Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

PInc972390 wrote:

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

Good idea, but that still leaves me with the problem of handling approaches in which
the FAF is the intersection of radials from two VORs. Any solution I can think of
fills that hole with either a radio or a CDI.

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

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

PInc972390 wrote:

b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

Good idea, but that still leaves me with the problem of handling approaches
in which
the FAF is the intersection of radials from two VORs. Any solution I can
think of
fills that hole with either a radio or a CDI.

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

Get a GPS. Some of them have built-in CDI right on the front panel
display. I don't find them very convenient, but they are legal.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
Let's say you have an aircraft with a LORAN, a NAV/COM with glide
slope receiver, and
a marker beacon receiver. The radio stack is full, but you have a
spare 3.5" hole in
the panel. Would you -

a. Replace the LORAN with an approach certified GPS.
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole.
c. Replace the intercom with an audio panel and MBR and replace the
MBR with a NAV
unit or slim NAV/COM.
d. Something else.

a.

GPS is a Swiss Army knife WRT approaches.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
om...
CriticalMass wrote in message
...
Bob Miller wrote:
OK, I'll bite again:

Databases: Current databases are not an IFR requirement. If you like
that panel candy 430/530/CNX80, great; but don't use the cost as an
excuse. KNS80 and a Garmin 196 do not need regular updating. Update
your handheld 1x per year: $50.

"current databases are not an IFR requirement". Thankyou. I know.
But, in the off-chance you want to actually USE them, it is. Does the
phrase "legal" ring any bells?

It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.
I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.

The "cost I use as an excuse" is the cost to update what I have
installed in my airplane. The cost to keep my Garmin 155XL db current
is MUCH more than the costs to update the VFR only handhelds you quote,
and I'll USE that as a component of my "excuse" - thanks.

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts

I keep the "Aircharts Atlas" current, in my plane, to stay legal. IFR
currency would entail more cost.

OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
for IFR chart legality - priceless.

Plane: $150 every other year for pitot static check. I can check my
backup vacuum prior to T/O.

OK. Good for you. Hope all your stuff keeps working, "prior to T/O".

I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???

What you conveniently choose to overlook in your pie-in-the-sky
"analysis" of the costs to fly IFR is those pesky instrument failures -
when your altimeter fails the biennial test, and you need a
new/overhauled one. Not included in your "$150/yr" test, and it
happens, not infrequently.

I live near and fly around class B's a lot. Having an accurate
altimeter is important to me and not something I consider to be an
incremental cost of IFR capability, so no, I'm not including that.
(However, in 4 years, I've never had anything but the inspection fee)

Overall, $500 per year is a pittance compared to the overhead required
to maintain the plane.

I think I'll depart this discussion given that you've chosen to define
what constitutes a "pittance", which is a relative term.

All the flights kept, time and stress saved knowing that I can launch
in MVFR conditions, can easily pick up IFR on the way....I'll not get
into quantifying that here again. But from a cost standpoint for a
high performance single (Mooney) my costs are something like:

[snip]

I just got my rating one week ago. I got to put it to use in one of those
little single engine airplanes. Flew from Springfield, IL up to Iowa City
for the fly-in. SPI was OVC 1,000 & didn't lift for a few hours. About 30
miles en-route, we were VFR conditions but stayed IFR up until the approach
just for experience. If I didn't have the rating, we would have missed the
show.
For a 3 hour round trip, only .3 of actual. Still, well worth it. *That's*
the kind of IFR flying our little single engine planes are made for.
Already I'm glad I got the rating.

Let's put a fork in this and call it DONE. We're wasting each other's time.

Bob Miller wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:
It sounds like you're assuming you need an IFR GPS for approaches.

As it happens, my airplane *does* have an IFR *approach-approved* GPS
installed, but, regardless, I never said that. You read that into my
post - I assumed no such thing.

I'm suggesting using the GPS for backup xc navigation and using
VOR/ADF/RNAV/DME/ILS approaches. Your charts must be up to date and
you need to check for NOTAMS and TFRs before flying. Why does a VFR
GPS need to be updated, and as someone pointed out, keeping them
updated is not all that expensive. I looked up the update cost on the
196 - $35. Have an old panel mounted Trimble GPS useful for slaving
the A/P to. Annual update cost $0.

