Run-in with Chicago Center

I agree about the increase in safety. I don't tempt fates unless there's a
clear line through thunderstorms, one that is visible above the cloud tops,
and ice is just a simple no-go unless the clouds are nice and high (or
broken). I actually haven't even bothered trying to fly in winter if there
are clouds near or above the freezing level.

I also realized something... time spent on pre-season football could be
_much_ better spent on an IFR ticket for getting to the _real_ games later
in the season! :-) Now that I've had my instrument ticket for over a year,
I've found that I use it all the time, even in weather that is very clear
and very visible. I like to fly long distances (done New Jersey to Atlanta
twice now round-trip), and have found that if I'd just gone direct versus
flying the airways I would've saved maybe 5 - 10 minutes tops on each leg.
Not enough by far to leave behind the higher safety factor that IFR offers.
You get separated from all IFR traffic, and usually get calls about VFR
traffic. But even if you don't get a VFR call, the number of VFR pilots who
fly above about 2 - 3,000 feet AGL is much, much smaller than those who fly
closer to the ground. I can't even remember the last time I got a traffic
call for VFR traffic while flying IFR anywhere above a cruising altitude of
4,000 ft.

Another thing to consider is that on those marginal days, you'll still be
able to climb to a nice, comfortable cruising altitude and get better fuel
economy... not to mention a much smoother ride, and depending on direction,
a stiff tailwind to boot. The extra training alone will help improve your
skills, which is always a good thing as we all continue to use our "licenses
to learn".

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Maule Driver" wrote in message
r.com...
Jay, the time thing is a bear.

But while you may not cancel many flights that you may "feel comfortable
with flying IFR", you will make more of those flights that you do make
"more
comfortably" IFR. More safely too.

Ironically, IFR you will spend more time in the sun rather than among the
attennaes. Bring your sunglasses.

Com'on Jay, try to make the time!

(but you've heard all that)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fLKUc.9708$Fg5.53@attbi_s53...
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not
a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a
lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking
my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare
VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

The flights I've scrubbed have usually been because of thunderstorms
(which
I wouldn't challenge IFR) or snow/ice -- for which my Pathfinder is not
equipped. I also have no weather avoidance equipment on board, so
flying
in
August in the clag would be unwise. (Check out a radar loop for Iowa
today,
and you'll see why.)

The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
use.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

""weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR."

Jay,

As you just found out, weather many times has nothing to do with filing IFR.
It is just far simpler to file IFR and let the controllers worry about the
airspace ahead.

Usually in any kind of high density area, east coast, Los Angeles, Etc. IFR
is just way easier, faster, more relaxing and safer. Even in severe clear!

Karl

I'm betting an IFR ticket would be way more than an ego booster. I dont
think about it as an ego booster or go around bragging about it, but more
along the lines of like minimum equipment. Wouldnt your insurance
come down a little with that rating? That's pretty useful. The currency
required in itself every 6 months, whether with a safety pilot or a CFII,
is pretty useful. The IFR chart service and updates are more than a
strictly VFR pilot deals with, is useful. The fact ATC, while youre
IFR, just cant get rid of you if they feel busy, is useful. The service
beyond flight following when it comes to updated airspace activity,
weather, and traffic, is pretty useful. Yes, they'd do that for you
VFR too, if they can see you and if they have time. The continuity
of having your flight plan pass from facility to facility instead of
being terminated and telling your life story every other freq, is
useful.

Scud running just isnt worth it. Not with all the money tied up
into an owned aircraft, and not with your family on board. It wouldnt
instill confidence in me as a passenger if my pilot didnt do all he/she
could do in the way of training and preparation, whether it be a
rating, an onboard weather system, and a well maintained airplane.

That all being said, I mostly fly day VFR and only file IFR when
I need to. But at least it's there if/when I need it. And theres been
times where I wouldnt have gone VFR, a low thin layer that an
IFR clearance enabled me to pop through, or a detereorating condition
at an airport that an IFR approach was fine, but a VFR or SVFR
approach would be dicey. As far as embedded thunderstorms,
someday soon no one will have any excuse for not having some
form of onboard weather capability. More and more small aircraft
like yours and mine Jay are telling me "yeah, I see it on radar, too".
After some shoptalk on freq it's usually some nexrad download
system, or maybe just a stormscope. Certain types I expect to have
onboard radar, or are not surprised they have it. Other smaller
single engine types that normally dont have a radome on their wing,
that are way ahead of their airplane weatherwise, now that's nice
to see.

Lastly, IFR usually doesnt take you that far out of your way. Compare
with a flight planner the difference in miles/time/gallons. And many
times those airways take you away from high terrain (I'm talking out
west here), put you over/near airports enroute, and in case of GPS failure,
keep you in range of VORs.

It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do. You're
paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Later, Chris

It's just a no brainer for the type of flying it sounds like you do.
You're
paying for it in avgas taxes whether you use the system or not, use it.

Mary and I use "the System" to the fullest extent allowed for VFR flight.
We fly over 200 hours per year, all VFR, much of it long cross-country
flights, 95% of it with flight-following.

When you fly high enough (say, 4500 feet around here), you are guaranteed
continuous radar coverage and traffic advisories in pretty much any
direction. One controlled airspace seamlessly meshes with another, and the
controllers smoothly hand us off for all of our flights -- just the same as
on an IFR flight plan. The only time this doesn't work is when we fly
beneath their radar coverage. (Or when we simply want to enjoy a short
flight without the bother and interruption of ATC.)

While I would like to have the rating in my pocket for those rare times when
we can't go VFR, it would take months for me to get back up to speed for the
test. (Which, two years ago, before we bought the inn, I was signed off to
take.) With my time at such a premium, and so little added utility realized
for the effort expended, there is little incentive for me to get my
instrument ticket at this time.

