ATP.
Retired in the 80s flying 707s and I forget what else. Instructed in
Cubs for years. (Guy has nine count 'em nine engine failures in Cubs!
Two inside 20 minutes once!)

So, this is what he told me: unless I'm going to be flying 3 times/week
at least, getting my instrument ticket is a waste and possibly dangerous
as well. He thinks I'll be more likely to end up dead with it than
without it. (Logic being, obviously, that the ticket will give me such
a sense of security that I won't be afraid of hard IMC even when I'm not
current enough to handle it.)

This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

My personal belief is that training and/or education (and travel) is never
truly wasted, even if you never use it again.

If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating. Good
airmanship means good sense. If you have a reasonable quota of
airmanship/good-sense you'll know when to use it, and when not,
and if you don't you're in the wrong avocation anyway.

Ron McKinnon wrote:

If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating.

It appears that Paul's ATP friend is assuming that Paul is "the kind of guy
who thinks the rating is a magic key to IFR, and you don't need to be
current to use it". He's either a poor friend (assuming he's wrong) or a
good friend (assuming he's right).

So, Paul, just how accurate is your ATP friend's opinion of you laugh?

- Andrew

Read my post again and you'll see that I said "friend of a friend".
And, actually, he's more of the father of a friend of a friend. I
talked to him for 20 minutes in a bar and may never see him again in my
life.

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Ron McKinnon wrote:


If you're the kind of guy who thinks the rating is a magic key to
IFR, and you don't need to be current to use it, you'll probably
kill yourself somehow else, even if you don't get the rating.


It appears that Paul's ATP friend is assuming that Paul is "the kind of guy
who thinks the rating is a magic key to IFR, and you don't need to be
current to use it". He's either a poor friend (assuming he's wrong) or a
good friend (assuming he's right).

So, Paul, just how accurate is your ATP friend's opinion of you laugh?

- Andrew

This is like arguing that you shouldn't wear a parachute, cause
if you do you'll take extreme chances and kill yourself.

Of course, look at the crash record of the Cirrus (if I'm not mistaken
it is relatively high considering the number of planes produced by
them). Many believe these accidents are the result of pilots taking
risks they normally wouldn't have taken in a non-parachute aircraft.
I believe Richard Collins wrote an interesting article about this a
few months back.

I have started my instrument rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating? Well, probably, that is part of
what the rating is for. Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported). I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument. And then if I felt
like I still needed the instrument rating go ahead, but just do it to
improve your skills, "single engine planes are for sunny weather".
(He's retired and swears he doesn't fly on instruments or in single
engines much for that matter.) I didn't take is advise on the
aerobatics (yet) but I may keep my flying to relatively good weather
even after I get my ticket.

Anyway, my CFII now is an ATP and instructor for a major carrier and
he has no problems flying in the clouds at all. So who is right?
Well, neither one of these guys are idiots....

This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
of that...
denny

"Greg" wrote in message I have started my instrument
rating and my piloting skills have
improved 10 fold. But will I be tempted to carry on into worsening
conditions after I have my rating?

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
of that...

If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It could
be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

--Gary

denny

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:34:49 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
of that...

If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It could
be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

It's a very simple relationship.

The insurance companies do not give a break unless they figure they
are going to save even more money.

That follows directly that if they give pilots with an instrument
rating a cheaper premium they figure the odds are they will have to
pay out less due to that pilot being rated.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

--Gary

denny

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:34:49 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
of that...

If your implication is that the insurance companies have found that an
instrument rating improves safety, that doesn't actually follow. It
could
be that the rating is diagnostic, rather than causative, of above-average
safety. You can't tell just from the correlation.

It's a very simple relationship.

Yes, it's fairly straightforward.

The insurance companies do not give a break unless they figure they
are going to save even more money.

Yes. So if they give a break to instrument-rated pilots, they've concluded
that instrument-rated pilots, on average, are safer than others. And let's
assume, for the sake of argument, that their conclusion is correct.

That follows directly that if they give pilots with an instrument
rating a cheaper premium they figure the odds are they will have to
pay out less due to that pilot being rated.

No, the "due to" part is precisely what does not follow. A better average
safety record on the part of instrument pilots does *not* suffice to show
that getting the rating improved their safety at all. Even if instrument
training has no effect on safety--or even if it has an overall negative
effect on safety (say, due to encouraging riskier flying than would
otherwise occur)--it's still possible for instrument-rated pilots, on
average, to fly more safely than others (which would still motivate an
insurance-premium discount). That can occur if, for example, more-capable
(and safer) pilots are much more likely than others to acquire the rating in
the first place. So as I said in my previous post, getting the rating could
be a diagnostic indicator of being a safer pilot, even if it doesn't cause
any improvement in safety--in fact, even if it has the opposite effect!

Therefore, to ascertain what effect instrument training has on pilot safety,
we need more information than just a correlation between the rating and
safety. (If I had to guess, I'd bet that instrument training does increase
safety. But that's just a hunch, not something that's derivable from the
available data.)

--Gary

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

--Gary

denny

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...

That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
and for fast cruisers. When I owned a TriPacer I asked my broker
about what kind of discount I could expect if I got an instrument
rating, and he just laughed. Of course with my Twin Comanche it's a
very different story. You only get that discount if you own something
fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the implications
of that...

Fine. The implication is that unless you own have an airplane too
fast to scud run, an instrument rating doesn't do anything to make you
any safer. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Michael

Just to give you a data point...

I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT. My
insurance bill was about $90 lower this year possibly as a result of
attaining the instrument rating. Of course, this may be a break due to TT
rather than an IA, except that I don't think you get a break because of TT
until at least 300 hours. Oh, and I fly a PA28-140, not exactly a hotrod.

Still, I didn't get the IA for the insurance. I did it to increase the
usability of my plane. Here in NJ we get a lot of hazy summers and the
occasional scuddy days in fall/spring (ceiling around 2k).

mark

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in
This discussion has had it's silly moments... I will simply note that
adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...

That's not generally true at all. It's ONLY true for low time pilots
and for fast cruisers. When I owned a TriPacer I asked my broker
about what kind of discount I could expect if I got an instrument
rating, and he just laughed. Of course with my Twin Comanche it's a
very different story. You only get that discount if you own something
fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

I will let the rocket scientists in this discussion ponder the
implications
of that...

Fine. The implication is that unless you own have an airplane too
fast to scud run, an instrument rating doesn't do anything to make you
any safer. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Michael