Instrument rating??

"Mark Astley" wrote
Just to give you a data point...

I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT.

You do. When you're that low time, a lot of things make a difference
that will be irrelevant at 500+ hours.

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.

First off, this varies by insurer but there isn't a single insurer I
know of that treats a 100 hour pilot the same as a 250 hour pilot when
it comes to flying a simple airplane. So don't be so quick to
discount total time - in general, both total time and time in the past
year are more important than ratings.

More to the point, though, continuing training (in whatever form, as
long as it is in your airplane) is attractive to a lot of insurers.
It shows that you are flying regularly, are training regularly, and
are disciplined about your flying. A rating (any rating) acquired in
the past year is generally worth something as long as your rates have
not bottomed out (and yours, at 250 hours, have not).

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).

Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Astley" wrote
Just to give you a data point...

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).

Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?

Require? No, of course not, if you're content to get beaten senseless
cruising around down low. A hazy NJ summer can easily be less than 3 miles,
then there's the occasional freak occurence like smoke from Canada blowing
down into your airspace.

mark

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).

Do you really believe that ceilings of 2000 AGL and visibilities of
3-5 miles require an instrument rating in a Cherokee?

Michael

I do. I'm about half way through my ifr training (about 230 hours total
time over 3 years). My pesonal VFR minimums are 3,500 ovc, 3,000 bkn. I had
to divert once due to weather going from 4,000 bkn to 800 within 20 minutes.
Luckily I was right over an airport when I called ahead to my class C home
base. Fetched the plane the next day.

Even so, once I get the rating, I'm betting my ifr minimums will still be
around the 2k agl mark (2-3 miles visibility). Given the severly blown
practice LOC approach last night under the hood, I need some room. :-) Hard
to tell though. I haven't even had any actual, yet. 1st time may scare my
minimums even higher.

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"Mark Astley" wrote
Just to give you a data point...

I guess I fall into the low time pilot category at about 250 hours TT.

You do. When you're that low time, a lot of things make a difference
that will be irrelevant at 500+ hours.

True enough. But at 500+ hrs, it still made a difference to us.

Care to cite the "magic number" of piloting hrs where the IR makes
no difference to insurance rates in simple fixed-gear planes?

Thanks,
Sydney

Mark Astley wrote:

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.

I spoke to the Cessna insurance people at the AOPA flying at Frederick a few
years ago. They said their first price break is at 210 hours.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"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. ..
You only get that discount if you own something
fast - say Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking and up.

Michael,

Are you sure about that? Do you have some sort of study or
evidence you could point to online?

I don't know what you consider "low time" for the purposes of this
discussion, but DH and I both have between 500 and 1000 hrs TT,
more than 300 hrs in type, do recurrant training (WINGS) every
year. Our insurance quote dropped substantially this year in what
we were told is a generally rising market.

We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
Piper Archer.

So it kind of looks to us that at least some insurance companies
think the IR makes a difference. Maybe not for your Tripacer, maybe
not for someone flying a Stinson 108 or a C140, but for ordinary
garden-variety spamcans which were commonly produced as
instrument-capable planes.

Cheers,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
Are you sure about that? Do you have some sort of study or
evidence you could point to online?

No - just what I've seen when my friends and I got insurance.

I don't know what you consider "low time" for the purposes of this
discussion

That depends on the airplane. And I should have mentioned that it's
not just low time - recent experiene is also becoming very, very
important.

We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

Actually, your simple fixed gear plane is faster than similarly
powered planes with retractable gear - it will outrun a 180 hp Arrow
or C-172 RG. It will almost stay with a C-model Mooney. I've given a
reasonable amount of instrument dual in a Tiger (much of it in IMC)
and I must say that while it's not exactly in the
Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking, it's not comparable to a Cherokee or
C-172 either. It has enough speed and enough range that people do use
them for serious travel, and it's not particularly comfortable at low
speeds.

What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

Maybe. Or maybe the loss rate on that model has been low. Or maybe
you haven't been flying enough hours in the past few years.

