Instrument rating??

No need for me to "pile on", but advancing your aviation education is no waste
of time. I have always believed the Instrument Rating is the most important
rating you will ever get. You will be a better pilot and more skilled in
working in the system (VFR, too).

www.Rosspilot.com

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

I think some people get carried away when they talk about the instrument rating and
its usefulness.
That its for flying in nasty thunderstorms, lighting hitting near you, plane
rocking around..the nasty stuff.

I dont fly in freezing rain, thunderstorms or stuff like that, my instrument ticket
comes in handy when I wan t to go somewhere and they have a, say solid overcast at
maybe 1000 ft. well, I dont have to cancel my flight, with the IFR ticket, I can
fly the instrument approach and land safely, or take off with similar conditions,
or fly just below or just above the cloud layer without worrying about cloud
clearence.

there are alot of things the instrument ticket is good for other then the nasty
hard IFR.



"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

in article , G.R. Patterson III at
wrote on 2/29/04 6:01 PM:



Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you
aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


I am about to embark on my own instrument rating, and I'm fairly certain
that I won't be using it three times a week once I get it. I would hate to
think that flying is only for those with the kind of time and money (i.e.,
nearly unlimited supplies of both) that most of us simply don't have.

But everybody's way is the best way, right? Those who fly for a living are
certain that anything less than daily flying resulting in twenty thousand
hours isn't true proficiency. Those who fly two or three times a week are
equally convinced that they are superior in every way to the "weekend
warriors". And so on, right down the chain...

I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
wrong

There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
thing I've done in a while.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??

I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you
aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way
that
you look forward to the trip.

Dont forget commercial pilots are also on a schedule. For them to cancel
a trip has much more consequences than for the IFR pilot on a vacation trip.

John Roncallo

Maule Driver wrote:

I've heard similar statements too. They are from people who fly very
capable a/c, professionally, in practically all conditions. I think they
reflect on their level of proficiency and what it takes to maintain it at a
high level, and then have a hard time seeing how IFR can be flown in less
capable a/c but less proficient pilots. It's understandable but obviously
wrong

There's a big grain of truth behind the statement like most things said by
competent people. For example, be careful about the idea of 'hard' IFR vs
'light' IFR as in, "I don't fly 'hard' IFR but find that I can take
advantage of my rating in 'light' IFR conditions". IFR is IFR. The minute
you are engulfed in cloud, you no longer can see changes in the weather and
such. I wonder how many private pilot's first approach to minimums in
actual was 'by accident'. How many PP's first convective cell was embedded
in a benign looking overcast. Establishing personal minimums is good stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

But more training can only be good. Go for the ticket. Most satisfying
thing I've done in a while.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Maule Driver wrote:

Establishing personal minimums is good
stuff
but it is primarily a planning task done using a forecast. And forecasts
are sometimes crap.

This is why the aircraft is also a factor. One of the motivators in my
joining the club I joined was the fact that all the airplanes are
stormscoped. It's just one more tool for the IFRing pilot.

[Plus, I expect the club to go for some type of weather up/download when a
better solution becomes available for the Garmins.]

So a consideration that can be thrown into the mix is the aircraft that will
be flown. Since the OP is planning to buy, will that aircraft be not just
legal for IFR, but something one would be comfortable flying into IFR?

- Andrew

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

Thoughts on this??


I heard the same from a retired 737 pilot. The way he put it was "If you aren't
going to use it all the time, don't get an instrument rating".


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

737 pilots dont use it all the time. They just punch through the clouds
in about 5 minuts. Usually with a 3 axis auto pilot.

John Roncallo

I think the guy is feeding you alot of crap.
there are alot of benefits of instrument training and getting the instrument
rating.
one is lower insurance if you own your own plane the other is you can
legally fly when its below VFR minimums nor do you have to dodge around
clouds when you are going somewhere.

thinking your invincible is not something only instrument pilots do, VFR
pilots do it also. But just because you have an instrument rating does not
mean you can fly in anything. your skills and the plane your flying dictate
the weather you fly in.


Paul Folbrecht wrote:

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.)

Thoughts on this??

Unbelievably bad advice.

Bob Gardner

"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.)

Thoughts on this??