Jay Honeck must get an instrument rating

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
business we're in.

2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.

The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
out of over 100 flights.

The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
thunderstorms start.

Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
things would be dramatically different. But we don't.

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
the experience.

In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.

In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.

Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
weather.

THAT is not why I fly.

4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
they do, too -- that they are not proficient.

Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
rating.

In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
(and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.

Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.

In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
others.

I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
(especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
per year.)

--Gary

I can't dispute your utility assessment (for your location); and whether
instrument flying is fun is a subjective matter (though I agree with Jose
about the visual beauty of flying among clouds). As for time to learn
(especially if you previously got right up to the signoff) and maintaining
proficiency, I think both can be done conveniently and inexpensively by
using MSFS. (That doesn't count for official currency, of course--but
currency can be maintained with just three approaches on each of four days
per year.)

--Gary



Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
not proficient.

"NW_Pilot" wrote in message
. ..
Gary, I would not fly in the soup with someone that only dose the min in
requirements each year at the controls! yea they are current but they are
not proficient.

I agree. The minimum requirements give you official currency, and frequent
MSFS practice maintains proficiency. When I've practiced recently using
MSFS, I'm comfortable flying in actual IMC even if I haven't done so for a
couple of months.

--Gary

Jay Honeck wrote:

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
the experience.

I've never felt that flying IFR 'sucked' any more than flying VFR.
It *is* a little more of a challenge than VFR but that makes it all
that much more rewarding to me. You are required to maintain your
currency to a higher degree and I think that makes you a safer pilot.

A lot of times I will file IFR to a destination (class B for example)
because I know getting in and out will be assured. If you are VFR
and they are busy you might ebd up flying around in circles for a
while until they can give you sufficient slot to land. I consider
that safer.

Finally, even though you might think your destination is (or will be)
VFR, when you get there it might be only allowing Instrument approaches.
You can request a visual but you might not get it. Without the rating
you fly around for a while and hope things improve or divert.

On 2006-09-27, ktbr wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
the experience.

I've never felt that flying IFR 'sucked' any more than flying VFR.
It *is* a little more of a challenge than VFR but that makes it all
that much more rewarding to me. You are required to maintain your
currency to a higher degree and I think that makes you a safer pilot.

The thing that Jay is probably missing is that real world IFR flying is
_much_ different to IFR training. The difference is like night and day.
For the training, you fly perhaps 40 or 50 hours under the hood, doing
nothing but staring at the instruments.

Real world IFR flying, in my experience, has been 95% VMC because you
spend a lot of time on top of clouds or between them. Since you are in
VMC, you don't look at the instruments any more than you do on a VFR
flight (after all, you still have to see and avoid when flying IFR in
VMC).

The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.

Real world IFR flying is seldom staring at the gauges.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
The most staggeringly beautiful flights I've had - with the exception of
mountain flying - have ALL been IFR flights. Majestic cloud canyons that
are out of this world. Bursting out of walls of sheer cloud. Spears and
tendrils of cloud between layers, illuminated by milky sunshine coming
through a high cirrus layer. A runway, lit up like a Christmas tree,
emerging from the murk at the last stages of an ILS.


I have to agree with this. Aside from the tremendous satisfaction in emerging
from the crap to see the runway right in front of me or noting with satisfaction
the looks on the faces of the lesser beings as I transverse the FBO after
flight, the most spectacular sight I have ever seen in my life was at the
beginning of an IFR flight out of Charleston, SC.

I had spent the night after flying in with crappy weather. The early morning
didn't look promising from the ground but Flight Service assured me it was clear
on top and there was improving weather as I moved to the NW towards Charlotte.
I took off in the rain and immediately entered the crap at about 20 feet off the
deck. I tucked in the gear and started my climb. After about another minute or
two I poked out on top of a stratus deck. There to the east was the sun just
starting to poke its way up out of the clouds. The entire sky was lit up a
brilliant vivid orange. I'm not a religious man but the memory still send
shivers down my back. Like Gordo once said, "What a heavenly sight!".

The rest of the flight was in the clear for me. I never could have made it if I
didn't have the rating.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

I remember being in the area of no clouds, but surrounded on all 4
sides by clouds! Talk about weird! And being between layers where the
bottom layer had shimmering fog on top of the cloud. Yes you see some
amazing stuff in IMC. Also, I remeber literally swooping around small
cumulus like they were big slalom poles in the sky (had a block
clearance on that one).