Oh, jeez, a pre-flight primer for the student pilots among us. Fine.
That's not an issue with me, nor, did I ever post any opinion regarding
use or update requirements of VFR GPSes

OK, I looked up my Airchart cost from May. Entire US, both VFR
sectional style atlases, all approach plates and all updates. $400.
I assume you could get part of the country for $300. Knowing I am set
for IFR chart legality - priceless.

OK. So, what?

I'm not sure what the snipe here is about???

Nor was I certain what your point was.

The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.

Yes. That was the claim, and I agree with it.

Maybe you fly purely for pleasure.

It doesn't matter a WHIT why I fly. The points made to argue that
position are valid, regardless.

It seems you are projecting the assumptions that are valid for you on others.

I posted my personal opinion, based on my personal experiences with
these issues. If you wish to project those somewhere else, have at it.
Your option.

The reason for my post is to ensure that anyone who reads this thread sees another side to the story, namely that it is practical, useful and desirable for many (maybe not all) situations to maintain the IFR rating.

OK. As long as it's caveated as "your opinion".

Well, Jay seemed to miss my subtle sarcasm, but it was subtle for a reason.

There are almost always cheaper solutions than plane ownership, unless you
really make a lot of money (high hourly time value can warp economics
quickly). There are also business flyers with missions that can be cheaper
by owning, but they are even rarer than the high income guys.

There is flexibility that comes with renting, and different flexibility that
comes with ownership, and each end up costing the pilot or traveler time.
Time to figure out how to get somewhere, or time spent on ownership
decisions and tasks. If you were to give me a hypothetical situation on
needing to get somewhere, yet not having a rental available, I could show
you how to use other means for more costs (or less to big cities) in that
one instance, yet still come out ahead overall.

The bottom line for me is that the joy of ownership outweighs the costs, and
I think Jay agrees with me. What he is pointing out though, is that we do
pay some amount for the joy.

When the percieved joy of ownership and its benefits outweighs the well
examined probable costs one should buy an airplane.

For me, renting got boring and disappointing before I even earned my private
certificate. The planes available for rent were not what I wanted to spend
my time in. A more tempered soul would have gone a more traditional route,
but I bought a brand new plane that brought me the enjoyment of flying I
yearned for. I felt guilty, and even foolish at times, but overall I did
the right thing.

Why should I spend money and time working for ratings and not enjoying it
when I am really doing the whole thing for enjoyment anyway? I was spending
5k a year, flying less than 50 hours, and not having a lot of fun. I bought
a plane, put it on leaseback, and spend a real 10k a year (that is counting
EVERYTHING, except depreciation, which I may have to send back. If I sold
the plane today, it would cost me another 10k loss due to real depreciation
against my principle). I now fly over 100 hours per year, so my hourly rate
is about the same, but I get more fun, and enjoy it more often.

You could say I am losing money in my leaseback, but I see it as a good
value. Not a good investment, a good value.

The pain of renting for me was not the scheduling hassles, and it still is
not a big pain, or I would take my plane off leaseback. I do have the added
benefit that if the plane is really busy, it makes a profit enough that I
could rent any other plane in the fleet and still come out ahead.

(C Kingsbury) wrote
The field I used to rent at (BED) had 2 FBOs with about 3 dozen
planes, at least 20 of which wranged from acceptably-equipped to
cadillac (e.g. new 172SP/182). All were well-maintained and flown
regularly in IFR.

This is highly unusual to say the least. I've also seen what such
planes (new C82's) rent for, and I believe that anyone whose budget
for purchase is limited enough that an IFR-equipped airplane is not an
option could not afford to rent such planes regularly.

Regular pilots who were IFR probably stayed more current since they
didn't cancel nearly as many flights.

Don't bet on it. As I said before,

Think back to all trips you cancelled because of weather. How many of
them could you have completed with an instrument rating?

Geography has everything to do with this. Here in the Northeast, I'd
say at least half as a rule of thumb.

While I agree that geography (really climate) has everything to do
with this, I have flown in the Northeast enough to know that this is
not realistic unless you are unwilling to fly VFR in MVFR conditions.

Not the ones
in winter, because now you're flying in clouds that are subfreezing
and can leave you with a load of ice any time

We get a lot of low-overcast winter days out here where that just
isn't a factor.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued? If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

BTW, I believe the author of that story has given up IFR flying...

