Philosophical question on owning & IFR rating

(Michael) wrote in message om...

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.

3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.

If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.

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.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

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

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

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.

Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
HPN

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.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.

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.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
these in the records I pulled.

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.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either.

Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.

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?

Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.

guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

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...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

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.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.

Best,
-cwk.

I live in Chicago and have found that having the rating is the only
way that I can use the plane effectively, i.e. make trips that I plan
in advance to make as opposed to running out for a hamburger when the
weather is nice. I still scrub flights for thunderstorms and ice but
my utility has gone from about 30% to maybe 70%. Last week I was able
to make an IFR flight between storms that I would never have made
without the rating (there were still showers in the area even though
the initial storm activity has passed through).

As other posters have said, you don't need a lot of avionics for legal
IFR, especially for training. It's also a lot less expensive to buy
the plane with the equipment already installed than to add it later,
though of course it's nice to work with the new GPS systems.

Ben Jackson wrote:

I don't think it applies to
the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
find out.

Thanks -- I'll do that.

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

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
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.
As always, money's tight, so I would pick b, though c also is attractive. Your
choice? Panel can be seen at

George,
If money is really tight, I'd go with (a.), but use one of the previous
generation of IFR GPSs like the UPS AT/Garmin AT GX-50/60 or the Garmin
GNC-300XL. They'd require an external CDI like the small ones sold by Mid
Continent Instruments. It'll install in the 3 1/2" hole using an adapter
plate. I've got a GX-60, and it works just fine, even though it's not as
glitzy as the 430/530/CNX-80s. You'll get the capability you need, and
you can "chase" the leading edge of handheld GPSs, every couple of years,
to satisfy any need for a nicer moving map. With an IFR GPS, you'll have
the ability to fly to any intersection, so identifying them with dual VORs
won't be an issue.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Jay Masino wrote:

If money is really tight, I'd go with (a.), but use one of the previous
generation of IFR GPSs like the UPS AT/Garmin AT GX-50/60 or the Garmin
GNC-300XL. They'd require an external CDI like the small ones sold by Mid
Continent Instruments. It'll install in the 3 1/2" hole using an adapter
plate.

If it fits in the smaller holes, I have two empty spaces for the CDI; one to the left
of my T&B, and one below it. I don't know how well the FAA likes the idea of putting
the CDI on the left side of the panel, though. I'll let my avionics tech decide that,
I guess.

With an IFR GPS, you'll have
the ability to fly to any intersection, so identifying them with dual VORs
won't be an issue.

That was my thinking too. Thanks for the leads.

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

ospam (Rosspilot) wrote
So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be high-performance
to be safe? What?

A plane flying in clouds at subfreezing temperatures DOES have to be
high performance to be reasonably safe. A low performance airplane
will fall out of the sky too quickly when the ice starts building.

A plane flying in clouds needs range to escape deteriorating weather.
That means speed and/or endurance.

Michael

(C Kingsbury) wrote
If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year.

I can OWN a C-182 on $1000 a month. A nice one. A VFR airplane can
be swung on $400/month, flying 10-15 hours a month.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

I think you're taking more risks on top. It's EASIER to be on top,
but I don't believe it's SAFER.

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I'm well aware of this.

First, it's contrary to regs. There is no way around this. It is not
a gray area. It has been litigated. PIREPs are anecdotal, airmets
are authoritative.

Second, it's consistently fatal. Every year we lose some. Of course
we lose some scud running too. What are the relative rates? We have
no idea how many hours are flown in either mode, nor by what kind of
pilots, nor in what kind of aircraft. So really, all we've got here
is opinion.

My opinion is based on having done it both ways.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.

As well it should.

There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

That's true, but irrelevant. It's very reasonable to equip a plane
for thunderstorm avoidance - a stormscope is a lot cheaper than boots.

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

More to the point, it's a reminder of how ill-equipped the light
single is for tangling with ice.

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

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

Absolutely. I've seen something rather similar in my scud running
days.

There are risks either way. It's all a question of what's riskier.
We have no good statistics on this, so all we're left with is the
opinion of those who have done it both ways. But understand that
those are really the only opinions that count. If you haven't done it
both ways, you have no real way to compare.