But it's in the "5-year plan"! (Along with adding our own restaurant,
remodeling another 17 suites, putting a dome on our pool, etc.-- all of
which I plan to do in my "spare time"...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel comfortable
with flying IFR.

In addition to that, there is the need to keep current. That basically means that a
few hours of the flying you do for fun every year becomes a bit more like work.
Probably the only IFR flights I would ever make would be taken within 6 months of
getting the rating.

At least you have Mary to serve as a safety pilot.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

My main reason for not finishing up my instrument training has been a lack
of time. A close second, however, is the fact that I have been tracking my
"weather vs. flight" ratio for several years, and it is indeed a rare VFR
flight that is cancelled because of conditions that I would feel
comfortable
with flying IFR.

In addition to that, there is the need to keep current. That basically means
that a
few hours of the flying you do for fun every year becomes a bit more like
work.
Probably the only IFR flights I would ever make would be taken within 6
months of
getting the rating.


Seldom would I disagree so vehemently with TWO of my best buds on the 'net at
the same time :-)

Just yesterday, I had to depart the NY area early (8am) for Providence to pick
up an Angel Flight patient and fly her to Teterboro. Flight Service advised
airmets for IMC along the entire route, and from my home airport I could tell
the ceiling was low. I had signed up for the flight a few weeks ago, and knew I
was not current because, well, I'm a photographer and 90% of my flying is on
beautiful VFR days. But I knew the possibility that I'd have to go IFR was
real (and likely) so I scheduled an Instrument Proficiency Check last week, and
got signed off. Did 3 approaches, some partial panel, and some unusual
attitude recovery, and holding. Flight was 1.6, and afterward I looked the
CFII in the eye and asked, "am I safe?". He answered, "absolutely".
So yesterday, after getting my clearance, I departed into a 600 ft ceiling and
was IMC until I got above the overcast at 7000.
Flew the ILS to 23 at PVD, picked up the patient, filed IFR for the return
flight, and headed back to NY. Anyone in NY knows that yesterday was about as
soupy as it gets . . . visibility 3 miles in haze. We were IMC for the last 75
miles of the flight.
We were at 6000 ft. Even on descent, from 3000 feet, you could not see the
ground. Point is the IFR rating makes a flight like this possible, safe, and
increases the utility of your airplane significantly. (BTW, I do have weather
detection on board--a Strikefinder).


www.Rosspilot.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote
The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not much
use.

You know, lots of people are going to try to convince you that's not
true - only it is.

Michael

"Michael" wrote:
The bottom line is painful, but true: Until I own a much more capable
aircraft than Atlas, an IFR ticket would be a nice ego booster, but not
much
use.

You know, lots of people are going to try to convince you that's not
true - only it is.

Aw, jeez; I was biting my keyboard but now you force me to post, Mike.

Jay does not need a more capable aircraft to make the i rating useful to
him, he just needs to change his flying needs.

By no means am I urging that he do this; he seems to have reached an
accomodation with his circumstances that works well for him.

But what if he opens another couple of inns 300 miles away in opposite
directions? In that case the airplane could become a useful business tool
and, IMO, the rating would make it a more reliable one. Would he need to
replace the -235 to make this so? I don't think so. There would always be
those days when he'd need to be at the other hotel but marginal conditions
would make a VFR flight highly inadvisable, yet such conditions are no sweat
for an IFR flight.

Yes, if he wants to fly over CBs or through ice he needs a lot more
airplane, but there's plenty of IMC and near-IMC flying to be done when
those things aren't factors. Oh, yeah, and there's the inescapable fact
that one gets better radar service when flying IFR, viz. Jay's recent
experience with Chicago Center.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

John,

I said nothing about flying blindly in the soup.

There are indeed days when it is better to go VFR than IFR in marginal
weather, such as when the bases are high enough and there is ice in
the clouds, however, as Jay lives in the upper Midwest, those days are
a minority.

I've known Jay long enough to pull his chain pretty hard about getting
his instrument rating for the type of flying he does and because of
the capabilities of the airplane he flies.

All the best,

Rick

john smith wrote in message .. .
While the instrument rating may get one through some events, it is not a
guarantee. In a single engine piston aircraft without weather
avoidance equipment, one runs the risk of flying into embedded cells.
ATC may or may not keep you updated on weather along your route of
flight, it's not their primary function and is one of those as time
permits things.
I have been instrument rated since 1986, but I won't challenge the
weather gods knowing that there is convective activity along my route.
Better to fly below the clouds and see the weather with the Mark I
Eyeball than fly blindly in the soup.

Rick Durden wrote:
I said nothing about flying blindly in the soup.
There are indeed days when it is better to go VFR than IFR in marginal
weather, such as when the bases are high enough and there is ice in
the clouds, however, as Jay lives in the upper Midwest, those days are
a minority.
I've known Jay long enough to pull his chain pretty hard about getting
his instrument rating for the type of flying he does and because of
the capabilities of the airplane he flies.

It's fine to jerk someones chain every now and then.
In previous postings, I too, have recommended Jay get his instrument ticket.
I believe we have to be a little more careful when we extol the virtures
of a rating in this forum. There are low time lurkers who read a post
such as yours and recognize you name from your AvWeb columns. Some may
mistaken your scriblings as gospel and proclaim, "Well, Durden said it
was possible, so it must be true. I'll go give it a try."
I'll admit that I was once young, low time and stupid. I have also had
the good fortune of flying with some greybeards who set me straight on
some bad habits I had in my early aviation days.
Experience has a way of illuminating the lightbulb over one's head now
and then.