Instrument rating??

From what to what?

Mike
MU-2

"Mark Astley" wrote in message
...
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

From $980 to $890, so percentage wise that's about 10% which ain't bad I
guess. This is in a PA28-140 with $1M liability and $36K on the hull. It's
not quite apples to apples year to year because I upgraded my panel and
increased my hull value to compensate. As I'm a low time pilot (about 250
TT, dead in the middle of the killing zone), it's hard to tell whether this
change in premium is strictly due to picking up the extra rating. For
example: last year I had 10 hours in type, now I have well over 100.

mark

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
From what to what?

Mike
MU-2

"Mark Astley" wrote in message
...
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

On 4 Mar 2004 13:53:30 -0800, (Dave Russell) wrote:


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.

USAIG would not insure me in an SR20 until I got my instrument rating.

In rec.aviation.piloting Dave Russell wrote:
"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.


Agreed. My insurance never changed when I got my instrument rating.

--- Jay


--

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

(Dave Russell) wrote in message . com...
"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.

My agent says 10%. It may be less for non-complex planes. However, it
did save me money on the Aeronca Champ.

(Greg) wrote
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.

Hang around a parachute school for a while, and watch people pack
parachutes. Some people stuff them in there literally in minutes.
Some pay $5 for someone else to do the same - generally an unrated
person working under 'supervision' that consists of having someone
somewhere on the airport but not actually watching. Holes are
routinely patched with tape. Mention this, and the response is always
the same - I've got a second parachute. Hang around BASE jumpers, who
don't usually carry a second parachute, and you see an entirely
different approach.

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.

At least you're being honest with yourself. Anyone who tells you it's
just for skill improvement isn't being honest with himself. Of course
there are the people that do it just to get the insurance discount.
They may be the safest ones of all.

Perhaps this is why the ATP thought it was
dangerous (the weather may well be much wose than reported).

The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

I had an
ATP (and ex fighter pilot)tell me something similar. He advised me to
take aerobatics before getting the instrument.

Good advice. I heartily endorse it - despite the fact that I do teach
instruments and don't teach aerobatics.

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".

There's a lot to be said for that too. I have flown IFR in singles,
but I can't say I've ever really felt good about it.

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....

No, but there's a difference in perspective here. When you're an
instructor building time for the airlines, you have to take some risks
or you will never get there. That often means flying some marginal
aircraft in some marginal conditions. If you won't, someone else will
- and he will get to the majors and make six figures, not you. So you
have to walk a fine line - take enough risks to get ahead, but not so
many they kill you. I have an ATP/major airline captain friend too.
He flew a lot of single engine IFR when on his way up. He doesn't do
it anymore.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
The basic difference between flying VFR (at least by visual contact
with the surface - I'm not talking about 'pretend' VFR where you still
have to fly on the gauges and navigate with radios) and flying IFR is
this - when you are VFR, you can see what the weather around you is
doing and bail out when it gets scary. Airports are usually only a
few minutes apart in most of the US, and in a pinch most light singles
can be landed in a field. When you fly IFR, you often can't see the
weather. You have to determine what it's doing by other means, and
this is more complex. IFR flying is NOT for the pilot who isn't good
at figuring out what the weathe is doing. In most cases, this is
something that only develops with experience, so in general IFR flying
is not for the inexperienced pilot. The FAA used to require 200 (or
maybe 250) hours for the instrument rating, and I think that made a
lot of sense as an absolute minimum.

Michael has, IMO, a very valid point here. (in the post below,
"you" and "you're" are intended as general terms not referring
to Michael)

We do both -- fly VFR under the clouds in crud/file IFR and
stay over them.

There's no question in my mind that VFR flight under the clouds
requires a much higher degree of piloting skill and situational
awareness to manage safely. It's tough. It's uncomfortable.
And having a GPS helps, but only somewhat -- the best route is
often not "GPS direct" but along a river to a highway, through
the pass then left through the valley to the airport. Flying
on the centerline of a course directly into a terrain or obstacle
used to be called "the mark of Loran-guided death" now one could
substitute "GPS-guided".

From that POV, filing IFR and getting into a system where the
minimum safe altitudes are mapped out and navigation is easy,
looks much safer.

On the other hand, IFR flight is often deceptively easy. You can
file, pop through a layer into glorious sunshine, and go on
your way fat, dumb, and happy. It's very easy to get lulled into
complacency by how easy and comfortable it is, and stop asking
hard questions: what is the weather enroute? is there space between
the cloud base and terrain where I could maneuver to a survivable
landing if the engine quit? where is the nearest VFR weather where
I could land if my electrical system quit? What's the weather at my
destination and is it honestly within my capabilities for that
approach? What's the freezing level? How does it relate to the
MIAs on my route?

It's tough and uncomfortable to ask those questions when flying a
SE plane IFR. It makes it seem like maybe what you're doing is
no safer, maybe even not as safe, as bucking along in the crappy
vis under the clag. But IFR is safer, everyone "knows" that. It
feels safer. So pilots don't ask.

So then we get these sad accidents where someone flying a C182
crashes from fuel exhaustion on the way to his alternate airport
because he tried 3 ILS to his destination and couldn't make it in,
or where someone has an engine failure over inhospitable terrain
at night, or where someone picks up icing descending through clouds
on approach.

Cheers,
Sydney