IFR rating?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message

My 2c. If you have the time and money to get the rating now and even
suspect that you
will be able to use it in future, get it now. I procrastinated and found
that later,
my job didn't leave me the time.

I started IFR this spring after having my PP/SEL for about ten years. The
most rewarding and interesting flying I've done yet. Even if I didn't
finish the rating (which I will), the things I've learned in the last month
have made me vastly more comfortable in the cockpit. Sure makes VFR seem
easy!

-c

I started IFR this spring after having my PP/SEL for about ten years. The
most rewarding and interesting flying I've done yet. Even if I didn't
finish the rating (which I will), the things I've learned in the last
month
have made me vastly more comfortable in the cockpit. Sure makes VFR seem
easy!

Agreed, it's good training. VFR flying becomes soooo much easier after 20
hours or so under the hood.

That said, I have not finished up my IR, even though I've got all the flying
requirements and was signed off to take the flight test. (I haven't taken
the written, yet.)

Why? Because (a) I simply don't have time right now to study, and (b) I
don't believe that I would use the rating enough to stay proficient enough
to be safe.

I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

A little advice...If you aren't going to get an instrument rating, don't
curse the weather gods. You are just asking for trouble.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53...
I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in
another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've
been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that
covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck wrote:

I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...

Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine layer
into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.

Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new plane!),
the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument rating.

That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
go/nogo decision harder, not easier.


Morris

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:48:17 -0500, Journeyman
wrote:

In article L6Bjc.54148$_L6.4226739@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck wrote:

I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...

Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine layer
into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.

Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new plane!),
the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument rating.

That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
go/nogo decision harder, not easier.

It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with a nice big MFD with both a strike
finder output, weather RADAR displayed via satellite, AND GPS, but I
try to be careful and avoid those areas where "things" are happening.

As far as getting the rating it makes the applicant practice flying at
a precision not required for the PPL and it makes the pilot far more
conscious of the weather and what it will probably be doing well after
you reach the destination. It also reinforces the "have a way out"
type of thinking not normally present in VFR only flying.

To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

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


Morris

I've flown for almost 10 years, and almost 900 hours, VFR. Throw in
another
500 hours with Mary as PIC during that period. There have been some times
when I wished I had the rating, but -- more often than not -- when I've
been
grounded due to weather, an IFR rating wouldn't have helped. My plane is
simply not capable of handling ice, snow or thunderstorms -- and that
covers
95% of the times I've been on the ground, cursing the weather gods...

Okay. I think that's probably true for most places. When I decided to go
for my instrument rating, I was living on the Puget Sound, and all I needed
from the rating was to climb a few thousand feet to get above the marine
layer
into clear and 1e6-mile visibility.

Here on the other Sound, coming home from FL last month (with my new
plane!),
the trip was 95% VMC, but I couldn't have done it without the instrument
rating.

That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
go/nogo decision harder, not easier.


My personal experience is that IFR is better. I'm rated, and I had owned a
Mooney based in eastern MA, and used it mostly for business travel. About 10%
of my planned trips were cancelled because oof icing, thunder storms, no solid
gold alternate, things like that. The 90% of the trips I did make were a LOT
more comfortable under IFR, even though maybe only 20 to 30% involved actual
IMC. Some of those could have been done VFR, but who wants to fly VFR in 3 mile
vis, or less than 3000 feet for 3 or 4 hours. It's much nicer being in the
soup, having Center tell you about traffic, getting long straight in approaches
to major airports ("cleared ILS to runway 26" is so nice to hear when you're
westbound after 3 hours flight), not having to sweat termanl control zones and
the like. It makes the airplane a lot more efficient.

Then there's flying at night. Even if the weather guessers promise CAVU, flying
IFR at night is prudent adn I think much safer.

So, my experience in the northeast at least is that IFR increases the
likelihood of making a planned trip from the 60 to 70 percent range to the 90
percent range in a reasonably equipt SEL airplane. I also like to think it
increases safety quite a lot.