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.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better.

And quite often they won't.

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.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc.

Mismanagement is stupidity or incompetence. Leaks are a different
story. And in fact we had a poster, not too long ago, who had a leak.
But only ONE engine quit so he did OK. Misfuelings are a gray area -
if it's a matter of the plane not being level, one engine will quit
first and warn you.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains.

Yes. The national airspace system is complex and quirky. None of us
are perfect. Make the wrong slipup at the wrong time, and it's over.
The difference between the proficient pilot and the non-proficient one
- the proficient pilot makes fewer mistakes and catches them quicker.
That is all. He can die from his mistakes too, it's just not as
likely.

I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Living testamnets to the utility of an instrument rating .

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what.

Good move. Do it or don't, but don't screw around with it.

The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

I concur. It should not be that way, but it is.

Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

Right. The ticket is window dressing. The important part is being
able to build and sell aircraft without the FAA dictating every move
you make. And I do know people who are ready to be cut loose at 20
hours. I know a pilot who finished in minimum hours, and that
included night, instrument, etc. He could easily have done the Sport
pilot thing in 20. Is he unusual? Sure, and I bet it will be an
unusual sport pilot who makes it in 20. Is that a reason to hold back
the ones who can do it?

Don't bet on it. Low VFR is a skill, just like IFR...(SNIP) Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

I guess there's logic to this. My point was different. You can teach
yourself IFR (somebody had to) but the odds are against you. Ditto
scud running. If you had a dual XC in 500-1, you're way more prepared
to tackle it then if your dual XC's were all in 3000-5 or better. And
yes, I did have a dual XC in 500-1.

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.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree.

And how much scud running experience do THEY have?

One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first."

Same advice I give.

He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska."

The difference between New York and Alaska is more a matter of
attitude than anything else.

Michael

So what are you saying? A plane flying in clouds has to be
high-performance
to be safe? What?

A plane flying in clouds at subfreezing temperatures DOES have to be
high performance to be reasonably safe. A low performance airplane
will fall out of the sky too quickly when the ice starts building.

A plane flying in clouds needs range to escape deteriorating weather.
That means speed and/or endurance.


All IFR is not icing. All IFR does not involve deteriorating weather.

sigh

Why do I bother?




www.Rosspilot.com

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


: Ben Jackson wrote:
:
: I don't think it applies to
: the CDI, but you could download the install guide from Garmin's site and
: find out.

: Thanks -- I'll do that.

George, you certainly do need an external CDI for any of the GPS units, up
to and including the 430/530. It can be located anywhere on the panel.
You do not need an external annunciator panel with the 430/530.
Mid-continent makes a line of 2.5" CDI units compatible with just about
every IFR GPS, the MD-40 series. I have one of these in my plane for
my IFR GPS, located just to the right of the TC. It works like a charm.
If you can wait a couple days, I can take a picture of it.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

Your rental environment is outstanding.

In my area, few FBO's or clubs have more than one rental that is not a
trainer or multitrainer. In order to be sure that you can rent from each
FBO, you have to remain current with them by renting regularly.

In other words, you have to spread your business around enough so that if
you need a plane on short notice, you will not have to get a currency check
out to actually have a choice of places to rent.

In the end, its easier just owning your own.


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
om...
(Michael) wrote in message
om...

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.

3 pretty new 182s got for $130-150/hour wet and very well equipped (1
w/ sferics, 2w/datalink WX, all A/P). One is a Turbo 182, not that you
need it all that much out here where 2000' gets called Mt. Something.

If you budget $1000/month for ownership that would allow you to rent
these between 80 and 92 hours per year. Managed wisely (i.e. recurrent
training) that ought to be enough for a 140kt airplane.

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.

Well, I'm not. MVFR up here often turns into MIFR. I'd rather spend
the enroute segment on top and shoot an approach to 800-1000AGL at the
end than slog along in 3mi viz at 1000 and risk getting snared by
precipitation fog.

You mean you're not flying IMC in subfreezing temperatures? Or that
no Airmet for icing in clouds was issued?