I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
Piper Archer.

I find that amazing - this is directly contrary to what I've seen
locally.

So it kind of looks to us that at least some insurance companies
think the IR makes a difference. Maybe not for your Tripacer, maybe
not for someone flying a Stinson 108 or a C140, but for ordinary
garden-variety spamcans which were commonly produced as
instrument-capable planes.

Well, leaving out a C-140, I will suggest that a TriPacer or Stinson
108 is just as instrument capable as a Warrior in terms of speed,
range, and redundancy. In fact, I might argue that the Stinson 108 is
MORE capable.

Granted most of the people I know do gravitate to these older
airplanes rather than the more modern stuff, which might skew my
impressions, but I have to wonder WHY the difference?

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...

(Snowbird) wrote
We fly a simple, fixed-gear, fixed-prop plane which is slightly
faster than its 180 HP fixed gear cousins -- but it's no Mooney/
Bonanza/Comanche/Viking.

Actually, your simple fixed gear plane is faster than similarly
powered planes with retractable gear - it will outrun a 180 hp Arrow
or C-172 RG. It will almost stay with a C-model Mooney. I've given a
reasonable amount of instrument dual in a Tiger (much of it in IMC)
and I must say that while it's not exactly in the
Mooney/Bonanza/Comanche/Viking, it's not comparable to a Cherokee or
C-172 either. It has enough speed and enough range that people do use
them for serious travel, and it's not particularly comfortable at low
speeds.

True. And IMO it's not comparable to a Cherokee or C172 in terms
of ease of handling. But the point is, I don't think it's so clear
that the IR doesn't make a difference until you get into the
"complex speedster" class. It's not complex, and the top speed
isn't *that* much different. (Much though we fans would like to
believe it is *g*)

What's different? I finished my IR last fall.

Maybe. Or maybe the loss rate on that model has been low. Or maybe
you haven't been flying enough hours in the past few years.

Well, one reason I think I make a good data point is that we've
pretty much flown the same hrs each year since our daughter was
born -- 100 to 150 split between us, more or less equally, and
when we renew our insurance in late Feb. we usually haven't flown
that much in the last 90 days either. We definately fall into a
common pattern of "get current in late winter/early spring, fly
a lot all summer and fall, barely exercise the engine in winter".

I've heard a similar story from a fellow owner with a Piper Warrior,
which is even slower, and from the chap across the shadeports with a
Piper Archer.

I find that amazing - this is directly contrary to what I've seen
locally.

I can't comment on what you've seen, only on what I've seen locally,
which is that the IR *does* make a difference on insurance to pilots
with 500-1000 hrs flying nominally IFR-capable planes.

Well, leaving out a C-140, I will suggest that a TriPacer or Stinson
108 is just as instrument capable as a Warrior in terms of speed,
range, and redundancy.

Not as they are commonly equipped they aren't. At least the Stinson
108s; I know, that's what we were shopping for before DH got fired
and we raised our budget *g*.

If you put in a vacuum pump rather than venturi vacuum, a modern
6 pack, and modern nav/com/txpdr/GS there's no reason why it wouldn't
be just as capable. OTOH, the FAA doesn't make it easy to do so.

So most of those I've seen *aren't* so equipped, thus they aren't
as capable. OTOH, most Warriors I've seen have a modern sixpack,
two radios and an ADF at the least.

*shrug*
Sydney

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance premium...
denny

Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
by even one cent.

-DJR

"As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques

I just posted about this on the original thread, but my insurance went down
a whopping $90 after I picked up my IA. I was told that total time would
have a bigger effect on my premium.

mark

"Dave Russell" wrote in message
om...
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
I will simply note that adding
the instrument rating will result in a decrease in your insurance
premium...
denny

Is there any real evidence of this? It's certainly *not* true for me!
Avemco told me that adding an IFR rating would not change my premium
by even one cent.

-DJR

"As a pilot you may never actually achieve perfection in the air, but
you better damn well spend every second you're up there at least
trying to achieve it" Dudley Henriques