For me, trying mostly to fly to destinations within about 300 miles or
so, the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited. Frankly on those days the whole Northeastern airway
system goes down the tubes anyway.

Of the IFR trips I've made to the NE, I would say that about 1 in 3
would have been cancelled had I not had spherics capability. You're
right - the ATC system was hosed on the days I needed a Stormscope. I
was rerouted half a dozen times in 200 miles. But I got where I was
going. Without, I would have had to land. Not so bad if I'm headed
West - get up to the line, land, get rained on, continue. Pure bitch
if headed East.

And if the clouds are
really low, how are you going to fare if that engine decides to quit?

Did an NTSB search for records with IFR, engine, and failure for the
past 5 years. Out of 60 records, I found two in IFR conditions where a
non fuel-related engine failure of some kind figured in.

Issue #1 - fuel related doesn't always mean stupidity. There are
misfuelings that are hard to catch, there are fuel leaks, etc. Don't
write them all off.

Issue #2 - most people I know won't fly much low IFR in a single.

were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation.

No doubt. Pilot error is the biggest cause of all accidents. I never
really understood that until I started giving IFR recurrent training
dual to owners of complex airplanes. The skill level out there is,
well, scary. In fact, I've noticed that there really isn't an average
skill level. About 1 in 4 train seriously, work at it, and are good
or at least getting there. The rest - well, let's just say that I
wouldn't curl up and go to sleep in the back seat of their airplanes
on an IFR trip.

In any case, engine failure is not what I worry about in IFR.

Well, I've already had one, IFR. You could say it was fuel related -
a component in the fuel servo rusted, and the rust dislodged in
turbulence and clogged two fuel injectors. I would call it bad
design, but of course it's a certified component so I can't redesign
it.

Of course it was in a twin, so no big deal.

That doesn't mean I won't fly single engine IFR. I have, and do, and
will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either. Of course when you watch a
student in a Bonanza struggle to hold in IMC and routinely exceed 45
degrees of bank, you don't tell him that moving up to a TravelAir or
Baron will make him safer. You just try to get him to a level where
he won't kill himself, and when it comes to engine failure you hope
for the best.

Pilot failure is a lot more likely, and a twin
isn't going to prevent that. Some would even argue the added
complexity increases the odds.

Like I said - for the non-proficient pilot you're right, and given my
experience most IFR pilots are non-proficient.

There is a reason that the vast majority of instrument rated private
pilots don't stay instrument current - it's just not very useful.

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, either,
particularly if you leave out the technically-current 20hrs/yr
sightseer types.

But why leave them out? They ARE technically VFR current, where these
IFR pilots are not IFR current. And they are adequately proficient
for the kind of flying they do - hundred dollar hamburgers on bluebird
days. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. We're creating a
whole new certificate for these guys - sport pilot. That's what these
guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

A much higher level of training and proficiency is required for IFR
flight. 20 hours a year won't cut it. In fact, I would say IFR is
not for the pilot who won't fly at least 100 hours a year. Few
renters do.

Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here.

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR. It takes as much
training, skill, and knowledge - maybe more. It takes as much
planning to execute a low VFR flight as it does an IFR flight in
equivalent conditions, maybe more. If your VFR XC flight training
began and ended with XC flights flown only under basic VFR, you are no
more prepared to fly low VFR than someone who got 3 hours of
instruments for the private is prepared to fly IFR. Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

Note that when I say light single, I'm not talking Mooney, Bonanza, or
Comanche. If appropriately equipped, the instrument rating has
significant utility in these planes. But when we're talking C-172's
and Cherokee 140's and such, the utility of the instrument rating is
so minimal that, IMO, it's just not worth bothering with - the time
and money is better spent on other things.

Michael

CriticalMass wrote in message ...

Let's put a fork in this and call it DONE. We're wasting each other's time.

The claim was made that IFR is not practical for light GA SE flying.

Yes. That was the claim, and I agree with it.

OK. Just because it is on the menu, doesn't mean you have to partake
of it, if the incremental value to you does not outweigh your
incremental cost of the way you do it....it does for me.

(PInc972390) wrote in message ...
b. Add a NARCO 121 NAV in the round hole. With Glideslope.

Get an autopilot to fit the hole.

It's always been my impression that installing an autopilot is a
big-money proposition. I'd love to have even a 1-axis unit in my 172
but I've been led to believe that's talking 10k range by the time it's
all done.

-cwk.