Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

(Michael) wrote in message om...

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on having the hypothetical choice of
getting an IFR rating while continuing to rent, versus buying and
committing to being VFR-only for the forseeable future.

I think an instrument rating for a renter pilot is a bad joke. Most
rentals are not maintained and equipped well enough to be reasonable
choices for flying IFR in most non-VFR weather.

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.

Most renter pilots
don't even fly enough to maintain VFR proficiency, never mind IFR
proficiency,

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

Instrument ratings for pilots of light singles are WAY overrated.

Michael argues this point frequently and with far more reason, logic,
and experience on his side than usually found on Usenet. His is one
viewpoint I never dismiss without serious consideration. That being
said...

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.

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.

engine. Not the ones where there are thunderstorms hiding in those
clouds, because you have no way of knowing where those storms are
unless your club has a plane with spherics.

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. It just means I need to have more
margin for error.

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.

This one is pretty unambiguous. Engine failure while climbing to
altitude:
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?...25X05516&key=1

Now, cautionary note is that I may not be searching correctly so I'm
conceivably missing out on some incidents, but in this sample there
were probably 15 fatals which involved nothing more complicated than
spatial disorientation. In any case, engine failure is not what I
worry about in IFR. 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.

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. Due to towers and congested areas scud running isn't
a practical choice either around here. So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either. Guess I should just quit flying until I can afford a
big twin Cessna or Eclipse finishes their jet!

Best,
-cwk.

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.

That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

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

I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
postponed, and it's not a problem.

For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.

Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

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, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either.

Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

CriticalMass wrote:



C Kingsbury wrote:
For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.


Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

It all depends. I live in PA and flew my Skylane through the eastern
part of the US, summer and winter for more than 6 years. It had a
Strikefinder, and was well equipped in avionics-wise. I flew for both
business and pleasure and made a lot of flights that would not have been
possible, or at least not wise, VFR. I never found staying current a
problem in the northeast. I filed IFR for almost every flight,
regardless of the weather. I found IFR to be helpful at night in
particular, as I live in the northcentral region of PA where there are
large expanses of state forest with few lights on the ground. On a
moonless night, with an overcast, if was pretty much IMC. I believe the
instrument rating adds a complete new dimension to your flying skills
and greatly increases the precision with which you fly, be it IFR or
VFR. A very useful rating to obtain, IMO, even if you don't use it
later on.

I cancelled maybe one flight in 6 years due to icing concerns and never
cancelled for t-storms, even a couple of flights to Florida in the
summer were not a big deal. The Strikefinder made this possible.
Without it, I agree that thunderstorms and IMC can be a dangerous mix.

Matt

In article ,
wrote:

I found IFR to be helpful at night in
particular,

ah, right. Being IFR at night is a big help - very little
worrying about blundering into clouds like you would if
you were only VFR.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

I am sure there are other examples, which, if you can just keep your
common
sense at bay a little, you can come up with.

Oh, I can think of dozens (hundreds?) of reasons to own your own plane. I
would not want to go back to renting.

And, in our case, a plane is an excellent business tool. We use it to visit
FBOs all over the country, delivering promotional displays and schmoozing
the FBOs about our aviation theme hotel.

But it simply can't be justified purely financially. Renting will always be
cheaper, simply because there is no risk of paying for anything beyond the
per-hour fee.

Now, of course, the original poster is comparing owning to a flying CLUB,
which (usually) does have SOME financial risk in the event of an early
engine rebuild, or something similar. In that case, owning will still be
more expensive, but perhaps not quite as dramatically so, by comparison.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Charts: $300 per year from Aircharts.

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

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


My Comanche 260B gets me there with the best of the singles crowd, but
the difficulties you point out are precisely why I decided using my
rating was more goat-rope than it was worth, to keep me, the databases,
the charts, and the airplane all IFR-current.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
And, in our case, a plane is an excellent business tool. We use it to
visit
FBOs all over the country, delivering promotional displays and
schmoozing
the FBOs about our aviation theme hotel.

But it simply can't be justified purely financially. Renting will
always be
cheaper, simply because there is no risk of paying for anything beyond
the
per-hour fee.

Well, then, what's the overall cost/benefit picture? If you were a
renter, would you get the same business utility that you get from owning
the -235?

I don't have hard numbers for this, but I know having my my airplane
contributes to the success of my business. There have been occasions
when I needed it on short notice; when it was available but the club
planes might not have been. What's that worth?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

CriticalMass wrote in message ...
C Kingsbury wrote:

That is a situation the vast majority of renters NEVER have an
opportunity to enjoy. Most FBOs I've ever rented from in my 30+ years
of flying had nothing but ragged out beaters on the ramp. You were very
fortunate to have such a rich fleet from which to choose.

That's the plus side to being in a large metorpolitan area. The
downside is cost- $90+/hr for a basic Warrior/172, more for
newer/bigger.

I can count 'em on one hand. I fly as a hobby, not for business. I can
always pick when I fly. Trips don't get canceled, they just get
postponed, and it's not a problem.

Again, I think you have to figure in geography here. Even in the
Northeast there are relatively few true IFR-only days, but there are a
lot of MVFR days where the prognosis for what's going to happen is
unclear. As a VFR pilot you lose a lot of those days, and that can be
30%+ of the time in Spring and summer.

For me, .... the number of days where thunderstorms are an issue has been
pretty limited.

Well, that's anecdotal, isn't it? For others, it's a much bigger risk
factor. But, the point made was, T-storms and ice are show-stoppers for
us bottom feeders in the aviation food chain. The point stands.

People in Atlanta don't put snow tires on their cars. Ever see what
happens when it snows there? The point is that there's a lot of
"gentleman's IFR" or safer-flying-IFR-than-MVFR weather up here that
you don't need a big powerful plane with 100k in avionics to use the
system to your advantage. I agree completely that it's not true
everywhere. Down South you have to think a lot more about dodging the
boomers, out West MEAs and such are an issue, and around here ice can
easily ground you, but most of the time it's not a factor. Light scud
and thin low overcasts often are. These are conditions that make IFR
in a 172 useful, and that's why probably half or more of the planes
and pilots at my field are rated and equipped.

Well, it appears most VFR pilots don't really stay current, .....So, VFR flying isn't very
useful either.

Depends on your definition of "useful". I'll agree that any pilot who
can't be bothered to stay proficient in the type of flying he does is
not doing anyone any favors. But that's a side issue.

My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
That's 5 months of the year around here.

Best,
-cwk.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

You've assumed what databases I have to keep current, you've assumed my
equipment will continue to pass all the IFR checks, you've assumed what
it costs me to "maintain the plane", and you've made your own assumption
about which charts I'll be using.

Too many assumptions for me to take you seriously.

C Kingsbury wrote:



My definition of useful is mission accomplishment. I'm not looking for
95% dispatch reliability, I'm just looking for not being stuck 200
miles away for 4-5 days because of low ceilings and little else.
That's 5 months of the year around here.


Aww, jeez, don't remind me. It did happen once, and, trust me, I really
wished I was "IFR current".