Does the FAA keep records of flight plans filed? I'll bet you'd find
an awful lot filed between October and April by no-known-ice planes.
Good, bad, or indifferent it's been my experience that's how it's done
around here. The airmet is out there pretty much non-stop for 4-5
monoths of the year. What people look at very closely are the pireps.

I've only flown those days in the winter with a very gray-haired CFII.
That's the condition that probably gives me the most pause.
Thunderstorms around here are more well behaved. The conditions that
cause them are pretty consistent, and when they do start up the radar
is pretty good about telling us where they are. Ice remains something
of an X factor. There's also the fact that it's reasonable to equip a
plane for flight in icing, but not for thunderstorm penetration.

If the latter, I invite you
to consider this story:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ate.net&rnum=1

Yeah, it's a useful reminder that the IFR ticket potentially opens up
new risks to you as well as new capabilities.

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

A week ago somebody posted an AvWeb story about an old-time scudrunner
who gave it up after seeing an unlit 800' tower with guy wires across
a highway.

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.

Shucks, I get re-routed that many times on VFR days going from BED to
HPN

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.

Them's the breaks. Worst comes to worst, your options are no fewer
than a VFR-only pilot's. Sometimes they'll be better. My next plane
will definitely have sferics or a datalink unit.

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.

Your point was, "how are you going to fare in low wx if that single
engine quits." Having a second engine does not prevent misfueling,
mismanagement, etc. In fact, the added complexity of many multi-engine
fuel systems (esp. serious long-range ones with multiple aux tanks
that require manual transfers) seems likely to increase the likelihood
of precisely this sort of thing. Sure enough, I found a handful of
these in the records I pulled.

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.

Two of my partners are instrument-rated with 4-5 times the hours I
have. I've flown safety pilot with them to help them stay current.
They're conscientious and methodical, but I also watch them make lots
of little slip-ups. And I think, enough of these under the wrong
circumstances, and that's curtains. I don't think either of them has
filed an IFR plan once in the past few years, but they stay current
for some reason nonetheless.

Personally, I've decided that if I'm going to fly IFR for real, I'm
also going to go up in actual conditions with my CFII at least once
every three months for a workout no matter what. He loves the scud,
and he loves beating people up in it. The way I see it, you can be a
bit of a duffer when it comes to hamburger-fetching and probably not
risk too much more than a bruised ego, but IFR is for professionals
only, whether you're getting paid or not.

will. I pretty regularly instruct in single airplanes in IMC. But I
don't fool myself about the risks, either.

Pretty much what this whole game comes down to. If you want to
minimize the risks, you drive or take the winged people tube.

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?

Because these guys are not VFR-current enough to safely execute the
sort of long-distance MVFR cross-countries we're talking about here.
They're the VFR equivalent of my legally IFR-current partners.

guys are. They're not flying for transportation - why hold them to
the standards required to do it?

I'm 100% for Sport Pilot. Though I will confess to a degree of
skepticism about being able to make a good pilot in 20-30 hours as a
lot of people seem to be hoping for. Looking back at my experience, I
can't see why I would have developed the necessary skills any faster
in an LSA than in a PA-28. Does weight and maybe 15 knots of speed
make that much difference? Still, it ought to be significantly cheaper
to certify, build, and maintain LSA than traditional spamcans. That's
100% upside.

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...(SNIP)
Unfortunately,
these days few people get to fly even dual XC in MVFR, never mind solo
XC.

I think we're in agreement on this one. The more variety of conditions
people are exposed to, the better. This is one of my CFII's arguments
against the ten-day instrument courses. He actually tells people he
prefers they spend at least a year working on their rating so they see
the different conditions each month offers.

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.

Hmmm... Well, pretty much every CFII and insurance guy I've spoken to
out in these parts would disagree. One who wouldn't was the guy in
Alaska who gave me my SES, which I got 8 hours after doing my private.
His advice was, "go out and scare yourself for at least a hundred
hours first." He went on to say, "the instrument rating is pretty much
useless." My local CFII's response was, "Well, in Alaska he's right,
but this ain't Alaska." Too bad, I think sometimes.

Best,
-cwk.