I just glanced through my pilot's log book -- looks like about 20% of the
flights I've logged show actual instrument conditions.

That's one SEL pilot's experience -- it may be typical for someone flying in
the Northeast.

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:

That said, while the rating does have its utility, it definitely makes the
go/nogo decision harder, not easier.

It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.
....
To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

Different way of saying the same thing? On an obviously VFR day,
going is a no-brainer. On an obviously IFR day (without the rating),
nogo is a no-brainer (modulo those who *gasp* run the scud).
When it's IFR, you need to think about a lot more things.

It goes from (usually) an obvious yes/no to a continuum. At what
point do you decide it's a nogo?


Morris

It's certainly a longggg way from a blank check, but it adds greatly
to the utility of the plane and like you, it allows me to make quite a
few flights that I'd not otherwise be able to try.
...
To me it doesn't make the go/no go decision more difficult, but it may
require much more input that for VFR on many occasions.

Different way of saying the same thing? On an obviously VFR day,
going is a no-brainer. On an obviously IFR day (without the rating),
nogo is a no-brainer (modulo those who *gasp* run the scud).
When it's IFR, you need to think about a lot more things.

It goes from (usually) an obvious yes/no to a continuum. At what
point do you decide it's a nogo?


Morris

If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go?

IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

The undlying assumption is that the PIC is both current, competent, and
confident, of course. If you haven't shot an approach or two to minimums, even
under the hood, in the past few weeks, your personal minimums should be a lot
greater than the published ones.

"tony" wrote in message
...
If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?

IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

IMHO, the go/no-go decision is being made constantly, not just before
takeoff.

I agree with those who say that the instrument rating makes the
decision-making more complicated. I don't see this as necessarily a bad
thing, but it is the price of the increased utility. Basically, when flying
IFR there are more potential ways to run into flight hazards you can't see
or predict than when VFR, at least in a typically-equipped four-seater
piston airplane that most of us are flying.

Forecast above minimums? Great...forecasts can be wrong and you won't find
out until you get there and try to fly the approach. "Solid gold
alternate"? What's that? In flying, there are no guarantees. No imbedded
thunderstorms? Well, I guess if you have radar and/or a lightning detector,
you could know this. Most of us don't. No icing? Impossible to know for
sure until you fly through. No unusual turbulence reported? Past
performance is no guarantee of future returns and when flying IMC, you have
fewer clues to hint at the possibility, since you can't see visual signs of
wind conditions.

When flying day VFR, you can see outside the airplane and avoid most weather
conditions that would be a problem. Not all people do, of course, and you
still have wind to deal with. But even with wind, for the observant pilot
there are plenty of clues. Night VFR is harder, but with conservative
decision-making and proper planning, you can avoid flying into clouds, and
you can visually avoid the rest of the stuff that might cause a problem.

When flying IFR, real IFR that is, you are consistently in situations in
which it's impossible to know for sure what hazards are present until you
personally are in the area of the potential hazard. With extremely
conservative decision making it's possible to avoid these issues, but then
the utility of IFR rating becomes only slightly better than the VFR rating.
Hardly worth the effort. Some real work needs to be put into the decision
making to ensure you avoid these problems while still getting the usefulness
of the instrument rating it offers.

Bottom line: for VFR go/no-go the decision matrix is much simpler than that
found for IFR flights. To me, a more complicated decision matrix means more
complicated decision making.

Pete

"tony" wrote in message
...
If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you
go?

There are many variations on all these issues.

Are you current in the exact airplane? In that model? Is low IMC weather
forecast and if so is it forecast locally or over a wide range?

Is there a front causing the weather and if so what would be the consequence
if the front slowed down or sped up?

If an approach is required, will wind permit this to be straight-in or
circling? If circling, have you done that recently?

What if there is no solid-gold alternate and the weather is forecast to be
800-2 everywhere within your airplane's range -- would that be easier or
harder than if your alternate is forecast to 200 - 1/2 with a 3000-10
alternate?

The possibilities are endless.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com