It's just a matter of priorities and if you want to do it or not. I
also remember ATC making me mad and confused by making mistakes, me
making some mistakes, and NOT being able to proceed IFR because my
equipment was broken or I didn't have the charts or just wasn't
comfortable or current to do it.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
The subject line says it all. I declare from this moment on all
rec.aviators should, on all possible occasions, pick on Jay Honeck for
not having an instrument rating.

Wait a minute...this seems a bit odd, coming from a pilot who *also*
doesn't have an instrument rating.

;-)

I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but in the spirit of Usenet, I
will response in a semi-serious way. (Besides, Steven would be
disappointed if I didn't take this matter with the utmost
seriousness...)

I've been over this many times, here, internally, and with Mary, and my
reasons for not pursuing the rating at this time always come back to
the same four points:

1. Time. In 2002 I trained right up to the point where I was to be
signed off to take the IR flight test. Then we bought the hotel. It
just ain't gonna happen now, and never will until we get out of the
business we're in.

2. Utility. For giggles, we tracked our flying pattern for a year, and
kept track of the number of flights that we could have made with the
IR, that we didn't make VFR. In other words, how many flights were
cancelled because we didnt't have the rating.

The answer was amazing, to me. There were just a handfull -- three --
times that we would have flown with the IR, that we didn't fly. This
out of over 100 flights.

The reasons are simple: Most of our instrument weather in the upper
Midwest is of the kind that you would need a Pilatus (or better) to fly
in. Since we don't have icing capability, that essentially eliminates
flying in clouds from now through next March. And then the
thunderstorms start.

Now, if we lived in an area with lots of coastal fog, or high terrain,
things would be dramatically different. But we don't.

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done. Neither of us learned to fly so that we could
stare at what amounts to a computer screen for hours on end. In fact,
we learned to fly for the freedom of flight, and the sheer beauty of
the experience.

In other words, getting there -- not being there -- is the reason.

In the instrument flights I've flown, the flying experience has been
much closer to Microsoft Flight Simulator than any sort of a real
flying experience -- except that you actually ended up in Kansas City
at the end of the day. While there is a lot to be said for that, we
fly because we love to fly -- not simply to end up somewhere.

Further, flying the airways can truly ruin a flight, IMHO. Doing so
absolutely sucked the life out of the experience of flying past the
Grand Canyon last spring -- we simply couldn't see it because our
Victor airway didn't go that way, despite being in severe clear
weather.

THAT is not why I fly.

4. Safety. This may sound counter-intuitive, but of all the instrument
pilots I know -- and I know a LOT of pilots -- there is only ONE that I
would fly with in the soup. The rest are technically instrument
pilots, but they fly instruments so infrequently that I know -- and
they do, too -- that they are not proficient.

Why is this? Go back and read #3. Even pilots with the rating who fly
often report that maintaining proficiency is difficult, because it
means droning along under the foggles while everyone else is ooo-ing
and ah-ing about the fantastic fall colors. My basic fear is that I
would not maintain my instrument skills at a level high enough to
ensure that our flight safety would actually be enhanced by having the
rating.

In other words, I -- like so many before me -- would spend many hours
(and thousands of dollars) to end up an instrument pilot in name only.

Now, does all this mean that the rating isn't worth getting? Nope.
The instrument training made me a MUCH more precise and better pilot,
and I'm glad I went through it, even though I've not yet finished up.

In closing, getting the rating has long been a goal of mine, not unlike
touring Europe, or teaching myself HTML, or opening a restaurant. When
I get the time to do it right, it will happen, and it, too, will be
checked off my list of "Life Goals", just as I've ticked off all the
others.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Great Response Jay!

Jay Honeck wrote:
snip

3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done.

I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
think it's boring at all.

Emily wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
snip


3. Instrument Flying Sucks. This is something I've rarely seen
discussed here (maybe never?), but instrument flying is one of the most
boring things I've done.


I just have to comment on this. I think most VFR flying is incredibly
boring. In the clouds? I love it. I love having to pay attention
every second. I love talking to ATC. Call me strange, but I don't
think it's boring at all.

I agree, especially when flying the same route many times. After seeing
the scenery 10 times, it loses its attraction to some degree. Flying in
a variety of weather and playing "games" like trying to hold altitude
within 10', setting the GPS on the most sensistive course deviation
setting and then trying to keep the needle center, etc., all keep me
engaged.

Matt