Stop Making Sense

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:33:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
capability
(pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been
able
to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
Northwest.

The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days
of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days.

The statistic was '20 days that had measurable rainfall.' It's not the same as
'28,200 continuous minutes of rain.' About a quarter to a half of those 20 days
had daylight periods of acceptable flying weather.

Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or
nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm.

Tsk, tsk. Rain IFR. It's raining right now, and I can see the foothills of
the Cascade mountains, ~15 miles away. Sea-Tac airport is reporting 5500
broken, 11,000 overcast. I just got back from a flight. Other than a drop of
rain that got on the INSIDE of my glasses prior to putting the goggles on, I had
no problem with the rain.

There's no question that cross-countries would be iffy without an IFR ticket/IFR
equipment, but for those of us who like cutting holes in the sky (albeit soggy
holes), it ain't that bad....

Ron Wanttaja

I've been doing this for thirty some years. You have to be
independent, watch the weather patterns and fly when you can. Still,
its an extravagence but some of us have avian genes and thats the way
it is. The Universe is not a perfect place but its great to have one.

Mike Spera wrote:
[stuff deleted]

Although some of what Bret said is pretty outrageous, I do believe
that general aviation would be better off if flight training emphasized
the "sport" aspect more and the "travel" aspect less.

I agree completely.

When I started out, I had the impression that light airplanes were much
more capable than they really are. I think this is an important point.
The flight schools are trying to stay afloat and emphasize the "utility"
of flying light airplanes. Their instructors have their sights on flying
big iron. Both do a disservice to students when they don't stress the
limitations of these planes. Pilots tempt fate by challenging weather
that is inappropriate for their skills and these airplanes perhaps in
part because the school and the instructors don't do enough to stress
these limits. Neither one wants to scare away students and be put out of
business. It is a fine line.

Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument
rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did
nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing
and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets
may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed
their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the
weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure,
you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in
your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high
possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For
those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for
several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball.

I have had lively discussions about the above view. Usually it is with
those who are in denial and want to keep the dream alive of a "personal
airliner" in their mind's eye. After all, if you cannot really look
forward to USING these things, what would be the point in the time and
expense to fly? The answer is: you better love flying for its own sake
(which some call "sport flying").

I got my instrument rating recently and while I think you have a good
point, I don't agree completely. The instrument rating does add to the
utility of the plane. It doesn't make you able to fly the same
conditions the airliners do, but it does increase the utility to some
extent. You have more flexibility because you don't have to worry
about getting trapped on top of an undercast. You can fly someplace
with less worry that you can't get home in three days' time. In the
summer you can get above the cumulous layer that hangs out at 4000 ft
and makes flight under it miserable (in the southeast). A small area
of instrument conditions you have to fly though won't cancel your whole
flight. If I take a 2.5 hour flight and of that 0.2 hours is IMC, that
flight is relatively easy and does not push the limits but may not have
been doable staying purely VFR.

an example is a recent flight I took from NC to GA. It was about 2.5
hours of severe clear but at the destination there was a thin overcast
layer at 1000 with another one at 4000. It was relatively easy to get
in with 0.5 hours actual logged ending in a GPS approach where I broke
out at 1000 AGL, plenty of margin. Without the instrument ticket
however, that flight would have required landing about 50 miles short
of the destination and guessing when to try to get there because the
destination did not have an AWOS. Or most likely, not taking off at
all.

On the return flight I was in and out of clouds, logging about 0.3
actual but once again a flight that either would have have been
impossible, or would have been a lot less convenient without the
ticket.

Also by being able to file IFR I get much better ATC service than I
would have on a VFR flight, including in severe clear conditions. ATC
can't say no to me, like they can to VFR flight following requests (or
at least they are much less likely to). I sometimes get routed/cleared
through restricted areas that I would have had to avoid as a VFR pilot.
That's important in an area with lots of military bases nearby.

You don't have to challenge hard IFR conditions to get utility out of
the instrument ticket. Now, if I didn't enjoy the challenge of the
training, would it have been worth it if I totalled up the cost of the
training versus the practial utility? No. It still requires a love of
flying and challenge to do and may not be justifiable on purely
practical grounds. But really, neither is flying GA aircraft in the
first place.

in reply to no specific person

What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
pilot?

Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
IFR rating?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Bob Noel wrote:
in reply to no specific person

What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
pilot?

Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
IFR rating?



Safer? Not sure. More confident of being able to complete a weekend
trip? Absolutely. More precise flying? probably.

The at ease feeling when conditions aren't picture perfect, as in
borderline marginal VFR/VFR that would make for a sweaty palms VFR
flight, but is an easy IFR flight....well that is worth every cent of
the admission. If I told you 10% of my total time was in actual IMC,
that would be fudging it on the high side. But, It is now relatively
rare for me to cancel on account of weather, where before a serious
cross country frequently was either scrubbed or was a sweaty palms
flight. IFR is great as long as you leave yourself plenty of 'outs'.
There is plenty of weather that is comfortably flyable IFR that would be
a knucklebiter VFR here in the Northeast, and if you want to use the
plane for travel with a reasonable probability of getting where you want
to within a reasonable bracket around your target time you'll need the
rating and be willing to use it. I'm not talking hard IMC here either.
I can't tell you the number of times my home field has been IFR with a
lingering 700-1200 ft overcast, but it is VFR 50 miles to the west where
I am going. without the rating, I'd be sitting there most of the day
waiting for it to burn off or move out. With the rating I am on top by
4000' and on my way and within a half hour I am past the undercast.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:1rgwf.715860$xm3.110391@attbi_s21...
I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
capability
(pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been
able
to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some
of
that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
Northwest.

The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight
days of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days.

Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or
nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
*without* any rain.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere!

Jay Beckman
A Thirsty PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Bob Noel wrote:
in reply to no specific person

What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
pilot?

Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
IFR rating?

Yes.

1. He would get better service from ATC when he files. Watching him
would not be optional, as it is with a pilot on VFR flight following.
yes, he's still responsible for separating himself from VFR traffic in
VMC, but ATC is watching him better than they do VFR traffic.

2. If nothing else, IFR training teaches you to be a much more precise
pilot.

3. Studies show that pilots who get advanced training are safter than
those who do not. Even if the utility is otherwise doubtful, this book
makes that case very strongly and encouraged me to finish my instrument
ticket when I was doubting the value of it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007...books&v=glance

We genuinely use our a/c for travel and unfortunately, don't use it as
much as we should for sheer joy of flight... but it took a long time to
get here and YMMV.

It was clear to me early in my flying life that spam can utility was
limited and expensive. I chose to soar and that was an enormously
satisfying experience. But time passed and we changed. We finally
stopped soaring all together.

We now live an airplane-travel-centric lifestyle. No $100 hamburgers
but plenty of $200 trips. Always the 2 of us, almost always overnight,
our playpen bounded by Key West, upstate NY, and Atlanta.

It's a slow plane but adequately equipped, and parked in the backyard.
The latter being the key to travel utility. IFR is mandatory but as
much for comfort as for dispatch flexibility. Getting above the
convection (or at least above cloud base where you can dodge it, is a
key to SE US flight. We put many more miles on the plane than in any
car. Until recently, we simply didn't travel 50+miles anywhere by car.

It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is
passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting.


wrote:
I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability
(pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able
to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or
requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel
in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR
capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American
Southwest where IFR weather is rare.

Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical
by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly
taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather).

In article ulowf.8497$jR.4277@fed1read01,
Jay Beckman wrote:

Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
*without* any rain.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere!


california?

--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

Bob Noel wrote:
in reply to no specific person

What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
pilot?
Lower weather... some utility. Utility from being able to punch clouds
and decks without worry, enormous.

Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
IFR rating?

Yes. But only with the qualifier that he maintain proficiency. That's
the hard part. Without it, it can be argued that you are less safe -
VMC or whatever.

Flying VMC with IFR capability is different than VMC without it.
THere's plenty of VMC where 2 mins of IFR flight thru IMC makes the
flight pleasuable, faster, and safer. That's where the sweet spot of
utility is.